The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Town of Beverly Beach's Comprehensive Plan Amendment 03-1, initially adopted by Ordinance 2003-ORD-6 and amended by Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, is "in compliance," as required by Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state land planning agency and has authority to administer and enforce the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). One of the Department's duties under the Act is to review proposed amendments to local government comprehensive plans to determine whether the amendments are in compliance with the Act. The Town of Beverly Beach is a small municipality in Flagler County, Florida, and has the duty and authority to adopt a local government comprehensive plan pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (2004), and to amend the plan from time to time. In June 2002, the Town proposed to amend its Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change some of the land uses within the 37-acre Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Shelter Cove PUD was the subject of an earlier lawsuit in the circuit court for Flagler County brought by the owners and developers of the property after the Town denied their PUD application. In 2002, the court entered judgment against the Town and ordered the Town to approve the PUD application. In its order, the court included a statement that the Shelter Cove PUD was consistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the plan amendment proposed in June 2002 was to re-designate 14.25 acres from Conservation/Spoil Area to Low Density Residential, 0.75 acres of Conservation/Spoil Area to Medium Density Residential, and 8.25 acres of Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. The proposed amendment was transmitted to the Department for compliance review. In its July 2003 ORC Report, the Department set forth four objections to the proposed amendment: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area; 2) no traffic impact analysis regarding emergency evacuation; 3) inadequate potable water and sanitary sewer services; and 4) unsuitability for development because of saltwater marsh and potential use by threatened and endangered animal species. The Town made changes to the proposed amendment to address the Department's objections and adopted Plan Amendment 03-1 on October 6, 2003. One significant change made by the Town was to reduce the size of the land affected by the amendment from 23.25 acres to 14.5 acres. The stated purpose of the revised amendment was to deal exclusively with the spoil areas within the Shelter Cove PUD; to convert them from Conservation to Low Density Residential. The Department was not satisfied with the changes made by the Town and on November 17, 2003, it issued a Statement of Intent To Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not In Compliance. This statement did not reassert the four objections of the ORC Report, but identified only two reasons for its determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance: 1) increased density in a Coastal High Hazard Area that would increase evacuation clearance times and 2) inadequate sanitary sewer facilities based on the denial of the utility's permit renewal by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The Department recommended remedial actions that would bring Plan Amendment 03-1 into compliance. Thereafter, the Department and Town entered into a compliance agreement to identify remedial actions by the Town that would bring the plan amendment into compliance. Pursuant to the agreement, the Town adopted remedial measures in Ordinance 2004-ORD-6 (the Remedial Ordinance) that caused the Department to determine that the plan amendment was in compliance. The Remedial Ordinance (with additions and deletions as indicated in the ordinance) states in pertinent part: Limiting Density on the 14.5-acre amendment site & Hurricane Evacuation Plan Future Land Use Element: contains policies controlling the density and intensity of development (both residential and non- residential) in the Town of Beverly Beach. Policy A.1.1.9 The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use (up to 5 dwelling units/acre) shall be applied to 14.5 acres of upland spoil sites in the Shelter Cove development as shown in Exhibit A, not to exceed a total gross density of 28 residential units. In addition to the provisions described in Policy 1.1.4, the following provisions shall apply to the Shelter Cove Development: Residential land use for the Shelter Cove Planned Unit Development(PUD)shall be limited to a maximum of 115 dwelling units. The Town of Beverly Beach shall not issue a permit or certificate of occupancy until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (see Policy A.1.1.1). * * * Policy A.1.1.10 No later than December 2005, Beverly Beach shall revise its comprehensive plan to update the goals, objectives and policies and future land use map series and transmit such revisions to the Department of Community Affairs. The updated plan shall reflect changes to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, since the plan went into effect in 1991. This revision shall be based on a planning period through Year 2015, with current and forecasted conditions and satisfy data and analysis requirements. * * * Revise policies under Objective D.2.1, Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan regarding the provision of potable water and sanitary sewer Public Infrastructure/Facilities Element: refers to the protection of water quality by specific policies that require deficiencies in wastewater treatment facilities be corrected in accordance with DEP requirements. Objective D.2.1 By December 31, 1992 December 31, 2005, the Town shall require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment package plants owned by Surfside Utilities operated by Ocean City Utilities be corrected in accordance with FDER Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] requirements. Policy D.2.1.1 As the Town does not own the wastewater treatment plants nor has operational control over the same, the Town shall formalize a coordination committee to include the owner/operator of Surfside Utilities Ocean City Utilities, the members of the Town Commission, members of the Flagler County Board of County Commissioners or their appointee, members of the City of Flagler Beach Commission or their appointee, and FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP] and any other identified stakeholder in the Town. Policy D.2.1.2 The Town shall use the coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plants, to set priorities for upgrading and replacing components of the plants, and to request FDER the Department of Environmental Protection [DEP]to increase and enforce their regulations requiring periodic monitoring and maintenance of package treatment plants. Policy D.1.2.3 The Town shall use the coordination committee to investigate the feasibility of assuming operational responsibility of the wastewater treatment system by another entity. Applying the five dwelling units per acre density allowed in the Low Density Residential category to 14.5 acres would generate 72.5 units. However, as indicated above, the Remedial Ordinance also restricted the total allowable dwelling units in the 14.5 acres to 28 units. The 28 units coincide with the site plan for the Shelter Cove PUD that was the subject of the circuit court judgment. The site plan called for 28 single- family lots in the former spoil areas. Charles Osbourne, Bernard Knight, and Mary Jo Knight were residents of the Town of Beverly Beach when the Town adopted Plan Amendment 03-1. They intervened against the Town in the original proceedings initiated by the Department. Following the Department's determination that the plan amendment had been brought into compliance by the Remedial Ordinance, they filed an Amended Petition to Intervene and were realigned as the Petitioners. On some date between the filing of their original petition in this case and the date of the final hearing, Petitioners Bernard Knight and Mary Jo Knight moved out of Beverly Beach. They are no longer residents of the Town. In their Amended Petition to Intervene, the Petitioners assert that the Remedial Ordinance did not resolve all the problems originally identified by the Department's ORC Report, and Plan Amendment 03-1 is still not in compliance. The Petitioners' objections to the amendment fall into three categories: insufficient and inaccurate data and analysis, insufficient legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment, and inadequate wastewater services available for the increased density resulting from the amendment. These three categories will be used to organize the findings of fact that follow. Data and Analysis/Maps The Petitioners assert that the maps used for Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment are not the official maps currently contained in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. They contend the unofficial maps contained errors that caused some of the area designated as Conservation/Saltwater Marsh to be included in the 14.5 acres re-designated Low Density Residential. At the hearing, the Petitioners also attempted to show that maps used by the Town with Plan Amendment 03-1 were not consistent with the Beverly Beach FLUM with regard to the depiction of saltwater marsh areas outside the 14.5 acres affected by the plan amendment. Whether such discrepancies exist is not a relevant inquiry for determining whether Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance. A 1997 report regarding threatened and endangered animal species, prepared by Lotspeich and Associates for the developer of the Shelter Cove PUD, includes a statement that there are 10.3 acres of spoil on the 37-acre PUD site. That figure is inconsistent with the Town's claim that the lands affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 consist of 14.5 acres of spoil. Lindsay Haga, a regional planner with the Northeast Florida Regional Planning Council (Council), made the determination that there are 14.5 acres of spoil area. Because the Town does not have a professional planning staff, the Council was providing planning services to the Town under contract. Ms. Haga worked on Plan Amendment 03-1 on behalf of the Town. Ms. Haga obtained a mapping of the land uses within the Shelter Cove PUD from information maintained by the St. Johns River Water Management District (District). The land use categories are based on the Future Land Use Classification Categorization System, and were applied by the District using aerial photography. Using professional software called "ArcView," Ms. Haga derived the size of the various land uses mapped within the Shelter Cove PUD by the District. The software calculated the size of the spoil areas as 14.5 acres. According to Ms. Haga, planners use this method "100 percent" of the time to delineate land uses on future land use maps. Ms. Haga was called as a witness by the Petitioners and by Beverly Beach and testified at length on direct and cross-examination on how she determined the size of the spoil areas. Nevertheless, some ambiguity remains as to whether the size and position of the spoil areas designated in the official Town FLUM are the same as their size and position as delineated by Ms. Haga for Plan Amendment 03-1 using information from the St Johns River Water Management District. The Town and the Department seem to suggest in their joint post-hearing submittal that the size and position of the spoil areas on the FLUM can be "cleaned up" or re-drawn using more site-specific information presented at the final hearing. The implication is that, if the Town's FLUM delineated less than 14.5 acres as Conservation/Spoil Area, but better data is presented at the hearing to show that the spoil areas actually cover 14.5 acres, the FLUM delineation can be ignored or treated as if did cover 14.5 acres. The redrawing of land uses as they are depicted on an adopted FLUM is arguably beyond the authority granted to the Department in Chapter 163. That issue need not be decided on this record, however, because the more credible and persuasive evidence shows there were no material changes to the size and position of the spoil areas in Plan Amendment 03-1, and no saltwater marsh was re-designated as Low Density Residential. Data and Analysis/Topographic Information The Petitioners assert that topographic data used by the Town was flawed and did not accurately reflect that much of the Shelter Cove PUD is within the 100-year floodplain. For example, the June 2002 Transmittal Packet sent to the Department included a statement that, "According to FEMA the 100 year floodplain is confined to the saltwater marsh areas located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway." At the hearing, the Town admitted that some of topographic information was inaccurate and described it as a "scrivener's error." The parties stipulated to the introduction into evidence of topographic information that indicates a portion of the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1 lies within the 100-year floodplain. The Petitioners have not shown how the inclusion of inaccurate topographic in the data and analysis causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance; or, put another way, the Petitioners have not shown how the accurate topographic information proves Plan Amendment 03-1 will be inconsistent with the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan or applicable state laws and regulations. The Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan does not prohibit Low Density Residential uses in the 100-year floodplain. Data and Analysis/Clustering The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was flawed because it included a reference to the possibility of clustering dwelling units to avoid adverse impacts to areas unsuitable for development, but the Town has no regulations that allow for or address clustering. Neither the Amended Petition to Intervene nor the evidence presented by the Petitioners makes clear how this alleged error causes Plan Amendment 03-1 to be not in compliance. Any alleged error must relate to the 14.5 acres affected by the amendment. The Petitioners did not show that clustering of dwelling units is planned or necessary on the 14.5 acres. Data and Analysis/Scrub Jays The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis is insufficient because it fails to describe and account for the current use of the site by the Florida scrub jay, a bird listed as threatened by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town and Department stipulated that scrub jays have been seen on the property. Charles Osbourne and Gail Duggins, a birdwatcher, testified that they have seen scrub jays in the Shelter Cove PUD area on several occasions. They marked Petitioners' Exhibit 15 to indicate eight specific sites within the PUD where they had observed scrub jays. None of the marked sites are located on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. Lotspeich and Associates conducted a scrub jay survey on the 37-acre Shelter Cove PUD in 1997. They observed no scrub jays on the 14.5 acres that will be affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. In the written report of the survey, Lotspeich and Associates concluded that, "no jays reside on-site nor did any birds react as though they were defending territory which extended onto the property." Following a second survey in 2002, Lotspeich and Associates reached the same conclusion that the property "is unlikely to support a resident Florida scrub jay population." The observations of scrub jays made by Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins do not contradict the conclusions of the Lotspeich and Associates reports. Mr. Osbourne and Ms. Duggins did not offer an opinion (and no foundation was laid for their competence to offer such an opinion) that scrub jays reside on the 14.5 acres affected by Plan Amendment 03-1. The Department's ORC Report stated that the originally-proposed amendment was not consistent with Policy E 1.4.3 of the Town's comprehensive plan which calls for the Town to obtain information from appropriate agencies concerning the known locations of listed plant and animal species. The Department recommended in the ORC Report that the Town conduct a survey for gopher tortoises and other listed species. The Department's objection about listed species, however, was not included its subsequent Statement of Intent to Find The Comprehensive Plan Amendment Not in Compliance. The Town had available to it, as part of the data and analysis to support Plan Amendment 03-1 and the Remedial Amendment, the Lotspeich and Associates reports prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The reports convey the results of Lotspeich and Associates' surveys of the Shelter Cove PUD property for gopher tortoises, scrub jays and other listed species. It is likely to be the best information available since it is a site-specific, scientific study. The Petitioners did not show that better data were available or that the Lotspeich and Associates reports are flawed. In fact, the Lotspeich and Associates reports were exhibits offered by the Petitioners. Policy E.1.4.3 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan directs the Town to adopt land development regulations that provide protections for known listed species. Land development regulations are the usual and appropriate tools for applying specific protective measures to specific development proposals. No regulations have yet been adopted by the Town to protect listed species. Listed species are not left unprotected from development activities in the Town, however, since there are both state and federal laws to protect listed species and their habitats. Data and Analysis/Beach Access The Petitioners contend that the data and analysis was insufficient because it indicated that there are five locations in the Town where the public can gain access to the beach, but the Petitioners allege there are only two public beach walkovers that qualify under the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The beach access issue relates to the Town's recreational level of service standard adopted in the Recreation and Open Space Element of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. Policy F.1.1.1 specifies that the adopted level of service standard is "Five publicly-owned beach access facilities." The Petitioners apparently believe that the easements acquired by the Town that provide for public beach access across private property do not qualify as publicly-owned beach access facilities as contemplated by the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan. The term "publicly-owned beach access facilities" is not defined in the Recreation and Open Space Element, but one can find a statement at page F-2 that, "Access points and parking areas are support facilities for public owned beaches." Therefore, the Town considers an access point, without any man- made structures, to be a "facility." Furthermore, the comprehensive plan, itself, includes a map that depicts the location of the five public beach access points. It must be assumed that these access points met the Town's intent and meaning. By raising the issue of whether the data and analysis for Plan Amendment 03-1 is accurate in referring to the existence of five public beach access points, the Petitioners are collaterally attacking the existing comprehensive plan. Stephen Emmett, the mayor of Beverly Beach, stated that the five public beach access points depicted in the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan, as well as a new sixth beach access point, are currently maintained by the Town. Description of the Land Affected The Petitioners alleged in their Amended Petition to Intervene that the Town did not have an adequate legal description for the lands affected by the plan amendment. The issue was not raised in the Petitioners' Pre-Hearing Statement. When the Department objected to the Petitioners' presentation of evidence on this issue because it was not raised in their Pre- Hearing Statement, the Petitioners voluntarily withdrew the issue. Sanitary Sewer Services The Petitioners contend that sanitary sewer services are not adequate for the increased residential density that would result from Plan Amendment 03-1. The Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility is operated by Ocean City Utilities. Ocean City's application to renew the permit for the facility was denied by DEP in September 2003 because the facility was not in compliance with several DEP regulations. As a result of the denial of Ocean City's permit renewal application, DEP would not allow new customers to connect to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, including the Shelter Cove PUD. DEP subsequently approved the connection of the Shelter Cove PUD wastewater collection system to the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility. Permitting problems associated with the treatment plant was one reason for the Department's objection to the originally proposed plan amendment and the Department's subsequent determination that Plan Amendment 03-1 was not in compliance. No evidence was presented to show that Ocean City Utilities has corrected the deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant or has obtained a renewal permit from DEP. Nevertheless, the Department determined that Plan Amendment 03-1 is in compliance based on the changes to the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan called for in the compliance agreement and adopted in the Remedial Ordinance. Objective D.2.1 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan was amended to require that existing deficiencies in the wastewater treatment plant be corrected by December 31, 2005. Policies D.2.1.1, D.2.1.2, D.2.1.3 were amended to re-constitute and re-energize a coordination committee to address the deficiencies in the wastewater plant and the feasibility of giving operational responsibility to another entity (such as Flagler County). In addition, the Remedial Ordinance amended Policy A.1.19 of the Beverly Beach Comprehensive Plan to prohibit the Town from issuing a permit or certificate of occupancy for the Shelter Cove PUD "until the Building Official certifies the required public facilities and services will be provided consistent with Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code." No dispute was raised about the available capacity of the Beverly Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility to serve the Shelter Cove PUD.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Community Affairs enter a final order determining that the Town of Beverly Beach Plan Amendment 03-1, and Remedial Ordinance 2004-ORD-6, are "in compliance" as defined in Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (2004). DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2005, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaw P. Stiller, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire Upchurch, Bailey and Upchurch, P.A. Post Office Box 3007 St. Augustine, Florida 32085-3007 Robert J. Riggio, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 400 South Palmetto Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Thaddeus Cohen, Secretary Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Heidi Hughes, General Counsel Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Suite 325 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
The Issue The issues for determination at final hearing were (1) whether Petitioner's coastal construction Permit No. 86-155PB, authorizing Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be extended under Special Permit Condition 10 of the Permit and (2) whether the experimental reef structure should be removed pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12 of the Permit.
Findings Of Fact On April 6, 1987, American Coastal Engineering, on behalf of Willis H. DuPont (Petitioner) and Florida Atlantic University's Department of Ocean Engineering, was granted coastal construction Permit NO. 86-155PB 3/ (Permit) by the Department of Natural Resources (Respondent). 4/ The Permit authorized Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The experimental reef structure, referred to as a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef), is a 550 foot submerged breakwater which was constructed using prefabricated concrete segments, placed end-to-end underwater in the nearshore area. The purpose of the PEP reef is to reduce erosion of the beach landward of the structure. The PEP reef was installed on May 5, 1988. Special conditions were placed on the Permit, to which Petitioner agreed. The special conditions in pertinent part provide: The permittee shall adjust, alter or remove any structure or other physical evidence of the work or activity permitted, as directed by the Executive Director, if in the opinion of the Executive Director, the structure, work or activity in question results in damage to surrounding property or otherwise proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary. Adjustment, alteration, or removal required under this provision, shall be accomplished by the permittee at no cost to the State of Florida. * * * 10. The proposed submerged breakwater shall be removed within two years following installation of the experimental structure unless determined by the staff to remain in place for an extended period of time. This determination shall be based on a staff evaluation of the monitoring data, existing statutory regulations, and the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan at that time. The experimental structure shall only remain in place after two years upon written approval from the Executive Director indicating an extension has been granted. * * * 12. The Executive Director may order removal of the experimental structure as soon as the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished under Special Permit Condition 6 erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location within the area to be monitored. Petitioner requested an extension of the Permit. On July 10, 1991, Respondent issued a final order denying an extension of the Permit, pursuant to Special Permit Condition 10, and directing the Petitioner to remove the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. An extension of the Permit beyond the two years following installation of the PEP reef, according to Special Permit Condition 10, is based upon three factors: (1) an evaluation by Respondent's staff of monitoring data gathered by Petitioner, (2) statutory regulations existing at the time of the extension request, and (3) the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan existing at the time of the extension request. Although Petitioner's monitoring data addressed the question whether the PEP reef was performing its function, it did not address existing statutory regulations or the project's feasibility in concurrence with the current beach management plan. 5/ Petitioner's monitoring data was collected over a two-year period with surveys being performed through March 1990: March 1988 (preconstruction), May 1988 (post-construction), August 1988, December 1988, February 1989, April 1989, July 1989, November 1989, and March 1990. The data was collected along 17 profile stations: seven stations were located within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the PEP reef, and five to the north and five to the south of the PEP reef. The data indicated that the PEP reef was an experiment and approved by Respondent as an experiment. As a conclusion, Petitioner indicates that the PEP reef is functioning for the purpose it was designed in that it is providing a benefit to the beach. Respondent disagreed with Petitioner's conclusion. For one, Respondent disagreed with the method of analysis used by Petitioner to analyze the data because Petitioner's analysis failed to filter out seasonal effects. This procedure brought into play the first of the three factors in Special Permit Condition 10 which was used for denial of the Permit extension. Petitioner's monitoring data was utilized and analyzed by Respondent. Using the data gathered, Respondent created profile plots which are cross sectional depictions of the shoreline profiles and which displayed changes to the shoreline occurring during the survey period. Respondent used a shoreline change analysis in determining the PEP reef's effect on the shoreline in its vicinity. The analysis focused on the net change in the shoreline, i.e., the net change in the location of the mean high water line, factoring out the seasonal variations which occur along the coast by comparing profile plots from the same time of year taken during the two-year monitoring period. The shoreline change analysis indicated that in the vicinity of the PEP reef the shoreline showed irregular periods of both accretion and erosion. However, the shoreline did not reflect the typical pattern that was expected with a functioning breakwater. To the contrary, the irregular periods of accretion and erosion and the irregular configuration of the shoreline indicated that factors other than the PEP reef were affecting the shoreline. One such intervening factor was attributed to the large number of existing shoreline structures called groins which are scattered throughout the area. Groins are structures intended to stabilize the shoreline by blocking the down drift movement of sand, thereby altering the natural coastal processes. The monitoring data shows that, in terms of accretion or erosion, the PEP reef produced no recognizable influence on the shoreline in its vicinity. As to the second factor in Special Permit Condition 10, at the time the Permit was granted in 1988, no regulations specifically applicable to experimental structures existed. However, in 1989 a provision specifically addressing the permitting of experimental structures became law. /6 The provision provides that the "intent" of the Florida Legislature is to "encourage the development of new and innovative methods for dealing with the coastal shoreline erosion problem," and that, in authorizing the "construction of pilot projects using alternative coastal shoreline erosion control methods," the Respondent must determine, among other things, that "the proposed project site is properly suited for analysis of the results of the proposed activity." Groins in the PEP reef area alter the natural coastal processes and, therefore, play a significant role in the analysis of the shoreline processes. The effect of the groins affected the Respondent's ability to determine the effectiveness of the experimental structure. As a result, the Respondent was unable to make a determination in accordance with the legislative mandate. As to the third factor in Special Permit Condition 10, Petitioner presented no evidence addressing this factor. Petitioner has failed to show that the experimental structure, the PEP reef, has satisfied Special Permit Condition 10. It has failed to show that the intended purpose of the PEP reef has been accomplished, i.e., that the PEP reef is effective or beneficial. In denying Petitioner's request for an extension of the Permit, Respondent directed removal of the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Special Permit Condition 3 provides for removal, alteration or adjustment of the PEP reef if it "proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary." The construction of the PEP reef consisted of, among other things, the placing of individual reef units end-to-end. To alert boaters to the location of the PEP reef, a buoy was placed at each end of the structure. The stability of the PEP reef is questionable. In 1989 a storm dislodged the individual units. In an effort to prevent sliding, Petitioner attempted to realign the units to their original position and added more weight to the units. Despite Petitioner's efforts to stabilize the structure, the PEP reef has experienced continued movement. Furthermore, because of the continued movement, boaters' safety would be compromised in that the buoys would be ineffective in warning them of the location of any units which may be dislodged. Also, the additional weight to the units could cause the individual units to settle, potentially affecting the performance of the PEP reef, and could induce erosional scour around the structure itself. Special Permit Condition 12 provides for removal when "the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished . . . erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location." The shoreline analysis showed that the shoreline in many portions of the nourished area eroded landward of the pre-nourished beach profile. The mean high water line had positioned landward of its pre-project location. Petitioner has failed to show that the PEP reef does not fall within the conditions of Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Federally protected and endangered marine species have attached themselves to and/or now reside in the PEP reef, complicating the removal of the PEP reef. In order not to disturb or disrupt this marine life, Respondent has expressed a desire in relocating the structure to a position further offshore.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources 7/ enter a final order DENYING an extension of Permit No. 86-155PB. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of April 1994. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April 1994.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioners are eligible for a permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in Broward County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact On November 30, 1993, Vander Ploeg and Associates, Inc., on behalf of Paul Leto, Richard Meyer, and Berta Anderes (Petitioners) submitted an application to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent) for a permit to perform construction on their property seaward of the Broward County Coastal Construction Control Line. Respondent deemed their application complete on April 18, 1994. Petitioners proposed construction will be seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. The proposed construction will occur on two adjacent lots in Broward County. Petitioner Leto is the owner of one of the lots described as Lot 19, Block 196, Hollywood Central Beach, Plat Book 4, Page 20, Public Records of Broward County. Petitioners Meyer and Anderes are the owners of the other lot described as Lot 20, Block 196, Hollywood Central Beach, Plat Book 4, Page 20, Public Records of Broward County. Petitioner Leto purchased his lot in September 1992 and Petitioners Meyer and Anderes purchased their lot in March 1993. The lots were platted in or around the 1920's. Both lots are seaward of the seasonal high water line, on a sandy beach with no frontal dune structure. They are bordered by the Atlantic Ocean on the eastern most side and by a roadway (Surf Road) which is immediately adjacent to the lots on the western most side and landward of the lots. Approximately 200 feet north of the lots is an existing structure and approximately 800 feet south of this first existing structure is another existing structure. Petitioners topographical survey, which was submitted to Respondent in December 1993, showed that Lots 19 and 20, each measured 40 feet in a shore parallel direction and 80 feet in a shore normal direction, i.e., perpendicular to the shoreline. The proposed structure will be located directly on the sandy beach. The City of Hollywood, Florida has granted Petitioners a variance. Further, the proposed construction complies with the rules, zoning regulations, and ordinances of the City of Hollywood. Petitioners' application requests a permit for the construction of a single-family residence on the lots, which will house two families. However, the proposed construction is for a duplex, not a single-family residence. Petitioners are willing, and agreeable, to changing the design of the proposed structure to comply with Respondent's specifications for a single- family residence. Additionally, the proposed construction includes a riprap which will also be located on the sandy beach. A riprap is typically used for protective armoring. No structure presently exists for the riprap to protect. Furthermore, the riprap proposed by Petitioners is not adequately designed as a coastal protection structure, and if the proposed single-family residence is modified in accordance with Respondent's specifications, the proposed modified single-family residence would not be eligible for coastal armoring. The riprap structure is not an integral part of the structural design. Petitioners are willing, and agreeable, to eliminating the riprap structure. No other issues exist as to the structural integrity of the design of the proposed project. The lots on which the proposed structure will be located are a part of the beach-dune system. The natural function of the beach provides protection to upland property. The lots on which the proposed structure will be located are subject to normal storm-induced erosion. Tide and wave forces will impact the proposed structure during storms of minor intensity, including five-year storms. The proposed structure will induce greater erosion on the lots as a result of scour due to the interaction of the storm waves and currents with the proposed structure. During the storm, the normal storm-induced erosion combined with the scour erosion will form a breach or depression in the subject property. In turn, the upland property will be exposed to greater tide and wave forces, increasing the risk of erosion and damage to the upland property. The subject lots and surrounding properties have been subjected to unnatural forces which have added to the erosion. The Port Everglades inlet has inhibited the natural downdrift of sand. The City of Hollywood's beach maintenance division has been regularly pushing sand seaward and in the process, breaking down natural forming cliffs. Even though these unnatural forces are capable of being eliminated, the normal storm-induced erosion and the scour erosion would still exists. The existing developed structures to the north and south of the subject lots appear to create a reasonably uniform line of construction. However, the developed structures have been unduly affected by erosion. The proposed structure will be located within this line of construction. During a major storm along the shoreline, waves remove sand from the beach and dune area and deposit the sand in an offshore bar. After the major storm, a recovery of the beach and dunes takes place. Normal wave activity carries the sand from the offshore bar back to the beach, and the sand is then carried landward by winds and is caught and trapped by dune vegetation; thereby reforming a dune. Constructing the structure as proposed will not locate the structure a sufficient distance landward of the beach-dune system. As a result, the proposed structure will interrupt natural fluctuation in the shoreline and not preserve the natural recovery following the storm-induced erosion. The cumulative impact on the beach-dune system by the proposed structure would be severe, i.e., the effects on the beach-dune system by repeating this same proposed structure along the subject shoreline would be severe. There would be structure-induced scour and general degradation of the beach-dune system. Additionally, the recovery potential of the subject area following a major storm event would be threatened. Over the years, the beach of the subject property has been subjected to a re-nourishment project consisting of pumping sand from offshore. This method of re-nourishment may have negatively impacted the sand bar system immediately offshore affecting the hindrance of erosion. A sand bar system immediately offshore softens wave action on the shore and aids in inhibiting erosion. The proposed structure will hinder lateral public beach access. Currently, lateral beach access exists along the beach between the existing northern developed property and the existing southern developed property. The proposed structure will be located on the sandy beach, and the seaward face of the proposed structure will be within approximately one foot of the wet sand beach. At times, the proposed structure will be surrounded by water on at least three sides. No alternative beach access would be available. The proposed riprap will also be located on the sandy beach and will further hinder lateral public beach access. 2/ Loggerhead turtles, which are nesting marine turtles, engage in nesting activities along the stretch of beach where the subject property is located. They are a threatened species, i. e., close to extension. Although they do not nest every year, the turtles usually provide several nests in a single year. Typically, one hundred eggs comprise a turtle nest. In 1992, approximately 2,221 loggerhead turtle nests were in Broward County, with 22 of these nests located within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Turtle nesting efforts have been observed in the beach area of the subject property. One nest was found within the subject property. Structures located on the sandy beach interfere with marine turtle nesting habits. If female turtles make contact with the structures, they often abort nesting attempts, which results in false crawls. Repetitive false crawls harms successful nesting, which may cause malformed egg chambers, impacting the successful incubation of the nest. Also, interaction with a structure can cause injury or death to a female turtle attempting to nest. Additionally, urbanization activity and lighting on the beach deter nesting. A loss of marine turtle nesting habitat will result if the proposed structure is constructed. Also, armoring, such as the proposed riprap, can result in nests being placed more seaward. 3/ Consequently, the nests would be threatened with tidal inundation, which would affect the mortality of the nest itself. As one nest has been located within the subject property, at least one nest or crawl per year would be affected by the proposed structure. Within 30 years, the proposed structure will be seaward of the seasonal high water line. The location of the proposed structure is seaward of the 30-year erosion projection for the subject property. Beach Defense Fund, Inc. (Intervenor) presented no evidence to show that its interest is different than the public at large and that it has substantial interest separate and apart from the public.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the application of Paul Leto, Richard Meyer, and Berta Anderes for a permit, pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, for construction seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line in Broward County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Sarasota County and MPS both filed extensive exceptions to the Recommended Order. I have grouped these exceptions according to the following issues: Manatee Protection, Turtle Nesting impacts, Fisheries impacts, Seagrass impacts, Wetlands Impacted, Water Quality Improvement, Public interest Balancing Test, Miscellaneous Exceptions, Requests For Additional Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law. I shall discuss and rule on each exception by the above groupings. 1. Manatee Protection Sarasota County Exception Number 1 and MPS Exception Numbers 6 and 8 are directed to the issue of adverse affects on the West Indian Manatee. Sarasota County and MPS take exception to Finding of Fact ("FOF") No. 24, claiming that there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that it is anticipated that increased motorboat traffic in the pass vicinity would be an increased potential danger to manatees. MPS additionally takes exception to the finding in FOF No. 29 that maintenance dredging will entail a danger to manatees similar to that during the construction phase. At the outset, I note that where a Hearing Officer's finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence I am not permitted to reweigh the evidence and reject the finding of fact. See, e.g., Florida Debt. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Section 120.57(1)(b)1O., Florida Statutes. In this case the record does contain competent substantial evidence supporting FOF Nos. 24 and 29. The Hearing Officer's finding that increased motorboat traffic is an expected result of opening of the pass is not disputed. FOF No. 34. The area is designated as a critical habitat for the West Indian Manatee. FOF No. 22. The prefiled testimony of Ms. Kimberly A. Dryden states that "[a]n increase in boat/manate collisions associated with increased boat presence in the pass may occur." Dryden, PF-11. Ms. Dryden was admitted as an expert in wildlife biology including expertise in manatees, and her prefiled testimony was accepted into evidence. TR-756-760. Finally, the fact that Sarasota County itself proposed a manatee protection plan involving, among other things, that all project vessels operate at "no wake" speeds, supports the finding that increased motorboat traffic in the pass vicinity would be an increased potential danger to manatees. Sarasota County and MPS point to the public notice of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Hearing Exhibit 26) and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letter (Hearing Exhibit 27) as overwhelming evidence that no adverse effect on the manatee is expected. In essence, Sarasota County and MPS are asking me to reweigh the competent, substantial evidence. As noted above, I may not lawfully do that. The parties do not dispute the Hearing Officer's finding that maintenance dredging is expected to be needed as long as the inlet remains open. FOF No. 21. For the reasons set forth above, the Hearing Officer's finding that maintenance dredging will present a danger to manatees similar to the construction is supported in the record by competent substantial evidence. Sarasota County and MPS also assert that FOF No. 24 must be rejected because it is contrary to a stipulation of fact by the parties. Indeed, the record shows that a prehearing stipulation was filed and accepted into the record without objection at the hearing. TR-8. Stipulation of Fact No. 24 states: With the implementation of recommendations of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it is not expected that the project will have a significant adverse impact on the manatee or its habitat. Steven Sauers, Director of the Coastal Zone Division for Sarasota County, testified that he believed the County "could adhere to these [U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service] recommendations under a condition of authorization." TR-94-98. I note that when the prefiled testimony of Ms. Dryden was accepted into evidence at the hearing, neither Sarasota County nor MPS objected to those portions dealing with manatee impacts as being contrary to Stipulation of Fact No. 24. I must therefore consider whether the failure to object constitutes a waiver of the stipulation, and whether the Hearing Officer, as the ultimate finder of the facts, is bound by a stipulation of fact when the record contains competent, substantial evidence which conflicts with the stipulation. It has long been the eablished rule of law that stipulations of fact properly entered into are binding on both the parties and the court. See, e.g., Troup v. Bird, 53 So.2d 717, 721 (Fla. 1951) (where case is tried on stipulation, no further or different facts will be presumed to exist). Where a party seeks to be relieved from a stipulation, he or she generally must file a timely motion, with notice to opposing parties, showing good cause and no prejudice to opposing parties. U.S. Fire insurance Co. v. Roberts, 541 So.2d 1297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Lopez v. Dublin Co., 489 So.2d 805, 807 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Munilla v. Perez-Cobo, 335 So.2d 584 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. den., 344 So.2d 325 (Fla. 1977); Villa v. Mumac Construction Corp., 334 So.2d 274 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Curr v. Helene TransportatIon, 287 So.2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Good cause requires showing of fraud, overreaching, misrepresentation, withholding of facts by the adversary party, or such other element as would render the agreement void. Spitzer v. Bartlett Brothers Roof in, 437 So.2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Citv of Vero Beach v. Thomas, 388 So.2d 1374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). In this case, neither the Department nor the Respondent Intervenors sought to be relieved from the stipulation, and there is no contention that any basis for good cause exits to be relieved from the stipulation. However, it is also a long established rule of law that failure to contemporaneously object to the admission of contested evidence is a waiver of the right to object. See, e.g., Swan v. Florida Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 404 So.2d 802 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); DeLuca v. State, 384 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. den., 389 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1980); Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence, Section 104.1 (2d Ed 1984); Section 90.104, Florida Statutes. in this case the testimony which conflicts with the stipulation was pre-filed before the hearing and the opposing parties had ample opportunity to review it before the hearing. Yet, although Sarasota County did raise objections to certain portions of Ms. Dryden's pre- filed testimony, no objection was raised to the portion relevant to impacts on manatees. TR-754-760. There is also authority for the proposition that when evidence contrary to a stipulation is introduced at trial without objection, the finder of fact is not bound by the stipulation. Special Disability Trust Fund v. Myers, 492 So.2d 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), cause dism'd, 491 So.2d 280 (Fla. 1986); Espada Enterprises Inc. v. Spiro, 481 So.2d 1265 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Woods v. Greater Naples Care Center, 406 So.2d 1172, 1173 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), rev. den., 413 So.2d 876 (Fla. 1982). In consideration of the above authorities and circumstances, I conclude that the Hearing Officer was not bound by the stipulation and could properly consider the relevant portion of Ms. Dryden's pre-filed testimony. Therefore the record contains competent, substantial evidence in support of the above findings of fact. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are denied. Turtle Nesting Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 2 and MPS Exception No. 7 dispute FOF No. 26, which states that: "Once dredged, the beach area in the pass vicinity would be permanently lost for the purpose of turtle nesting." Sarasota County and MPS argue that although a portion of the beach will be removed to create the inlet, the loss of beach will not significantly impact on turtle nesting. Sarasota County and MPS contend that the "overwhelming weight" of the evidence is contrary to FOF No. 26. They are in essence asking me to reweigh the evidence. For the reasons stated above, I cannot do so. If the finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence, then I am not at liberty to reject it. Florida Department of Corrections, supra; Section 120.57(1) (b)10., Florida Statutes. Ms. Belinda Perry, Projects Coordinator in the Coastal Zone Division of Natural Resources of the Sarasota County Natural Resources Department, testified that she had maintained records of sea turtle nests in the vicinity of Midnight Pass. She testified that on the average over the last eight years there have been four nests per year in the area that the new inlet at Midnight Pass will be located. Perry, TR-537-538; Perry PF-2, 5, 8. This is competent, substantial evidence of an adverse impact on the nesting habitat of sea turtles. Sarasota County and MPS argue that this impact is not "Significant." If I were to consider the "significance" of the loss of 4 nests per year for the purpose of accepting or rejecting FOF No. - 26, I would in effect be weighing that evidence. This I may not do. If the finding of fact is supported in the record by any competent, substantial evidence I may not reject it. Although not articulated, Sarasota County and MPS may be arguing that when evidence which supports a finding of an adverse impact on an endangered or threatened species is "not significant," then such evidence or finding of fact cannot be considered when weighing the seven factors set forth in the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. I reject any such argument as contrary to the law. Neither the statute nor any authority requires a minimum threshold weight for any of the factors. The statute merely requires the Department to "consider and balance" the seven criteria. For the foregoing reasons, Sarasota County's Exception No. 2 and MPS's Exception No. 7 are rejected. Fisheries Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 4 and MPS Exception No. 10 challenge that part of FOF No.-3- that states "the flushing and arrival of predator fishes will adversely affect the nursery habitat now enjoyed by the fish community currently within the LSB." (emphasis added) Sarasota County and MPS contend that this finding is unsupported by any competent substantial evidence in the record. I disagree. Robert L. Stetler, Environmental Administrator, Wetlands Resource Management for the Department's Southwest District testified as follows: Q. What impact on fisheries does the present, i.e., closed condition of the Midnight Pass area have? A. Current conditions in the backwater area of Midnicht Pass as mentioned Before, as quiescent in nature. This influences the fisheries utilization to the competitive advantage of the smaller species and of the early life stages of many of the larger pelagic fish species. The additional cover afforded by seagrass communities and the very shallow water nature of large portions of the site tend to limit successful predation on the smaller specimens. The periphyton communities associated with shallow water areas and seagrass beds also provide large quantities of food to the smaller or younger fish. The conditions now found at Midnight Pass enable it to be classified as a nursery area because they perform the functions of feeding and protecting the early life stages of numerous fish species. Nursery areas like the pass region have been identified as essential to the maintenance of healthy, well balanced fish populations. Q. Does a quiescent estuarine zone provide any particilar benefit to commercially important fish species? A. Under the estuarine conditions, water quality also contributes to the success and/or failure of certain fish species. Many of the estuarine dependent fish species have life histories that include spawning in or near the marine environment and the mitigation [sic] of the larval forms into areas of lower salinity, sometimes lower dissolved oxygen and, in the summer months, often very high water temperatures. These harsh conditions are tolerable to a early life stages of several commercially important fish species and further protects them from predation by adult piscivorous (fish eating) fish that cannot tolerate these conditions. Some of the important commercial species exhibiting this life cycle are the Tarpon, Spotted Seatrout, Redfish, Mangrove snapper, Sheepshead and Mullet. Q. What, in your opinion, would be the overall impact to fisheries resources from the opening of Midnight Pass? A. The overall impact of the project to fisheries would be significant. Reactivating an inlet would produce conditions conducive and reintroducing larger, motile, pelagic fishes into the area. increased flushing would likely occur resulting in increased salinities, higher energy conditions from waye and tidal action. The recreational fishery would probably produce more larger fish utilizing the pass as a migratory, spawning and feeding site. However, the direct impact of the project would also result in the loss of significant portions of the nursery habitat previously described. Q. in your opinion, would opening Midnight Pass be in the public interest from a fisheries standpoint? A. No. Q. Why not? A. The expected physical damages associated with reopening the pass -- increased water depths, destabilization of the substrate by tide and wave energy and destruction of existing shallow water habitat will eliminate or significantly change the habitat characteristics and water guality conditions essential to the early life stages of many fish species. Loss of nursery habitat has been a long-term trend to Tampa and Sarasota Bay due to past dredge and fill activities and increased development. This long-term loss results in a need to classify remaining nursery areas, like Midnight Pass, as critical habitat warranting special protection. (emphasis added) Stetler PF-11-13. This prefiled testimony was accepted into evidence. TR-836, 839. When read in its entirely it clearly provides competent, substantial evidence to support the above finding of fact. Mr. Stetler testified that the existing nature of LSB provides a nursery for certain fishes that in the early stages of their life take advantage of areas of lower salinity, sometimes lower dissolved oxygen and, in the summer months, often very high water temperatures. Such harsh conditions protect them from predation by adult fish that cannot tolerate such conditions. He further testified that reopening Midnight Pass would result in increased flushing, increased salinity, and the loss of significant portions of the above characteristics with a consequent loss of significant portions of the nursery habitat. This testimony is competent, substantial evidence supporting FOF No. 32. Therefore, i may not disturb this finding of fact. Accordingly, the above noted exceptions are rejected. Seagrass Impacts Loss of Seagrass Sarasota County Exception No. 5 and MPS Exceptions Nos. 10 and 11 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the submerged areas of LSB in the vicinity of the inlet are vegetated with seagrasses (including shoalgrass, turtle grass, manatee grass, and halophila), and that a significant portion of these grasses will be dredged if the proposed project is implemented. FOF No. 33. The Hearing Officer also found that the dredged seagrass areas will no longer serve as a nursery to young fishes. FOF No. 34. Sarasota County and MPS contend that only 10 acres of seagrasses will be dredged, and that the evidence shows that reopening Midnight Pass will cause more dense growth of seagrasses in those areas not dredged. Sarasota County and MPS also contend that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that all four of the above noted types of seagrasses would be lost. The gist of Sarasota County's and MPS's argument is that the loss of ten acres of seagrss is less than 10% of the total seagrass acreage in the project area, and therefore is not significant. Sarasota County and MPS further argue that even if the loss of 10 acres of seagrass was significant, it would only be a temporary loss because the opening of Midnight Pass would result in greater seagrass growth, density, and diversity in those areas not dredged. Neither Sarasota County nor MPS take exception to the finding that l0 acres of seagrasses will be dredged, and that, due to the depth of the channel to be dredged, seagrasses would not be expected to reseed or colonize in the deep channel cuts. FOF No. 34; Prehearing Stipulation of Fact No. 22. The record contains competent, substantial evidence that in the vicinity of the project there are 108 acres of seagrasses. Lewis, PF-6 (accepted into evidence TR-425-436). A loss of ten acres of seagrasses would be a loss of more than 9% of the total acreage in the vicinity of the project. A loss of seagrass can have an adverse impact on a fish nursery. Leiby TR-507, 509-510. I reject any suggestion that such a loss is not significant. MPS and Sarasota County contend that there will be no net loss of seagrass because the loss of the ten acres will be offset by increased growth, density, and diversity of seagrasses in the areas not dredged. in asking me to reject the above noted findings, Sarata County and MPS are in effect asking me to weigh the evidence of the impact of the loss of ten acres against the evidence that increased growth, density, and diversity of the seagrasses elsewhere will soon offset any reduction in nursery value to young fishes. When I rule on exceptions to findings of fact I cannot reweigh the evidence. If the record contains any competent, substantial evidence to support the finding, I must accept it. Finally, as to issue of the types of seagrasses present, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that all four of the species mentioned in the finding of fact are found in the project area to be dredged. Stetler PF- 6, TR-843-845; Wilber PF-33, TR-908-915; Dryden PF-5-7; Prehearing Stipulation of Fact No. 21. For all of the reasons set forth above, i reject the exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS. Propeller Dredging of Seagrass Sarasota County Exception No. 6 and MPS Exception No. 12 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "increase motorboat traffic which is an expected result of the pass reopening, would also limit grasses from re- establishing in shallower areas due to damage caused by propellers." FOF No. 34. Sarasota County and MPS do not dispute that opening - Midnight Pass will increase motoboat traffic in LSB. Dr. Wilber testified that the "foreseeable increased boat utilization, especially by large boats will increase seagrass bed damage through prop dredging . . . ." Wilber PF-31. There being competent, substantial evidence in the record supporting the above finding, the exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are denied. Wading Bird Habitat Impacts Sarasota County Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the grassy flats will no longer be available to the numerous species of wading birds which frequent the areas since the closure of the pass." FOF No. 33. Ms. Dryden testified that wading birds now use the shallow tidal flats and mud flats which are proposed to be removed. Dryden PF-4-8, 10-11. Mr. G. Jeffery Churchill testified that, as a result of the project, approximately 9 acres of wading bird feeding habitat would be lost. Churchill PF-16-17, TR- 485-487. The record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the above finding. Therefore, Sarasota County's exception is denied. Wetlands Impacted Sarasota County Exception No. 6 and MPS Exceptions Nos. 5 and 12 take exception to the finding that the dredging proposed by the County would eliminate at least 50 acres of wetlands. FOF Nos. 17 and 34. Sarasota County and MPS contend that only 1.1 - 1.3 acres of vegetated wetlands will be lost. This contention appears to be based on the assertion that submerged lands are not "wetlands" within the meaning of Sections 403.91 - .929, Florida Statutes. I reject Sarasota County's and MPS's narrow construction of the meaning of jurisdictional wetlands. Section 403.912(1) sets forth the powers and duties of the Department in permitting activities in wetlands, including activities "in waters to their landward extent . . ." (emphasis added). The term "waters" includes "rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters." Section 403.031(12), Florida Statutes. the term "wetlands" therefore is inclusive of surface bodies of waters up to and including the limit of the Department's jurisdiction as established by Section 403.817, Florida Statutes and Rule 17-301, F.A.C. Dr. Wilber testified that the project would dredge 43.8 acres for the two access channels, 3.6 acres for the sediment basin, and 7.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands for the inlet channel. Wilber PF-5-6. Dr. Wilber further testified that habitat within the proposed channels consisted of valuable biological communities of a natural character that would be severely disrupted or eliminated if the project were permitted. Wilber PF-9. The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support the above finding. The exceptions of Sarasota County and MPS are rejected. Water Quality Improvement Sarasota County Exception No. 7 and MPS Exception No. 14 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the water quality within LSB will not be significantly improved as a result of the reopening of the inlet. "FOF No. 38. it is contended that this finding is immaterial and irrelevant. These exceptions also challenge as irrelevant the Hearing Officer's finding that "it is impossible to conclude that marine environments serve a more useful purpose than estuarine systems." FOF No. 38. I agree that it is not required that the proposed project improve the water quality in LSB in order to be permittable. Permitting of a dredge and fill project in an Outstanding Florida Water requires that the applicant show that the project is clearly in the public interest, and that reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards, including a showing that the existing ambient water quality within the OFW will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity. Section 403.918(1),(2), Florida Statutes; Rules 17-4.242(2) (a), 17-302.300, F.A.C. The applicant must also show that secondary impacts of the project, and cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable similar projects in the same geographical location will not result in violations of water quality standards, and will not result in the project being not clearly in the public interest. Conservancy, Inc. v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, Inc., No. 90-520 (Fla. 1st DCA, March 29, 1991); Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. The analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts is not a third test; rather, it is a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards, and that the project meets the applicable public interest test. Conservancy, Inc., supra; Peebles v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FALR 1961 (DER, April 11, 1990); Concerned Citizens League of America v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 4237, 4246 (DER, March 29, 1989). if the applicant is unable to satisfy the applicable public interest test, the applicant may propose or accept measures to mitigate the adverse effects caused by the project. Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. 4/ On the other hand, throughout these proceedings Sarasota County has attemptd to justify the project and show that it is clearly in the public interest by asserting the project will improve water quality in LSB. For example, at page 7 of Sarasota County's Proposed Recommended Order it states: Sarasota County has convincingly demonstrated that it meets the statutory criteria for approval of this project in this Outstanding Florida Water. The project will not degrade ambient water quality, and it will cause an improvement in water guality, not only in the immediate vicinity of the Pass but throughout Little Sarasota Bay. This improved water guality will in turn reap substantial benefits to the degraded marine habitat, the flora and fauna, commercial and recreational fishing and the public's general enjoyment and ability to use Little Sarasota Bay. (emphasis added) Similarly, Sarasota County stated in its opening argument at the hearing that: TR-14. We think that there has been a decline in water quality and it will continue to decline and it will continue to get worse. By reopening the pass, we think we can stop that decline. We think that there will be such considerable improvements to the bay to be clearly in the public interest. The Hearing Officer's finding is clearly relevant to Sarasota County's assertion that the claimed improvement in water quality will make or help make the project to be clearly in the public interest. Similarly, since the reopening of the pass will cause the reversion of LSB from an estuarine to a marine ecosystem, the Hearing Officer's finding on the failure to show that a marine ecosystem has a more useful environmental purpose is also, at least arguably, relevant to the public interest test. 5/ The record contains competent, substantial evidence which supports this finding. Nearhoof PF-8-12, TR-891-895; Wilber PF-17-18, TR-920-921. There being competent, substantial evidence to support the finding, I shall not reject it. The exceptions are there denied. Public Interest Balancing Test Sarasota County Exceptions Nos. 8 and 12, and MPS Exceptions Nos. 15 and 17, take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that "the beneficial changes expected to result from the reopening of the pass do not offset the adverse affects reasonably expected to be caused by the dredging." FOF No. 39. Exception is also taken to FOF No. 43, which states that it was not established that the project is clearly in the public interest. The gist of these exceptions is that the balancing test is a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. Even if that were so, the error in mislabeling would be harmless. Even though I agree that the ultimate determination of the public interest balancing test is a conclusion of law, I do not agree that predicate findings of ultimate facts are not appropriate. Florida Audubon Society v. Cullen, ER FALR 91:018 (DER, Sept. 27, 1990). The Hearing Officer's FOF Nos. 34 and 43 are predicate findings of ultimate facts sufficiently supported in other findings of fact for each of the seven criteria in the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2)(a), Florida Statutes. See for example: Department's Response To Request For Admission No. 17, and R.O. at 21 and 23, accepting MPS's proposed finding of fact- No. 74, and Sarasota County's proposed finding of fact No. 50 (project will not adversely affect public health, safety or welfare); (b) FOF Nos. 17, 22, 24-26, 29, and 32-35 (regarding conservation of fish and wildlife, etc.); FOF No. 36 and R.O. at 23, accepting MPS's proposed finding of fact Nos. 134 and 135 (regarding navigation, flow of water, erosion or shoaling); FOF Nos. 32 and 33 (regarding fishing recreational values or marine productivity); FOF No. 21, 29 and 37 (regarding temporary or permanent nature of project); FOF No. 28 (regarding historical and archaeological rsources); and FOF Nos. 30 and 38 (regarding current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by project). The exceptions are therefore rejected. Miscellaneous Exceptions Sarasota County Exception No. 9 Sarasota County Exception No. 9 contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence for the finding that the Department has not permitted the destruction of a habitat of this size without requiring extensive mitigation. FOF No. 40. Mr. Randall L. Armstrong, then Director of the Division of Water Management of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, testified that he had worked at the Department since 1972, and that "[i]n my experience with the Department in issuing permits under those statutes (Sections 403.918-.919] the Department has never permitted the destruction of such a large area of viable habitat without requiring extensive mitigation." Armstrong PF-9, TR-1017. Sarasota County's reliance on the testimony of Mr. Lewis about lack of mitigation in a Key Biscayne project is misplaced since that project occurred before the enactment of the Henderson Wetlands Act in 1984. Lewis TR at 482. in any event, FOF No. 40 is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. The exception is denied. Sarasota County Exception No. 11 and MPS Exception No. 16 Sarasota County Exception No. 11 and MPS Exception No. 16 complain about FOF No. 42, yet do not dispute its correctness. The finding is a irrefutable finding that no mitigation is proposed for 10 acres of seagrasses which will be dredged. The exceptions are merely an assertion that mitigation is not necessary for the loss of seagrasses because additional seagrass will grow elsewhere. This contention was addressed above under the heading of Seagrass impacts. Furthermore, the Department has the ultimate authority to determine whether mitigation is required and, if so, whether the proposed mitigation is adequate. 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 522 So.2d. 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). The exceptions are rejected. Sarasota County Exception No. 3 Sarasota County's Exception No. 3 claims to take exception to FOF No. 29 but does not dispute any of the facts stated therein. The exception is rejected. MPS Exception No. 1 This exception quibbles over an immaterial issue of semantics in FOF No. 2, i.e., whether the project is to "dredge an inlet" or to "restore" the past inlet. The exception is rejected. MPS Exception No.2 MPS takes exception to FOF No. 4 which states that LSB was designated an Outstanding Florida Water. The gist of MPS's exception is that the Environmental Regulation Commission excluded Midnight Pass when LSB was designated as an OFW. Since "Midnight Pass" no longer existed as a body of water when LSB was designated an OFW on April 29, 1986, the exception is rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. MPS Exceptions No. 3 and 13 MPS takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding in FOF No. 7 that prior to the closing of Midnight Pass the "beach along the northern stretch of Casey Key eroded badly." MPS also excepts to the finding that without beach renourishment the restoration will cause "harmful erosion" along Casey Key. FOF No. 37. MPS does not dispute the erosion; rather, MPS complains about the choice of words describing the degree of erosion. The choice of words is not material to the underlying validity of the finding. The exceptions are without merit and are rejected as immaterial. MPS Exception No. 9 MPS takes exception to FOF No. 30, contending that there is no support in the record for a finding that, as a result of the evolution of LSB from a marine to an estuarine system, LSB has a longer freshwater residence time. MPS is misreading FOF No. 30. It is clear that FOF No. 30, when properly read, states that as a result of the closure of the pass LSB has evolved from a marine to an estuarine system, and that this evolution is a consequence of the longer freshwater residence time which was caused by the closing of the inlet. This is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Echernacht TR-707. MPS also takes exception to the finding that levels of dissolved oxygen and salinity within LSB are fairly typical for a healthy estuarine system. FOF No. 30. The record contains competent, substantial evidence to support this finding. Wilber PF-32. The exceptions are rejected. Requests For Additional Findings of Fact Sarasota -County Exceptions Nos. 3, 10, and 13 through 16, and MPS Exceptions Nos. 4 and 18 are in essence asking me to make additional findings of fact, or to accept proposed findings of fact which were rejected by the Hearing Officer. I may not lawfully make an independent determination of a disputed fact. Cohn v. Department of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039, 1047 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1985). Accord, Miller v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 504 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). See also Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Inverness Convalescent Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 512 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Friends of Children v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As to Sarasota County Exception No. 14, which requests a finding of fact that the project will not adversely affect the pubic health, safety and welfare, I note that the Hearing Officer accepted this finding of fact which was proposed in both paragraph 74 of MPS's proposed recommended order and in paragraph 50 of Sarasota .County's proposed recommended order. See R.O. at 21 and 23. Therefore, I consider the requested finding of fact to have already been made by the Hearing Officer. No additional finding is required of me. Sarasota County Exception No. 15 asks me to make specific additional findings of fact in relation to effects of the project on marine productivity. Sarasota County orrectly points out that a finding regarding whether the project will adversely affect marine productivity is needed to conduct the public interest balancing test of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. However, I note that the Hearing Officer's FOF Nos. 32 and 33 are sufficient predicate findings for her to consider and weigh this criteria in the balancing test. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer has considered and ruled on Sarasota County's proposed findings related to marine productivity as set forth in Sarasota County's proposed recommended order paras. 105-108 and 110 (accepted) and para. 111 (rejected as vague). See R.O. at 22. Sarasota County Exception No. 15 is essentially a reiteration of proposed findings of fact which had been asserted before the Hearing Officer. Where the Hearing Officer clearly and specifically addressed and ruled on the proposed finding in the recommended order, I am not required to provide further reasons for my ruling. Britt v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 492 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), overruled on other grounds sub nom., Dept. of Professional Regulation v. Bernal, 531 So.2d 967 (Fla. 1988). I concur with and adopt the Hearing Officer's rulings as being based on competent, substantial evidence, and therefore reject the exception. Sarasota County Exception No. 16 asks me to make specific findings with regard to cumulative impacts. The matter ofwhether the proposed project will have any significant adverse secondary or cumulative impacts was a disputed issue at the hearing. See Prehearing Stipulation at 24, Stipulated Disputed issue VI(A)9. Section 403. 919, Florida Statutes, requires consideration of the cumulative impacts of the project in conjunction with other existing or future projects where there is a "reasonable likelihood" of similar project applications in the same geographic location in the future. Caloosa Property Owners Ass'n v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). Reasonable expectation of future projects is the polestar of cumulative impact analysis. Chipola Basin Protective Group v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 11 F.A.L.R. 467, 477 (D.E.R. December 29, 1988). Testimony at the hearing showed that the Department conducted an evaluation of the project for cumulative impacts and was unable to identify any such impacts. Wilber PF-30, TR-949-950; Armstrong TR-1021-1022. A finding that the Department conducted a cumulative impact analysis and concluded that it was unable to identify any cumulative impact was proposed by Sarasota County in its Proposed Recommended Order, paras. 118 and 119. - These findings were accepted by the Hearing Officer (R.O. at 22). Therefore, the requested findings of fact have already been made by the Hearing Officer, and no additional finding is required of me. The exception is therefore rejected. MPS Exception No. 18 asks me to adopt numerous proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer expressly rejected. The Hearing Officer expressly ruled on each of these proposed findings of fact. (Recommended Order at 23-24) Where exceptions merely reiterate proposed findings of fact which had been asserted before the Hearing Officer, and where the Hearing Officer clearly and specifically addressed each in the recommended order, I am not required to provide any further explicit reasons for my ruling. Britt v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, supra. I concur with and adopt the Hearing Officer's rulings on these proposed findings of fact. I therefore reject the above exceptions. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Public Interest Test Sarasota County's Exception To Conclusion of Law No. 2, and MPS Exception No. 20 take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that "the County has failed to establish that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest." Conclusion of Law No. 6, R.O. at 15-16. As I noted in my earlier discussion on findings of fact, in order to obtain a permit to dredge and fill in an Outstanding Florida Water, the applicant must show, among other things, that the project is clearly in the public interest. Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Failure of the applicant to make that showing makes the project not permittable. In order to determine whether the project is clearly in the public interest, the Department must consider and balance the following seven factors set forth in Section 403.918(2)(a): Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. In order to consider and balance these factors it is necessary, of course, to make sufficient findings of fact as to each factor. As I discussed above, the Hearing Officer had accepted or expressly made findings of fact relevant to each of the above factors. in Conclusion of Law No. 6, she considered and balanced those factors in reaching her determination that it was not shown that the project is clearly in the public interest. I am, of course, not bound by the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law. I am free to substitute my own legal conclusions for those of the Hearing Officer, so long as competent, substantial evidence supports my legal conclusions. Harloff v. City of Sarasota, 16 FLW D458 (Fla. 2d DCA, Feb. 20, 1991); Hunter v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); MacPherson v. School Board of Monroe County, 505 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Section 120.57(1) (b)lO., Florida Statutes. I have considered and balanced each of the seven criteria set forth in Section 403.918(2) (a) in the light of the findings of fact discussed above. I concur in the Hearing Officer's conclusion that it has not been demonstrated that the project is clearly in the public interest. In reaching my conclusion I am aware of the holding in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) that no net public benefit need be shown. I conclude that Findings of Fact Nos. 17, 22, 24-26, 29 and 32-35 on balance establish that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Findings of Fact 32 and 33 on balance show that the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in LSB. Findings 30 and 38 on balance sfrthat the current conditiofr of LSB makes it a valuable estuarine ecosystem which will be lost if the project is permitted. Finding of Fact 36 and MPS proposed findings of fact Nos. 134 and 135, which were accepted by the Hearing Officer, on balance show a net benefit to navigation. And, the Hearing Officer's acceptance of Sarasota County's proposed finding of fact No. 50, and MPS's proposed finding of fact No. 74, allow me to conclude that the project will not adversely affect the public health, welfare or safety. I note that there is abundant proof that the project is permanent in nature and that there will be no adverse affect on historical or archaeological resources. When I consider and balance all of these factors and their relevant facts, I conclude that the adverse impacts outweigh any benefits, and therefore donclude that there has been no showing that the project is clearly in the public interest. Since I have determined that it has not been shown that the project is clearly in the public interest, I must also consider any mitigation which Sarasota County has proposed. Sarasota County and MPS contend that no mitigation is needed for the loss of ten acres of seagrasses because reopening the pass will result in recolonization of new areas of seagrass, greater density of growth in existing areas, and greater diversity of seagrass species. Even when I assume that Sarasota County's and MPS cotentions are true, I still conclude that the adverse effects of the loss of ten acres of seagrass will not be mitigated by the proposed project. 6/ Accordingly, I reject the exceptions. Water Quality Improvement Sarasota County Exception To Conclusion of Law No. 1, and MPS Exception No. 19, challenge the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law No. 4. Specifically, the exceptions challenge the statement that "[t]he County has not established, however, that the reopening of the inlet will somehow improve water quality and justify the proposed dredging." Conclusion of Law No. 1, R.O. at 14. To the extent that the Hearing Officer may have thought that a showing of improvement in water quality was a requirement for obtaining a permit, she erred. However, for the reasons set forth in my previous discussion of water quality in relation to findings of fact, Sarasota County and MPS had made improvement in water quality an issue in determining whether the project was clearly in the public interest. Rather than erroneously imposing a requirement of improvement of water quality, it appears that the Hearing Officer was merely making a predicite observation prior to conducting the public interest balancing test. Regardless of how one interprets the above matter, it is clear that the issue does not affect the outcome of this case because both the Hearing Officer and I have concluded that there has been no showing that the project is clearly in the public interest. I therefore reject the exception on the basis that the conclusion of law is not erroneous, or if error, then it is harmless error. Having ruled on all of the exceptions it is ORDERED: Except as is otherwise stated in this Final Order, the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order is adopted and incorporated herein by reference. Sarasota County's Permit Application No. 581473069 is DENIED. NOTICE OF RIGHTS Any party to this Final Order has the right to seek judicial review of the Order pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, by the filing of a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with the clerk of the Department in the Office of General Counsel, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400; and by filing a copy of the Notice of Appeal accompanied by the applicable filing fees with the appropriate District Court of Appeal. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date this Order is filed with the clerk of the Department. DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation CAROL BROWNER Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL. 32399-2400
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order denying the permit requested by Sarasota County. DONE and ENTERED this 19 day of February, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19 day of February, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-3533 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 19 are accepted. Paragraphs 20 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant, speculative or immaterial to the issues of this case. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are accepted. Paragraphs 27 through 29 are rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 30 is accepted. Paragraph 31 is accepted with the deletion of the quotation marks around the word monitor and with the deletion of the last phrase following the words "survival rate" which is rejected as argumentative or irrelevant or not supported by the record. Paragraphs 32 through 36 are accepted. Paragraph 37 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraphs 38 through 40 are accepted. Paragraph 41 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 42 through 44 are accepted. Paragraph 45 is rejected as irrelevant or unnecessary to the resolution of the issues of this case. Paragraphs 46 through 48 are accepted. Paragraphs 49 through 53 are rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary to the resolution of the issues, comment, repetitive, or argumentative. Paragraphs 54 through 62 are accepted. Paragraph 63 is rejected as repetitive. Paragraph 64 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraphs 65 and 66 are accepted. Paragraph 67 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence. Paragraphs 68 through 73 are accepted.
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should approve Petitioner’s application for a coastal construction control line permit.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts2 Petitioner, Beach Group Investments, LLC (Beach Group), is a limited liability corporation under Florida law. Its address is 14001 63rd Way North, Clearwater, Florida 33760. On December 19, 2005, Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Tech) on behalf of Beach Group submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct 17 luxury townhome units in two four-story buildings, a pool, a dune walk-over, and ancillary parking and driveway areas (hereafter “the Project”). The Department designated the application as File No. SL-224. The property on which the Project is proposed (hereafter “the Property”) is located between the Department's reference monuments R-34 and R-35, in St. Lucie County. The Property’s address is 222 South Ocean Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Property is located seaward of the CCCL line established in accordance with Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62B-33. On April 21, 2006, the application was determined to be complete. By letter dated June 5, 2006, the Department notified Beach Group that the Project appeared to be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection of the seasonal high water line (SHWL), and that in accordance with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, the staff could not recommend approval of the Project since major structures are seaward of the estimated erosion projection. By letter dated July 7, 2006, and subsequent submittals, Beach Group requested a waiver of the 90-day time period for processing completed applications pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, until October 31, 2006. On August 30, 2006, Beach Group submitted a certified engineering analysis of the 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL for the Department's consideration pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024(1). Beach Group's analysis determined that the proposed major structures associated with the Project were located landward, not seaward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department also performed its own 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL, and determined that the proposed major structures were located seaward, not landward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department asserts that the proposed structures are located between 87 feet and 68 feet seaward of the Department's determination of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department disagreed with Beach Group's analysis because the analysis appeared to be inconsistent with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024, and the Department's own analysis. The Property is located just south of the Fort Pierce Inlet, and landward of a federally maintained beach restoration project that had approximately 14 years of life remaining under the existing Congressional authorization when the permit was submitted to the Department. By proposed Final Order dated November 1, 2006, the Department provided to Beach Group notice of its intent to deny the permit application. The proposed Final Order was received by Beach Group on November 8, 2006. Beach Group's petition for hearing was timely filed with the Department. Since the Department proposes to deny Beach Group's CCCL permit application, its substantial interests are clearly at issue, and it has standing to maintain this proceeding. On December 11, 2006, the Department issued an environmental resource permit for the Project. The Department denied Beach Group’s permit application because the Project extends seaward of the 30-year erosion projection calculated by the Department and because the Project’s impacts to the beach-dune system had not been minimized. The permit was not denied on the basis of the existence, or absence, of a line of continuous construction in the vicinity of the Project. The 30-year Erosion Projection (1) Background Fort Pierce Inlet (hereafter “the inlet”) was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1920’s. The channel of the inlet is protected by two jetties that extend several hundred feet into the Atlantic Ocean. The jetties act as a barrier to the littoral transfer of sand from the north to south that would otherwise occur along the beach in the vicinity of the Property. The jetties cause accretion on the beach to the north of the inlet and erosion of the beach to the south of the inlet. The inlet channel beyond the jetties also restricts the littoral transfer of sand in the area. The deepening and widening of the channel in 1995 likely contributed to the increased erosion observed south of the inlet in recent years. The beach to the south of the inlet, including that portion on the Property, is designated as a “critically eroded beach” by the Department. The inlet is the primary cause of the erosion. Congress first authorized beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1965. That authorization expired in 1986. Congress “reauthorized” beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1996. That authorization expires in 2021, but St. Lucie County has requested that the authorization be extended for “another 50 years.” The first “major” beach nourishment south of the inlet occurred in 1971. Subsequent “major” nourishments occurred in 1980, 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Another “major” nourishment is planned for 2007. There was a “moderate” nourishment of the beach in 1995, which included the placement of geotextile groins on the beach just to the north of the Property. “Small” nourishments occurred in 1973, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, and 1998. Cumulatively, the nourishments that occurred between the “major” nourishments in 1980 and 1999 involved approximately 419,000 cubic yards of sand, which is more than the volume involved in several of the “major” nourishments. Beach nourishment south of the inlet has been an ongoing effort since it started in 1971. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the nourishment project that is authorized through 2021 is a continuation of the project started in 1971 rather than a separate and distinct project. Various erosion control efforts have been used south of the inlet in conjunction with the beach nourishment efforts. For example, geotextile groins (which are essentially massive sandbags) have been installed and removed on several occasions since the mid-1990’s in order to “temporarily stabilize the shoreline until such measures could be taken to design, permit and construct a long-term solution”; concrete rubble and other riprap has been placed on the beach over the years (without a permit from the Department) to protect upland structures from erosion; and a "spur jetty" was constructed on the south jetty in an effort to reduce erosion south of the inlet. These efforts have not slowed the pace of the erosion or minimized the need for beach nourishment south of the inlet. Indeed, the need for and frequency of “major” nourishments south of the inlet have increased in recent years. Beach erosion south of the inlet will continue to be a serious problem so long as the inlet exists and the jetties remain in place. There is no reason to expect that the inlet or the jetties will be removed in the foreseeable future and, as a result, beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue to be necessary. The Department has recognized the need for continuing nourishment of the beach south of the inlet, as reflected in both the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the St. Lucie Beaches and the Ft. Pierce Inlet Management Study Implementation Plan. Those plans acknowledge the long-term need for continued nourishment of the beach at a rate of at least “130,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis.” The plans do not, however, guarantee that future beach nourishment in the area will occur at that, or any, rate. (2) Rule Methodology Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 contains the methodology for determining the 30-year erosion projection, which is the projected location of the SHWL 30 years after the date of the permit application under review. Where, as here, the beach at issue is subject to an ongoing beach nourishment project, the methodology requires consideration of “pre-project” conditions -- i.e., the conditions that existed before the beach nourishment efforts started -- because those conditions are used to project how the beach will migrate landward in the periods over the next 30 years when there may not be any beach nourishment activity. The coastal engineering experts presented by the parties -- Michael Walther for Beach Group and Emmett Foster for the Department -- used essentially the same methodology to determine the location of the 30-year erosion projection. However, the variables that they used in each step of the methodology differed. Step 1: Locate the Pre-Project MHWL The first step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to locate the pre-project MHWL. If a pre-project erosion control line (ECL)3 has been established in the area, it is to be used as the starting-point for the determination of the 30-year erosion projection. Otherwise a pre-project survey of the MHWL is to be used as the starting-point. Mr. Walther used a 1997 ECL as the starting point for his analysis. Mr. Foster used a March 2002 survey of the MHWL as the starting point for his analysis because he did not consider the 1997 ECL to be an appropriate pre-project ECL. The March 2002 survey of the MHWL is not itself an appropriate starting point for the analysis. The survey is not a “pre-project” survey, no matter how the project is defined; the survey occurred more than 30 years after the nourishments started in 1971, and three years after the first “major” nourishment pursuant to the Congressional reauthorization of the project. Moreover, as discussed below, there is an appropriate pre-project ECL in the area. There are two lines that might be considered to be a pre-project ECL in this case -- (1) the ECL established in 1997, and (2) the South Beach High Tide Line (SBHTL) established in 1968. The 1997 ECL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL performed on May 5, 1997. The survey occurred two years after a “moderate” beach nourishment and the placement of the geotextile groins on the beach. There was also a “small” nourishment in 1997, but the record does not reflect whether that nourishment occurred before or after the survey. The SBHTL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL between 1966 and 1968, prior to the initial nourishment of the beach south of the inlet. It is approximately 65 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. The SBHTL is the functional equivalent of an ECL, and it roughly corresponds to the “best fit line” for the March 2002 survey used by Mr. Foster as the starting point for his determination of the 30-year erosion projection in this case. The Department contends that the 1997 ECL is not based upon a “pre-project” survey of the MHWL because the applicable beach restoration project south of the inlet began in the 1970’s and has been ongoing since that time. Beach Group contends that the applicable project is the current one that is authorized through 2021, and that the 1997 survey preceded the start of the nourishments authorized by that project. The Department has used the 1997 ECL as the starting- point for determining the 30-year erosion projection in several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project,4 and in an April 9, 1999, memorandum discussing the 30-year erosion projection in the vicinity of monuments R-35 and R-36, Mr. Foster stated that “the ECL represents the pre-project [MHWL].” Mr. Foster no longer considers the 1997 ECL to be the appropriate pre-project MHWL for purposes of determining the 30- year erosion projection south of the inlet. He testified that had he been aware of “the complete background” of the 1997 ECL and the extent of the nourishments in the 1980’s and 1990’s, he would have brought the issue to the Department’s attention so that the Department could consider whether the 1997 ECL or “an earlier prenourishment line” was the appropriate pre-project MHWL. Although it is a close question, the more persuasive evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that the 1997 ECL is not an appropriate pre-project MHWL because the applicable “project” includes the beach nourishment efforts started in 1971 that have continued through the present, even though those efforts were intermittent at times. Thus, the appropriate starting point for determining the location of the 30-year erosion projection is the SBHTL, not the 1997 ECL used by Mr. Walther or the March 2002 MHWL survey used by Mr. Foster. Step 2: Locate the Pre-Project SHWL The second step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the location of the pre-project SHWL. Mr. Walther located the pre-project SHWL 26.4 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. That is the surveyed distance between the MHWL and SHWL in June 2005. Mr. Foster located the pre-project SHWL at the most landward location that the SHWL was surveyed in March 2002. The line is between 50 and 75 feet5 landward of the “best fine” line used by Mr. Foster as the pre-project MHWL, and it is as much as 25 feet landward of the surveyed location of the SHWL in some areas. Mr. Foster used “an average [of] 50 feet” as the MHWL- to-SHWL distance in his analysis of several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project.6 Mr. Foster testified that the distance between the MHWL and SHWL in this area varies “from the 20s in the immediate post-nourishment situations . . . all the way up to 70-some feet” and that the “the averages gravitate towards 40 feet.” Consistent with that testimony, the distance between the surveyed locations of the MHWL and SHWL depicted on Department Exhibit 6 is approximately 40 feet, on average. The MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther is not a reasonable projection of the pre-project distance because it was based upon survey data taken immediately after a “major” beach nourishment when the shoreline was unnaturally steep and, hence, not representative of “pre-project” conditions. The SHWL located by Mr. Foster is also not a reasonable projection of the pre-project SHWL because it was based upon a March 2002 survey (which is clearly not "pre- project"); because it used the most landward surveyed location of the SHWL rather than a “best fit” line or an average of the distances between the surveyed MHWL and SHWL; and because it runs across areas of well-established dune vegetation. In sum, the MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther (26.4 feet) is too low, whereas the distance resulting from Mr. Foster's siting of the SHWL based on the March 2002 survey (50 to 75 feet) is too high. Those distances are essentially endpoints of the range observed in this area, as described by Mr. Foster. A more reasonable estimate of the pre-project MHWL-to- SHWL distance is approximately 40 feet. See Findings 51 and 52. Thus, the pre-project SHWL is located 40 feet landward of and parallel to the SBHTL. That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37, it roughly corresponds to a straight line between the points where the red- dashed line intersects the Property’s north and south boundaries. Step 3: Calculate the Erosion Rate The third step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to calculate an erosion rate. The erosion rate used by Mr. Foster was -7 feet per year (ft/yr). That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monument R-35 for the period from 1949 to 1967. The rate would have been higher had Mr. Foster averaged the rates for the nearby monuments.7 The erosion rate used by Mr. Walther was -4.9 ft/yr. That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monuments R-34 to R-39 over the period of 1930 to 1968. An erosion rate of -7 ft/yr south of the inlet was referenced in permit applications submitted by Mr. Walter’s firm, Coastal Tech, for several shore protection structures south of the inlet; was used by Mr. Foster in his review of several prior CCCL permit applications south of the inlet; and was included in reports on the inlet prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers over the years. An erosion rate of -3.3 ft/yr was used and accepted by the Department in its review of another permit application in the general vicinity of the project.8 That erosion rate was based upon data from the period of 1972 to 1994, which is after the beach nourishment started south of the inlet. It is not entirely clear why Mr. Foster chose to use a data set starting in 1949, particularly since his report stated that the “1928-30 survey already shows significant erosion occurring south of the inlet.” His testimony did not adequately explain the choice of that data set. The use of a longer data set is typically more appropriate when calculating a historical rate. In this case, however, the use of the shorter period of 1949-68 is reasonable because the 1930-49 erosion rate was considerably lower than the 1949-68 rate,9 which has the effect of skewing the erosion rate calculated for the longer period of 1930-68. The higher erosion rate calculated by Mr. Foster also better takes into account the increased frequency of the nourishments in recent years as well as the continued need for shore stabilization in the area. In sum, the higher erosion rate of -7 ft/yr calculated by Mr. Foster using the 1949-68 data set better reflects the historical post-inlet, pre-nourishment erosion rate than does the lower erosion rate calculated by Mr. Walther. Step 4: Determine the Remaining Project Life The fourth step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the “remaining project life” of the “existing” beach nourishment project. It was stipulated that there are 14 years remaining until the currently authorized federal beach restoration project expires. It is reasonable to expect that beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue well beyond the expiration of the current federal project, but there were no other funded and permitted projects in place at the time Beach Group’s permit application was filed. Potential future beach nourishment projects are not considered “existing” under the rule methodology in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 unless they are funded and permitted at the time the application at issue is filed. Mr. Walther used the 14-year remaining life of the existing federal project in his calculation of the 30-year erosion projection, as did Mr. Foster. The “remaining project life” applicable to this case is 14 years, notwithstanding the likelihood of continued beach nourishment in the area beyond the expiration of the existing project. Step 5: Calculate the 30-year Erosion Projection The final step in determining the location of the 30- year erosion projection is a calculation using the variables determined in the previous steps. The calculation is as follows: first, the remaining project life determined in step four is subtracted from 30; then, that result is multiplied by the erosion rate determined in step three to get a distance; and, finally, the SHWL is moved that distance landward of its pre-project location determined in step two. Subtracting the remaining project of 14 years from 30 equals 16 years. Multiplying 16 years by the erosion rate of -7 ft/yr equals 112 feet, which means that the 30-year erosion line is located 112 feet landward of the pre-project SHWL (or 152 feet landward of the SBHTL). That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but it roughly corresponds to a straight line than runs across the Property parallel to the SBHTL just landward of the “conc. pad” and “existing conc. Pile caps (typ)” shown on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37. The line is 25 to 30 feet seaward of Mr. Foster’s 30-year erosion projection depicted on that exhibit. (3) Ultimate Finding Regarding the Location of the Proposed Structures in Relation to the 30-year Erosion Projection The Project includes major structures seaward of the 30-year erosion projection, as determined above. Impacts of the Project on the Beach-Dune System The Project includes 17 luxury town home units in two four-story buildings, a pool and spa, landscaping, and an elevated dune walkover. The units will range from 2,700 to 4,400 square feet of living space and are projected to be offered for sale in the $1.5 to $2.5 million range. Beach Group’s principal, Harold Seltzer, testified that the Project is sited as far landward as possible to allow for the development of all 17 units while still complying with the local setback and height restrictions; that the Project’s financial viability depends upon it being developed as proposed; and that the Project cannot be redesigned and remain financially viable. The CCCL permit application included a letter from the City of Ft. Pierce confirming that the Project is consistent with the applicable local development codes. Mr. Seltzer testified that the Project’s local development approvals expired in September 2006 because the CCCL permit had not been issued, and that Beach Group is having to go back through the local permitting process. The seaward extent of the Project is the 1978 CCCL, which is approximately 250 feet seaward of the current CCCL. The buildings on the adjacent properties are also located on the 1978 CCCL. The Project does not extend further seaward than the nearby development, including the structures authorized by the Department in File Nos. SL-162 and SL-173.10 The seaward boundary of the Property is the SBHTL. That line is approximately 295 feet landward of the MHWL established in June 2005, and as noted above, it is approximately 65 feet landward of the ECL established in 1997. The adjacent properties are developed with multi-story residential buildings. There is a densely vegetated dune feature in front of the building to the south of the Property. There is some vegetation, but no discernable dune in front of the building to the north of the Property. The Property as a whole is sparsely vegetated, but there are areas of “prolific vegetation” on the Property. The seaward extent of the vegetation on the Property roughly corresponds to the location of the 1978 CCCL. There are several mature sea grape clusters in the vicinity of that line. The beach in front of the Property is devoid of vegetation. It has a steep slope immediately landward of the water line; a wide (approximately 270 feet) expanse of relatively flat beach; and a gently sloping dune feature that starts just landward of the Property’s seaward boundary, crests approximately 30 feet farther landward, and then gradually slopes downward across the Property all of the way to State Road A1A. The dune feature on the Property is the frontal dune. It is the first mound sand located landward of the beach that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value. The crest of the frontal dune is seaward of the vegetation line on the Property, and ranges in height from +9.7 to +12.2 feet NAVD.11 The seaward toe of the dune is shown on the topographic survey for the Property at elevations ranging from +7.27 to +7.85 feet NAVD. Similar elevations occur on the landward side of the dune crest, just landward of the 1978 CCCL. The vegetation on the Property extends landward of the 1978 CCCL and landward of the line shown on the topographic survey of the Property as the “approximate location of sparse grass and ground cover.” The landward extent of the vegetation does not in and of itself define the landward extent of the dune; changes in the slope of the ground must also be considered. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the landward toe of the frontal dune is landward of the 1978 CCCL, but not as far landward as suggested by Department witness Tony McNeal.12 The landward toe of the dune on the Property is best defined by the elevations landward of the dune crest similar to the elevations shown for the seaward toe of the dune. The Project extends into the frontal dune on the Property, and it will requires minor excavation of the frontal dune, primarily in the area of the proposed pool. All aspects of the project, except for the proposed dune walkover, will be landward of the crest of the frontal dune and the mature sea grape clusters located on the dune. There will be no net excavation on the Property as a result of the Project. The sand excavated for the pool will be placed on-site, and additional beach-compatible sand will be used as fill for the site. Overall, the Project will result in the net placement of approximately 66 cubic yards of sand on the Property. The proposed structures will be elevated on piles, which will allow the beach-dune system to fluctuate under the structures during storm events. The finished floor elevation of the proposed structures is approximately +8 feet NAVD, which is slightly higher than the elevations associated with the toes of the frontal dune. The Project will not destabilize the frontal dune, even though it will encroach into the dune. The impacts of the Project on the beach-dune system will be mitigated by the placement of additional sand into the beach-dune system, as described above. The Project’s impacts will be further mitigated by the enhancements to the frontal dune described in the permit application. Mr. Walther testified that the frontal dune on the Property could “very easily” be enhanced to be of comparable height and magnitude of the dunes on the adjacent properties. The permit application proposes enhancements to the frontal dune as part of the Site Landscaping Plan for the Project. The proposed enhancements include increasing the crest of the dune to a height of +15 feet NAVD, and extensive planting of the dune with sea grapes, beach morning glories, and sea oats. The plantings would extend from the 1978 CCCL to the seaward toe of the existing frontal dune. The dune enhancements proposed in the permit application should be included as a specific condition of the CCCL permit for the Project, if it is approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Beach Group’s application for a CCCL permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Sherry Petitioners have standing to initiate the proceeding in Case No. 10-0515? Whether the Oceania Petitioners have standing to initiate the proceeding in Case No. 10-0516? Whether the MACLA Intervenors have standing to intervene? Whether the Department should enter a final order that issues the JCP, the Variance and the SSL Authorization?
Findings Of Fact Setting and Preliminary Identification of the Parties These consolidated cases are set in Okaloosa County. They concern the Consolidated NOI issued by the Department to the County that indicate the Department's intent to issue state authorizations to allow the restoration of a stretch of beach known as the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project (the "Western Destin Project" or the "Project"). In addition to the Western Destin Project, there are other beach restoration efforts (the "Other Beach Restorations") which concern the Gulf of Mexico coastal system along the shores of the Florida Panhandle and about which the parties presented evidence in this proceeding. The applicants for the authorizations in the Other Beach Restorations efforts are either Okaloosa County or Walton County, the coastal county immediately to the County's east, and concern Okaloosa and Walton County property or are on federal property used by Eglin Air Force Base (the "Eglin Projects" or "A-3" or "A-13"). The Eglin Projects have been completed. The source of the sand use in the Eglin Projects is a borrow area designated by the County and its agent, Taylor Engineering, as "OK-A" ("OK-A" or the "OK-A Borrow Area"). The County intends that the OK-A Borrow Area be the source of sand for the Western Destin Project. West of East Pass, a passage of water which connects Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, the OK-A Borrow Area is between 4,000 and 5,000 feet off the shores of Okaloosa Island. Okaloosa Island is not an island. It is an area of the incorporated municipality of Fort Walton Beach that sits on a coastal barrier island, Santa Rosa Island. Except for the part of the final hearing conducted in Tallahassee, the final hearing in this case took place in Okaloosa Island. As Mr. Clark put it (when he testified in that part of the hearing not in Tallahassee), "I am in Okaloosa Island. [At the same time], I am on Santa Rosa Island." Tr. 521 (emphasis added). Petitioners in Case No. 10-0515, David and Rebecca Sherry and John Donovan (the "Sherry Petitioners") live along a stretch of beach that is in Okaloosa Island. They do not live along the stretch of beach that is within the area subject to the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners' stretch of beach is the subject of another beach restoration effort by the County (the "Okaloosa Island Beach Restoration Project"). The Okaloosa Island Beach Restoration Project, in turn, is the subject of another case at DOAH, Case No. 10-2468. The OK-A Borrow Area is much closer to the Sherry Petitioners' property than to the beach to be restored by the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners recognize the need for the restoration of at least some of the beaches in the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners initiated Case No. 10-0515, not to prevent the Western Destin Project from restoring those beaches, but because they are concerned that the beaches subject to the Okaloosa Island Project (including "their" beach) will suffer impacts from the dredging of the OK-A Borrow Area whether the dredging is done to serve the Western Destin Project or the other Projects the OK-A Borrow Area has served or is intended to serve. In contrast to the Sherry Petitioners, the Petitioners in Case No. 10-0516 (the "Oceania Petitioners") do, in fact, live on beaches in a section of the Western Destin Project that was slated for restoration when the Consolidated NOI was issued. The Oceania Petitioners are opposed to the restoration of the beaches subject to the Western Destin Project. They initiated Case No. 10-0516, therefore, because of that opposition. Walton County applied authorizations from the state for the Walton County/East Destin Project (referred-to elsewhere in this order as the "Walton Project"). The Walton Project, like the Eglin Projects, is completed. Unlike the Eglin Projects, and the intent with regard to the Western Destin Project and the Okaloosa Island Project, the Walton Project did not use the OK-A Borrow Area as its source of sand. The Walton Project used a Borrow Area to the east of OK-A (the "Walton Borrow Area"). The Walton Borrow Area is in an area influenced by the ebb tidal shoal formed by the interaction between East Pass and the Gulf of Mexico. The MACLA Intervenors (all of whom own property deeded to the MHWL of the Gulf in the stretch of beach subject to the Western Destin Project) together with the Sherry Petitioners and the Oceania Petitioners, seek findings in this proceeding concerning the impacts of the Walton Borrow Area to the beaches of Okaloosa County. They hope that findings with regard to Walton Borrow Area beach impacts will undermine the assurances the County and the Department offer for a finding that the Western Destin Project will not cause significant adverse impacts to the beaches of Okaloosa County. The Holiday Isle Intervenors support the Project. They are condominium associations or businesses whose properties are within the Project. Like the Eglin Projects, the Walton Project is complete. The Walton Project was the subject of a challenge at DOAH in Case Nos. 04-2960 and 04-3261. The challenge culminated at the administrative level in a Final Order issued by the Department that issued the state authorizations necessary to restore the Walton Project beaches. The Walton Project Final Order was appealed to the First District Court of Appeal where it was reversed. But it was reinstated in a decision by the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court decision was upheld when the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision less than two months before the commencement of the final hearing in these consolidates cases: Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl Prot., 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010). The Court held in Stop the Beach Renourishment that the Walton County Project was not a regulatory taking of property that demanded compensation to affected property owners under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Stop the Beach Renourishment was argued before the United States Supreme Court in December of 2009, shortly before filing of the petitions that initiated these consolidated cases. The final hearing in these cases was not set initially until July 2010 in the hope that the Stop the Beach Renourishment case would be decided, a hope that was realized. In the meantime, another event threatened to affect these consolidated cases: the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (the "Oil Spill") in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in April of 2010 and continued until August of 2010 when the Oil Spill was stopped while these cases were in the midst of final hearing. The Joint Coastal Permit issued by the Department was revised to address impacts of the Oil Spill. No impacts, however, were proven in this proceeding by any of the parties. The Parties The Sherry Petitioners and Their Property David and Rebecca Sherry, husband and wife, are the leaseholders of "Apartment No. 511 [ a condominium unit] of Surf Dweller Condominium, a condominium with such apartment's fractional share of common and limited elements as per Declaration thereof recorded in Official Records . . . of Okaloosa County, Florida."2/ Their address is 554 Coral Court, #511, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548. The Sherrys entered the lease for their condominium unit in May of 2002 in anticipation of it being their retirement home. After retirement, "towards the end of 2005," tr. 840, the unit became their permanent residence. They chose their home after an extensive search for the best beach in America on which to reside. The couple toured the Gulf Coast of Florida, the Keys and the Atlantic seaboard from South Florida into the Carolinas. Both explained at hearing why they picked the Panhandle of Florida in general and selected the Surf Dweller Condominium in particular as the place that they would live during retirement. Mr. Sherry testified: Tr. 841. This particular area we chose because of the beach quality. Quite frankly, . . . I was surprised when I first saw the place . . . the really stunning quality of it. The sand is absolutely beautiful. The water has that clear green hue. You can walk off shore and it just looks great. There isn't any other place like it in the Continental US that I've ever seen. Mrs. Sherry elaborated about the reasons for their choice to reside on the beach adjacent to the Surf Dweller and their enjoyment of the beach in the Okaloosa Island area of Santa Rosa Island. "We moved here for the quality of the beach, the sugar white sand." Tr. 936 (emphasis added). She explained that both she and her husband walk or run the beach daily. Mr. Sherry always runs; Mrs. Sherry's routine is to walk and run alternately. There are other distinctions in their daily traverses over the sugar white sand of Okaloosa Island. Mr. Sherry sometimes runs in shoes. As for Mrs. Sherry, however, she professed, I always run barefoot. I always walk barefoot and I take longer walks than he does. He runs the whole Island. I walk the whole Island and I run 3 miles at a time of the Island. So, that's the difference in the way we use [the beach.] Id. Mrs. Sherry described her activities on the beach more fully and how she enjoys it: I . . . swim. I surf on the skim board, float out in the water . . . I help Dave fish, we crab, . . . all sorts of things like that for recreation. Pretty much a beach person. I sit down on the beach under an umbrella with a lot of sunscreen. * * * I've always run barefoot. That's the reason [we chose the beach next to the Surf Dweller], it's not only the quality of the sand, [it's also] the fact that it's so soft because as I've aged, my husband and I have both been running for 30 years. He's in much better shape. I can still run barefoot and I can do a good pace, but if I've got shoes on, it's not nearly as much fun and I don't do nearly as much of it. So, to me, being able to have the squeak [of the sand underfoot], which you don't have with the restored sand is a big deal and having to wear shoes is a big deal. I really like to . . . [cross the beach] barefoot. Tr. 939. I actually think the project will impact me, at least, as much as my husband, David . . . my husband is . . . involved with . . . being board president of the Surf Dweller[.] I spend at least as much time as he does on the beach. And the way our furniture is arranged in the unit, it's so that when I'm in the kitchen, I bake the cookies, I see the beach, when I'm at the computer I can see the beach. I've got all the best views. So, I think I'm . . . extremely involved with it. It's the first thing I see in the morning; it's the last thing I see at night and I'm down there every morning. In fact, I was on the beach this morning before we came in . . . I don't miss my morning walk. Tr. 950. The Surf Dweller Condominium is located in Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island,3/ Okaloosa County, on real property that was deeded to the County by the federal government and then subsequently leased out by the County under long-term leases. The legal description of the Surf Dweller Condominium,4/ is: LOTS 257 TO 261, INCLUSIVE, LOTS 279, 280, 281, BLOCK 5, SANTA ROSA ISLAND, PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 84, OKALOOSA COUNTY. Ex. P-8, PET7158. Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island is subject to Protective Covenants and Restrictions adopted by the Okaloosa Island Authority and recorded in the Official Records of the County at Book 121, Pages 233-250. See County Ex. 13. The Protective Covenants and Restrictions set up four classifications of areas denominated as Zones B-1 through B-4.5/ Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island is in Zone B-2, "Apartment, Hotel Court and Hotel Areas."6/ Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions, provides, in part, Beach Protection * * * The beaches, for 300 feet inland from mean water level (or to the dune crest line, whichever is the greater distance), are under strict control of the Authority . . . One hundred fifty feet inland from the mean water line, in front of all B1 and B2 Areas, will be public beaches. The next 150 ft. inland will be private beaches as set out on subdivision plats . . . County Ex. 13, at page marked "BOOK 121 PAGE 242." The Surf Dweller Condominium property, lying between reference monuments R-6 and R-7, does not extend as far south as the mean high water line ("MHWL") of the Gulf of Mexico. From testimony provided by Mr. Sherry, see below, it appears that the Surf Dweller condominium property is deeded to the border with the beaches governed by Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. John Donovan is the leaseholder of "APARTMENT NO. 131 AND APARTMENT NO. 132, OF EL MATADOR, A CONDOMINIUM AS PER DECLARATION THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN . . . THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA."7/ The address of the El Matador is 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548. Petitioner Donovan is not a resident of the State of Florida. His primary residence is in the State of Georgia. Mr. Donovan described in testimony his use and the use of his family of the beach seaward of El Matador and other parts of the Okaloosa Island area of Santa Rosa Island: I've . . . got to walk [for reasons of health] and I do walking every day I'm down here[.] I get all the way down to East Pass. I don't get down there every day, but I get down there a lot. My sons and my one grandchild take great pleasure in fishing off there, right at the end where the East Pass is right from the surf. * * * I swim. I don't swim probably as much as my co-petitioners [the Sherrys], but I'm sure I go out further. And I don't surf like David [Sherry] does but my grandchild would never tell me that I don't. I run as much as I can. Not as much as I used to. We also take long walks. Tr. 973-4. In a plat of El Matador Condominium introduced into evidence as part of Exhibit P-7, El Matador is described as: A CONDOMINIUM OF LOTS 557 THROUGH 590 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 9 AND THE INCLUDED PORTION OF PORPOISE DRIVE THEREOF SANTA ROSA ISLAND A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 9 A RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 8 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 190, PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA Exhibit P-7, last page (un-numbered). Block 8 of Santa Rosa Island (like Block 5 in which the Surf Dweller Condominium is located) is also in Zone B-2 set up by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. Block 8, just as Block 5, is governed by Part F, Beach Protection, of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions that places the beaches, for at least 300 feet inland, of the segment of Santa Rosa Island to which Block 8 is adjacent under the strict control of the County and makes the first 150 feet inland from the MHWL "public beaches." County Ex. 13, at page marked "BOOK 121 PAGE 242." El Matador Condominium lies between reference monuments R-1 and R-2. It is not deeded to the MHWL of the Gulf. The plat that is the last page of County Exhibit 13 shows the southern edge of the El Matador condominium property to be adjacent to the "FREEHOLDERS BEACH," Exhibit P-7, last page (un-numbered), landward of the Gulf of Mexico, that is, to the edge of the area of the private beach designated under the "Beach Protection" provision of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions, landward of the public beach designated by the same provision. Neither the Surf Dweller Condominium Property in which the Sherrys reside, nor the El Matador Condominium Property inhabited by Mr. Donovan abuts or is a part of the area subject to the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project. The two properties in Okaloosa Island are to the west of the Project. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan did not initiate Case No. 10-0515 because they oppose the restoration of the beach subject to the Project. They initiated the proceeding because of concerns that the borrow area that will serve the Project is so close to Okaloosa Island and situated in such a way that once dredged it will cause adverse impacts to the Okaloosa Island beaches to the detriment of their use and enjoyment of the beaches. The Beach, Post-Hurricane Opal and Other Tropical Storms Beginning with Hurricane Opal in 1995, the beaches and shores adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador Condominium Properties were seriously damaged. Nonetheless, there is a significant stretch of dry beach between the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium properties and the MHWL of the Gulf. In the case of the Surf Dweller Property, Mr. Sherry estimated the width of the beach between the condominium property and the MHWL to be 300 feet. See his testimony quoted, below. The MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico is a dynamic line, subject to constant change from the natural influences of the coastal system. Whatever effect its ever-changing nature might have on the width of the beaches declared public and private8/ between the MHWL and the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium properties, however, there can be no doubt on the state of the record in this proceeding that at the time of hearing there existed a 150 foot-wide stretch of beach water-ward of the two condominiums that the public has the legal right to occupy and use. Indeed, Petitioner David Sherry, when asked about the private beach and public beach governed by the Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions in cross-examination conducted by Mr. Hall on behalf of the County, confirmed as much when he related the actual practice by the public in using it and the response that public use generated from him and his wife: Q If someone . . . crosses Santa Rosa Boulevard and utilizes this access[-]way that's marked on the map that you identified earlier, do they have the right to utilize any of the portion of [the private beach] of that 150-foot portion in front of your condominium? A . . . [N]o, they wouldn't have the right to do that. Q . . . [D]o they have the ability to set up an umbrella or place their towel within that 150-foot area [of private beach] in front of your condominium? A In that area, no. In the area south of that [the public beach] , which is where everyone actually sets up and wants to set up, in that area south, people set up and we don't have any problem with that. We let people do it -- Q On [the] public beach[.] A On the public beach they're perfectly free to do that. * * * Q I believe your testimony today, based on your GPS calculations, was that you have 300 feet of dry sand beach . . . running from the boundary of the condominium to the edge of the Gulf of Mexico; is that correct? A Essentially, from the building to the Gulf of Mexico. * * * Q So, 300 feet, roughly, from the boundary of the Surf Dweller Condominium common area down to the waterline? A Correct. Q So, there would be enough room today, based on the language of the restrictive covenants to have . . . 150 feet of public beach and then the 150 feet of Freeholders Beach as designated on the plat [in County Exhibit 13] now? A Much like it was in 1955 [when the Protective Covenants and Restrictions were adopted and recorded], yes. Tr. 891-3, (emphasis added). Since the first 150 feet of beach landward of the MHWL under the Protective Covenants and Restrictions is "public beach," there is no doubt that there is a stretch of beach between the Surf Dweller Condominium and the MHWL that is public beach and its width is at least 150 feet.9/ From aerial photographs introduced into evidence, the same finding is made with regard to beach that is public between El Matador and the MHWL of the Gulf. Mr. Donovan testified that his leasehold interest in his units at El Matador along with the interests of the other El Matador condominium unit leaseholders included 150 feet of private beach landward of the 150 feet of public beach adjacent to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. His lawyer, moreover, advised him not to convert his leasehold interest into a fee simple ownership in order to protect his interest in access to the private beach designated by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. See Tr. 986-87. Mr. Donovan is concerned about the erosion and turbidity impacts the borrow site could have on the Gulf and the beach. Erosion would change his view of the beach from the window of his condominium unit and aggravate a scalloping of the shore. The unevenness of the scalloped surface would cause him difficulties in his walks. Turbidity could attract sharks which would make it unsafe for him to swim. Most importantly to him, a change in the beach and shoreline along the El Matador Condominium property as drastic, in Mr. Donovan's view, as that contemplated by the Draft JCP could deter his family members (his grandchild included) from visiting him and vacationing at his unit in the El Matador Condominium. The Guidry Petitioners and Their Property Roland Guidry, a retired Colonel in the United States Air Force, is co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust and the President of the Oceania Owners' Association, a condominium association governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The Guidry Living Trust is the owner of Condominium Unit 605 in the Oceania Condominium, a condominium established under chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The address of the unit is 720 Gulf Shore Drive, Unit 605, Destin, Florida, 32541. In his capacity as co-trustee, Mr. Guidry has the independent power to protect, conserve, sell, lease or encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of trust assets, which include Unit 605 in the Oceania Condominium. The Oceania Owners' Association is mandated by the Oceania Declaration of Condominium to "maintain, manage and operate the condominium property." Ex. P-6 at 4. The declaration also declares, "[a]ll unit owners shall automatically become members of the association after completion of closing of the purchase of a unit in Oceania, A Condominium." Id. The Guidry Living Trust, therefore, is a member of Oceania Condominium Association. The powers of the officers and directors of the Oceania Owners' Association are set forth in the Declaration of Condominium that governs Oceania: The officers and directors of the association shall have the powers set forth in this declaration and the association bylaws, and shall, at all times, have a fiduciary relationship to the members of the association and shall operate and manage the association in the best interest of its members. Id. Oceania's Declaration of Condominium, furthermore, prescribes that "[t]he association shall have all powers granted by Chapter[s] 718 and 617, Florida Statutes." Id. at 5. Every member of the Oceania Owners' Association Board of Directors approved the initiation of Case No. 10-0516, according to the testimony of Colonel Guidry, but there was no documentary evidence offered that a vote had been taken of the Board of Directors at a board meeting on the issue of whether to file the petition that initiated Case No. 10-0516 or the outcome of any such vote. As an owner of a unit in Oceania, The Guidry Living Trust owns an undivided share of the Oceania Condominium's common property10/ which "comprise[s] all the real property improvements and facilities to Oceania, A Condominium, including all parts of the building other than the units . . . and . . . [certain] easements . . . ." P-6 at 1, 2. The Oceania Condominium real estate is deeded to the "APPROXIMATE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE GULF OF MEXICO". P-6, Exhibit "B." The Surveyor's Certificate on the survey of Oceania, A Condominium, attached to the Oceania Declaration of Condominium is dated January 16, 1996. The date is more than two months after Hurricane Opal made landfall and damaged the Okaloosa County coastline in October of 1995. Standing of the Oceania Petitioners Colonel Guidry did not appear at hearing in a personal capacity. He appeared in his capacities as co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust and President of the Oceania Owners' Association. In contrast to the Sherry Petitioners, therefore, Colonel Guidry did not allege his personal use and enjoyment of the beach as a basis for standing. As to injury and standing of both the Guidry Living Trust and the Oceania Owners' Association, Colonel Guidry asserted a number of interests that he believed will be substantially affected by the Project. They fall into four categories of concern. The first concern is with regard to the action of the sand along the shoreline of the Oceania property after the two reaches of beach to the east and west will have been restored under the revisions to the Draft JCP. After construction activities, sand along the shoreline will equilibrate, that is, the sand will move or be transported so as to stabilize the shoreline. This stabilization or achievement of shoreline equilibrium will tend to move the shoreline along the Oceania property waterward. Colonel Guidry expressed his concern as follows: [The Oceania property] would be sandwiched . . . between two public beaches . . . mother nature will fill in what I call the Oceania Gap. Right now the only line we have on our beach is our southern property line [the MHWL of the Gulf][11] . . . . That's the only line I know of that's on our beach or will be placed on our beach. But if sand fills in, then that creates a cloud of confusion, if the State lays claim to this sand that accumulates in the Oceania Gap, as a result of the construction on both sides of us. Tr. 764, (emphasis added). The second category of concern relates to the location of the property post-construction between "two public beaches." Such a location, in Colonel Guidry's view, would make individual units at the Oceania Condominium less valuable. The third category is that the public would be more likely to trespass on private Oceania property. The fourth concern of Colonel Guidry is that the Project will have undesirable impacts to Oceania property owners' littoral rights to accretion and to touch the water. The first three concerns all stem from a decision made by the Board of County Commissioners after this proceeding was commenced to remove the Oceania property from the Project. Oceania Removed The beach and shore in the southern part of the Oceania condominium property,12/ (the "Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline" or the "Oceania Gap") were originally subject to the Consolidated NOI for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project. But on the eve of the date scheduled for the commencement of the final hearing in these cases, the Board of County Commissioners for Okaloosa County voted to remove the Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline from the application for the Project. Taylor Engineering (the County's Agent) submitted a request to the Department that reads: On behalf of Okaloosa County, Taylor Engineering submits its request to modify the project area and Draft Joint Coastal Permit for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project . . . The applicant has decided to remove the Oceania Condominium Property from the beach fill placement area. The revised project, as described in the enclosed permit drawings, includes two reaches: Reach 1 extends from the east jetty of East Pass to approximately 600 ft east of FDEP reference monument R-22 (R-22.6) and Reach 2 extends from approximately 200 feet east of R-023 (R- 23.2) to R-25.5. The Oceania Property defines the gap between Reach 1 and Reach 1. Additionally, we request the FDEP modify Specific Condition 1 of the Draft Joint Coastal Permit to reflect the modified project area. More specifically, we request that the Mean High Water Line Survey requirement of Specific Condition 1 exclude the Oceania Condominium property. Notice of Filing Request for Modification and Revised, Draft Joint Coastal Permit, Exhibit A. Revisions to the Original Draft JCP In light of the vote and based on the County's request, DEP filed a Revised Notice of Intent on July 26, 2010, which included revision of the Draft JCP (the "First Revised Draft JCP"). The First Revised Draft JCP eliminated the Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline from the Project and took other action such as requiring the applicant to check for oil in the OK-A Borrow Area prior to construction by both visual inspection and analysis of sand samples because of the ongoing Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf. The revision also included changes to Specific Condition 5 of the Draft JCP.13/ On August 18, 2010, the Department gave notice of another revision of the JCP (the "Second Revised Draft JCP"). The Second Revised Draft JCP changed Specific Condition 1 of the JCP by eliminating the requirement that the County establish a pre-project MHWL prior to undertaking construction activities and instead requires the County to conduct a survey in order to locate an erosion control line ("ECL"). The revisions to the Draft JCP stirred interest in participating in this proceeding among a group of property owners who do not want the beaches along their properties restored: the MACLA Intervenors. The MACLA Intervenors and Their Properties On September 8, 2010, a petition to intervene (the "MACLA Petition to Intervene") was filed by nine putative intervenors: MACLA LTD II, a Limited Partnership ("MACLA"); H. Joseph Hughes as Trustee of the Betty Price Hughes Qualified Vacation Residence Trust ("Hughes Trust"); Kershaw Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Kershaw"); Kayser Properties LLC ("Kayser"); Destin, LLC ("Destin"); Paul Blake Sherrod, Jr., and Cindy M. Sherrod ("Sherrods"); Blossfolly, LLC ("Blossfolly"); 639 Gulfshore, LLC ("639 Gulfshore"); and Laura Dipuma-Nord ("Nord"), (collectively, the "MACLA Intervenors.") All nine of the MACLA Intervenors own real property in the City of Destin within the Project area that fronts the Gulf of Mexico. All nine properties have the MHWL of the Gulf as their southern boundary. MACLA is a Texas Limited Partnership. Louise Brooker is its president. The address of its property is 620 Gulf Shore Drive. The Hughes Trust owns a one-third interest in real property at the address of 612 Gulf Shore Drive. H. Joseph Hughes is a trustee of the Hughes Trust. Kershaw is an Alabama corporation. The address of its property is 634 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Kayser property is 606 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Destin property is 624 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Sherrods' property is 610 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the 639 Gulfshore property is 6346 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Blossfolly property is 626 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of Ms. Dipuma-Nord is 600 Gulf Shore Drive. The properties owned by the MACLA Intervenors are among 18-single family lots located between a rough mid-point of reference markers R-020 and R-021 and a rough mid-point of reference markers R-022 and R-023. See Ex. P-238. These 18 single-family lots are in the approximate middle of the Project. The Oceania property, eliminated from the Project at the time of the filing of MACLA Petition to Intervene, is just to the east of the 18 single family lots in which the properties of the MACLA Intervernors are located. (Reference marker R-023 is set along the shoreline adjacent to the Oceania property.) The MACLA Intevenors' properties and the Oceania property are within the area from R-020.3 to R-023.3 (the "Middle Segment", see discussion of Critically Eroded Shoreline, below). According to an evaluation conducted by the Department on January 7, 2009, the Middle Segment of the beach is one in which "[u]pland development is not currently threatened." Ex. P-238. Timeliness of the MACLA Petition to Intervene The MACLA Petition to Intervene was filed well after the commencement of the hearing. Under rule 28-106.205, because it was filed later than 20 days before the commencement of the hearing, it could only be accepted upon "good cause shown" or if the time for filing were "otherwise provided by law." The MACLA Petition to Intervene was also filed after the Department had entered an order dismissing petitions for administrative hearings filed by three of the MACLA Intervenors14/ to contest the Second Revised JCP. The order of dismissal with prejudice by the Department dated September 7, 2010, was entered on the following bases: First, the Petitioners had a clear point of entry to challenge the proposed permit after it was publicly noticed on January 9, 2010. The Petitioners failed to timely challenge the proposed permit when given the opportunity to do so. Second, it is well settled that any proposed modifications to a proposed permit made during the course of a de novo proceeding to formulate final agency action do not create a new point of entry. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice to amend. Petition to Intervene, filed September 8, 2010, Ex. A, at 2 of 8. The Department was aware that the Western Destin Project "because of its size, potential effect on the environment, potential effect on the public, controversial nature or location, is likely to have a heightened public concern or is likely to result in a request for administrative proceedings." Consolidated NOI, at 13 of 17. The Department therefore took pains to ensure that parties affected by the Western Destin Project would be provided notice of the Project and have an opportunity to timely assert their rights to challenge the permitting and authorization of the Project. The Consolidated NOI required publication within 30 days in the legal ad section of a newspaper of general circulation in the area a public notice of the Consolidated NOI. It also required proof of publication. The County complied on both counts. A notice was published on January 9, 2010, in the Destin Log, in Okaloosa County. The public notice specifically identified the project location as between reference monuments R-16.6 and R-25.5 in Okaloosa County, which includes the segment of the shoreline adjacent to the MACLA Intervenors Property. The Department also provided a detailed statement of the "Rights of Affected Parties," including their right to petition for an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57 within 14 days of receipt of written notice of the Consolidated NOI. The point of entry into the administrative proceedings to challenge the Consolidated NOI, therefore, in the case of affected parties with notice by virtue of the publication on January 9, 2010, expired on January 23, 2010. The section of the Consolidated NOI that governed the rights of affected parties also warned: Because the administrative hearing process is designed to redetermine final agency action on the application, the filing of a petition for an administrative hearing may result in a modification of the permit or even a denial of the application. * * * The failure of any person to file a petition within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. Consolidated NOI, at 14 of 17. The MACLA Intervenors read the Destin Log at least on occasion and communicated with counsel for the Oceania Petitioners. Some believed they were represented by counsel for the Oceania Petitioners and had contributed to legal fees incurred by the Oceania Petitioners. Despite the foregoing, the MACLA Petition to Intervene was granted (subject to proof of standing) on the basis that the MACLA Intervenors had shown good cause for the filing after the deadline imposed by rule 28-106.205. At the time a point of entry into administrative proceedings was provided by the combination of the Consolidated NOI in December of 2009 and publication in the Destin Log of the notice on January 9, 2010, the Draft JCP called for the applicant to provide a survey of a Pre-project MHWL rather than the establishment of an ECL. Neither notice of the Second Revised Draft JCP, filed on July 26, 2010, nor the Second Revised Draft JCP, itself provided a point of entry into formal administrative proceedings to parties whose substantial interest were at stake. A new substantial interest, however, had been injected into the proceedings by the Second Revised JCP. The Second Draft JCP requires the establishment of an ECL as a condition of the permit in lieu of provision of a survey of Pre-project MHWL. The MACLA Intervenors promptly sought a point of entry to contest what is plainly a drastic change in circumstances with significant consequences to the boundary of their properties toward the shoreline with the Gulf of Mexico. The effect of this change and the difficulty of keeping up with beach restoration activities in Okaloosa County, particularly for affected persons whose permanent residence is elsewhere, was demonstrated by the testimony of Louise Brooker, who lives in Amarillo, Texas. When asked "[w]hy did you wait until September of this year [2010] to file the intervention?," she testified: [O]ur group thought that we were being represented by the Oceania group . . . when I did find out [the JCP had been issued], it was after the 30-day period . . . I hadn't been reading the Destin Log every day because it's very difficult to do, and then it changed. * * * Then it made a huge difference between using the mean high water line * * * And then the ECL being established, which was the ECL that I do not agree with, then that was being put in the permit. So that changed things a great deal. (emphasis added). Tr. 1526-7. Once their petitions for formal administrative proceedings had been dismissed with prejudice by the Department (or in the case of the MACLA parties whose petitions for an administrative had not been dismissed yet but appeared likely to meet the same fate), the MACLA Intervenors promptly sought relief through filing the MACLA Petition to Intervene. When the petition to intervene of the MACLA Intervernors was opposed by the County and the Department, the placement of the substantial interest at stake in the proceeding of a fixed ECL as the southern boundary of their property by the Second Revised JCP and the quick action of the MACLA Intervenors in contesting in contesting it was viewed as good cause for the filing of their petition later than required by rule. The Other Parties Okaloosa County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and the applicant for the JCP, the Variances and the SSL Authorization. The Department is the state agency responsible for administration of the state's regulatory authority as found in Part I of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and in particular, for the issuance of permits required by section 161.041 and the concurrent processing of "joint coastal permits" as allowed by section 161.055. It also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and in that capacity handles the processing and issuance of SSL Authorizations. The Holiday Isle Intervenors are businesses and condominium associations, all of whose members own real property or conduct businesses along the segment of the beach to be restored by the Project. Their properties (unlike the Oceania property and the MACLA Intervenors' properties in the Project "gap" between R-22.6 and R-23.2) are along shoreline that has been designated by the state as critically eroded.15/ Critically Eroded Shoreline Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62B-36 governs the Beach Management Funding Assistance Program. It contains the following definition of "Critically Eroded Shoreline": "Critically Eroded Shoreline" is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activities have caused, or contributed to, erosion and recession of the beach and dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded shoreline may also include adjacent segments or gaps between identified critical erosion areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-36.002(4), (the "Critically Eroded Shoreline Rule"). The Department determines whether upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or cultural resources are threatened or lost based on a 25-year storm event. Consideration of the Project on this basis leads to the Project being broken into three segments: a segment from R-17 at the west end of the Project to roughly R-20.3 (the "Western Segment"); a segment roughly between R-20.3 and R-23.2 (the "Middle Segment"); and a segment roughly between R-23.2 and R-25.5 (the "Eastern Segment"). Mr. Clark described the impact of a 25-year storm event on the Western and Eastern Segments: [T]hose two areas, based on the evaluation and the projection of the impact of a 25-year storm event, which is a high frequency storm event, showed that there would be erosion through deflation of the beach profile and recession of the shoreline to such an extent that upland development and infrastructure would be threatened. Tr. 499. As for the Middle Segment, "the same evaluation did not show that the 25-year storm event would provide that same level of threat." Id. The Middle Segment, however, for the purposes of continuity of the management and design integrity, was also designated as Critically Eroded Shoreline and the entire stretch of shoreline, including all three segments, Western, Middle, and Eastern, was originally included in the Project.16/ The Project With the elimination of the Oceania Gap, the Project calls for the placement of 831,000 cubic yards or so17/ of beach- quality sand along 1.7 miles (less the 600 feet of the Oceania Gap) of shoreline within the City of Destin between reference monuments R-16.6 and R-22.6 and between R-23.2 and R-25.5. The Project is designed to restore the shoreline to conditions that existed before Hurricane Opal in 1995. The useful life of the Project is estimated to be eight years. The Project will restore beach along 32 separate parcels of property, 31 of which are privately owned. The exception is a small area of publicly owned beach at the extreme west end of the Project. The Project's Construction is intended to be facilitated by hopper dredge. The dredge excavates at a borrow site. A ship brings the excavated material to the beach fill site where it is discharged by pipe onto the beach. The pipeline runs perpendicular to the shore and extends about a quarter of a mile offshore. The contractor normally fences off a work zone that is about 500 feet wide. The work zone moves along the beach as construction progresses. "[I]n that work zone, there is a lot of heavy equipment that moves the sand around . . . looking at the Project . . . [from] an aerial view, roughly half the sand will be placed seaward and half the sand . . . landward of . . . [the] Mean High Water Line." Tr. 139. The Project's construction template or "the shape of the beach when it[']s constructed," id., consists of a dune, a back berm and a wide variable berm. The dune has an elevation of 8.5 feet and a crest width of 30 feet. The berm has an elevation of 5.5 feet. The width of the construction varies but averages about 200 feet. Over the first several months following the Project's construction, a calibration process takes place. About half of the berm erodes and deposits offshore in a near shore sand bar. "That near shore bar acts as a wave break . . . and dissipates wave energy during storms. So having a good healthy bar out there can definitely provide storm protection." Tr. 140. "Using "two to 250 feet a day,"18/ as a "good approximation for the progress . . . [in] constructing the"19/ Project, construction on any particular individual property should take between one or two days "depending on how . . . wide the property is and how fast the construction progresses." Tr. 141. A property along a lengthier segment of the beach, like the 600 feet at the seaward boundary of the Oceania Property had it remained a part of the Project, therefore, would take "two to three days." Tr. 142. Storm erosion models on the construction berm showed that the Project will provide protection from a fifty-year storm. Selection of the Sand Source: Borrow Area OK-A The engineers of the Project, ("Taylor Engineering," the "Project's Engineers" or the "Engineers") examined the Gulf's underwater expanse from Santa Rosa County to Walton County seaward to Federal waters. The search for a sand source included a reconnaissance phase and a detail phase investigation of geophysical and geotechnical data. After exhaustive study, two potential borrow areas were identified: a "far-shore" site and a "near-shore" site. The far-shore site is eight miles offshore and about a mile east of East Pass and is designated "OK-B." The near-shore site, three miles west of East Pass and centered about a mile and a quarter from the shores of the Okaloosa Island part of Santa Rosa Island, is designated "OK-A." With its edge within the designated Outstanding Florida Water boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore Park, it is within a relic ebb tidal delta in water depths of -36 to -51 feet, NGVD. Approximately 1.7 miles wide from east to west and approximately 0.9 miles wide north to south, it covers approximately 700 acres. At its landward-most side, it will be dredged to 10 feet into the existing bottom. Reference in documents of Taylor Engineering and the County to OK-A as the "near-shore site" does not mean it is located in the "nearshore" as that term is used in coastal geology. The coastal geologic term "nearshore" refers to the zone from the shoreline out to just beyond the wave breaking zone.20/ Borrow Area OK-A is well beyond the nearshore. It is clearly located "offshore," in "the relatively flat zone that is located from the surf breakers seaward out to the outer limits of the continental shelf."21/ Tr. 513. It is referred as the near- shore site by Taylor and the County to distinguish it from OK-B which is farther offshore and therefore was referred to as the "farshore site." The two sites, OK-A and OK-B, were selected for comparative review on three bases: sand quality; financial impact; and dredging impacts. Sand quality is "the number one criteri[on]." Tr. 143. It involves grain size, soil and shell content, and sand color. Financial impact is determined mainly by distance; the farther from the construction site, the more expensive to transport the sand. If the borrow area is close enough to shore, a Borrow Area Impact Analysis is conducted. An impact analysis was not conducted for OK-B. The Engineers assumed on the basis of its 8 miles distance from shore that it would not impact the shoreline in any way. The assumption was a reasonable one. Impacts to the shoreline or beach from the dredging of OK-B are unlikely.22/ A Borrow Area Impact Analysis was conducted of OK-A. The quality of the sand in OK-B was similar to that of OK-A but OK-A's "was slightly better." Tr. 144. The slight difference was not a significant factor in the determination that OK-A should be selected. The main factor in favor of OK-A was distance. Because it is so much closer to the Project than OK-B, use of OK-A "substantially reduces the cost of construction" id., compared to OK-B. Taylor Engineering (and ultimately the County) selected OK-A as the sand source. The selection process included a sand source investigation by Taylor. Taylor Engineers' final report on sand source was released in October of 2009. The report shows that in OK-A, the southeast corner of the area "seemed to contain a lesser quality sand than the borrow area as a whole and in terms of color." Tr. 145. Sand from the southeast corner of OK-A, nonetheless, was used in two beach restoration projects, both on Eglin Air Force Base property. Those projects were denominated A-3 and A-13.23/ The selection of OK-A was not upset by Taylor Engineering's OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis. Borrow Area Impact Analysis An Okaloosa County Sand Search Borrow Area Impact Analysis was prepared by Taylor Engineering for the Joint Coastal Permit Application and released in July of 2008. Aware that dredging the borrow site could affect both wave climate and current (the swift flow of water within a larger body of water), Taylor examined the impact of dredging the OK-A Borrow Area for those effects in the borrow area vicinity. The ultimate purpose of the Borrow Area Impact Analysis, however, was larger. It was to determine the changes to wave and current climate for impact to the beach, such as erosion. An increase in wave height, for example, would increase erosion. Two numerical modeling efforts were conducted. The first, called STWAVE, documents the impacts to wave climate. The second, ADCIRC, analyzes the effects of the dredging on currents. The STWAVE model requires wave characteristics as input. Taylor Engineering used "a 20-year hindcast of wave data from a WIS station located directly offshore in deep water. Under STWAVE modeling, impacts were examined for normal conditions and then 'under a 100-year storm condition.'" Tr. 149. The basis was the 100-year storm data from Hurricane Opal. The impacts of bottom friction were ignored, a common practice in applications like the County's JCP application that involves work on the open coast with a uniform sandy bottom. As Mr. Trudnak put it: Tr. 150. When you use . . . wave monitoring devices, you're trying to calibrate a model for the effects of bottom friction. And when the borrow area is this close to shore [as in the case of OK-A], . . . the propagation of distance of the waves is relatively short. And when you have a uniform sandy bottom you don't expect the impacts of bottom friction to be significant. So . . . in applications like [Okaloosa County's for the Western Destin Project], you ignore the effects of bottom friction. The analysis assumed that all of the sand in the borrow area would be removed when, in contrast, "the borrow site usually contains 50 percent more sand than what the Project requires on the beach." Tr. 152. In the case of OK-A, it is intended to serve the Eglin Air Force Base Project, the Okaloosa Island Project and the Western Destin Project. These projects require 4.7 million cubic yards of sand of the nearly 7 million cubic yards of sand available in OK-A. The impact analysis, therefore, was conservative in that it predicted more impact than would actually occur because significantly less sand would be removed from the site than was factored into the STWAVE modeling. With regard to normal conditions, the STWAVE modeling led to the conclusion that impacts from the permitted activities associated with the borrow area would be negligible. Under storm wave conditions, the STWAVE modeling showed "a certain wave angle or direction that increased the wave height." Tr. 151. The increase in wave height, however, was far enough offshore so as to never affect the "actual breaking wave height on the beach." Id. The modeling results enabled Taylor Engineering to conclude "that the borrow area did not have a potential to cause any impacts whatsoever." Tr. 152. ADCIRC is a state-of-the art hydrodynamic model that simulates tidal currents. Taylor Engineering conducted the ADCIRC modeling to analyze effects on the tidal currents and circulation in and around East Pass that would be caused by dredging the borrow area. Just as in the case of STWAVE, ADCIRC modeling showed that the impact of dredging the borrow area would be negligible whether in normal or "storm" conditions. The Application Coastal Construction Permits and CCCL Permits The Application was processed as one for a joint coastal permit (a "coastal construction" permit under section 161.041). It was not processed as an application for a coastal construction control line ("CCCL") permit. Section 161.041 (the "Shore Protection Statute") and chapter 62B-41 apply to JCPs. Section 161.053 (the "CCCL Statute") and chapter 62B-33 govern CCCL permits. The Department treats its JCP and CCCL permitting programs as independent from each other and as mutually exclusive permitting programs. A project that involves "beaches and shores" construction is permitted under one permitting program or the other but not under both permitting programs. See Tr. 424-5. Indeed, when it comes to beach restoration projects (or "shore protection" projects) such as the Western Destin Project, section 161.053 of the CCCL Statute provides as follows in subsection (9): "The provisions of this section do not apply to structures intended for shore protection purposes which are regulated by s. 161.041 [the Shore Protection Statute] " The Department interprets section 161.053(9) to exempt the Project from CCCL statutory requirements and the rules that implement the CCCL Statutes so that the only permit the Project requires, in the Department's view, is a JCP. b. The "Written Authorization" Provision Chapter 62B-14 is entitled "Rules and Procedures for Applications for Coastal Construction Permits." The Shore Protection Statutes serves as rule-making authority for every rule in 62B-41. Every rule in the chapter, moreover, implements, among other provisions, one provision or another of the Shore Protection Statute. Rule 62B-41.008 derives its rule-making authority from the Shore Protection Statute and section 161.055(1) and (2). Among the statutory provisions it implements are four subsections of the statute: (1), (2), (3) and (4). Section (1) of rule 62B-41.008 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A Joint Coastal Permit is required in order to conduct any coastal construction activities in Florida. A person required to obtain a joint coastal permit shall submit an application to the Department . . . The permit application form, entitled "Joint Application for Joint Coastal Permit, Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, Federal Dredge and Fill Permit" . . . is hereby incorporated by reference . . . . The application shall contain the following specific information: * * * (c) Written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project, or authorization for such use from the property owner which is upland of mean high-water, or below mean high water but not sovereign land of the State of Florida. * * * (n) Written authorization for any duly- authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any property to be used in carrying out the project, for the purpose of evaluating site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application. (emphasis added). Rule 62B-41.008(2) (the "Waiver Provision") lists requirements of rule 62B-41.008(1) which are to be waived by the Department under circumstances described in the Waiver Provision: "Any of the requirements contained in paragraph 62B-41.008(1)(f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), or (m), F.A.C., will be waived if the Department determined that the information is unnecessary for a proper evaluation of the proposed work." In its list of requirements that will be waived under certain circumstance, the Waiver Provision does not include paragraphs (c) or (n). The Application did not contain the "specific information" detailed in paragraphs (c) and (n) of rule 62B- 41.008(1). It did not contain written proof of ownership of any property that will be used in carrying out the Project nor did it contain authorization for such use from the property owner upland of mean high-water, information required by paragraph (c). It did not contain written authorization for any duly-authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any private property to be used in carrying out the Project for the purpose of evaluating the site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application, information detailed in paragraph (n). As of the dates of final hearing, the County had not provided the Department with any written authorizations from the owners of the 31 privately-owned properties within the Project area, including the MACLA intervenors. As part of the Application, however, the County requested a waiver of the requirements related to authorizations. A waiver was requested under number 14 of the Application. It provides: Satisfactory evidence demonstrating that the applicant has sufficient control and interest in the riparian upland property, as described in Section 18-21.004(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Governmental entities that qualify for the waiver of deferral outlined in this rule must provide supporting documentation in order to be eligible. If the applicant is not the property owner, then authorization from property owner for such use must be provided. Joint Ex. 1, at 3 of 9. The County, through its agent, Taylor Engineering, responded to number 14 of the Application as follows: Response: The applicants request a waiver of the requested information under Rule 18- 21.004(3)(b), which grants an exception to the upland interest requirement for restoration and enhancement (e.g. nourishment) activities conducted by a government agency. According to Rule 18- 21.004(3)(b), satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is not required for the proposed activity, because the proposed offshore borrow area is not riparian to uplands and the beach fill activities will not unreasonably infringe on riparian rights. Joint Ex. 1, Attachment A, at 3rd un-numbered page. Rule chapter 18-21 governs Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management. Rule 18-21.004(3)(b) ("the Upland Interest and Riparian Rights Rule") provides as follows: (3) Riparian rights. * * * (b) Satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is required for activities on sovereign submerged land riparian to uplands, unless otherwise specified in this chapter. * * * Satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is not required . . . when a governmental entity conducts restoration and enhancement activities, provided that such activities do not unreasonably infringe on riparian rights. (emphasis added). Item number 18 of the Application calls for signatures related to "any proprietary authorizations identified above," such as those identified in item number 14. Consistent with the request for a waiver from providing the requested information with regard to satisfactory evidence demonstrating sufficient control and interest in the riparian upland property, no signatures were provided by the County or its agent. Rule 62B-49.003(3), entitled "Policy" provides: Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter shall not be deemed complete, and the timeframe for approval or denial shall not commence until the Department has received all information required for: a coastal construction permit under Section 161.041, F.S., and Chapter 62B-41, F.A.C.; an environmental resource permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and Title 62, F.A.C.; and a proprietary authorization, under Chapter 253, F.S., and Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21, F.A.C. See the material bound and attached to the Request for Official Recognition filed August 2, 2010, Tab "Chapter 69B-49, F.A.C." The Department deemed the Application complete on December 30, 2009. Amendment of the JCP re: Written Authorizations The petition for formal administrative hearing filed in Case No. 10-0516 challenged the Consolidated NOI on the bases, inter alia, that the Application had failed to "provide 'sufficient evidence of ownership' as defined in rule 62B- 33.008(3)(c), F.A.C., to be a proper applicant for the Permit"24/ and that the County had not "provided satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest to be entitled to a letter of consent to use sovereign submerged lands."25/ To support their allegation that the County is not a proper applicant for the JCP, the Oceania Petitioners amended their petition on July 13, 2010, to add the following: The County must provide the Department "[w]ritten evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project, or authorization for such use from the property owner which is upland of mean high-water, or below mean high-water but not sovereign land of the State of Florida", as required by [paragraph (c) of the JCP Application Specific Information Rule]. The Department must receive "[w]ritten authorization for any duly-authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any property to be used in carrying out the project, for the purpose of evaluating site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application", as required by Rule 62B- 41.008)1)(n), F.A.C. The Amendment was made despite the existence in all of the versions of the Draft JCP, the original version and the revised versions, of General Condition Six: This permit does not convey to the Permittee or create in the Permitee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the Permittee. The issuance of this permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Joint Ex. III at Tab 9 at 4 of 26. With the filing of the Oceania Petitioners' Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 10-0516, the issues appeared to be fully joined. Before the case proceeded to hearing, however, the County voted to remove the Oceania Property from the Project (see paragraphs 31 and 32, above). The vote led to a formal request from the County to DEP to revise the Project and a revision by the Department of the Project's drawings and the Draft JCP (the "First Revised Draft JCP"), notice of which was filed on July 23, 2010. The revisions to the Draft JCP necessitated by the elimination of the Oceania property from the Project was not the only revision made to the Draft JCP as noticed on July 23, 2010. The Department also revised the Draft JCP's Specific Condition 5. This latter revision prompted the Sherry Petitioners to file a petition for an administrative determination concerning un- adopted rules. DOAH assigned the petition Case No. 10-6205RU. During the final hearing, the Department revised the Draft JCP a second time (the "Second Revised Draft JCP".) The second revision inspired the MACLA Petitioners' petition to intervene. Just as with the Sherry Petitioners, the revision to Specific Condition 5 prompted the MACLA Petitioners to petition for an administrative determination concerning un-adopted rules. DOAH assigned this second un-adopted rule challenge to Specific Condition 5 Case No. 10-8197RU. Case Nos. 10-6205RU and 10-8197RU In general, the revision to the Draft JCP's Specific Condition 5 advised the County that no beach restoration work can be performed on private upland property unless authorization from the owner of the property has been obtained and submitted to the Department ("the Upland Property Authorization Requirement"). The revision also provided an exception to the Upland Property Authorization Requirement: the County could submit an authorization from a court of competent jurisdiction that such an authorization is not required. Case Nos. 10-06205RU and 10-8197RU were heard at the same time as these consolidated cases.26/ A final order was issued with regard to the two cases on November 4, 2010. The final order dismissed the case because the Sherry Petitioners and the MACLA Petitioners had not demonstrated that they would be "substantially affected" by Specific Condition 5 as required by section 120.56(3) for a party to have standing to challenge an agency statement that constitutes a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to the rule-making procedures found in section 120.54(1)(a). Case Nos. 10-6205RU and 10-8197RU were two of three petitions seeking administrative petitions concerning un-adopted rules that were consolidated and heard with the consolidated cases subject to this Recommended Order. The third was a case that had been filed by the Oceania Petitioners earlier in the proceeding: Case No. 10-5384RU. Case No. 10-5384RU Case No. 10-5384RU was filed by the Oceania Petitioners in order to challenge as an un-adopted rule Specific Condition 1 as it appeared in the Original Draft JCP ("Original Specific Condition 1"). Original Specific Condition 1 contained several requirements. In general, it required the County to record a certificate before the commencement of construction associated with the Western Destin Project. The certificate was required to describe all upland properties along the shoreline of the Project. The certificate was also required to be accompanied by a survey of a pre-project mean high water line (the "Pre-project MHWL) along the entire length of the Project's shoreline. The case claimed that the Department had made another statement that constituted an un-adopted rule which violated the rule-making provisions of chapter 120: "that an Erosion Control Line (the 'ECL') is not required to be established pursuant to Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, for a beach restoration project unless 'state funds' are used for the construction (as opposed to just the design) of a beach restoration project." Case No. 10-5384RU, Petition for an Administrative Determination Concerning Unadopted Rules, at 2. During the course of the final hearing, however, the Department filed a notice of a set of revisions to the First Revised Draft JCP. These revisions (the "Second Revised Draft JCP") included a revision of Specific Condition 1. The Second Revised Draft JCP The notice by the Department that alerted the parties to the Second Revised Draft JCP was filed on August 18, 2010. The August 18, 2010, Notice contains two changes to the First Revised Draft JCP. The first change deletes entirely the existing language in Original Specific Condition 1 (the language challenged in Case No. 10-5384RU). It substitutes the following language: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Board of Trustees will establish an Erosion Control Line along the shoreline of the beach restoration project. The Erosion Control Line shall be established consistent with the provisions of ss. 161.141-161.211, Florida Statutes. An Erosion Control Line shall not be established in conjunction with this joint coastal permit with respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc. members' common elements property. In lieu of conducting a survey, the Board of Trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by Okaloosa County if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. Department of Environmental Protection's and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund's Notice of Revisions to the Proposed Joint Coastal Construction Permit, page 3 of 4. Thus, the first change noticed by the Department on August 18 deleted the requirement that the County submit a survey of a Pre-project MHWL. It requires, instead, that the county establish an ECL consistent with applicable statutory provisions. The second change was made with respect to Specific Condition 4(c) of the First Revised Draft JCP, which lists items to be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed (with construction) by the Department. The existing language was deleted in its entirety and the following language was substituted: Id. Written documentation that the Erosion Control Line required by Special Condition Number 1 has been filed in the public records of Okaloosa County. Disposition of Case No. 10-5384RU The same Final Order that disposed of Case Nos. 10- 6205RU and 10-8197RU disposed of Case No. 10-5384RU. The Petitioners in Case No. 10-5384RU were found to lack standing to challenge Original Specific Condition 1 and the petition that initiated the case was dismissed. In addition, the Final Order concluded that had the Petitioners had standing to bring the challenge, the case would still have been decided in favor of the Department. This conclusion was based on the remedy called for by section 120.57(1)(e).27/ That remedy was found to have been achieved when the Department changed Specific Condition 1 to require an ECL rather than a Pre-project MHWL. See Final Order, Case No. 10- 5384RU (DOAH November 4, 2010). In addition to the record made with regard to the three rule challenges during the final hearing on the Sherry and Oceania Petitions, most of the rest of the evidence at the final hearing concerned the application of the regulatory authority of the Department and the Board of Trustees found in the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, especially the environmental impacts of the Project as permitted by the Second Revised Draft JCP and as authorized under the Variance and the Sovereign Submerged Lands Use Authorization. Impacts The depth of OK-A should not exceed -49.4 feet, NGVD in an area where the depth of the ocean bottom is roughly -40 feet, NGVD. The excavation of the borrow site is designed in two dredging phases. The first phase, anticipated to provide up to 116 percent of the sand needed by the Project, is designed to a depth of 47.4 feet. "If for some reason, the contractor needs more sand . . ., then he can move into Phase II . . . [at a depth] of minus 47.4 to minus 49.4 feet [NGVD]. . . [,] a two foot deep layer throughout the entire borrow area." Tr. 165. OK-A is relatively wide, at least as compared to an existing borrow area not far away, the borrow area used for beach restoration in western Walton County and eastern Okaloosa County east of the City of Destin (the "Walton Borrow Area"). It is also a shallow borrow area when its depth is measured from the Gulf floor. It is in deeper water than the Walton Borrow Area. These factors make it less likely to cause impacts to the beach than the Walton Borrow Area.28/ Despite the width of OK-A, its relative shallowness measured from the Gulf floor, and its water depth, Dr. Dally, on behalf of the Petitioners, challenged the Taylor Engineering conclusion that there would be no impacts to the beach from the dredging of Borrow Area OK-A. The challenge from Dr. Dally, however, did not detail what the impacts would be or how serious they would be. Instead, Dr. Dally concluded that "not nearly enough study has been conducted of the proposed borrow area to ascertain that there will be no adverse impacts." Tr. 633. Dr. Dally's challenge to the conclusion by Taylor Engineering of no impacts to the beach from an excavated OK-A begins with an explanation in general of wave dynamics, sediment transport, and borrow site impacts. Wave Dynamics, Littoral Sediment Transport, and Borrow Site Impacts, Generally General Wave Dynamics "[W]aves in very deep water will start to turn and become more shore parallel in the case of Okaloosa County." Tr. 636. As they approach shore, a dynamic process of shoaling and refraction occurs. The waves may also become involved with diffraction. Shoaling is a growth in height from interaction with the shallow bottom or a shoal. Refraction is a process of alignment of waves with bottom contours. Diffraction is a spreading of waves or the bending of waves or change in wave direction after interaction with emergent structures or submerged features. As the process of shoaling, refraction and diffraction takes place, waves may be affected by bottom friction, depending on ocean bottom conditions. Dr. Dally offered the following description of wave changes as they close in on the face of the beach and approach interaction with the shoreline. The description includes the potential impacts of an excavated OK-A on the beaches and shores of Okaloosa Island adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium property: As they pass into the very nearshore . . . they, of course, grow in height. They then break . . . [or] [s]ometimes, as they pass over a [sand]bar, they'll stop breaking. And then begin breaking again when they get right up onto the beach face. Any time you put a bathymetric feature [such as a borrow area] into that otherwise natural system, you affect the wave transformation due to processes dependent upon the character of the perturbation . . . * * * Wave reflection from abrupt bathymetric changes. . . in this case, the landward most . . . notch of the borrow area would be a reflective surface . . . when something has perturbed the wave field like that, defraction [sic] becomes an important process. So, as the waves pass over this proposed borrow area and, especially, over the 10-foot or greater vertical face, they will reflect and begin defraction [sic] so that it becomes a . . . complicated wave field . . . . Tr. 636-7. In addition to the perturbation caused by the borrow area there is another factor at work that has the potential to affect the beach along the condominium properties owned by the Sherry Petitioners: sediment transport. Sediment Transport "Sand can move along or away from the beach in two ways." Tr. 1141. It can move along the shoreline or it can move offshore. Littoral transport of sediment, a factor important to erosion and accretion, is the movement of sediment, mostly sand, along or parallel to shore. It is caused by the intersection of waves that come ashore at an angle to the shoreline, rather than those that break straight onto the beach. The average net long-term littoral transport in the area of the Project and Okaloosa Island is east to west. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan Petitioners own property down-drift from the OK-A site, or to the west. Dr. Young described the beaches down-drift of OK-A at hearing: "[t]hose beaches have, over the . . . last decade or so, been generally stable to accreting. There's a pretty nice beach out there right now." Tr. 1143. This area of the Okaloosa County's beaches and shores is the area most likely to be affected by an excavated OK- A if there are, in fact, any impacts to beaches and shores caused by the dredging of the borrow site. Borrow Site Impacts Two processes affecting waves in the Gulf would occur above an excavated OK-A Borrow Area. The first wave process would be "that part of the wave energy will actually reflect and go back out to sea," tr. 640, in essence, a scattering effect of the energy. Diffraction at the same time would cause the waves to radiate outwards from the borrow area rather than the waves going straight back out to sea. The second wave process creates the potential for the waves to become "very, very, complicated." Tr. 640. They could "trip", that is, the notch in the borrow area could break the waves. "[B]rag scattering" (tr. 641) could make the waves deteriorate into shorter period waves. If there are changes in waves, tide level or current, changes will be caused to the beach. As Dr. Dally succinctly put it at hearing, "[the beach] might erode, it might accrete, it might do both," tr. 641, by virtue of the presence of an excavated OK-A Borrow Area. If the impact of the excavation of the borrow area were to create shorter period waves, the result generally would be erosion. If the impact created longer period waves which generate water movement deep into the water column the result generally would be accretion. The borrow area has the potential in Dr. Dally's opinion to create both longer and shorter period waves. Wave angle of the waves breaking on the beach also is a factor in beach impacts. But Dr. Dally was unable to predict the impacts of the excavation of OK-A to Okaloosa Island beaches and shores without more study, data and analysis as to what effects a dredged OK-A would have on wave period and wave angle and the concomitant sediment transport. Just as Mr. Trudnak, Mr. Clark concluded that OK-A is too far offshore to cause adverse impacts to the beach. If, however, the Project were to utilize a borrow area along the same stretch of the beach but much closer to shore as in the case of the Anna Maria Island Project in which the borrow area was only 1000 feet from the shoreline, erosion impacts could occur on part of the beach. Beneficial impacts in such a case would occur to the beach downdrift of the borrow area. In the Anna Maria Island Project, beaches far enough to the south which were downdrift of the borrow area accreted. The impact to the Sherry and Donovan Properties, both being downdrift of a borrow area located along the same stretch of beach but within 1000 feet of shore and closer in than OK-A, would likely be beneficial. The area of shoreline that would be affected by wave impacts from an excavated OK-A is larger than the area in the immediate shadow zone of the borrow site, that is, a shadow zone perpendicular from the borrow site to the shore. The area affected by wave impacts depends on the angle of the waves. In the Destin area and along Okaloosa Island where the Sherry Petitioners reside, the waves come ashore predominately out of the east. If the waves come ashore along Okaloosa Island at a strongly oblique angle (more directly from the east), "the shadow zone now stretches further to the west and the diffraction pattern . . . increases the size of the shadow zone," tr. 680, to a size much larger "than the actual shadow zone of the . . . borrow area." Id. Along these same lines, if there are impacts to the beach caused by a dredged OK-A, the impacts should be greater the closer the beach is to the footprint of a dredged OK-A. Given the predominate tendency of the waves to come from the east along Okaloosa Island, if the beaches alongside both the Surf Dweller Property and the El Matador Property are affected, the beach alongside the Surf Dweller Property will incur the greater impact. Likewise, if beach impacts are incurred by beach alongside only one property or the other, it is much more likely that the beach alongside the Surf Dweller Property will be affected than the beach alongside the El Matador Property. Distance of an offshore borrow area from the shore is critical to the effect of the borrow area on diffraction and wave dynamics. If the borrow area is far off shore, as in the case of the alternative, potential borrow site identified by Taylor Engineering, OK-B, then, as explained by Dr. Dally, diffraction "has a lot of time and a lot of opportunity to smooth the waves out once again and things become uniform when they hit the beach." Tr. 645. A borrow area that is closer to the beach has higher potential for creating impacts. Dr. Dally again: "[I]f you move the borrow area closer to the beach, you have this scattering pattern induced by the reflection and the diffraction and refraction that doesn't have time to smooth itself out. And that's when you can really cause impacts to the beach, both accretive and erosive impacts." Id. (emphasis added). The underscored sentence from Dr. Dally's testimony quoted in the previous paragraph was directly addressed in the County's case through Mr. Trudnak's determination that OK-A, although not as far away as OK-B, is far enough away from the beach that it will not cause adverse impacts to the beach. Again, Dr. Dally's testimony, despite the underscored testimony in the previous paragraph, is not that OK-A will, in fact, cause impacts to the beach. His testimony, rather, is the equivalent of a statement that the closer a borrow area is to the beach the more likely that it will have impacts to the beach and that at some point, a borrow area, will be so close to the beach, that adverse impacts will occur. The fact that OK-A is much closer to the beach than OK-B does not mean that an excavated OK-A will cause impacts to the beach. Impacts of an excavated OK-A depend upon OK-A's actual distance from the beach rather than OK-A's distance relative to OK-B's distance. Thus, while it may be determined that the likelihood of impacts to the beach is greater in the case of OK-A than in the case of OK-B, actual impacts from OK-A to the beach (as far as the effect of distance) is a function of OK-A's actual distance from the beach without regard to OK-B's distance from the beach. In addition to Dr. Dally's certitude that there will be impacts to the beach by virtue of the presence of a dredged OK-A, Dr. Dally also took issue with the method by which Taylor Engineering reached the conclusion of no impacts in the OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. The OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Generally Mr. Trudnak was part of the Taylor Engineering team that prepared the Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. Mr. Trudnak was not the only expert to defend the report's conclusion of no impact to the beach. The report was reviewed by Mr. Clark, the Department's expert, who also opined that there would be no impacts. Mr. Clark relied on more than the report for his opinion. He also relied on his extensive experience with beach restoration projects and monitoring data for those projects and visual observation of those projects post-construction. The only numerical data analysis specific to the excavation of the OK-A Borrow Area, however, that the Department used in determining that excavation of OK-A would not have any adverse impacts to the shoreline and coastal systems of Okaloosa Island was the Taylor Engineering OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. The Report described its evaluative efforts: [T]his report evaluates two potential dredging templates in terms of their impacts on wave and tidal current patterns during normal and extreme conditions. The evaluation requires analysis of the wave climate and tidal currents before and after the borrow area dredging. The analysis required a balance between minimizing impacts to wave climate and current patterns, and providing acceptable nourishment volumes. STWAVE (Steady-State Spectral Wave Model) simulated normal (average) and extreme (100- year (yr) storm) waves propagating over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetries. ADCIRC hydrodynamic modeling simulated tidal flow over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetries for normal (spring) and extreme (100-yr storm) tide conditions. A comparison of the baseline and post dredging model results established the effects of borrow area dredging on the neighboring shorelines (Destin and Eglin AFB) and the inlet. County Ex. 1, Okaloosa County Sand Search Borrow Area Impact Analysis, at 6. Thus, the STWAVE modeling conducted by Taylor as part of the analysis attempted to simulate normal (average) and extreme (100-year storm) waves propagating over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetrics. Taylor Engineering relied on WIS (Wave Information Study) results in performing its STWAVE modeling. WIS data is not measured wave data. Instead, it consists of numerical information generated by specific stations in wind fields in various locations around the Gulf of Mexico. The data is then placed in a model coded to represent the entire Gulf. The WIS station from which data was collected by Taylor Engineering is located approximately 10 miles offshore where the depth is approximately 85 feet. It would have been preferable to have used comprehensive field measurement, that is, data obtained from wave gauges on both sides of the borrow area over enough time to support use of the data, rather than WIS data. Comprehensive field measurement would have produced much more information from which to predict impacts to the beach. As Dr. Dally explained, however, If you don't have [field measurement data], then . . . especially over the long-term . . . a year or more [or] if you're analyzing your beach profile data over a 10 year period, you would like to have . . . wave data to accompany that 10 year period. Generally we don’t and that's when we start relying on models to fill in this missing information. Tr. 645-6 (emphasis added). This testimony was consistent with Mr. Trudnak's testimony: the problem with field measurement is that "the useful data that you [get] from [field measurement] gauges is . . . limited to [the] deployment period." Tr. 1234. It is not practical to take 10 years' worth of field measurement. As Mr. Trudnak explained: Typically, you would install those gauges for . . . a month or a couple of months . . . you want to use representative conditions . . . you try to pick a winter month and a summer month so you can try to capture those extremes and wave conditions. * * * [W]hen you . . . install those gauges in the field, you have no idea what those conditions are going to be during your deployment period. You can install your wave gauge for a month in the winter but that can be an unusually calm month, it could be an unusually severe month. So, it's really hit or miss, whether you . . . capture representative conditions. Id. (emphasis added). The WIS information utilized is hind-casted. Hind- casting is a method for developing deepwater WIS data using historic weather information to drive numerical models. The result is a simulated wave record. The WIS information utilized includes 20 years of hind-cast information. The purpose of using such a lengthy period of information is that it ensures that representative conditions are captured in the data for purpose of the analysis. Such "lengthy period" information overcomes the concern that there is not enough data to capture representative conditions as in the case of typical field measurement data. For its extreme STWAVE modeling, Taylor relied on WIS information generated during Hurricane Opal in 1995. Analysis of the model results showed negligible impacts on wave height under normal conditions and increased wave height during extreme conditions. Increased wave height during extreme conditions, however, was no closer than 300 feet from the shoreline. The increased wave height and wave angle in storm conditions were far enough offshore that they "never impacted the actual breaking wave height on the beach." Tr. 151. The model's prediction of no impacts in wave height on the shoreline due to a dredged OK-A and no change in sediment transport rate by virtue of the presence of a dredged OK-A led Taylor Engineering to conclude that whether in normal or extreme conditions, a dredged OK-A Borrow Area would not cause impacts to the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County. Criticisms of Taylor's STWAVE Modeling Dr. Dally offered four basic criticisms of Taylor Engineering's STWAVE Modeling: a) the model did not account for wave transformation processes caused by bottom friction between the WIS Station (10 miles out in the Gulf) and the OK-A site; b) the model was not calibrated or verified; c) the model did not sufficiently account for wave transformation impacts from the dredging of Site OK-A; and d) Taylor did not plot wave direction results from its STWAVE models or conduct any sediment transport analysis. Mr. Trudnak offered refutations of the criticisms. For example, taking the first of them, wave transformation processes caused by bottom friction between the WIS Station and the OK-A site were not accounted for by Taylor Engineering in its analysis because "most of that distance [between the WIS Station and the OK-A site] is deep water, meaning the waves aren't . . . feeling the bottom so they're not being affected by the bottom friction." Tr. 1236. The refutations were not entirely successful. The second of Petitioners' experts, Dr. Young cast doubt on the validity of all modeling no matter how well any particular modeling activity might meet the criticisms leveled by Dr. Dally against Taylor Engineering's effort. Dr. Young accepted Dr. Dally's testimony about why Taylor Engineering's modeling were not sufficient to support an opinion of "no impacts", but he differed with Dr. Dally as to whether coastal engineering models should be utilized to predict impacts to beaches.29/ See Tr. 1157. Dr. Dally believes in the benefits of modeling as long as the modeling is conducted properly. Dr. Young does not. It is his opinion that no model produces a projection that is precisely accurate but the essence of his criticism is that "we don't know how wrong the models are." Tr. 1159. Models are "incapable of quantifying the uncertainty or how right or wrong that they might be." Id. With regard to the modeling used in Taylor's Borrow Area Impact Analysis, Dr. Young summed up: [W]hen we do this model run, especially with a model that isn't calibrated or verified, we get an answer . . . it's not precisely the right answer, but . . . nobody knows how wrong the answer is. I don't know it, Mr. Trudnak doesn't know and Mr. Clark doesn't know. And that's why being prudent is important and why relying on the monitoring data is critical because the monitoring data is real data. Tr. 1160. In contrast to Dr. Young, Dr. Dally, consistent with his faith in models appropriate for the investigation and conducted properly, took another tack in attacking the modeling used by Taylor Engineering. He criticized Taylor Engineering's failure to use a more comprehensive wave transformation model: the Boussinesq Model. Dr. Dally opined that the Boussinesq Model was superior to STWAVE principally because it takes diffraction into account. But Petitioners did not produce any off-shore Borrow Area Impacts Analyses which used the Boussinesq Model, and Mr. Trudnak testified that he was unaware of any.30/ Taylor Engineering used STWAVE and not Boussinesq as the model for the Borrow Area Impact Analysis because the Boussinesq Model is typically used where diffraction plays the dominant role, that is, within areas like inlets or ports which have structures that will cause wave perturbation. The open coast is not such an area, making the STWAVE Model, if not more appropriate than the Boussinesq Model, certainly an acceptable model under the Project's circumstances. When asked about the Bousinessq modeling's application in the context of his testimony that he could not say what would be the impacts of the dredging of the OK-A Borrow Area, their extent or whether they would be adverse, Dr. Dally testified that based on his experience (rather than actual testing or modeling the impacts of OK-A as done by Taylor), he was "almost certain," tr. 691, that Bousinessq modeling would show impacts to the beach adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador Properties that could be a "type of accretion . . . [that is] momentary . . . due to the propagation of these features as they go up and down the beach." Id. This statement is consistent with Mr. Clark's opinion that if the Project's borrow area were within 1000 feet of shore, the impact of dredging OK-A to the Sherry and Donovan Properties would be beneficial. When asked if the beaches would develop scalloping (sand erosion in some areas and accretion in others), Dr. Dally said, "Right. This [wave transformation process caused by an excavated OK-A borrow area] makes a scalloping." Tr. 692. Perhaps the dredging of Borrow Area OK-A would aggravate scalloping along the shores of Okaloosa County but they would not create scalloping of an "un-scalloped" coastal system. Scalloping features in the Okaloosa Island portion of Santa Rosa Island existed at the time of final hearing. In short, Dr. Dally roundly criticized Taylor Engineering's STWAVE modeling. As to the impacts he was sure would occur, he was unable to state whether they would be adverse, beneficial or both. Most importantly to the weight to be assigned his testimony, he was unable to testify as to how significant the impacts would be; one cannot determine from his testimony whether the impacts will be entirely de minimus, see rule 62B-41.002(19)(c) or whether some could be significant, see rule 62B-41.002(19)(a). Dr. Dally's testimony with regard to the creation by the Project of scalloping did not indicate the significance of that scalloping to the coastal system of Okaloosa County, a system whose ocean bottom, beaches and shores already contain scalloped features. Suppositive impacts that would be caused by the Project to the beaches of Okaloosa County were not the only attack by Petitioners. They also challenged the impact analysis on the basis of the opinion that adverse impacts had been caused to beaches by another beach restoration project and its borrow area not far away: the Walton Project. The Walton Project and Its Borrow Area Completed in the late spring of 2007, the Walton Project placed sand dredged from the Walton Borrow Area on approximately 7 miles of beach in eastern Okaloosa County (East Destin) and western Walton County. Just as in the case of the Western Destin Project, Taylor Engineering performed a borrow site impact analysis for the borrow site used in the Walton Project. Location and Comparison to the OK-A Borrow Area The northwest corner of the Walton Borrow Area is roughly 2.75 miles from the northernmost point of the western boundary of the OK-A Borrow Site. See Ex. P-13. The area between the easternmost point of the OK-A Borrow site and the westernmost point of the Walton Borrow Area, therefore, is roughly half that distance or 1.375 miles. The northwest corner of the Walton Borrow Area is approximately 0.8 miles offshore; its easternmost point is roughly one-half mile off-shore. Comparison of the Walton Borrow Area and OK-A shows that OK-A is larger and will have more sand removed. It is also wider, shallow when measured from the Gulf floor, and in deeper water than the Walton Borrow Area. Nonetheless, Petitioners characterize the two borrow sites as similar,31/ mainly because with less than 1.5 miles separating them, they are relatively close to each other. Despite proximity, there are significant differences, however, between the two. A wider, less deeply dredged borrow area would have less impacts than one deeper and narrower. OK- A's location in deeper water makes it less likely to affect waves and current than the Walton Borrow Area. The footprints of the borrow areas are dissimilar. The Walton Borrow Area has an irregular shape. OK-A is in the shape of a rectangle with a uniform dredging depth although "the depth of sand that is dredged will taper off . . . further offshore . . .[s]o that the seaward most edge does not have significant thickness of sand. The maximum cut is towards the northern boundary." Tr. 306. In addition to distance from shore, the predominately significant difference between the two is the presence on the Gulf floor in the vicinity of the Walton Borrow Area of an ebb shoal: a large deposit of sediment. The ebb shoal exists because of interaction between East Pass and the waves, tides and currents of the Gulf. The Walton Borrow Area is "close to the East Pass ebb shoal . . . and it included the outer flanks of the ebb shoal." Tr. 155. It makes the littoral zone for the Walton Project more active than the littoral zone near which OK-A is located. Located a significant distance to the west of the East Pass ebb shoal, OK-A would not interact with its littoral zone in the way the Walton Borrow Area interacts with its littoral zone. Walton Borrow Area Impact Analysis and Monitoring Taylor Engineering's borrow area impact analysis for the Walton Borrow Area was similar to the impact analysis for OK-A in that both consisted of "wave models and hydrodynamic models." Tr. 156. The Walton impact analysis showed "one potential impact area about 2,000 feet long [on the beach] just west of East Pass," id., an impact area also described as extending from approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet west of the westernmost jetty at East Pass. It anticipated that impact would be caused by wave action due to the perturbation resulting from the presence of the dredged Walton Borrow Area. The potential impact was projected by the analysis to be a reduction in the sediment supply to the beaches west of East Pass by 11,000 cubic yards per year. Because of that reduction, DEP included a mitigation condition in the Walton Project permit: placement of 55,000 cubic yards on the impacted beach. As a condition of the Walton Project, Taylor Engineering conducted monitoring of the impacts to the beach from the project in general and in particular from the Walton Borrow Area. At the time of hearing, reports for 2007, 2008, and 2009 had been completed and the engineering firm was working on the 2010 report. Mr. Trudnak described the results from the monitoring through 2008 at hearing. From the period of pre-construction in 2006 through immediate post-construction, the monitoring revealed "a huge volume of erosion." Tr. 159. Subsequent analysis from 2007 to 2008 revealed "a huge amount of accretion that actually exceeded the amount of erosion from the previous year." Id. The volumes of erosion and accretion "seemed abnormal." Id. The bottom line, however, of the two years of data is that the early erosion was more than countered by the accretion that occurred into 2008. After describing the impacts in the first two years of monitoring, Mr. Trudnak stressed the importance of what was revealed by additional monitoring. "[M]ore important is the long term trend . . . ." Id. From 2006 through 2009, the monitoring area "as a whole, actually accreted, it gained sand." Tr. 160. Determining the impacts to the beach caused by the Walton Project is complicated because of impacts caused by behavior of the beach at the time of construction and earlier. Consistent with the Department's "critically eroded" designations, data from March of 1996 (not long after Hurricane Opal), data from June, 2004 (before Hurricane Ivan) and 2006 pre- construction data showed the shoreline adjacent to the Walton Project Area to have been receding landward at a rapid rate. This "background" erosion is due mainly to the effects of tropical storms. In the wake of the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area it was difficult for Taylor Engineering to determine what impacts were caused by "background" erosion due to tropical storms and what impacts were caused by the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area. In contrast, it is not difficult to determine from monitoring data in the three years after construction of the Walton Project, however, that the beach west of the borrow area has accreted and that this appears to be the long-term trend. Tr. 159. Contrary to conclusions Petitioners would have drawn from the evidence presented by their experts, the more comprehensive data indicates that the Walton Project (including its borrow area) is having a beneficial impact on the beaches to the west of the project and its borrow area. Dr. Young opined on behalf of Petitioners that the problem with the OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis is that it is based on modeling which is far inferior to "real world" data. His opinion that actual data is superior to data generated by modeling, no doubt, is sound. The only "real world" data that will prove any impacts for sure, whether adverse or beneficial, from a dredged OK-A, however, is after-the-fact monitoring data. Such data is usually obtained annually after the construction of a project or after major storm events. It consists of obtaining near-shore and offshore monitoring profiles and involves determining shoreline changes and volumetric beach changes.32/ In the absence of data from monitoring impacts of a dredged OK-A, Dr. Young opined that the data derived from monitoring the Walton Borrow Area which showed erosion early after completion of the Project is superior to the modeling data reviewed by Taylor Engineering in predicting impacts to Santa Rosa Island beaches. There are two problems, however, with Dr. Young's conclusion. First, beach impacts after the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area do not necessarily support similar impacts from a dredged OK-A because the two borrow areas are materially different. Second, the trend revealed by the more comprehensive data gathered in the wake of the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area is that the beach is receiving impacts which are beneficial. Reasonable persons might differ as to the outcome of reasonable assurances with regard to impacts based on the testimony of Mr. Trudnak and Drs. Dally and Young. The balance, however, swings clearly in favor of the applicant in consideration of the testimony of Ralph Clark. Mr. Clark and The Department's Review of Western Destin Project Borrow Site Impacts Ralph Clark is a Registered Professional Engineer in Florida. The recent recipient of the Stan Tate Award from the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, a lifetime achievement award for work over the years in beach preservation, at the time of hearing, Mr. Clark had worked for 37 years for the State of Florida as a coastal engineer. During his long career, Mr. Clark has worked on the State's two separate regulatory programs in the arena of beach management: a "Wet Beach Program, which is working below Mean High Water and includes projects such as beach restoration" tr. 485, and "the more dry beach program which involves construction seaward of Coastal Construction Control Lines and activities landward of Mean High Water . . . ." Id. He has been involved with the Department's Beach Management Program, a grants program for cost-sharing with local governments to develop a long-term comprehensive management plan for the state to solve critical impact problems around Florida which may include erosion. He has conducted or prepared the Critically Eroded Beaches Report every year "going back to the late 1980's" id., and he has "conducted Beach Erosion Studies and Storm Damage Impact Investigations around the State for the past four decades." Tr. 486. Among his specific duties is the review of "scopes of work and project feasibility studies that are provided . . . by the [Department's] Beach Management Section." Id. In this capacity, Mr. Clark conducted the Department's engineering review of the Western Destin permit application and additional information related to the Project. After review, Mr. Clark reached the conclusion that the "Project is a well designed Beach Restoration Project that's critically needed . . . to restore the beaches of Western Destin to provide needed storm protection, recreational benefits and wildlife habitat." Tr. 488. With regard to his overall conclusion as to the Project's physical impacts, Mr. Clark testified: Id. In my opinion, the placement of 831,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand fill along Western Destin will provide a positive, beneficial impact to the beach and dune system of Western Destin. The excavation of that material from the proposed borrow area [OK-A], along with the excavation of material for four other fill projects proposed for Santa Rosa Island, three of which have been approved, is not expected to have any adverse impact to the beaches of Santa Rosa Island. Mr. Clark's opinions that the Project would be beneficial to the beach and dune system and that the excavation of OK-A is not expected to have adverse impacts have a solid base. His opinions are founded on extensive experience with beach restoration projects over 37 years; extensive experience with coastal processes, coastal morphology, and coastal hydrodynamics; review of the application and supporting information; experience with the Project area and vicinity; extensive experience with coastal storm impacts and beach erosion; and review of roughly three dozen technical documents. Mr. Clark has reviewed 136 beach restoration projects. Of these, 111 were in Florida, six in other states and Puerto Rico, and 19 in countries on every continent in the world other than Asia. But coastal engineering experience in Asia is not missing from Mr. Clark's resume. He has conducted beach erosion control projects and coastal and shore protection projects (as distinguished from beach restoration projects) in that continent as well. Among the "countless number" tr. 490, of such projects he has reviewed are ones in the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, China, and the Bahamas." Id. The reason his experience extended beyond the State of Florida to nations all over the world is because "the Florida Beach Preservation Program is internationally recognized." Id. The State has received many requests for technical assistance from various world governments. Mr. Clark has also in his time away from his employment with the state served as a consultant to the governments of Mexico, the Cayman Islands, and the Island Nation of St. Bartholomew and the French West Indies. Mr. Clark has investigated the impacts of 83 tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico. Most investigations have been in Florida but some have been in other Gulf states and along the coast of the country of Mexico. During some of those investigations and while acting as a coastal engineer for the state, Mr. Clark visited the vicinity of Santa Rosa Island 176 times, excluding academic field trips. In his capacity as a state coastal engineer, Mr. Clark provided the Department with detailed damage assessments for each of the eight tropical storms noted in the Consolidated NOI for the Western Destin Project Over his 37 years, Mr. Clark served on numerous task forces, committees and technical advisory groups relating to erosion control and beach management efforts by states along the Gulf and Mexico. Mr. Clark's early reports were used in the development of the state's Strategic Beach Management Plan and he prepared the first "Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida document" tr. 494, now electronically available to the public on the Department's website. The report prepared by Mr. Clark which led to the designation of the Western Destin Project beach as critically eroded showed that the areas from R-17 to roughly R-20.3 and R- 23.2 to R-25.5 revealed erosion through deflation of the beach profile and recession of the shoreline to such an extent that upland development and infrastructure would be threatened. The report is based on evaluation and projection of the impact of a 25-year storm event. The same report did not conclude that a 25-year storm event would provide the same level of threat to the area between R-20.3 and R-23.2 (the shoreline along the MACLA Intervenors' Property and the Oceania Gap) although that stretch of the beach is "potentially threatened by a 50 to a 100-year storm event." Tr. 499. The "R-20.3 to R-23.2" segment was included in the critically eroded designation for design and integrity of the Project and continuity of management of the coastal system. The designation of the Project area as critically eroded was made in 2006 and was updated by the Department at the request of the County in 2008. The 2008 update indicated no need to change the designation. Although not as threatened as the rest of the shoreline in the Project, the shoreline along the Middle Segment, (including the MACLA Intervernors' Property and the Oceania Gap) is erosional. Data obtained as late as October 19, 2009, indicate that there had been more erosion since a Mean High Water Survey located the MHWL in 2008. The data does not show volumetric change, only that "there is a continued trend of erosion" of the shoreline in the Oceania Gap. Tr. 506. With the Oceania Gap eliminated from the Project, elimination of the rest of the property in the Project's Middle Segment (between R-20.3 and R-23.2) would make the remainder of the Project unstable. It would "isolate a 2,000-foot segment between R-23.2 and R-25.5 [the Eastern Segment] . . . and a 2,000-foot fill segment is not long enough to be a stable fill segment." Tr. 507. Although the elimination of all of the Middle Segment would not hurt "the very far west end" of the Project "very much," tr. 508, the elimination of the entire Middle Segment from the Project would also make the very east end of the Western Segment "relatively unstable." Tr. 508. The Middle Segment, therefore, while not critically eroded, would benefit from beach restoration. Restoration will provide protection from the erosion it is experiencing and from 50-year and 100-year storm events should they occur during the life of the restoration. Restoration will include dune work that will provide protection from storm surge and dissipate the wave energy seaward of any structures in the Middle Segment. Recent storm events have been 50-year and 100-year events. In the area of the Project, "Hurricane Opal was comparable to a 100-year storm event." Tr. 509. In Pensacola Beach, Ivan was a 200-year event. In the Destin area, Ivan "probably dropped to just below a 100-year storm event in terms of its magnitude. Hurricane Dennis was probably comparable to a 50-year storm event." Id. The best defense against 25-year, 50-year, and 100- year storm events is beach restoration. The OK-A Borrow Area is an offshore borrow area. Mr. Clark gave a few examples of other borrow areas that are offshore borrow areas and that are as large as OK-A. These were borrow areas used in the restoration of beaches in Panama City, Delray Beach, Canaveral Shoals, and Anna Maria Island. In addition to Taylor's Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report, Mr. Clark based his opinion on review of monitoring data for the many restoration projects with which he has been involved. Mr. Clark has reviewed borrow area impacts on beach restoration projects that have had adverse impacts. But these projects, typically, were "in inlet ebb tidal deltas of tidal inlets." Tr. 518. Located about three miles east of the ebb shoal of East Pass, OK-A is not an inlet-related borrow area. Of the 111 beach restoration projects that Mr. Clark reviewed, there was one that had an off-shore borrow area that adversely impacted the adjacent beach: the Anna Maria Island Project. The Anna Maria Island Borrow Area was located "roughly 1,000 feet off the [adjacent] beach . . . ." Tr. 519. In comparison, OK-A "is four to five times further offshore than the Anna Maria Island borrow area." Tr. 520. If instead of OK-A, the Project were to use a borrow area as close to the shore as the Anna Maria Island Borrow Area, its impacts to the shoreline would be both adverse and beneficial. The impact to adjacent beach would be erosion, but to the beach to the west of the borrow area the impact would be accretion. Mr. Clark's opinion of no impacts to the beach from dredging OK-A would be entirely different if OK-A had been located in the near-shore zone where "it's a whole different ball game." Tr. 532. The location of OK-A, between 4,000 and 5,000 feet offshore is in a zone that is "no problem," that is, it is not in the near-shore and far enough off shore that it will not cause impacts, adverse or beneficial, to the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County. For all his experience and coastal engineering prowess, Mr. Clark is not an expert in modeling. He relies on others within the Department to evaluate the sufficiency of a model or its methodologies. Mr. Clark did not ask anyone in the Department to evaluate the models used by Taylor Engineering. Dr. Young disagreed with the opinions of Mr. Trudnak and Mr. Clark that there would be no adverse impacts to the beach. He was sure that the dredging of OK-A would cause an adverse impact that would be either erosion or a decrease in the accretion that occurred in recent years along the beaches of Okaloosa Island. Dr. Young also cast doubt on Mr. Clark's experience as support for the opinion that dredging of OK-A would cause no adverse impacts. "Nobody believes there's ever been an adverse impact from a borrow area . . . ." Tr. 1206. Dr. Young used the "real world" experience with the Walton Borrow Area to back up that doubt. "[T]he problem is that we're not doing a good job of monitoring this project [the Walton Project] and the problem is convenient interpretation of the monitoring results." Id. Dr. Young's doubt about the value of Mr. Clark's experience was tempered by the reality of beach restoration in contrast to other types of projects whose failure was sudden, dramatic and easily discernible. Dr. Young: [W]hen a bridge collapses, civil engineers converge on that failed project and they learn more from that failure than they could ever learn from a bridge that lasted 30 years. And . . . one of the problems with coastal project design is that never happens. We never have a beach nourishment project that disappears in six months or a borrow area that causes erosion and coastal engineers converge from around the country and say, wow, here's a project that went wrong. And I think that is one of the hurdles that we need to cross in order to do a better job of project design. * * * We have no clear definition of what a failed project is. So, that way you can never have one that fails. And to me, a failed project is one that does not meet the promises made in the design of that project. And a failed project is also one where there are impacts that occur as a result of the project that are not adequately mitigated or anticipated. Tr. 1150-1. When asked the question of whether there is a definition of a failed beach restoration project in the literature or that is generally accepted by the coastal engineering community, see tr. 1152, Dr. Young testified, "I have not seen one." Tr. 1152. He added, " I would assume they might offer a similar definition [to mine], if the project doesn't work the way we said it would, then we would consider that a failure. But there is certainly not large scale discussion of projects that did not perform as designed." Tr. 1152-3. Dr. Young, like Dr. Dally, did not perform any analysis to quantify any degree of erosion or decreased accretion. Nor has he ever performed modeling to analyze borrow area impacts in keeping with his view of the inutility of modeling for accurate prediction of beach impacts. Variance The "Variance" referenced in the Consolidated NOI concerns two related variances: one from rule 62- 4.242(2)(a)2.b., and the other from rule 62-4.244(5)(c). The northern boundary of the proposed borrow area is within Outstanding Florida Waters ("OFW"). That location led the County to seek a variance from the limitation in rule 62- 4.242(2)(a)2.b. that turbidity can exceed background conditions in OFW during permitted construction activity for no more than 30 days. Section (2) of rule 62-4.242 sets "standards applying to Outstanding Florida Waters." Subsection (a)2.b of section (2) of the rule reads as follows: (a) no Department permit . . . shall be issued for any proposed activity . . . within an [OFW] or which degrades an [OFW], unless the applicant affirmatively demonstrates that: * * * 2. The proposed activity . . . is clearly in the public interest, and . . . * * * b. the existing ambient water quality within [the OFW] will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity . . . , except on a temporary basis during construction for a period not to exceed thirty days . . . . The County also sought a variance from rule 62- 4.244(5)(c) which governs mixing zones in surface waters and reads: In no case shall the boundary of a dredge and fill mixing zone be more than . . . 150 meters in radius in . . . bodies of water [other than flowing streams], where these distances are measured from the cutterhead, return flow, discharge or other points of generation of turbidity or other pollutants. Section 120.54(2) authorizes an agency to grant a variance as follows: Variances . . . shall be granted when the person subject to the rule demonstrates that the purpose of the underlying statute will be or has been achieved by other means by the person and when application of a rule would create a substantial hardship or violate principles of fairness. Nephelometric turbidity units ("NTUs") in OFWs cannot exceed zero at the edge of the 150 meter radius referenced in rule 62-4.244(5)(c). To keep NTUs at zero outside the 150 meter radius, the County "would have had to almost continually be shutting down . . . .[its hopper] dredge," tr. 415, because the turbidity plume created by the hopper dredge's activity would have regularly extended beyond the 150 meter radius. Use of a different type of dredge (such as a cutterhead) would not alleviate the need for the variances for the construction of the Project. A cutterhead dredge is substantially more expensive with regard to both mobilization costs and actual dredging: $15-$20 per cubic yard versus $8 per cubic yard for a hopper dredge. Cutterhead dredges, moreover, do not operate in waves as effectively as hopper dredges. In rough water, "a cutterhead would see much more down time and conditions [could cause] a cutterhead . . . to stop dredging and go into safe harbor into East Pass." Tr. 173. The variance from rule 62-4.244(5)(c), therefore, was needed because the standard size mixing zone would have created a substantial hardship for the County. In addition to outlining the substantial hardship, the County provided two additional bases in its application to justify the variances: (a) no resources in the area, such as hard bottom or sea-grass beds, would be affected by a turbidity plume and an expanded mixing zone; and (b) citation to the Pensacola Naval Air Station ("NAS") project claimed to be similar in that it involved OFW and had received a variance. Upon receipt of the application for the variances, the Department requested additional information to establish whether OK-A, in fact, would be within OFW and more analysis of the comparability with the Pensacola NAS project. The Department's engineering section determined that the comparability of the Pensacola NAS project was not adequately demonstrated because of a lack of detail about the hydrodynamics and mixing zone sizes of the two sites. Nonetheless, the staff responsible for making the final decision on the variances (and ultimately the Department) determined the County's information justifying the variances to be sufficient. In granting the variances, the Department did not rely on the County's comparison of the Project to the Pensacola NAS project. As explained by Dr. Edwards at hearing, "[H]aving the data . . . from an actual project to back up and . . . calibrate a mixing zone is an added bonus, but we just didn't have it in this particular case." Tr. 420. The Department based its decision, in part, however, on background knowledge from permitting of borrow areas and beach projects "all over the Panhandle," tr. 421, and the data gathered from them including "data from side scan sonar from seismic information all along this area." Id. Included in this background is knowledge of a similar mixing zone of 1,500 meters established for one of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects which excavated OK-A with a hopper dredge and in which the 1500- meter mixing zone was determined to be appropriate. Independent of the information provided by the County, the decision, therefore, was founded on the Department's own knowledge that no resources would be impacted by an expanded mixing zone and that there was a comparable project in the area (not the Pensacola NAS project) that had been allowed a 1500- meter mixing zone. In applying the standard from section 120.54(2) related to the underlying intent of the rules at issue and the statutes, the Department determined that "[t]he Project in the OFW was clearly in the public interests, according to [section] 373.414 and the minimum Water Quality Standards, even within the mixing zone[,] would still be met." Tr. 421-2. There were at least two other mitigating factors that the Department entertained as support for its decision. First, because of the difficulty in controlling turbidity in open waters in the Gulf, the 1,500-meter mixing zone established by the Consolidated NOI actually "is on the small side," tr. 422, of a mixing zone for the dredging of a borrow area to serve a beach restoration project. Second, 29 NTUs is the maximum turbidity allowed in waters that are not OFW. An extended mixing zone to allow the County to exceed 29 NTUs outside OFW was not granted as part of the variances under the Consolidated NOI. Petitioners presented no evidence to rebut the testimony elicited by the Department and the County that the purpose of the statute underlying the rules from which the variances are sought will be met by other means and that the application of the rules will create a substantial hardship. Changed Site Conditions 267. Rule 62B-49.005(16) provides: If site conditions change during the processing of an application to such an extent that the data already provided can no longer be used to determine consistency as provided in this chapter, then the application shall be denied unless the applicant agrees to waive the 9-day time requirements of Chapter 120.60, Florida Statutes, and provides the additional information required to reanalyze the application. After the filing of the County's application, malfunction of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to the Oil Spill, a discharge of a massive amount of oil and natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico. No evidence was presented that showed the Oil Spill had caused impacts to the OK-A Borrow Area. The permit was revised, nonetheless, to add language in the wake of the Oil Spill that requires the County to visually inspect the borrow area prior to construction activity and to analyze sand samples from the borrow area. The County, therefore, plans to send a diver to collect samples to be analyzed for contamination. See tr. 175. Western Destin Erosion Control Line The requirement for an Erosion Control Line is in section 161.161: Once a project is determined to be undertaken, a survey of all or part of the shoreline within the jurisdiction of the local government in which the beach is located shall be conducted in order to . . . locate an erosion control line. * * * In lieu of conducting a survey, the board of trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by the appropriate local government if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. § 161.161(3), Fla. Stat. The Draft JCP as originally issued did not require the establishment of an ECL. It required the establishment of a Pre- project Mean High Water Line instead. The Second Revised Draft JCP dispensed with the requirement of a Pre-project MHWL. It requires that an ECL be established for all properties within the 1.7 miles stretch of beach in the Project area subject to beach restoration.
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 issuing the Joint Coastal Permit, Variance, and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization as revised during the course of these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2011, 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 29th day of June, 2011.
The Issue Did Respondent, Robert Skidmore, III, violate section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ by using his position as county commissioner to ask a county staff member to approve a zoning application for Beach Road Boutique? Did Mr. Skidmore violate section 112.313(6) by asking a county employee to look for and selectively enforce code violations against J.J.'s Restaurant?
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Skidmore was a Charlotte County commissioner. Beach Road Boutique Zoning Scott and Jill Hemmes, constituents of Mr. Skidmore, owned a business known as Beach Road Boutique in Charlotte County. They sought to obtain a state alcoholic beverage sales license. In order to obtain a license, the applicant must demonstrate local zoning approval. Charlotte County Commission employees enforce and apply zoning regulations in the county. Erin Mullen-Travis is the licensing manager for Charlotte County Planning and Development. During 2011, she was the code compliance and licensing manager. Ms. Mullen-Travis has worked for Charlotte County over 26 years. One of Ms. Mullen-Travis's duties as code compliance and licensing manager was the review and approval of the zoning requirements on applications of establishments wanting alcoholic beverage licenses. Ms. Mullen-Travis first denied the zoning application of Beach Road Boutique on February 17, 2011. Mr. and Ms. Hemmes sought Mr. Skidmore's assistance getting approval for their zoning application. Mr. Skidmore called Ms. Mullen-Travis about the application. Mr. Skidmore told Ms. Mullen-Travis that he had some nice people in his office and that he needed help getting zoning approval for them. In her 26 years of employment with Charlotte County, Mr. Skidmore was the only county commissioner who had ever directly sought her assistance with constituent matters. Other commissioners had always gone through the chain-of-command. He identified the applicant, and Ms. Mullen-Travis explained why the zoning had not been approved. Ms. Mullen-Travis felt intimidated by Mr. Skidmore. Mr. Skidmore, however, did not threaten Ms. Mullen-Travis or explicitly offer any reward available to him because of his position as county commissioner. He did, however, implicitly offer a reward, if she helped the Hemmes. It is common knowledge in Charlotte County that Ms. Mullen-Travis is a NASCAR fan. Among other things, she drives a car with Dale Earnhardt and NASCAR badges and decals. During the call, Mr. Skidmore asked Ms. Mullen-Travis about her affinity for NASCAR. He also offered to get her an autographed photo of Rusty Wallace (a NASCAR driver) and tickets to a race. He told her that he had gone to school with Rusty Wallace's son. This is true. And Ms. Mullen-Travis could not have known it without Mr. Skidmore telling her. Given the context, Ms. Mullen-Travis accurately considered that the tickets and photo were offered in exchange for her approval of the application to the benefit of the Hemmes. Also, the call was made in Mr. Skidmore's official capacity. Charlotte County has a Home Rule Charter (Charter). Section 2.3(A)(1) of the Charter makes the county administrator responsible for all administrative matters and operations. Section 2.3(C)(1) states: "Except for purposes of inquiry and information, the members of the board of county commissioners shall not interfere with the performance of the duties of any employee of the county who is under the direct or indirect supervision of the county administration." Also, the long-established practice was for commissioners to only contact agency directors. Mr. Skidmore's call to Ms. Mullen-Travis was contrary to the Charlotte County Charter and the practice under it. Therefore, it was not an authorized act pursuant to his duties or authorities as a county commissioner. Mr. Skidmore and Ms. Mullen-Travis were the only participants in the call. He denies the conversation. Ms. Mullen-Travis's account is more credible. This is based upon her contemporaneous communications about the call, the common recollection of all witnesses of a NASCAR component to the conversation, the fact that she could not otherwise have known Mr. Skidmore went to school with Rusty Wallace's son, the relative personal interests of the witnesses in the outcome of the proceeding, and the demeanor of the witnesses, particularly of Mr. Skidmore's. Shonna Jenkins worked as a contractor licensing investigator for Charlotte County for a little over seven years. She held that position in 2011 and reported to Ms. Mullen-Travis. Mr. Skidmore had obtained Ms. Jenkins cell phone number. He had a practice of calling her directly to check on contractor licensing matters. He also contacted Ms. Jenkins to ask her to approve the Beach Road Boutique zoning application. J.J.'s Restaurant After a meeting held on March 3, 2011, Mr. Skidmore flagged Ms. Jenkins down in the parking lot. He asked her to "do him a favor," and "go shut them [J.J.'s Restaurant] down. I want them out of this f**ing town." Mr. Skidmore wanted Ms. Jenkins to find code violations for J.J.'s Restaurant. Mr. Skidmore said that he would make sure that Ms. Jenkins got a pay raise or a pay grade increase for this. Either the ex-boyfriend or ex-husband of Mr. Skidmore's wife and father of her child had an interest in J.J.'s Restaurant. There was conflict between the two families. Mr. Skidmore had also requested the Charlotte County director of Growth Management, Jeff Ruggieri, to take code enforcement actions against J.J.'s Restaurant. Ms. Jenkins was intimidated and feared her job with the county was in jeopardy if she did not do as Mr. Skidmore asked. Ms. Jenkins reported the conversation to Ms. Mullen-Travis and Joanna Colburn, a licensing investigator, immediately afterwards. Ms. Jenkins was visibly upset and shocked. She also contemporaneously documented the incident. Ms. Jenkins is and has been frank about her dislike for Mr. Skidmore. This hostility, as well as the mental and emotional difficulties Ms. Jenkins suffered as a result of her employment and dealings with Mr. Skidmore, does not undermine her testimony. In light of the witnesses' demeanor and corroborating evidence, her testimony is credible. In addition, although evidence established Ms. Jenkins was taking several medications, the record does not indicate that the medications in any way affect a person's memory or veracity. Mr. Skidmore's requests to Ms. Jenkins and Mr. Ruggieri to act against J.J.'s Restaurant were in violation of the Charlotte County Charter and, therefore, not authorized acts pursuant to his duties or responsibilities as a county commissioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order and public report be entered finding that Respondent, Robert Skidmore, III, twice violated section 112.313(6) and that he be fined $5,000 for each violation for a total of $10,000, together with public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 27th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant the application of the City of Destin (City) and Walton County (County) for a Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization (Application) to restore a 6.9 stretch of beach in the City and County.
Findings Of Fact The Gulf of Mexico beaches of the County and City were critically eroded by Hurricane Opal in 1995. The erosion problem was identified by DEP, which placed the beaches on its list of critically-eroded beaches, and by the County and City, which initiated a lengthy process of beach restoration through renourishment (also called maintenance nourishment.)1 The process, which included an extensive studies2 and construction design, as well as pre-application conferences with DEP staff, culminated in the filing of the Application on July 30, 2003. The Application proposed to dredge sand from an ebb shoal (i.e., a near-shore) borrow area south of (i.e., offshore from) East Pass in eastern Okaloosa County, using either a cutter head dredge (which disturbs the sand on the bottom of the borrow area and vacuums it into a pipeline which delivers it to the project area) or a hopper dredge (which fills itself and is moved to the project site). On the project site, heavy equipment moves the dredged sand as specified in the design plans. The project is executed in this manner and progresses along the beach, usually at a pace of about 300-500 feet a day. Each day work is in progress, public access to the beach is restricted for a length of about 500-1000 feet in the immediate vicinity of the area of beach being worked. Water Quality Increased turbidity is the primary water quality concern in a project of this nature. Increased turbidity can adversely impact submerged seagrasses and hard-bottom habitat, along with the benthic communities depending on them. When sand in the borrow area is disturbed by dredging, sand and silt become suspended and increase turbidity to some extent and for some duration, depending primarily on the nature of the bottom material and the dredging method. (The cutter head dredge vacuums most if not all of the disturbed sand and silt into the pipeline while, by comparison, the hopper dredge would result in higher turbidity in the water in the borrow area.) Sand delivered to the project site via pipeline must remain suspended in water for transport. When the sand is deposited on the beach, the excess water, with suspended particulate matter, will drain off and return to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if hopper dredges are used, and if material is deposited on the project site other than via pipeline, some of the material will be deposited in the littoral zone, and some material deposited landward of the waterline will be inundated by the tides and wave action and potentially re-suspended in water in the littoral zone. If the water is turbid upon discharge in the littoral zone, the near-shore can become more turbid. Sand Quality The primary determinant of the amount and duration of turbidity generated in the borrow area and in the littoral zone of the project site is the quality of the bottom material in the chosen borrow area. The coarser the material, the less turbidity. The best quality bottom material usually is found in the kind of borrow area proposed for use in the Application. Sand in the borrow area came from some of Florida's finest beaches. It has been cleaned of fine material (silt) not only by wave action but also as the sand moved along shore in the littoral zone and by the currents in the East Pass inlet. Numerous tests of the bottom material in the proposed ebb shoal borrow for the project indicate that it generally has less than one percent silt. Expert witnesses for the City, County, and DEP testified that, with such low silt content, turbidity increases of no more than 5-10 Nephalometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background levels are expected at the edge of the mixing zone--150 meters down- current from the borrow area, and down-current and offshore from the discharge points on the beach. Moreover, they testified that turbidity levels are expected to return to background levels quickly (i.e., within an hour or so.) SOB and STBR questioned whether the experts could be certain of their testimony based on the test results. But SOB and STBR called no expert to contradict the testimony, and it is found that the expert testimony was persuasive. Standard Mixing Zone Initially, the City and County applied for a variance from the turbidity standards to allow them to exceed 29 NTUs more than 150 but less than 1660 meters down-current from the borrow area, and down-current and offshore from the discharge points, based on Attachment H, the Water Quality Impact analysis in the Application. The analysis was based on an assumption of five percent silt content in the bottom material in the borrow area. SOB and STBR attempted to use the five percent assumption to impeach the expert testimony on water quality. But when the quality of the bottom material was ascertained to be less than one percent, the variance request was withdrawn at DEP's request as being unnecessary and therefore inappropriate. SOB and STBR also argued in their PRO that, if a 1660-meter mixing zone was needed for five percent fines, then a 332-meter mixing zone would be needed for one percent fines. This argument was based entirely on counsel's arithmetic extrapolation. There was no evidence in the record from which to ascertain the validity of the extrapolation. In addition, the evidence was that the bottom material in the borrow area in this case will be less than one percent fines. Shore-Parallel Sand Dike Specific Condition 6 of the Draft Permit requires the permittee to "construct and maintain a shore-parallel sand dike at the beach placement area at all times during hydraulic discharge on the beach to meet turbidity standards prescribed by this permit." The shore-parallel sand dike is essentially a wall of sand built parallel to the shoreline to keep the sand slurry (the mixture of sand and water) being pumped onto the beach from washing back in the water, thereby giving the materials more time to settle out of the water before the water returns to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if this condition were not in the Draft Permit, the City and County would be required to build the dike since it is part of their design for construction of the Project. Turbidity Monitoring The Application included a proposal to monitor turbidity, and the Draft Permit includes the proposed monitoring as a Specific Condition 38. Every six hours during dredging and pumping operations, the City and County are required to sample 150 meters down-current of the borrow area, and down-current and offshore of the discharge point, and report the results to DEP within a week. In addition, Specific Condition 38 requires work to stop if turbidity standards are exceeded, which must be reported immediately. Work may not proceed "until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels." If more than one exceedence of the turbidity standard is reported, DEP will require the City and County to redesign the project to address and cure the problem. These conditions are part of the reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan Pursuant to Special Condition 4.b. of the Draft Permit, the City and County are required to do a Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan, which requires them to measure the quality of the sand as it comes out of the pipeline before it can cause a turbidity problem. If the dredge hits pockets of bad material, which is not expected in this case, work could be stopped before it creates a turbidity problem. Absence of Natural Resources in Project Area DEP performed side-scan sonar tests in the vicinity of both the borrow site and near-shore in the Project area and determined that there were no hard bottoms or seagrasses in either area. Therefore, there are no natural resources within the project area that would be covered or placed in jeopardy by a turbidity plume. Reasonable Assurance Given For all of these reasons, the City and County have provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. Required Riparian Interest Generally, and in the beach nourishment project area, the BOT owns seaward of the mean high water line (MHWL). The City and County own some but not all of the beachfront landward of the MHWL.3 In anticipation of the beach nourishment project, the City and County had the MHWL surveyed as of September 7, 2003.4 The surveys state that the MHWL as of that date shall also be known as the ECL. The surveys also depict the landward and seaward limits of construction and the predicted post-construction MHWL. The surveys indicate that construction is planned to take place both landward and seaward of the ECL. The predicted post-construction MHWL is seaward of the ECL. By resolution, the BOT approved the surveys and established the ECLs for the Project. The City survey was approved, and ECL established, on December 30, 2004; the County survey was approved, and ECL established, on January 25, 2005. The BOT's decisions are being challenged in court. If the decisions are upheld, the BOT intends to file its resolutions and record the surveys. There was no evidence that the City and County have an easement or the consent of all of the other beachfront owners to undertake the proposed beach nourishment project. Some of the other beachfront owners do not consent, including members of SOB and STBR. Standing SOB was incorporated not-for-profit in Florida on January 28, 2004. STBR was incorporated not-for-profit in Florida on February 16, 2004. Both were incorporated to protect and defend the natural resources of the beaches, protect private property rights, and seek redress of past, present, and future unauthorized and/or inappropriate beach restoration activities. No evidence was presented by any party as to whether SOB and STBR have filed their annual reports with the Department of State, and no party filed a Department of State certificate of status as to either SOB or STBR. STBR has six members, all owners of beachfront property in the area of the proposed beach nourishment project.5 SOB has approximately 150 members. These members own approximately 112 properties in the City, approximately 62 of which are beachfront and the rest condominium units of beachfront condominium developments. However, it is not clear from the evidence how many of these beachfront properties are in the area of the proposed beach nourishment project (beyond the four owned by Linda Cherry, who testified). The testimony of Slade Lindsey was sufficient, together with member affidavits, to prove that all six members of STBR use the beaches and waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Project area for swimming, fishing, boating, and/or enjoying beach and Gulf vistas. As a result, the construction of the Project will affect their interests at least during the time construction is taking place near their property. If the Project were to result in violations of water quality standards for turbidity, their interests would be affected as long as the violations lasted and perhaps longer if lasting damage to natural resources were to result. However, as found, there will not be any lasting damage to natural resources, and reasonable assurance was given that no water quality violations will occur and that exceedences of water quality standards in the mixing zone will be of short duration, lasting for no longer than an hour. These effects will not be substantial. The evidence was not sufficient to prove that construction of the Project will affect the interests of a substantial number of the members of SOB. First, it was not clear how many of them own beachfront property or even condominium units in developments adjacent to the Project area. Second, the only witness on the subject, Linda Cherry, does not know all of SOB's members and did not state how many of the 39 SOB members who signed affidavits as to their use of the beaches and waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Project area are known to the witness. Even if a substantial number would be affected, their interests would be affected no more than the STBR members' interests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Draft Permit DEP JCP File No. 0218419-001-JC. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2005.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) should approve a permit for the applicant, Indian River County (County), to install a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef) off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving permits such as the one at issue. The County is a governmental entity and is the applicant which has requested a permit for an experimental project to be located in Vero Beach, Florida. The Petitioners oppose the proposed project. The project at issue is the installation of a PEP reef system to be located between approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-80 to approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-83, in Indian River County, Florida. Because of the uncertainty as to the performance of the proposed project and the potential that it may cause adverse impacts to the coastal system, the Department classified the project as experimental pursuant to Chapter 89-175, Section 27, Laws of Florida. In making its preliminary approval for the permit, the Department required special permit conditions to safeguard the coastal system and marine turtles. Additionally, the Department specified both preconstruction and post installation monitoring and testing. The term of the permit is limited to five years, including three years to monitor the project's impacts. A PEP reef is a prefabricated erosion prevention product installed as a breakwater off the shore. In this case, the product measures approximately twelve feet long and six feet high. The base of the product (which is conically shaped) is approximately 15 feet tapering to a one foot crest at the top. The PEP unit is a proprietary product of a company called American Coastal Engineering (ACE). The County proposes to contract with ACE for the manufacture and installation of the units. It is proposed that the PEP units would be installed in an alignment parallel to the beach for a total, though not continuous, length of 3000 feet. The proposed location for the PEP reef in Vero Beach is in an erosion area as identified by the Department's Beach Restoration Management Plan. Historically, the subject beach has experienced a steady and continuous erosion which has been exacerbated during storm conditions. The proposed site is suitable for the experimental nature of this project. At least one past storm event caused substantial damage to the beach front at the project site. Walkways, utilities, and other public improvements were substantially damaged. Past efforts to curb the erosion have proved unsuccessful. Such efforts included beach renourishment, and the installation of seawalls or bulkheads. Future beach renourishment is undesirable for the project site due to the lack of compatible sand, and its high cost. More important, however, are concerns over the negative environmental impacts to nearshore reefs which could result from a large scale renourishment project. For over ten years the County has sought a solution to the erosion that has plagued the project site. To that end, the County established a special committee, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, to review options available and to recommend long-term solutions to the County. In June, 1993, the County contracted with Petitioner Walther to prepare a map of the nearshore hardbottom reef and to evaluate alternatives for beach restoration at the project site. Such work was completed, and recommendations from Mr. Walther were not incompatible with the installation of the proposed reef. The proposed installation should not adversely affect the hardbottom reefs which are in the vicinity of the PEP units. Such hardbottom is considered environmentally sensitive; however, no PEP unit will be placed on the hardbottom or so close to it that it will disturb the organisms located within the hardbottom community. In December, 1993, the County submitted an application for an experimental coastal construction permit to install the PEP reef which is at issue. The PEP units are to be placed in seven to ten feet of water. The PEP reef is designed to reduce wave heights, particularly during a storm event, which should reduce the wave energy and currents in the lee of the structure. While it is hoped the units will deter erosion, they may also cause some accretion to the beach. Whether such accretion would be temporary or long- term is uncertain. As a result of studies performed by the University of Florida under the direction of Dr. Dean, and supported by the County's coastal engineer Mr. Donaldson, it was determined that the PEP units should be installed in shorter lengths (than originally designed) with gaps between each segment. Consequently, the installation proposed by the County is not continuous but is staggered and gapped. The installation proposed by the County is unique in that the coastal characteristics of the area and the proposed design should produce results different from past installations of reef structures in Palm Beach County, Florida. As a result, studies performed by Dr. Dean in connection with a reef installed in Palm Beach County have been discounted as dissimilar to the one proposed in this case. In reviewing the subject permit application, the Department requested additional data which the County retained Dr. Zarillo to gather. Dr. Zarillo performed numerical modeling for the proposed reef system. Based upon Dr. Zarillo's work it is expected that the PEP reef system will have a positive benefit in that wave height and energy is likely to be reduced by the installation of the units. The site for the installation is suited for the proposal and is not within an area that is considered environmentally sensitive. Moreover, the PEP reef itself will add to the development of species since it should develop into a nursery habitat for young fish and other marine organisms. The installation of PEP reefs at other locations have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful. Having considered the studies performed by Dr. Bruno, an expert in coastal engineering and in measuring/modeling coastal processes, it is likely that the proposed project will be similar enough in design to installations reviewed by Dr. Bruno to allow the proposed project to be compared. Dr. Bruno has monitored three installations at three different sites in New Jersey. Each site had different results based upon conditions of each location. One site, expected to be most like the proposed site in Vero Beach, has experienced a reduced rate of erosion. Based upon Dr. Bruno's "real life" experience it is expected that the proposed installation will result in a reduction of wave height on the order of 10 percent to 20 percent. Consequently, the proposed installation should provide a benefit to the control of erosion. The reduction of wave height leads to a reduction in the erosive power of the wave field. Therefore, it is expected to result in a reduced erosion rate behind the PEP reefs. Additionally, Dr. Bruno's assessment of Dr. Zarillo's modeling work suggests that "in theory" the proposed site should experience a reduction in wave height as a result of the proposed installation. As a result, both scientific methods support the proposed project. No scientific study can, however, assure the success of this project. In fact, success may be derived from the value of the data which will be gathered during the monitoring period. Such data may assist in the future design of structures to reduce wave energy. The County's proposed monitoring plan contains detailed and adequate performance criteria to assure that the PEP reef system will be fully evaluated. The County has provided adequate assurance that it will comply with the permit conditions, including the modification or removal of the reef system if directed by the Department. All installation and monitoring as well as removal is to be performed at the County's expense. The PEP reef system will have no appreciable adverse impact on marine turtles. Construction is prohibited during nesting season under the terms of the permit. The PEP reef system will have no adverse impact on swimmers or boaters. The units are to be clearly marked and identified under the terms of the permit. No adverse impacts to Petitioners Walther and Clemens should be incurred as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the permit requested by the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4045 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Walther: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 29, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, and 60 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation is hearsay as it relates to the record cited; however, although not stipulated, the record most likely supports the paragraph in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the factual conclusion that because another permit holder has failed to remove a reef that the County will similarly default on its obligation to do should the agency order the PEP reef removal. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant if it purports to suggest the contracting was improper; this proceeding does not consider the propriety of the contracting process. With the deletion of any emphasis and the last sentence which are rejected as argument, paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted that Mrs. Clemens opposed the permit and requested a hearing. Paragraph 27 is rejected as an incomplete statement and therefore not supported by the total weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 30 through 33 are rejected as law not statements of fact. Paragraph 34 is accepted in general terms but not as to the specific measurements cited. Paragraphs 35 through 38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. It is determined that the site is suitable for a non-biased, comprehensive analysis of the project. Paragraphs 39 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 45, it is accepted the reefs may settle but such is expected to be unlikely to impair the overall performance of the structure; therefore, the paragraph, as drafted, must be rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as unclear or incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 58 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 61, it is accepted that Dr. Dean envisioned a current being created that would run parallel to the shoreline as a result of the reef installation but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 62, such statement is generally true; however, Dr. Dean did not conduct any sediment transportation test to verify that the structure in an open setting (as opposed to the experimental tank) would transport sediment as inferred. Paragraphs 63 through 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is accepted as accurate but the agency did not express, and the record does not establish, that there is a concern that the County may not honor its agreement to remove the PEP reef if directed to do so. Paragraph 69 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Clemens: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent Department: All proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department as listed are accepted. See comments below as to rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the County. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent County: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 through 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that an extensive renourishment program might damage the sensitive nearshore hardbottom community; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 16, with the deletion of the word "significantly" in the second sentence and the last sentence which are rejected as irrelevant, editorial comment, argument or not supported by the total weight of credible evidence, it is accepted. With regard to paragraph 18, the first sentence is accepted. As to the balance of the paragraph, with the deletion of the word "significantly" and the substitution of "might" for "could", the paragraph is accepted. Otherwise rejected as an inaccurate characterization of the weight of the record. With regard to paragraph 19, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as a compound statement of proposed fact some of which are accurate but which taken in whole constitute argument, unnecessary, irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 31, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence three, the paragraph is accepted. With regard to paragraph 32, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence two, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 35, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 36 through 38 are rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. The proposed PEP reef should not adversely impact the Vero Beach shoreline. Paragraph 44 is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraphs 47 through 53, it is accepted that the Petitioners did not establish that they will be substantially affected by the proposed project; however, their conduct does not rise to the level to establish participation in the administrative process was for an improper purpose. Consequently, the paragraphs are rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Lewis, Esquire John W. Forehand, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Michael P. Walther 1725 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Adele Clemens 3747 Ocean Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Dana M. Wiehle Assistants General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherall Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
