Conclusions The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FWC” or ‘““Commission’) hereby enters the following Final Order. ISSUE AND SUMMARY The Commission issued a permit to Chris Johnson to conduct leatherback turtle research through the Loggerhead Marinelife Center, Inc. (hereinafter “LMC’”) in 2001 and has continuously reissued this permit. However, Chris Johnson’s employment with LMC was recently terminated. On January 22, 2014, the Commission issued Marine Turtle Permit #14-157A to Chris Johnson, Filed October 2, 2014 3:57 PM Division of Administrative Hearings authorizing him to conduct leatherback turtle research on Palm Beach County beaches, effective January 1, 2014. On December 20, 2013, the Commission issued a permit to Sarah Hirsch, Data Manager for LMC, to conduct marine turtle research on Palm Beach County beaches, effective January 1, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the Commission issued Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Charles Manire, who works for LCM, to conduct a subset of the same activities that Chris Johnson’s permit authorizes Chris Johnson to perform with leatherback turtles. On February 12, 2014, LMC filed a Request for Enlargement of Time to File Petition. On February 28, 2014, LMC filed a Petition for a Formal Administrative Hearing, and on April 25, 2014, LMC filed an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (hereinafter “LMC Petition”), challenging the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-157A to Chris Johnson. The LMC Petition states that the activities Chris Johnson proposes to conduct under his permit are not in the public interest as his activities would interfere with the research LMC conducts under contract with Palm Beach County, and would duplicate research that LMC employees have conducted for more than 20 years on the same beaches. The LMC Petition states that Chris Johnson has demonstrated no need for his research. The LMC Petition disputes that Chris Johnson has the necessary permits or concurrence from the appropriate park management units to conduct the research and claims that Chris Johnson submitted materially false information in his application for a permit. The LMC Petition states that following his termination by LMC, Chris Johnson misappropriated LMC’s leatherback sea turtle data set to start his own organization, and that Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes, Chapter 68E-1, and Rule 68-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, require denial of the permit. LMC has filed a separate civil action against Chris Johnson alleging, among other things, the misappropriation of turtle data from LMC. The Commission transferred the case to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on April 17, 2014, which was assigned DOAH Case No. 14-001651. The permittee, Chris Johnson, filed a Motion to Intervene in the case on April 29, 2014, and was granted party status on April 30, 2014. On June 3, 2014, Chris Johnson filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (hereinafter “Johnson Petition’’) challenging the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Manire at LMC, The Johnson Petition primarily states that the application for this permit was an attempt to keep Chris Johnson from being able to conduct his research, that Dr. Manire’s permit interferes with Chris Johnson’s permit, that Dr. Manire does not have the requisite knowledge and skill to conduct the permitted activities, that the public’s interest is best served by having Chris Johnson conduct the research and that Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes, and Rules 68E- 1002(2), 68E-1.004(6) and (17), and Rule 68-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, require denial of the permit. On June 12, 2014, the permittees, Dr. Charles Manire and LMC, filed a Petition to Intervene, and were granted party status on June 19, 2014. This case was transferred to DOAH and assigned DOAH Case No. 14-002806. On June 23, 2014, this case was consolidated with LMC v. Chris Johnson and FWC, DOAH Case No. 14-001651, which was pending before DOAH. On July 22, 2014, Christopher Johnson filed a motion seeking sanctions, including attorney’s fees, On September 8, 2014, LMC, stating that the administrative action is negatively impacting LMC’s civil action and the turtle nesting season has passed, voluntarily dismissed its petition without prejudice, thereby withdrawing its challenge to the issuance of the permit to Chris Johnson. On September 8, 2014, Dr. Manire withdrew his application for a permit. As the substantive issues in the case were rendered moot by LMC’s dismissal of its petition and Dr. Manire’s withdrawal of his application, on September 11, 2014, DOAH relinquished jurisdiction over the permitting issues back to the Commission. However, DOAH retained jurisdiction over the issue of attorney’s fees. WHEREFORE, as LMC has voluntarily dismissed its Petition, thereby withdrawing its challenge to the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-157 to Chris Johnson, the permit is hereby GRANTED. As LMC and Dr. Charles Manire have voluntarily withdrawn their application for the permit, the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Charles Manire at LMC is hereby DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida this 30 day of September, 2014. t= Eric Sutton Assistant Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Filed with The Agency Clerk MULL, This 2 day of-September, 2014 LIFE Oe Sbtobe 7 enrol ATTEST: yy % ono Agency Clerk Cyriteeesanst CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above FINAL ORDER has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Rachael M. Bruce, 515 N. Flagler Dr Ste 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4327; Alfred Malefatto, Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr Ste 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4327; Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Lewis Longman & Walker, 315 S. Calhoun St Ste 830, Tallahassee, FL 32301-1872; Frank Rainer, Broad and Cassel, PO Box 11300, Tallahassee, FL 32302-3300; and David ge Broad and Cassel, 2 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 21, Miami, FL 33131-1800, on this day “ane Copies furnished to: Ryan Smith Osborne (via email) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Legal Office 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399 Michael Yaun (via email) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Legal Office 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399 Florida Bar No. 956953 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (850) 487-1764 NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS The foregoing constitutes final agency action in this matter. Any party adversely affected has the right to seek judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to section 120.68 Florida Statutes, and rule 9.030(b)(1)(c) and 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. To initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Office of the General Counsel, and the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of that this Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. The Notice filed with the District Court of Appeal must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee required by law.
The Issue Whether the application of Respondent Gulf County (County) for permit to install a beach access road, constructed of oyster shell or dolomite, at the stumphole area on Cape San Blas should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On April 11, 1996, the County applied for a permit from DEP to install a beach access road constructed of oyster shell or dolomite over an area 275 feet in length by 12 feet wide at the stumphole area on Cape San Blas. The County owned the property at the site where a crude road bed to the beach already existed. On that same date, County Manager Donald Butler met with a DEP field engineer, William Fokes, on the site to determine the linear footage that would be necessary for the access road at the stumphole area. Fokes then issued the field permit for the access road to be constructed of oyster shell or dolomite over an area 275 feet in length by 12 feet wide. Since beach driving is permitted by the County in the area, the access road aids in preventing illegal crossing of beach dunes by motorists to get to the beach. Prior to issuance of the field permit and construction of the access road, the only legal motorist access to the beach was seven miles away. Permits to drive on the beach are issued by the County. DEP rules require that all applicants proposing to conduct permitted activities on a beach use a designated beach access. This road will allow access to conduct permitted activities, thereby preserving and enhancing public beach access. DEP will not permit a project that is expected to adversely impact the beach dune system. Although seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) in the County, the area which is the subject of this field permit contained no dunes or vegetation since Hurricane Opal had flattened the area. Such a project cannot be permitted if the project will adversely impact existing upland property or property of others. In the instant case, neither the Petitioner’s property, which is located two miles away from the project site, or property of other owners in the area will be adversely impacted. The road is designed to be a non-rigid, pervious structure which causes less impact to any existing dune system. The road site is located on County property and provides logical and appropriate access. The construction of the road did not violate DEP prohibitions on permitting activities having adverse impact to marine turtles since the construction permit expired prior to the turtle nesting season. A requirement of field permit issuance is that the applicant and the DEP area engineer meet on site and review the project. This event occurred on April 11, 1996, when Butler and Fokes met on the site. Fokes determined that the project was within field permitting guidelines and issued the permit. Fokes was authorized to issue the field permit because the project fell in DEP’s category of a driveway or similar activity. Expected impacts of construction of the access road and a driveway are deemed similar by DEP. Subsequent review by DEP staff of Fokes’ issuance of the field permit determined that sufficient information had been provided to him for issuance of the permit, that the project falls in the category of minor activity and that no adverse impact to dunes, property of others, beach access or nesting marine turtles is expected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered confirming the grant of the field permit which is the subject of this proceeding. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynette L. Ciardulli, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Michael Paulsson, Pro Se Route 1, Box 347B Port St. Joe, FL 32456 Timothy J. McFarland, Esquire Post Office Box 202 Port St. Joe, FL 32457 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000 Perry Odom, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent should issue a permit for coastal armoring to protect Petitioners' homes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners are "property and/or riparian owner[s]" within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a). Petitioners own two single family residences situated on contiguous sites on highway A1A in Orchid Island, Indian River County, Florida. Each site fronts the Atlantic Ocean and extends landward from the mean high water line. Petitioners' homes are major habitable structures within the meaning of Florida Administrative Code Rule 16B- 33.002(54)(a) and 16B-33.005(3)(b) and (c). 2/ Each home is a two story residence that includes a garage, swimming pool, and patio. The foundation of each home is a nonconforming foundation within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.007(4). 3/ Petitioners' application for a coastal armoring permit was prepared and submitted in accordance with the requirements of Section 161.053(5), Rule 16B-33.008, and other agency requirements. Respondent determined that the application was complete on or before August 14, 1990. Respondent is the agency responsible for assessing applications for coastal armoring permits. Respondent recommends action to the Governor and Cabinet. The Governor and Cabinet sit as the agency head and take final agency action. Respondent was formerly known as the Department of Natural Resources ("DNR"). On July 1, 1993, the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") was created, and DNR was reorganized into DEP. 1993 Laws Of Florida, Chapter 93-21. Intervenors represent the interests of marine turtles and their nesting habitats. Intervenor, Center For Marine Conservation (the "Center"), is a nonprofit organization that researches marine life. The Center has 8,000 contributing members in Florida that enable it to conduct research and conservation activities. Intervenor, Donna Devlin, is an officer of the Center and citizen of the state. Intervenor, Caribbean Conservation Corporation ("CCC"), is a not-for-profit Florida corporation engaged in sea turtle research and conservation in Florida. The CCC receives support from private foundations and the contributions of its 5,000 members. Background Petitioners began construction of their homes prior to March 4, 1987. At the time construction began, the coastal construction control line defining that portion of the beach-dune system subject to fluctuations based on a 100 year storm surge (the "CCCL") 4/ was located seaward of Petitioners' homes. On March 4, 1987, the CCCL was reestablished and moved landward of Petitioners' homes. By that time, construction had progressed sufficiently, and both houses were grandfathered by applicable regulatory restrictions. The foundation of each home is a nonconforming foundation within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.007(4). The foundations are not designed to resist the predicted forces associated with a one-hundred-year storm event, do not elevate the support structures of the homes above the breaking wave crests or wave uprush projected for such a storm, and do not meet other applicable design criteria. On Thursday, March 9, 1989, a Northeast storm impacted the east central coast of Florida. The storm lasted approximately five days 5/ and eroded the shoreline in Indian River County including that portion in front of Petitioners' homes. The dune fronting Petitioners' homes was severely undercut by wave action from the storm. The dune in front of Petitioners' property suffered 10 feet of bluff line recession. On Saturday, March 11, 1989, Petitioner, Machata, telephoned Respondent at its Tallahassee office for authority to protect his home from the forces of the storm. Mr. Machata was referred to the Division of Emergency Management. Mr. Machata telephoned the Division of Emergency Management at 10:30 a.m. on March 11, 1989, and spoke with Mr. Bill Whiney. Mr. Whiney advised Mr. Machata that the Division was aware of the storm and had delegated emergency management to Mr. Douglas Wright, Director of Emergency Management, Indian River County. Mr. Wright conducted a site inspection within an hour of Mr. Machata's telephone call. The dune was being undercut, and waves were striking near the top of the dune. Mr. Wright did not get near the bluff line for fear that the dune would collapse. Mr. Wright authorized the temporary placement of large quarry rocks on the seaward side of the dune. The rocks were placed at the toe of the dune on Saturday and Sunday, March 11 and 12, 1989. Mr. Wright instructed Petitioners to contact Respondent on Monday, March 13, 1989, for a permit to construct a permanent rock revetment or other bulkhead. On Wednesday March 15, 1989, an inspector for Respondent confirmed that construction of a rock revetment had begun without benefit of a permit from Respondent. Respondent advised Mr. Machata to stop construction of the rock revetment pending application for, and approval of, a coastal armoring permit. Mr. Machata immediately ceased further construction. At that point, a rock revetment 110 feet long had been placed along the toe of the dune in front of Mr. Machata's house. On July 19, 1989, Petitioners filed an application for a permit to complete construction of the rock revetment. Following several meetings and correspondence between Petitioners and Respondent, Respondent determined that the proposed revetment failed to comply with applicable requirements. At the behest of Respondent, Petitioners agreed to apply for a permit to construct and maintain the steel sheet pile bulkhead at issue in this proceeding. Respondent agreed to recommend approval of the steel sheet pile bulkhead, in place of the rock revetment, if Petitioners demonstrated their homes are vulnerable to a 10 to 15 year return interval storm event (a "RISE"). The return interval of a storm is its statistical probability of occurrence. A lower return interval indicates a greater probability of occurrence and a higher rate of frequency. A high frequency storm is a storm with a return interval of 25 years or less. Storms with a return interval greater than 25 years are major storms with greater storm force. 6/ On April 17, 1990, Petitioners submitted an application for a permit to construct and maintain a vertical steel sheet- pile bulkhead 303 feet long. The proposed bulkhead is located as far landward as possible. It is 10 to 15 feet landward of the dune bluff line and vegetation line and 23 feet seaward of Petitioners' existing patios. All work on the bulkhead is to take place landward of the steel wall. The proposed bulkhead is designed to withstand the force of a high frequency storm with a return interval of 25 years. The design, engineering, and construction required to protect Petitioners' homes reflects the storm force associated with a high frequency storm. The steel wall will be constructed with 300 to 400 individual sheets of corrugated steel placed in the shore parallel direction. Each sheet is 25 feet long, 18-24 inches wide, 3/8 inches thick, and weighs approximately 1000 pounds. The sheet piles will be stockpiled on site and transported to the dune by a crane equipped with a vibratory hammer. The first sheet pile will be placed at one end of the proposed bulkhead and partially driven into the sand with the vibratory hammer. The next sheet pile will be threaded and interlocked with the first through the coupling joints and partially driven into the sand. After 50 feet of the proposed wall is put in place, the piles in that 50 foot section will be driven to their design depth. The remaining portion of the wall will be completed in 50 foot segments using the same procedure. Once the sheet piles are in place, 20 foot long steel tie rods will be placed through and connected to the piles near their top. The tie rods will be on the landward side of the piles arranged perpendicular to them. The tie rods will be spaced 15 feet apart, on center, along the entire length of the sheet pile wall. The tie rods will be encased in poured concrete. The other end of the tie rods will be secured to a concrete anchor buried in the soil (a continuous "deadman"). The deadman will run parallel to the sheet pile wall approximately 20 feet landward of the wall. The deadman is constructed with concrete formed and poured in place with reinforcing steel. The steel pile wall is connected to the deadman with tie rods to increase the stability of the sheet pile wall and to achieve the designed level of protection. Forty foot return walls at each end of the bulkhead will run landward of Petitioners' lot lines. The return walls ensure the stability of the bulkhead during storm attack by preventing erosion of sand landward of the bulkhead. A concrete cap will be poured in place on top of the sheet pile wall. The proposed bulkhead is less impactive than other rigid coastal armoring devices that provide equivalent protection. This form of armoring was proposed, in place of a rock revetment, at Respondent's request. It is uncontroverted that the design and construction of the proposed bulkhead meets all applicable engineering and structural design criteria. On May 22, 1990, Respondent issued a letter of intent to approve the proposed bulkhead and gave landowners adjacent to Petitioners' property notice of Respondent's intended action. Adjacent property owners did not object to the proposed bulkhead. Respondent's Division of Beaches and Shores recommended approval of Petitioners' application subject to stated conditions. On August 14, 1990, an agenda item recommending approval of Petitioners' application was considered by the Governor and Cabinet. The agenda item represented that Petitioners' homes are vulnerable to a 15 year RISE. After hearing arguments, the Governor and Cabinet denied Petitioners' application without explication. Immediately following the denial of Petitioners' application, the Governor and Cabinet directed Respondent's staff to develop a coastal armoring policy for the state. Armoring applications completed as of August 14, 1990, including Petitioners', were expressly exempt from the new policy. The Governor and Cabinet adopted a coastal armoring policy on December 18, 1990 (the "1990 policy"). The 1990 policy prohibits all coastal armoring within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Petitioners' homes are located within the Refuge. A qualifying structure located outside the Refuge must be vulnerable to a five year RISE to qualify for coastal armoring. A notice of vulnerability caveat states that an applicant who constructs his or her home after the notice of the public hearing for the CCCL in the county in which the home is located is presumed to have notice of vulnerability and is disqualified from obtaining a coastal armoring permit. 7/ Since Petitioners' application was completed on or before August 14, 1990, the proposed bulkhead is expressly exempt from all of the provisions of the 1990 policy. No other applications were complete on or before August 14, 1990. A Final Order denying Petitioners' application for a coastal armoring permit was filed with Respondent's clerk on November 1, 1990. On November 19, 1990, Petitioners timely filed a petition for a formal administrative proceeding in accordance with Section 120.57(1). Agency Requirements Respondent consistently applies a multi-tiered test to assess applications for coastal armoring permits. The first tier consists of two parts. First, armoring must be proposed for a major habitable structure within the meaning of Rule 16B- 33.002(54)(a) and 16B-33.005(3)(b) and (c). Second, the applicant must state and "clearly justify" the "necessity" for protecting a major habitable structure, within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.005(1), and must show that the direct and cumulative impacts on the beach-dune system and marine turtles clearly justify the proposed armoring. If both requirements of the first tier are satisfied, Respondent then considers alternatives to the proposed armoring. Isolated rigid coastal armoring that does not close the gap in existing armoring, such as the proposed bulkhead, must be the only "feasible" means of protecting a major habitable structure. 8/ It is uncontroverted that Petitioners' homes are major habitable structures. Therefore, the issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Petitioners' have "clearly justified" the "necessity" for protecting their homes, whether the direct and cumulative impacts clearly justify the armoring, and whether the protection sought is the only "feasible" alternative. The phrase "clearly justify" is the test of both the "necessity" for armoring and the direct and cumulative impacts of armoring. Section 161.053(5)(a)3 requires Respondent to consider whether the direct and cumulative impacts on the beach-dune system clearly justify the proposed armoring. Rule 16B-33.005(7) states that: the proposed armoring may not have an adverse impact on the beach-dune system at the specific site; and a number of similar structures on the coast may not have a significant adverse cumulative impact. 9/ The cumulative impact doctrine has been applied as a policy of equitable distribution in permitting cases involving environmental control statutes. 10/ The doctrine is intended to distribute permitted activities without contravening applicable standards or the public interest. The cumulative impact of the proposed bulkhead on the beach-dune system and on marine turtles is not imposed in addition to other applicable requirements but is a factor to be considered in determining whether the proposed bulkhead is clearly justified within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a)3 and applicable rules. 11/ The terms "necessity", "clearly justify", and "feasible" are not defined in applicable statutes and rules. 12/ Respondent has issued written memoranda and uttered unwritten policy statements to provide guidance in defining the quoted terms. Respondent attempted to explicate the quoted terms in this proceeding. Necessity: Vulnerability To High Frequency Storms Under the 1990 policy, the "necessity" for armoring must be clearly justified by demonstrating vulnerability to a five year RISE. However, the proposed bulkhead is exempt from the specific RISE imposed by the 1990 policy. Respondent asserts that a 10 or 15 year RISE was used to assess vulnerability prior to the 1990 policy and should be applied in this proceeding. In order to ascertain the specific numeric standard of vulnerability applicable in this proceeding, if any, it is necessary to consider the emergence of the vulnerability requirement prior to the adoption of the 1990 policy. 13/ Emerging Vulnerability Requirement In November, 1984, a severe storm caused major erosion over wide expanses of the east coast of Florida (the "Thanksgiving Day storm"). A number of applications for coastal armoring followed. Respondent's staff prepared a report proposing specific policy directives to provide guidance in reviewing applications for coastal armoring. The policy directives were approved by the Governor and Cabinet on March 19, 1985. However, the Governor and Cabinet expressly directed staff to review armoring applications on a case-by-case basis and did not adopt a specific policy (the "1985 directive"). The first application for a coastal armoring permit to go before the Governor and Cabinet following the 1985 directive was filed by Seaplace Association, Inc. The application was for a buried, sloping rock revetment and returns seaward of the two- story Seaplace condominium. The Seaplace application was recommended for approval by Respondent and considered by the Governor and Cabinet as an agenda item on February 23, 1988. The agenda item prepared by Respondent stated that Seaplace was vulnerable to a RISE of less than 10 years. This was the first agenda item where vulnerability to a specific RISE was included in Respondent's justification for a proposed coastal armoring permit. At the time that the agenda item was considered, Respondent's director stated that Respondent imposed a 20 year RISE to assess vulnerability in coastal armoring applications. The Governor and Cabinet denied the Seaplace application without explication. Following the denial of the Seaplace application, a storm impacted the shoreline in front of Seaplace causing erosion and further threatening the condominium. After a meeting with Cabinet aides, Respondent recycled the prior agenda item to reprint the document with no changes and brought the item back before the Governor and Cabinet with the same stated vulnerability. The Governor and Cabinet approved the Seaplace application on May 24, 1988, without explication. In approving the Seaplace application, the Governor and Cabinet neither explicitly nor implicitly adopted a specific RISE as a numeric standard for assessing vulnerability prior to the 1990 policy. The agenda items considered by the Governor and Cabinet on February 23 and May 24, 1988, did not recommend that the Governor and Cabinet adopt a 10 year RISE as a numeric standard for assessing vulnerability in all armoring applications but merely stated that Seaplace was vulnerable to a 10 year RISE. When the Governor and Cabinet considered the Seaplace application, they were informed by Respondent's director that Respondent used a 20 year RISE as a numeric standard for assessing vulnerability. When the Governor and Cabinet intend to adopt a policy, notice is given to the public prior to consideration of the proposed policy. No such notice was given prior to approving the Seaplace application on May 24, 1988. On February 7, 1990, Respondent issued internal memorandum PM-27-90 as a policy statement to guide staff in assessing the justification for rigid coastal armoring structures. Memorandum PM-27-90 states: . . . Existing policy on the use of rigid coastal protection structures is contained in Subsection 16B-33.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. The general policy restricts use of such structures . . . and permits them only if they are fully justified as the only feasible means of protecti[on]. . . . This policy [PM-27-90] provides guidance on the determination of justification for such structures. 2. Threat determination * * * b) The structure proposed to be protected is . . . exposed to direct impacts from hydrodynamic forces associated with high frequency storms and in danger of imminent collapse from such storms. (emphasis supplied) Memorandum PM-27-90 did not prescribe a specific RISE as a numeric standard for assessing vulnerability in all coastal armoring applications. It merely required a qualifying structure to be exposed to direct impacts from "a high frequency storm." A high frequency storm can have any return interval up to 25 years. The requirement in PM-27-90 that a qualifying structure be in imminent danger of collapse imposes neither a specific RISE nor an additional requirement for assessing vulnerability. After PM-27-90 was issued, for example, Respondent agreed to recommend approval of the proposed bulkhead if Petitioners demonstrated that their homes are vulnerable to either a 10 or 15 year RISE. When Memorandum PM-27-90 was superseded by the 1990 policy, it lost any general applicability it may have had within the meaning of Section 120.52(16). Since Petitioners' applications are the only applications exempt from the 1990 policy, the applicability of PM-27-90, if any, is not general but is limited to this proceeding. 14/ Respondent required, under the emerging policy in effect prior to the 1990 policy, that qualifying structures be "exposed to direct impacts from . . . high frequency storms." No numeric standard narrowed the scope of a "high frequency storm" to a specific RISE. Nor was a specific RISE identified in final agency action taken on specific applications prior to the adoption of the 1990 policy. While Respondent wishes to deviate from the general requirement for vulnerability that was in effect prior to the 1990 policy by imposing a specific RISE in this proceeding, Respondent failed to explicate a justification for such a deviation. 15/ In cases involving an eroding shoreline, the selection of a specific RISE to assess vulnerability is not intended to determine whether coastal armoring is going to be permitted. Rather, it is intended to determine when such armoring will be permitted and perhaps what form the armoring will take. 16/ The shoreline in the area of the proposed project is an eroding shoreline. Between 1972 and 1992, the shoreline in front of Petitioners' homes eroded at an annual rate of 1.7 feet. Respondent conducted shoreline surveys by registered surveyors at Respondent's monuments R-25 through R-30 in Indian River County. Petitioners' homes are located between monuments R-27 and R-28 and are closest to R-27. The field survey data is more reliable than historic shorelines from 1880-1968 depicted on maps submitted by Respondent and Intervenors during the formal hearing. Between 1972 and 1992, the bluff line at R-27 receded 42 feet. There was 50 feet of bluff line recession at R-25, 40 feet at R-26, and 43 feet at R- Between June, 1986, and March, 1992, five to six feet of dune recession occurred at R-27 with no evidence of dune recovery during that period. Since 1972, a significant decrease in the bluff line near Petitioners' homes has been caused by storms. The Thanksgiving Day storm caused 15 feet of bluff line recession. The storm in March, 1989, caused 10 feet of recession. The bluff line at the northern boundary of the Machata home receded 10 feet between 1987 and 1989. The bluff line at the southern boundary of his home receded seven feet during the same period. While the bluff line and mean high water line generally recede at the same rate, the mean high water line at R-27 receded 19.7 feet, or 3.4 feet a year, between 1986 and 1992, and 14.71 feet, or 2.6 feet annually, at R-28. Inlets constructed by government agencies cause 85 percent of the erosion along Florida's southeast coast. The Sebastian Inlet is the principal cause of erosion of the shoreline in front of Petitioners' homes. The erosion rate of the shoreline in front of Petitioners' homes can be expected to fall below one foot a year only if the Sebastian Inlet Management Plan to transfer sand is fully implemented. No evidence was presented to show when the plan will be implemented, if at all. As the shoreline erodes from the effects of the Sebastian Inlet and natural erosion, Petitioners' homes will eventually be vulnerable to a five year RISE. In the absence of any intervening changes, Petitioners will then satisfy the vulnerability requirement in the 1990 policy. However, Petitioners are expressly exempt from the specific vulnerability requirement in the 1990 policy and should not be required to wait until they comply with that requirement. Petitioners do not have to wait until their homes are vulnerable to a five year RISE if vulnerability is assessed using a 25 year RISE. A 25 year RISE is consistent with the design life of the proposed bulkhead. Rule 16B- 33.007(6)(b) requires that armoring: . . . should be designed for the minimum wave loads which are applicable for the design storm conditions which justify the [armoring]. . . . The design life of the proposed bulkhead is 25 years, but Respondent asserts that Petitioners must show that their homes are vulnerable to a 10 or 15 year RISE to clearly justify the necessity for the proposed bulkhead. Respondent failed to explicate a justification for deviating from Rule 16B- 33.007(6)(b) either by accepting a design life that is inconsistent with Respondent's vulnerability requirement or by assessing vulnerability with a RISE that is less than the 25 year design life of the proposed bulkhead. Absent the requisite justification for Respondent's deviation, Petitioners need only show that their homes are vulnerable to any high frequency storm including a RISE of 25 years. 17/ Vulnerability Clearly Justified By Computer Models Assuming that a specific RISE applies in this proceeding, Respondent asserts that either a 10 or 15 year RISE should apply. Respondent presented conflicting evidence concerning the specific RISE that should be applied to assess the vulnerability of Petitioners' homes. One of Respondent's experts, a professional engineer and administrator within the Division of Beaches and Shore, testified that Respondent's policy requires vulnerability to a 10 year RISE. However, the Division Director testified that Respondent's policy requires vulnerability to a 15 year RISE. The testimony of the Division Director was credible, persuasive, and consistent with Respondent's original recommendation of approval. Respondent, without deviation, determines whether a qualifying structure is vulnerable to a specific RISE through the application of computer models. Computer models analyze certain scientific parameters to mathematically simulate storm surge elevation and erosion for a high frequency storm. 18/ If the computer model shows that the eroded profile of the storm would reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes, then their homes are vulnerable to the specific RISE assumed for the storm. Applicable statutes and rules do not prescribe the computer model to be used in assessing the vulnerability of a qualifying structure. Since 1988, Respondent has relied exclusively on the Dean erosion model for such purposes. The Dean erosion model is named for its developer, Dr. Robert Dean at the University of Florida. 19/ The original Dean model supporting Respondent's recommendation that the Governor and Cabinet approve the proposed bulkhead shows that the eroded profile of a 15 year RISE would reach the foundation of Petitioners' homes. Therefore, each home satisfies the 15 year RISE imposed by Respondent to assess vulnerability in this proceeding. Another computer model commonly used to assess vulnerability to a high frequency storm is the EDUNE erosion model. The EDUNE model utilized by Petitioners' coastal engineer shows that the eroded profile of a 10 year RISE would reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. Therefore, each home satisfies the 10 year RISE imposed by Respondent to assess vulnerability prior to the 1990 policy. 20/ Since less severe storms occur more frequently, Petitioners' homes are necessarily vulnerable to more severe storms that occur less frequently including storms with return intervals of 15 to 25 years. Computer models must be calibrated for high frequency storm events in order to accurately predict the erosion limits of such storms. The results of an erosion model that has not been properly calibrated may not be reliable. The Dean erosion model has not been calibrated for high frequency storm events. Dr. Dean is currently under contract with Respondent to develop the data base necessary to calibrate the Dean erosion model for high frequency storm events in each county in Florida. Dr. Dean has not completed his calibration for all counties in Florida including the site of the proposed bulkhead. Both the EDUNE model utilized by Petitioners' expert and the original Dean model utilized by Respondent were calibrated using erosion data from the Thanksgiving Day storm. However, neither erosion model utilized local calibration factors for the proposed project site. No storm hydrograph for the Thanksgiving Day storm is available for Indian River County and no site specific data is available for the proposed site. In the absence of local calibration data, the accuracy of any erosion model depends on the selection of proper input variables. A change in any input variable can alter the results of the model and affect its accuracy. The principal input variables for the Dean and EDUNE computer models are: the existing beach profile; the scale parameter, or A factor; the storm surge hydrograph; the storm surge run-up; and the erosion factor. Other input variables include wave height and parameters defining the eroded profile above the storm surge elevation. Each input variable is a specific number. Applicable statutes and rules do not prescribe numeric values to be used in calibrating erosion models. Instruction manuals prescribe some, but not all, of the numeric values to be used in the absence of local calibration data. The selection of proper input variables, in the absence of local calibration data, requires the exercise of professional engineering judgment. The reasonableness and competency of the professional judgment used in selecting proper input variables directly affects the accuracy of computer model results. An erosion factor of 1.5 was properly used in the original Dean model which showed that the eroded profile of a 15 year RISE would reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. The Bureau of Coastal Engineering applies the Dean model exclusively for Respondent to predict erosion from high frequency storms and to assess the level of vulnerability for a qualifying structure. An erosion factor of 1.5 is the erosion factor approved by the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and consistently used in the Dean model. Use of an erosion factor of 1.5 is consistent with reasonable and appropriate professional judgment and Respondent's long standing practice. Due to differences in computer models, an erosion factor of 2.5 was properly used by Petitioners' expert in his EDUNE model to show that the eroded profile of a 10 year RISE would reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. This is the appropriate and reasonable erosion factor to be used for the EDUNE model in the absence of local calibration data. The A factor is another input variable used in erosion modeling. The A factor defines the shape of the shoreline profile. The A factor is determined by numerically fitting the shoreline to the depth of the nearshore breaking wave. A higher A factor produces less erosion in the computer model. If the shoreline steepens beyond the depth of the nearshore breaking wave and the A factor is determined by fitting the shoreline to a depth beyond the nearshore breaking wave, the A factor will be increased and the erosive force of the projected storm will be decreased. The A factors used in the original Dean model and the EDUNE model were properly determined by fitting the shoreline to the depth of the nearshore breaking wave. Respondent's manual states that an A factor between 0.14 and 0.16 is most reliable. Use of an A factor of 0.15 is consistent with Respondent's manual and reasonable and appropriate professional judgment. The Revised Dean Model Respondent prepared a revised Dean model for the formal hearing. The return frequency approach used in both the original Dean model and EDUNE model measures the predicted force of a storm by emphasizing its storm surge elevation. The volumetric approach used in the revised Dean model measures storm force by emphasizing the erosive force of a storm. Both storm surge elevation and erosive force are threats to Petitioners' homes. However, the storm surge of an actual storm may or may not be proportional to its erosive force. The Thanksgiving Day storm, for example, had a storm surge elevation equal to a high frequency storm with a return interval of 15 years but an erosive force 2.8 times greater than a major storm such as hurricane Eloise in 1975. 21/ If a computer model is calibrated for a greater erosive force, the model can be used to demonstrate that the storm surge elevation of a less severe storm, with a lower RISE, produces an eroded profile that reaches the foundations of Petitioners' homes. Conversely, if a computer model is calibrated for a lesser erosive force, the model can be used to demonstrate that the storm surge elevation of the same storm produces an eroded profile that does not reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. The revised Dean model prepared by Respondent for the formal hearing used an erosion factor of 1.0 to project the eroded profile. It showed that the eroded profile of a 15 year RISE would not reach the foundations of Petitioners' homes. In the absence of site specific data including storm surge elevation and a storm surge hydrograph for the Thanksgiving Day storm, use of an erosion factor of 1.0 was inconsistent with reasonable and appropriate professional judgment, Respondent's long standing practice, and the terms of Respondent's instruction manual. 22/ The A factor of 0.19 used by Respondent in the revised Dean model was neither appropriate nor reasonable. Respondent determined the A factor in its revised Dean model by fitting the shoreline profile to a depth substantially beyond the depth of the nearshore breaking wave. The shoreline steepens beyond the depth of the nearshore breaking wave. As the shoreline steepens, the A factor increases. By determining the A factor on the basis of the steeper profile, Respondent overestimated the value of the A factor and underestimated the erosive force of a 15 year RISE. The revised computer model prepared by Respondent assumed an erosive force that was disproportionate to the actual storm used to calibrate all of the computer models. Both the original Dean and EDUNE models were calibrated with erosion data from the Thanksgiving Day storm. The Thanksgiving Day storm had an erosive force that was disproportionate to its storm surge elevation and 2.8 times greater than a major storm such as hurricane Eloise in 1975. To the extent the volumetric approach in the revised Dean model assessed vulnerability by a standard other than storm surge, Respondent deviated from the storm surge criteria in existing statutes and rules. The CCCL is statutorily intended to define that portion of the beach-dune system subject to a specific storm surge. 23/ Respondent's rules describe design criteria for coastal armoring 24/ and conforming foundations 25/ by reference to storm surge. Respondent's rules also describe design criteria for qualifying structures by reference to hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads during a storm surge. 26/ Evidence presented by Respondent to explicate its deviation from storm surge criteria in assessing vulnerability was neither credible nor persuasive and failed to overcome credible and persuasive evidence supporting the results of the original Dean model and EDUNE model. 27/ Respondent's inability to replicate the results of the EDUNE model is not a reasonable and appropriate basis for relying upon the revised Dean model and rejecting both the EDUNE model and the original Dean model. It is not possible to replicate modeling results without knowing each and every input variable used in the model to be replicated. Respondent did not know all of the input variables used by Petitioners' expert in the EDUNE model. In attempting to replicate the results of the EDUNE model, Respondent used input variables not used by Petitioners' expert. Notice Of Vulnerability The 1990 policy adopted by the Governor and Cabinet includes a notice of vulnerability caveat. The caveat provides that an applicant who constructs his or her home after notice of the public hearing for the CCCL in the county in which the home is located is presumed to have notice of vulnerability and is disqualified from obtaining a coastal armoring permit. Petitioners' applications are expressly exempt from the 1990 policy. Since Petitioners are not substantially affected by the 1990 policy, within the meaning of Sections 120.535(2) and 120.57(1)(b)15, it is not necessary to determine whether the notice of vulnerability provisions in the 1990 policy are generally applicable within the meaning of Section 120.52(16). The 1990 policy was adopted by the Governor and Cabinet three years after Petitioners began construction of their homes. At the time construction began, Respondent had no rule or policy giving notice to Petitioners that their construction activities may adversely affect their future ability to obtain a coastal armoring permit. Respondent advised Petitioners by separate letters issued on April 13 and 14, 1987, that their homes were exempt from the permitting requirements of the revised CCCL. At the time the CCCL was reestablished on March 4, 1987, Respondent determined on the basis of actual site inspections that Petitioners' homes were under construction within the meaning of former Rule 16B-33.002(56). 28/ The letters from Respondent in April, 1987, notified Petitioners that the foundations of their homes were nonconforming foundations and included a caveat that Respondent's staff would not recommend approval of any applications for coastal armoring to protect Petitioners' homes. The letters did not represent that the Governor and Cabinet would not approve their applications for coastal armoring permits. Petitioners began construction of their homes long before the notice of vulnerability policy was adopted in 1990. By the time Petitioner, Machata, received Respondent's letter in April, 1987, the entire substructure of his home was complete including the placement of 20,000 cubic yards of fill, the pouring of all footers, piles, grade beams, and retaining walls. Some plumbing and structural steel for the slab had been installed. When Petitioner, Lanzendorf, received a letter from Respondent, construction of his home was 80-90 percent complete and over $460,000 had been expended. It was not economically or legally feasible for Petitioners to stop construction of their homes when they received the letters issued by Respondent in April, 1987. Petitioners had already expended substantial sums on construction of their homes, and it is improbable that the lending institutions would have allowed construction to stop. The caveats contained in the letters issued by Respondent in April, 1987, were not timely under the circumstances and should have been issued prior to the beginning of construction rather than after substantial construction occurred. Notwithstanding its caveats, Respondent recommended approval of Petitioners' applications after Petitioners demonstrated that vulnerability to a 15 year RISE, but the Governor and Cabinet denied the application. Direct And Cumulative Impacts On The Beach-Dune System The proposed bulkhead, existing armoring, and proposed similar structures will have no significant adverse direct or cumulative impact on the beach-dune system within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a)3. The proposed bulkhead, existing armoring, and proposed similar structures will neither degrade the beach-dune system along that segment of the shoreline nor threaten the beach-dune system and its recovery potential within the meaning of Rule 16B- 33.005(7). Construction Construction of the bulkhead will not adversely affect the stability of the dune and will not damage vegetation seaward of the sheet piles. The sheet piles will be placed 10-15 feet landward of the dune bluff line and landward of the vegetation line. All construction will take place landward of the sheet piles. Excavation required to construct the proposed bulkhead is minimal. No excavation is required for placement of the tie rods in front of the Machata home. Only minor excavation is required for the deadman in front of the Machata home. The seaward and landward faces of the deadman will be covered with sand and not exposed except for a portion of the deadman in front of the Lanzendorf home. Due to dune elevation differences at the Lanzendorf home, a portion of the landward face of the deadman will be exposed. After removal of the forms used for the cap, tie rods, and deadman, the area between the sheet pile wall and the deadman will be filled with sand to bring the area up to a finish grade of 17.5 feet N.G.V.D. 29/ Any sand excavated to construct the bulkhead will be kept on site and used to build the grade to finish grade. The area between the sheet pile wall and deadman will be planted with native vegetation following placement of the sand. Impacts to dune vegetation landward of the steel wall will be temporary. Planted vegetation will provide protection to the dune from windblown erosion within one growing season. By the second growing season, planted vegetation will be of sufficient density to eliminate the initial impacts of construction. Before construction begins, Petitioners will place beach compatible sand at a 2:1 slope along the entire frontal dune escarpment within the limits of their property lines. The sand will provide additional stability for the dune during construction of the bulkhead and is consistent with the dune restoration plan required as a condition of the permit. The dune restoration plan requires Petitioners to place sand and vegetation in prescribed areas within 90 days of completion of construction. Dune restoration is a standard condition required by Respondent for the issuance of armoring permits. Natural Fluctuation Of The Beach-Dune System The beach-dune system is a balanced, interrelated system in a constant state of fluctuation. Natural erosion and accretion of sediment takes place as a result of coastal winds, waves, tides, and storms. Features of the beach-dune system are subject to cyclical and dynamic emergence, destruction, and reemergence. 30/ The beach-dune system cyclically accretes and erodes as a result of both storm impacts and seasonal changes. During storm events, elevated water conditions carry storm waves inland. Sediment from upland property is eroded. Storm waves carry the eroded material offshore and form an offshore sand bar. The sand bar protects the upland portion of the beach-dune system by tripping incoming waves, causing them to break offshore, and reducing the wave attack on the shoreline. Recovery of the upland portion of the beach-dune system occurs when a milder wave climate returns after a storm. Material from the sand bar is carried back to the upland property by normal wave activity. After the sand is deposited on shore, it is carried upland by wind, trapped by dune vegetation, and the dune previously eroded by the storm is rebuilt. In addition to storm events, seasonal changes cause fluctuations in the beach-dune system. The shoreline typically accretes during the summer when milder waves occur and erodes during the winter when wave action intensifies. When summer returns, the shoreline again accretes. Active Erosion From Armoring Erosion may be passive or active. Passive erosion occurs when the shoreline migrates landward during the natural fluctuation of erosion and accretion. Passive erosion is not an impact of the proposed bulkhead. The proposed bulkhead excludes sand landward of the bulkhead from the natural fluctuation of the beach-dune system. The proposed bulkhead will prevent the loss of sand landward of the bulkhead during storm events with a return interval of 25 years or less. Sand landward of the proposed bulkhead will be released into the beach-dune system in the event of a storm with a return interval of at least 25 years and sufficient force to destroy the proposed bulkhead. The proposed bulkhead will not cause erosion of the beach-dune system during storms with return intervals of less than 25 years unless the bulkhead is exposed and interacts with wave forces. The proposed bulkhead is located 10-15 feet landward of the dune bluff line and, therefore, will not initially be exposed to wave forces. The current annual rate of shoreline erosion near Petitioners' homes is 1.7 feet. At that rate of erosion, the proposed bulkhead would be exposed to wave action in approximately five to ten years in the absence of any mitigating action by Petitioners. If erosion of the shoreline exposes the proposed bulkhead to wave action, active erosion in the form of "scour" and "downdrift" may occur. Scour Scour would be caused by the interaction of the steel wall with storm tides and waves. 31/ Scour associated with a seawall is greater due to increased wave velocity caused by reflection of the wave energy off the seawall. Scour may occur during a storm event in front of the exposed bulkhead. Sand lost to scour will move immediately offshore in front of the bulkhead, as part of the sand bar, and eventually be returned to the shore during the recovery of the beach-dune system. A portion of the scoured sand will be diverted from the sand bar by longshore currents during the storm and redistributed within the littoral system. Downdrift Downdrift erosion occurs when longshore sediment is not transported from updrift to downdrift properties. When downdrift erosion occurs, downdrift properties are deprived of sand that otherwise would be transported from updrift properties. Downdrift erosion may occur if the shoreline retreats landward of the proposed bulkhead, the bulkhead protrudes onto the active beach, and interacts with waves. If all of those circumstances occur, the proposed bulkhead will trap sand on the updrift side of the bulkhead and deprive downdrift properties of sand to the extent of any sand trapped on the updrift side. Downdrift erosion, if any, caused by the proposed bulkhead will be limited to the dune area of the beach and will not result in a loss of sand to the beach-dune system. The amount of decrease in sand on the downdrift side of the proposed bulkhead will equal the amount of increase in sand to the updrift location. Renourishment There are several million cubic yards of sand in the littoral system in Indian River County. Any sand eroded at the location of the proposed bulkhead will be insignificant in comparison to the total amount of sand in the littoral system. Current natural erosion of the shoreline fronting Petitioners' homes causes a significantly greater volume of sand loss than may be caused in the localized area of the proposed bulkhead. Government devices in the region, including the Sebastian Inlet, cause significantly greater erosion to the shoreline in Indian River County than any erosion which may occur from the proposed bulkhead. Petitioners will place sand on the beach to offset or mitigate the sand retention features of the proposed bulkhead. Sand placement will be sufficient to offset any adverse impacts from scour erosion and downdrift erosion. Sand placement is common in Indian River County after storm events. Petitioners will conduct yearly shoreline profile surveys and maintain the shoreline profile in front of the proposed bulkhead through annual sand placement. Sand placement effectively mitigates any direct and cumulative adverse impacts from the proposed bulkhead. The beach profile adjacent to Petitioners' homes showed some recovery of the shoreline in the two year period around 1990. That recovery would not have been prevented by the proposed bulkhead. Proposed Similar Structures Proposed similar structures, within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a)3 and Rule 16B-33.005(7), include similar armoring under construction, pending applications for similar armoring, and similar structures that may reasonably be expected in the future. No additional armoring is under construction "along that segment of the shoreline." 32/ No pending applications are exempt from the 1990 policy, under review, approved, or vested along that segment of the shoreline. The 1990 policy prohibits all armoring within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge and requires qualifying structures outside the Refuge to be vulnerable to a five year return interval storm event. Accordingly, no similar projects may reasonably be expected in the future. Respondent prepared a cumulative impact analysis for the proposed bulkhead in support of its recommendation for approval of the permit. That original cumulative impact analysis concludes that there is no potential for increased armoring within one mile north or south of the proposed project site. Respondent's original cumulative impact analysis is credible and persuasive. Revised Cumulative Impact Analysis Respondent prepared a revised cumulative impact analysis for the formal hearing. Respondent attempted to define proposed similar structures to include, not only similar armoring under construction and pending applications for similar armoring, but also future armoring that may occur if approval of Petitioners' application creates a precedent for armoring similarly situated properties. Respondent assessed the cumulative impact on the beach-dune system from such potential future armoring and attributed the potential impact entirely to the proposed bulkhead. In addition, Respondent expanded the definition of "that segment of the shoreline" in Rule 16B- 33.005(7) from a two mile segment of shoreline in its original analysis to an 18 mile segment in its revised analysis. 33/ Respondent evaluated a five region area beginning from a point south of Vero Beach in Indian River County and running north to a point south of Melbourne in Brevard County. Region 1 contains the proposed project site and is slightly south of midway in the area evaluated. 34/ Region 2 is immediately south of Region 1. Region 3 is immediately south of Region 2. Region 4 is immediately north of Region 1, and Region 5 is north of Region 4. The area evaluated excludes a portion of state-owned shoreline between Regions 4 and 5, including the Sebastian Inlet State Park. 35/ The shoreline within the boundaries of the five regions is 21.5 miles or 113,520 feet. Excluding the state-owned shoreline between Regions 4 and 5, the shoreline evaluated within the five region area totals 92,000 feet or 18 miles. The length of the proposed bulkhead is 303 feet. Respondent determined that there are 87 major habitable structures similarly situated to Petitioners' homes and that 9.8 percent of the shoreline in the area evaluated will be armored. Respondent determined that approval of Petitioners' application would increase armoring by: 280 feet in Region 1; 3,260 feet in Region 2; 4,145 feet in Region 3; 850 feet in Region 4; and 2,510 feet in Region 5. Respondent's cumulative impact analysis is not a valid application of the cumulative impact doctrine. The cumulative impact doctrine requires Respondent to consider the ". . . cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future." 36/ (emphasis supplied) Assuming arguendo that all 87 structures are "similarly situated" with Petitioners' property, armoring of all 87 structures can not reasonably be expected in the future. Respondent did not apply the 1990 policy in its cumulative impact assessment for the proposed project. Regions 1, 2, 4, and 5 are within the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. The 1990 policy prohibits all coastal armoring within the Refuge. If the Governor and Cabinet require compliance with the 1990 policy, the proposed project will not create a precedent for armoring within Regions 1, 2, 4, and 5. Any armoring that occurs will be a result of non-adherence to the 1990 policy rather than an impact of the proposed project. Respondent did not apply the 1990 policy to qualifying structures outside the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge in Region 3. There are no armoring applications pending for any of the 87 structures identified by Respondent in its cumulative impact assessment, and no applications for any of those structures were complete on or before August 14, 1990. Unlike the proposed project, none of the 87 structures identified by Respondent are exempt from the 1990 policy. More than half of the 87 structures would not be vulnerable to a five year RISE under the 1990 policy. The terms of the permit for the proposed project provide that the permit does not create a precedent for armoring similarly situated structures. Permits issued by Respondent for new structures seaward of the CCCL include a caveat that a particular permit may not be considered as precedent for future applications by similarly threatened structures. Even if Respondent's determination is accepted on its face, a 9.8 percent increase in coastal armoring will not create a significant adverse impact on the beach-dune system. Moreover, several considerations suggest that Respondent's cumulative impact analysis is exaggerated. Respondent has promulgated no criteria in any rule to establish the length of shoreline or the number or size of the regions that must be included in any cumulative impact analysis. Rule 16B-33.005(7) requires that the cumulative impact of the proposed bulkhead must be assessed "along that segment of the shoreline." The prescribed segment of shoreline was expanded from 2 miles, in Respondent's original cumulative impact analysis, to 18 miles in Respondent's revised cumulative impact analysis. 37/ During the formal hearing, Respondent suggested several alternatives for determining the segment of shoreline that should be evaluated in assessing the adverse cumulative impact of the proposed project. Alternatives included: the same general area of the applicants' property; the local area; the entire east coast; the limits of the undeveloped portion of the shoreline on either side of the proposed structure; Vero Beach to the south; two miles on either side of the proposed bulkhead; the coastal cell; the area between two major areas of armoring; areas with similar processes; anywhere on the coast; a two mile segment of shoreline; the area in close proximity; and more areas other than the regions actually used by Respondent in its cumulative impact analysis. In the revised cumulative impact analysis, Respondent included the entire width of the shoreline within the property boundary for each of the structures. Respondent does not allow armoring to extend the entire shoreline of the property on which the armoring device is located. The 87 structures identified by Respondent are not similarly situated to Petitioners' homes. Respondent defined similarly situated structures as those located at a distance from the vegetation line that is similar to the distance between Petitioners' homes and the bluff line. Such a definition fails to take into account actual site conditions for a particular structure. Respondent relied solely on aerial photographs of the five region area to determine the distance between the vegetation line and each of the 87 structures. Aerial photographs provide only an approximation of the distance between the structure and the vegetation line. Respondent did not physically verify distances under actual site conditions ("ground truth"). If Respondent had ground truthed its cumulative impact analysis, site specific variations in the beach-dune system would significantly reduce potential armoring projected by Respondent. By not ground truthing actual site conditions for the 87 structures, Respondent failed to identify those structures that are not vulnerable to a five year return interval storm event due to enhanced dune viability. Respondent could not consider whether the beach-dune system at a particular site provided a structure with more protection due to: greater dune height; the condition of the shoreline; and the viability of the beach-dune system. If the foregoing considerations are taken into account, only 860 feet of shoreline in the five region area, or 0.8 percent, is subject to potential armoring. The impact on the beach-dune system of armoring 0.8 percent of the coastline in the five region area is inconsequential and will not have a significant adverse cumulative impact. It is unlikely that coastal armoring structures will be placed on publicly owned land. The State of Florida owns approximately 11,400 feet, or 22 percent, of the shoreline in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge is within the State of Florida Archie Carr Conservation and Recreational Lands ("CARL") Project. The Refuge is ranked 7th on the 1992 CARL priority list. The priority ranking assigned to the Refuge means that Respondent has sufficient funds to acquire properties within the CARL project. Respondent has $10 million a year for the acquisition of land within the Archie Carr CARL project. Respondent could purchase the entire 9.5 miles of coastline in six years. Respondent has already purchased four parcels within the Archie Carr CARL Project totalling 29.88 acres. Respondent is actively negotiating with property owners and continuing to purchase land within the Archie Carr CARL Project. On October 22, 1991, the Governor and Cabinet authorized the purchase of 7.28 acres of land within the Archie Carr CARL Project. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service is also acquiring property in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Congress appropriated $2 million in 1991 and $1.5 million in 1992 for the acquisition of such property. At the formal hearing, Respondent claimed that it would have to be 100 percent certain that no additional permits for armoring would be issued as a result of the proposed bulkhead in order for there to be no cumulative impact. As a practical matter, such a standard has the effect of a complete ban on all armoring and is clearly more restrictive than the 1990 policy from which the proposed bulkhead is exempt. Applicable statutes and rules do not authorize such a ban. Such a ban contravenes, not only existing statutes and rules, but also the express exemption granted by the Governor and Cabinet. Direct And Cumulative Impacts On Marine Turtles Florida has the second highest incidence of marine turtle nesting in the world. Loggerhead, green, and leatherback turtles currently nest on Florida beaches. Green turtles are endangered species while leatherbacks and loggerheads are threatened species. Respondent conducts yearly surveys of marine turtle nesting beaches and compiles the information in nesting summary reports. Nesting densities for each species are generally expressed as nests laid per kilometer of shoreline. Actual leatherback nests surveyed from Canaveral to Key Biscayne totaled 114 in 1991. One was located in the Canaveral National Seashore area. Another 44 and 32 were located on Hutchinson Island and Jupiter Island, respectively. Three nests were located in Boca Raton. Four nests were located in Broward County. Thirty nests were located in the Juno/Jupiter area. 38/ It is improbable that leatherback turtles will nest on the beach-dune system in front of Petitioners' homes. No leatherback turtles have ever been found on the beach in front of Petitioners' homes. Nesting densities for leatherback turtles are greater in St. Lucie, Martin, and Palm Beach counties than leatherback nesting densities in Indian River County. The Wabasso Beach survey area covers eight kilometers and includes the proposed project site. 39/ Wabasso Beach is not a significant nesting area for leatherback turtles. Nesting densities for leatherback turtles in Wabasso Beach are very low. Only one leatherback nested along the eight kilometers in Wabasso Beach in 1989, resulting in a nesting density of 0.125. There were no nests in 1990. The nesting density in 1991 was 0.62. The number of leatherback turtles that may be found in front of Petitioners' homes, expressed as a percentage of 1991 nesting density for Wabasso Beach, is 0.006. Wabasso Beach is not a significant nesting area for green turtles. In 1990, 2,055 green turtle nests were laid on the beaches from Canaveral to Key Biscayne. Wabasso Beach ranked fourth in nesting quality behind Jupiter Island, Brevard County, and Juno Beach. The likelihood of a green turtle nesting in front of Petitioners' homes is low to very low. Green turtle nesting densities for Wabasso Beach from 1989-1991 were as follows: 14 nests or 1.75 nests per kilometer in 1989; 55 nests or 6.9 nests per kilometer for 1990; and 7 nests or 0.87 nests per kilometer in 1991. Expressed as a percentage of nesting density for Wabasso Beach, the number of a green turtle nests to be found in front of Petitioners' homes was 0.0175 in 1989, 0.069 in 1990, and 0.0087 in 1991. 40/ Wabasso Beach is not a significant nesting area for loggerhead turtles. In 1990, 55,935 loggerhead nests were laid on the beaches from Canaveral to Key Biscayne. Wabasso Beach ranked fourth in nesting density behind Jupiter Island, Juno Beach, and south Brevard County. The nesting density for loggerhead turtles in Jupiter Island and south Brevard County, respectively, was five and two times greater than the nesting density in Wabasso Beach. Loggerhead nesting densities for Wabasso Beach from 1989-1991 were as follows: 1,256 nests or 157 nests per kilometer in 1989; 1,155 nests or 144.4 nests per kilometer for 1990; and 1,758 nests or 219.7 nests per kilometer in 1991. Even though Wabasso Beach is not a significant nesting area for loggerheads, it is likely that loggerhead turtles will nest on the beach-dune system in front of Petitioners' homes. Eleven loggerhead nests were laid on the beach in front of Petitioners' homes in 1990. On average, 13.2 loggerhead nests are laid in front of Petitioners' homes each season. Even if all of the green turtle and loggerhead nests laid in front of Petitioners' homes are destroyed as a result of the proposed project, that unlikely loss would not have a significant adverse impact on the total population of green and loggerhead turtles. Based on the number of nests and the number of times a female nests each season, there are 750 to 1,000 female green turtles and 20,000 to 25,000 female loggerhead turtles in the area between Canaveral and Key Biscayne. The loss of anywhere from 0.0087 to 0.069 green turtle nests and the loss of 13.2 loggerhead turtle nests would be insignificant compared to the overall turtle population for each species. The number of loggerhead nests destroyed in front of Petitioners' home, for example, would be 0.00009 percent of the total nests laid in Florida. Nesting data indicates an upward trend for both green turtles and loggerheads. The proposed bulkhead will not have an adverse impact on the upward trend for either species. Marine turtles do not nest landward of the dune bluff- line or vegetation line. The proposed bulkhead is located landward of the dune bluff line and landward of the vegetation line. Construction activities will not take place in the area of the beach where turtles nest and will not occur during the nesting season. Construction activities will not adversely affect the dune, will not cause damage to the dune, and will not destabilize the dune. False Crawls Adverse impacts on marine turtles from the proposed bulkhead, if any, will not occur unless erosion of the dune is so extensive that the proposed bulkhead is exposed. Even an exposed bulkhead will not have an adverse impact on marine turtles if a dry sandy area in the mid to high beach seaward of the bulkhead is available for nesting. If a nesting turtle encounters an exposed bulkhead, she probably will not nest at that site. She will likely return to the ocean, move up or down the beach, find a more suitable nesting area, and make her nest. This process is referred to as a false crawl. A turtle that false crawls at the site of the proposed bulkhead will not have far to go to nest at an unarmored site. The proposed bulkhead is only 303 feet long. The 1990 policy adopted by the Governor and Cabinet prohibits all armoring in the Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge. Marine turtles frequently false crawl for reasons that are not completely understood. False crawls that occur when the bulkhead is exposed, if any, may not be attributable to the exposed bulkhead. A false crawl is not an abnormal event for marine turtles and is not necessarily harmful to them. Loggerheads may false crawl 50 percent of the time. In Wabasso Beach in 1990, there were 1,114 false crawls associated with 1,155 nests laid. Even on undisturbed beaches, the percentage of false crawls is as high as 50 percent. Marine turtles can successfully nest on the beach in front of the proposed bulkhead. Turtles have a long history of nesting in front of armoring structures in the Town of Jupiter Beach. Since March, 1989, turtle nests have been laid in front of the partial rock revetment at the toe of the dune escarpment along the shoreline fronting the Machata home. There is no evidence that these nests have not been successful. The percentage of false crawls in front of Petitioners' homes has been similar to false crawls on the rest of Wabasso Beach. Marine turtles sometimes emerge at low tide and nest below that portion of the beach inundated by high tide. Such nests are destroyed by the ensuing high tide. Waves and storm action commonly destroy turtle nests even on undeveloped and unarmored beaches. Racoon predation is a significant cause of turtle hatchling and egg mortality. Predation poses a considerably greater threat to eggs and hatchlings than does the proposed bulkhead. Exposed roots at the dune escarpment in front of Petitioners' homes may cause false crawls in the absence of the proposed bulkhead. Natal Beach Marine turtles return to their natal beach to nest. The proposed bulkhead will not adversely affect the ability of marine turtles to return to their natal beach. Female turtles return to a geographic area to nest. They do not return to the specific beach where they are hatched. Female turtles may nest on widely disparate beaches. One loggerhead that nested in the Carolinas also nested in Melbourne Beach. No tagged hatchling has ever returned to the specific beach where it was hatched. There is no agreement among experts on a precise length of beach that comprises a natal beach. However, the length of the proposed bulkhead is considerably smaller than the beach area encompassed by any definition of a natal beach. A turtle that returns to its natal beach and encounters an exposed bulkhead in front of Petitioners' homes can nest in another portion of its natal beach with no adverse impact from the bulkhead. Nest Relocation Marine turtles can be protected from adverse impacts of the proposed bulkhead through nest relocation. Nest relocation has a high success rate. Relocated nests attain hatchling success similar to that enjoyed by natural nests. In some cases, the hatchling success of relocated nests is greater than that of natural nests. Respondent routinely permits the relocation of large numbers of turtle nests. Thousands of nests have been relocated for threatened inundation, beach renourishment projects, beach cleaning, in heavy use areas, where lighting is a threat, and for research activities. In 1988, Respondent authorized the relocation of 199 loggerhead turtle nests in Brevard County for use in hatchling disorientation studies. More recently, Respondent allowed the Rosenstiel School at the University of Miami to relocate 10 nests to study the affect of sand on hatch success of loggerhead turtles. In 1990, Respondent issued permits allowing the relocation of 857 loggerhead turtle nests, containing 94,322 eggs, that were laid on portions of the beach in the City of Boca Raton, Jupiter Beach, Volusia County, Manalipan, and Daytona Beach. While Respondent has issued permits authorizing governmental agencies to relocate many thousands of turtle nests, Respondent maintains that it does not issue permits authorizing private parties to relocate turtle nests. However, Respondent's Division of Marine Resources has approved nest relocation as part of a sea turtle protection plan in the coastal armoring permit for Suntide Condominium. Petitioners have provided reasonable assurances that nesting turtles and their hatchlings will be protected. Petitioners have agreed to a number of permit conditions including the following: implementation of a sea turtle protection plan; implementation of a dune restoration plan within 90 days of the date the proposed bulkhead is completed; removal of the bulkhead once the bluff line recedes to the landward limit of either return wall; locating the bulkhead as far landward as practicable; placement of sand at a 2:1 slope along the entire dune escarpment adjacent to the bulkhead to enhance the stability of the dune; and yearly restoration of the beach profile fronting the bulkhead if surveys indicate that the profile has eroded. Relocation of turtle nests as an element of the sea turtle protection plan and the absence of any significant adverse direct or cumulative impacts provide reasonable assurances that nesting turtles, their hatchlings, and their habitat will be protected within the meaning of Sections 161.053(5)(c) and 370.12, and that the proposed project will not result in a "take" within the meaning of Section 370.12(1)(c)1. Other Considerations: Imminent Collapse; Public Access; And Local Requirements Petitioners' homes are not within the zone of imminent collapse within the meaning of Federal Emergency Management Agency ("FEMA") rules. The state is not qualified to issue certificates of imminent collapse under Section 1306(c) of the National Flood Insurance Act, as amended. Special permit conditions recommended by Respondent assure public access in the event erosion of the beach results in little or no dry sandy beach for access between the water and the proposed bulkhead. Petitioners are required to provide written evidence that a restrictive notice has been provided in the deeds and covenants and restrictions and recorded with the Clerk of the Court for Martin County. The restrictive notice must provide for a perpetual public access easement across the entire shore parallel width Petitioners' property. The easement must provide appropriate means of access and egress and allow passage along the shoreline. Clearly designated signs advising the public of the easement must be appropriately placed on Petitioners' property. Respondent typically requires applicants to grant public access easements when Respondent issues an armoring permit that may interfere with public beach access. The existing rock revetment in front of Petitioners' homes satisfies local requirements regarding setback requirements or zoning or building codes. Respondent may condition its approval of the proposed bulkhead upon receipt of written evidence that the proposed bulkhead will not contravene local requirements. Respondent has done so in connection with an earlier application by CTP Realty, Inc. (a/k/a Pishock) for a coastal armoring permit in the same region as the proposed project. Only Feasible Alternative Once Petitioners have clearly justified the necessity for the proposed bulkhead and shown that the direct and cumulative impacts clearly justify the proposed bulkhead, Petitioners' must demonstrate that the proposed bulkhead is the only feasible alternative. Alternatives asserted by Respondent in this proceeding include: "do nothing"; sand placement; and home relocation. Do Nothing And Sand Placement Respondent asserts that Petitioners should do nothing and rely on the existing dune for protection against high frequency storms. The "do nothing" alternative is not technically feasible. The existing dune does not provide the necessary protection for Petitioners' homes. The receding bluff line, eroding shoreline, and threat from high frequency storms expose Petitioners' homes to a high level of risk. Respondent also asserts that Petitioners should restore the existing beach profile through sand placement. Sand placement that provides a level of protection equivalent to the proposed bulkhead is not economically feasible. Sand placement at that level would require the placement of sand at a rate of 1.7 to 2.0 cubic feet per foot of shoreline for one half mile on either side of Petitioners' homes and in front of the proposed bulkhead. Due to the eroding nature of the shoreline, sand placement would need to occur more than once a year and would be economically prohibitive. Relocation: Technical Feasibility It is not technically feasible to relocate the Machata home. The structural design of the Machata home is unique. It has a 35 foot clear story from the finish floor up to a major ridge beam that supports the entire roof structure. The ridge beam bears on a bearing wall at its south end and the vertical standing fireplace at its north end. The fireplace in the Machata home is a two story, 38 foot high structure. It is the main support for the entire roof system of the home. The fireplace is constructed with concrete masonry and stone veneer and weighs 250,000 pounds. The fireplace rests on a slab foundation and is supported by six to eight 25 foot long piles. The piles are an integral structural element of the fireplace. Girder trusses on the second floor are connected to both sides of the fireplace. The trusses accept the loading of the second floor framing. The fireplace in the Machata home is cantilevered at the second floor. A cantilever beam off the fireplace supports the second story of the fireplace. The cantilevered nature of the fireplace means the fireplace is top heavy, out of balance, and out of symmetry. In order to relocate the Machata home, it would be necessary to sever the piles from the fireplace support structure. The piles that must be severed bear the loading associated with the cantilevered nature of the fireplace. Severing those piles may cause the fireplace to collapse. If the fireplace collapses, the ridge beam will collapse, and a large portion of the home will be destroyed. There is a wide variation in structural loading in the Machata home. Structural loading exceeds a quarter million pounds at the center of the home. Perimeter wall loads are 3,000 pounds per square foot. Interior wall loads are 1,500 pounds per square foot. Variations in structural loading prevent the home from being moved without tilting. If the Machata home is tilted during relocation, the fireplace will tilt or move off center. Due to the cantilevered and top heavy nature of the fireplace, the center of gravity will shift from the center of the fireplace to a point outside the fireplace. A shift in the center of gravity will create bending stress on the fireplace. The fireplace is not reinforced and not designed to withstand bending forces. The fireplace may crack and break under bending forces and fail. If the fireplace fails, the ridge beam will collapse and a large portion of the home will be destroyed. Relocation of the Machata home will alter the location of the property securing the interest of the mortgagee. Under the terms of his mortgage, Mr. Machata can not damage or substantially change his property. Relocation: Economic Feasibility Relocation of Petitioners' homes is not economically feasible. The direct cost of relocating the Machata home and garage is $315,000. The direct cost of relocating the Lanzendorf home is $75,000. Direct costs of relocation do not include the cost of restoration after the move. Relocation costs include the reasonable cost of restoring Petitioners' homes to the condition they were in prior to relocation. Respondent failed to explicate a justification for not including such costs in its proposed alternative. Such costs include: rebuilding the swimming pools, patios, retaining walls, driveways, walkways, planters, terraces, and equipment enclosure walls; disconnecting, reconnecting, and refurbishing electrical, air conditioning, plumbing and septic systems; landscaping and repairing or replacing the irrigation systems; repairing or relocating fences; earthwork such as clearing and filling; constructing new foundations; and exterior and interior refinishing and reconditioning. The cost of restoring Petitioners' homes after relocation is: MACHATA LANZENDORF a. Exterior demolition 45,878 11,923 b. Interior demolition 12,375 0 c. Earthwork 88,727 46,033 d. Concrete for retaining walls, planters, equipment enclosure walls, footings, terrace and steps 84,909 5,600 e. Pilings 37,500 15,700 f. Rebuild interior fireplace 52,000 0 g. Exterior refinishing 74,770 10,800 h. House reconditioning 32,700 13,500 i. Pool area 23,500 26,500 j. Deck drain, flashing, water proofing 3,000 1,000 k. Electrical 12,665 8,400 l. Plumbing 12,500 8,500 m. Air conditioning systems 11,000 1,250 n. Site grading, irrigation, landscaping 33,192 14,000 o. Driveway 23,256 8,165 p. Temporary shoring and structural support 7,500 0 q. Consulting fees 12,500 3,500 SUBTOTAL 567,972 174,871 r. Contingencies, wastes, and unknowns 42,597 13,155 s. Overhead and profit 128,217 39,477 TOTAL 738,786 227,503 The cost estimates for restoration are reasonable and customary based on what a general contractor would typically submit on such a project. The cost of restoring the Lanzendorf home after relocation is $227,503. When this cost is added to the direct cost of relocation ($75,000), the total cost of relocating the Lanzendorf home is $302,503. The cost of restoring the Machata home after relocation is $738,786. When this cost is added to the direct cost of relocation ($315,000), the total cost of relocating the Machata home is $1,053,786. The patios and terraces at the Machata home are not moveable. The costs of relocating the Machata home, therefore, can not be reduced by moving the terraces rather than demolishing and rebuilding them. Estimated exterior demolition costs of $45,878 include the cost of demolishing the terraces, planter walls, pool steps, segments of the driveway and driveway access that would have to be removed to pour concrete runways on which the home would be rolled to its new location. The cost includes trucking and disposal of the demolition material. The pool at the Machata home can not be moved. It is a reinforced mesh, pencil rod structure, sprayed with gunite. The work reasonably necessary to relocate the Machata home and restore it to its condition prior to relocation would require the pool to be demolished and rebuilt. The estimated cost of $37,500 for constructing a new pile foundation for the Machata home includes pilings, steel reinforcing cages, transition caps, and grade beams. The cost of constructing a new foundation would be greater if Respondent requires the new foundation to comply with the requirements of the relocated CCCL. Estimated earthwork costs of $88,727 for the Machata home include: clearing the site; filling the site to elevate the relocated home to flood elevations required by local government and current elevation; and compacting the fill material. It would also be necessary to grade the site, redo the irrigation system, landscape the site and plant sod, and replace fences to restore the site to its condition prior to the relocation. The air conditioning system at the Machata home is a heat exchange system that utilizes two wells. One well is an artisan well. The other is a shallow well. There are numerous connections between the air conditioning equipment and the two wells. The two wells would have to be relocated and reconnected to the air conditioning system. The underground electrical service to the Machata home would have to be disconnected, relocated, and reconnected. Estimated costs of $12,655 include the disconnection and reconnection of all electrical equipment as well as replacement of numerous pool lights at the new location. The Machata home can not be relocated with the fireplace intact. To assure against the structural collapse of the Machata home during relocation, the home must be properly shored. The fireplace must be disassembled and reassembled after the home is relocated. The cost of demolishing and removing the fireplace, temporarily shoring the home, and rebuilding the fireplace, including masonry reinforcement, internal duct work, structural ties, and Kentucky stone facing, is $71,875. Competing Cost Estimates The estimated relocation costs submitted by Intervenors' expert witness were neither credible nor persuasive. The cost estimates were based on visual observation of Petitioners' homes from an adjacent lot. The witness did not enter Petitioners' property to determine the size or quality of various appurtenances including swimming pools, driveways, tile terraces, retaining walls, and landscaping. The witness did not review structural plans for the Machata home. He was not familiar with structural characteristics of the Machata home and did not know the type of air conditioning used. Relocation costs are based on the estimated weight of each house. Estimating the weight of a structure that exceeds 300,000 pounds is integral to a determination of the cost of relocating that structure. The Machata house weighs 1,200 tons. Intervenors' cost estimates for moving the Machata home are based on a projected weight of 300 to 350 tons. When a structure's weight exceeds 150 tons, an accurate weight projection is integral to an accurate determination of relocation costs. The cost estimates submitted by Intervenors are not formal bids. The cost estimates submitted by Petitioners were prepared as formal bids by an expert in marine construction engineering. The formal bids were based on engineering drawings of the bulkhead. Costs set forth in formal bids are more likely to reflect actual costs than costs set forth in a cost estimate prepared for the formal hearing. The cost estimates submitted by Intervenors unnecessarily exaggerate the cost of the proposed bulkhead. For example, the $5,000 estimate for clearing is unnecessary because no clearing will be conducted. The mobilization/demobilization cost of $10,000 in Intervenors' estimate would actually be $2,500. The $12,000 allotted for site restoration is high and could be completed for $3,000 to $4,000. The $10,000 added for the deadman with tie rods is already included in the square foot cost submitted by Petitioners. Considering these and other examples, the total cost estimates submitted by Intervenors are exaggerated by $100,000. The 2:1 Requirement For Economic Feasibility Respondent applies a 2:1 requirement to assess the economic feasibility of alternatives to coastal armoring. If the cost of relocation of the upland structure or dune enhancement does not exceed the cost of the proposed armoring by 2:1, then relocation or enhancement is considered to be economically feasible. Respondent requires compliance with the 2:1 requirement in all applications for coastal armoring, and the requirement has the direct and consistent effect of law. The 2:1 requirement is an agency statement of general applicability that implements, interprets, or prescribes policy, or imposes a requirement not included in existing statutes or rules and which has not been adopted in accordance with statutory rulemaking requirements (an "unwritten rule"). 41/ Respondent failed to explicate the reasonableness of selecting the 2:1 requirement over other means of assessing economic feasibility. Even if Respondent had justified its policy during the formal hearing, the cost of relocating Petitioners' homes is more than twice the cost of the proposed bulkhead and, therefore, is not economically feasible. The cost of constructing the proposed bulkhead is $136,000 including all labor, materials, and necessary equipment for the bulkhead and return walls. Of the total cost, $51,000 is attributable to the portion of the bulkhead related to the Lanzendorf home and $85,000 is attributable to the portion of the bulkhead related to the Machata home. The total cost of relocating the Machata home is $1,053,777. The total cost of relocating the Lanzendorf home is $302,464. Agency Requirements Satisfied Petitioners clearly justified the necessity for the proposed bulkhead in accordance with Rule 16B-33.005(1). Their homes are vulnerable to high frequency storms with return intervals as frequent as 10 to 15 years. Computer model results demonstrate that Petitioners' homes are vulnerable to high frequency storm events with return intervals as frequent as 10 to 15 years. The input variables used in the original and EDUNE computer models were reasonably related to Respondent's existing rules, the terms of Respondent's instruction manual, Respondent's long standing practice in all coastal armoring permits since 1988, and reasonable professional judgment. The direct or cumulative impacts on the beach-dune system and marine turtles clearly justify the proposed bulkhead within the meaning of Section 161.053(5)(a)3. The proposed bulkhead is adequately designed and will be properly constructed within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.005(3) and 16B-33.008. The proposed bulkhead is the only feasible alternative and will be located as far landward as possible within the meaning of Rule 16B-33.005(3)(c).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order granting Petitioners' application for a coastal armoring permit subject to conditions stated by Respondent on the record and imposed by the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 1994.
The Issue Whether Permit Number 9330008850 (a building permit for the construction of a single-family residence and swimming pool) issued by Monroe County, Florida, to Fred Snowman is inconsistent with Monroe County's setback requirement pertaining to beach berms that are known turtle nesting areas.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility to administer the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. Petitioner has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern. Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, and 380.07, Florida Statutes. Monroe County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and is responsible for issuing development orders for development in unincorporated Monroe County, Florida. Monroe County issued the development order that is the subject of this appeal. Respondent Fred Snowman is a general contractor and is the owner of real property known as Lot 75, Matecumbe Ocean Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in Monroe County, Florida. The subject property is a residential lot that measures 100 feet by approximately 225 feet and was acquired by Mr. Snowman in September 1992. The subject property is bounded on the landward side by U.S. 1 and fronts the Atlantic Ocean. Respondent's lot is within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On September 30, 1993, Monroe County issued building permit, Permit Number 9330008850, to Fred Snowman as Owner and General Contractor. This building permit is a development order in an area of critical state concern and is the subject of this proceeding. As reflected by the approved site plans, the permit authorizes the construction of a 2,472 square foot single-family residence with 1,568 square feet of porches, a 1,435 square foot storage enclosure below base flood elevation, and a swimming pool on the property. As permitted, all construction will be setback at least 75 feet from the mean high water line. There is no dispute between the parties as to where the mean high water line is located. Sections 9.5-335 through 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, are land development regulations that contain certain environmental performance standards relating to development. The purpose of these standards is "to provide for the conservation and protection of the environmental resources of the Florida Keys by ensuring that the functional integrity of natural areas is protected when land is developed." See, Section 9.5-335, Monroe County Code. Included in the environmental standards of the land development regulations is Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, entitled "Environmental design criteria," which provides, in relevant part: Disturbed Lands: All structures developed, used or occupied on land which are [sic] classified as disturbed on the existing conditions map shall be designated, located and constructed such that: * * * (3) On lands classified as disturbed with beach berm: * * * f. No structure shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion of any beach-berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles, terns, gulls or other birds; There is little dispute that Lower Matecumbe beach is an active nesting area for marine turtles. Loggerhead turtles, the primary marine turtles which nest on Atlantic beaches in the Keys, are a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. There are thirty beaches in the Florida Keys which consist of loggerhead nesting habitat. The beach that fronts Mr. Snowman's property on Lower Matecumbe Key is a known turtle nesting beach that is ranked as the second most heavily nested beach in the Keys. The Monroe County comprehensive plan recognizes the beaches on Lower Matecumbe Key as known loggerhead turtle nesting beaches. Pursuant to the comprehensive plan, the County has prepared endangered species maps as a tool to be utilized in identifying known turtle nesting areas. At the time Mr. Snowman obtained approval of his permit application from Monroe County, the County's endangered species maps omitted an approximately 1.5 mile stretch of Lower Matecumbe Beach, including Mr. Snowman's property, from its map designation of a known nesting habitat. However, since that approval, the map, which is subject to periodic updates, has been updated by the County to reflect that all of Lower Matecumbe Key, including Mr. Snowman's property, is considered by the County to be known turtle nesting habitat. Mr. Snowman did not rely on the designation on the endangered species map in making his decision to purchase the subject property or in designing the improvements he seeks to construct on the property. Surveys of turtle nesting behavior in the Florida Keys are accomplished through a network of volunteers. The nesting survey information obtained from this volunteer network provides very general locations with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the number and ability of the volunteers and the extent to which they can obtain access to privately owned beach front property. Because of the limitations in the survey data, is it generally not possible to determine whether turtles have nested on a particular lot. There was no evidence that turtles actually nest on Mr. Snowman's property. Marine turtles most commonly nest within the first 50 feet landward of the mean high tide line, although they have been known to go farther upland. Because of the compressed beach and berm habitat in the Keys, loggerhead turtles have been known to nest in grassy vegetation and woody vegetation more than 50 feet landward of the mean high water line. Mr. Snowman's property is properly designated as "Disturbed Lands" and there exists on this property a "beach-berm complex" which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles within the meaning of Section 9.5- 345, Monroe County Code. The setback requirement found in Section 9.5-345, Monroe County Code, applies to this development. Consequently, no construction of any structure may be located within fifty (50) feet of any portion the beach- berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting area of marine turtles. There was a conflict in the evidence as to how much of Mr. Snowman's property should be considered to be a beach-berm habitat. The County has identified the landward extent of the beach-berm to be twenty-five feet from the mean high water line, so that the setback would be to a point at least 75 feet from the mean high water line. The Department has identified the landward extent of the beach berm to be 80 feet from the mean high water line so that the setback would be to a point at least 130 feet from the mean high water line. Section 9.5-4(B-3) contains the following definition that is pertinent to this proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. The sand is calcareous material that is the remains of marine organisms such as corals, algae and molluscs. The berm may include forested, coastal ridges and may be colonized by hammock vegetation. There are two distinct ridges located on the Snowman property. Beginning at the mean high water line, there is an area of sandy beach followed by a ridge (the first ridge) that levels off approximately 25 feet from the mean high water line. Behind this first ridge is another ridge that levels off approximately 80 feet landward of the mean high water line. This second ridge contains the highest elevation point on Mr. Snowman's property, with the crest of the second ridge corresponding with the 5.9 foot elevation reflected on Respondent's site plan. There is no vegetation on the beach, which is an area of sandy substrate, until the landward downslope of the first ridge, where vegetation in the form of grasses and sea oats appear. Grasses and sea oats extend approximately 30-40 feet landward into the beginning of the second ridge. Behind the grasses and sea oats is woody vegetation, Bay Cedar, and shrubbery typical of beach front property. Also found on the property and landward of the first ridge are sea grape, wild sage, gray nicker pod, and prickly pear cactus. Monroe County considers this first ridge to be the extent of the beach berm complex on the Snowman property. The County identifies the back of the berm on the subject property as measuring 25 feet landward of mean high water and applied the 50 foot setback requirement from that point. The determination of the extent of the beach berm by the County is consistent with the definition of the term "beach berm" contained in Section 9.5-345(3)f, Monroe County Code, and is supported by the greater weight of the evidence presented at the formal hearing. Consequently, it is found that the beach berm complex on the Snowman property extends 25 feet landward of the mean high water mark so that the setback requirement was properly applied when the development order was issued. The Department asserts that the second ridge should be considered to be part of the beach berm. The Department's determination of the extent of the beach berm is bottomed on a more expansive definition of the term "beach berm" derived from its interpretation of various portions of the Monroe County Comprehensive Code. Inexplicably, the Department's interpretation of what should be considered to be included as part of the "beach berm" ignores the definition contained in Section 9.5-345(3)f, Monroe County Code. The Department interprets the term "beach berm" to include not only the initial increase and decrease in elevation near the shoreline, but also those areas of calcareous substrate that form the second ridge and include the highest elevation on the subject property. The Department considers the beach berm to terminate 80 feet from the mean high water line where the elevation of the second ridge decreases and levels off to a more consistent grade. The Department characterizes the first ridge as a primary dune the second ridge as a secondary dune. In support of its position, the Department cites the discussion of beach berms in the Florida Keys contained in Volume I of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. That discussion describes a berm in the Keys as the "higher, mostly vegetated dense-like sand ridges." According to the Comprehensive Plan, the biota characteristics of beach systems in the Keys occur in up to four distinct generalized zones or associations, assemblages of plants and animals that have adapted to the environmental conditions of that zone. The zones on Keys beaches are described by Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan as follows: The strand-beach association is dominated by plants that are salt tolerant, root quickly, germinate from seed rapidly, and can withstand wave wash and shifting sand. Commonly found species include Sea Purslane, . . . Beach Grass, . . . Sea Oats, . . . [and] Bay Cedar. On most Keys beaches this association occurs only atthe base of the berm since the beach zone is very narrow. These plants also occupy themost seaward portion of the berm and continuesome distance landward. * * * The next zone, "strand-dune" association,begins with a steep and distinct increase inslope upward from the beach. . . . The bermmay be elevated only several inches or as much as several feet above the level of the beach and may extend landward hundreds of feet as a flat-topped plateau or beach ridge. The foreslope of the berm, or beach ridge, is vegetated primarily by the above-listed species of the beach association. Grasses and herbaceous plants, which serve to stabilize this area, are most common. Proceeding landward, these pioneer species are joined by other species. * * * The strand-scrub association is generallyconsidered a transition zone between strand-dune and hammock forest. Shrubs and occasional trees occur more frequently here and become more abundant as one proceeds landward. Species often found include Seagrape, . . . Wild Sage (Lantana involucrata), [and] Gray Nicker. . . . The most landward zone on the berm is occupied by tropical hardwood hammocks. The term "berm" is identified in the Monroe County comprehensive plan as . . . a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand that is immediately landward of, and usually parallel to, the shoreline and beach. A berm is higher in elevation than both the beach and the area landward of the berm. * * * The height and width of berms in the Keys is highly variable. They may range in height from slightly above mean high water to more than seven (7) feet above mean sea level. The width of berms in the Keys varies from tens of feet to more than 200 feet. Despite the support the Department found in the Comprehensive Plan for a more stringent setback requirement, the Department is not at liberty to ignore the definition of the term beach berm contained in the land development regulations. While both ridges that exist on the Snowman property may be considered berms or dunes, only the first should be considered a beach berm. The first ridge is ". . . a bare, sandy shoreline with a mound or ridge of unconsolidated sand" within the meaning of Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code. The second ridge is above the vegetation line and is not ". . . a bare, sandy shoreline" within the meaning of the definition of beach berm contained in the Monroe County land development regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and denies the appeal filed by the Department of Community Affairs as to building permit number 9330008850 issued by Monroe County, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-7165DRI The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 32, and 33 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 9 and 23 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 24, 28, and 31 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 19 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence and as a misconstruction of the cited testimony. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 20, 22, and 34 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 30 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since the setback is from any portion of the "beach berm complex" and not from any area that may be considered to be turtle nesting habitat. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are summaries of testimony that are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 6 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence and contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 and 8 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherry A. Spiers, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Nicholas W. Mulick, Esquire 88539 Overseas Highway Tavernier, Florida 33070 Randy Ludacer, Esquire Monroe County Attorney Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Mr. Fred Snowman Post Office Box 771 Islamorada, Florida 33035 Carolyn Dekle, Director South Florida Regional Planning Council Suite 140 3400 Hollywood Boulevard Hollywood, Florida 33021 David K. Coburn, Secretary Florida Land & Water Adjudicatory Commission Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Notice to Proceed with the work and activities authorized by Amended Permit IR-507 should be issued.
Findings Of Fact On July 24, 1996, Respondent, Town of Indian River Shores (Town), filed an application with Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), for a permit to construct a beach access ramp seaward of the coastal construction control line. By Final Order dated November 27, 1996, the Department granted Permit Number IR-507. Petitioners, Peter Broom and Jeremy R. Geffen, and Duane Jackson, who is not a party to this proceeding, protested the granting of the permit and requested a formal hearing. A formal administrative hearing was held on November 13- 14, 1997, before Administrative Law Judge Errol H. Powell, who issued a Recommended Order on December 8, 1997, recommending that the Department enter a final order granting Permit Number IR-507 with special conditions as may be required by the Department for the protection of marine turtles. Administrative Law Judge Powell concluded the following in Paragraph 49 of the Recommended Order: 49. The evidence demonstrates that the impact of the proposed beach access ramp is minimal; that the construction or use of the beach access ramp will have no adverse effect on the marine turtle or the turtle nesting; and the beach access ramp will not cause significant adverse impacts or cumulative impacts. On January 13, 1998, the Department entered a Final Order, adopting the Recommended Order of Administrative Law Judge Powell and granting Permit Number IR-507 subject to two additional special conditions recommended by the Department staff during the final hearing pertaining to a survey of turtle nesting areas and restrictions on the use of the Town's ATV vehicle as discussed in Findings of Fact 34 and Conclusion of Law 52 of the Recommended Order, which provided: 34. At hearing, the DEP made another recommendation for the issuance of the CCCL permit, involving the marine turtle. Prior to the issuance of the Final Order, the DEP was not fully aware that the proposed beach access ramp was to be used for both emergency and routine patrol access. Having considered the circumstance of routine patrol, the DEP further recommends that a survey of turtle nesting be conducted after construction, but prior to routine use, on the Town's entire five-mile stretch along the Atlantic Ocean to mark turtle nesting areas for their protection and to place certain restrictions on the use of the ATV vehicle. This recommendation will not prohibit or hinder the construction of the beach access ramp. * * * 52. Additionally, the DEP having considered both emergency and routine patrol access, did not deny the CCCL permit. Only another recommendation to protect marine turtles was made by the DEP, regarding the routine patrol. On June 16, 1998, a Final Order was issued by the Department, issuing Amended Permit Number IR-507. Among the special conditions of the amended permit was that the Town would conduct a marine turtle nesting survey prior to the utilization of the access ramp. A notice to proceed with the activities authorized by Amended Permit Number IR-507 was issued on September 17, 1999. Petitioners requested an administrative hearing, challenging the notice to proceed. Petitioners allege that the notice to proceed had been issued without adequate demonstration of marine life/turtle nursery protection and that the proposed construction would adversely affect marine and turtle life on the beach. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Petitioners conceded that Town had fulfilled all special conditions prerequisite to the issuance of the notice to proceed and that the permit did not require that a survey of turtle nesting be done prior to the issuance of the notice to proceed or to the commencement of construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered dismissing the Request/Petition for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 7th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire 1101 Simonton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Michael R. Dombroski Coastal Technology Corporation 3625 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Chester Clem, Esquire Clem, Polackwich & Vocelle 3333 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-2469
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 370.142(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The terms of the settlement agreement between the parties are set forth in the following paragraphs. The parties stipulated to the factual basis alleged in Case No. 97-4209. As set forth in the citation dated August 7, 1997, Respondent Jorge Cabrera (Cabrera) was fishing 130 untagged crawfish traps. This was the second time within a 24-month period that Cabrera was in violation of Section 370.142(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), agrees to abate the notices that form the basis for Case Nos. 97-4416, 97-4485, and 97-5005 on the following terms and conditions: Cabrera shall immediately pay a fine of $5,000 to the Department. Cabrera shall have his Saltwater Products License (SPL-44525) and all endorsements thereto, C-9049, X-1615, V-7859, ML-887 and RS (current RS expiring June 30, 1999), suspended for five years beginning July 1, 1998, and continuing through the end of the 2002/2003 license year. It is specifically recognized by the parties that the SPL and endorsements currently held by Cabrera remain active until and through the close of business hours (5:00 p.m.) June 30, 1998. The parties agree that the license is suspended for five years, but that at the end of the five-year period, Cabrera is otherwise eligible to reapply for an SPL and the endorsements currently held on the 1997/1998 SPL license, which are the Restricted Species (one-year eligibility remaining), Crawfish, Blue Crab, Stone Crab, and Marine Life endorsements. In this case only, as part of the parties' settlement agreement, the Department agrees that the statutory requirements for renewal of the Crawfish and Stone Crab endorsements and specifically the currently mandatory every September 30-renewal-application deadline for the Stone Crab renewal are tolled during the suspension period. The qualifying period for the RS endorsement is tolled only as to the time currently remaining for requalification on the existing license, which would be one year remaining eligibility. Upon renewal of the SPL with endorsements application for the 2002/2003 license year, eligibility and time remaining will resume from what Cabrera had at the time the suspension became effective. The time periods tolled begin to run again on July 1, 2002, whether the SPL holder has applied for reactivation of his SPL with endorsements or not. Specifically, if there is no application for an SPL with RS endorsement within one year of July 1, 2002, the one year's eligibility remaining from the 1997/1998 license expires. Any time that has expired after July 1, 2002, counts, and the time remaining to requalify for the RS will be whatever time remains from the one-year eligibility which begins to run on July 1, 2002, and expires on June 30, 2003. For example, if the application is received by the Department in September 2002, the applicant would have only nine months of RS eligibility remaining. Under current license application procedures, the earliest reapplication that may be submitted will be in April 2002 for the 2002/2003 license year. Cabrera shall have only until the close of the current year transfer-period to transfer his lobster-trap certificates. Any certificates not transferred are subject to forfeiture if they are not maintained pursuant to Section 370.142, Florida Statutes, during the license suspension period. All fines and fees must be paid to the Department before the transfers can be made. The Department will expedite the providing of forms, processing, and record activity, and Cabrera will expedite submittal of completed application(s) to allow reasonable time to accomplish any transfers or other record activity prior to the close of the transfer period. All traps (lobster and stone crab) must be removed from the water by the end of the fishing season. Any of Cabrera's traps that may become subject to disposition under the trap retrieval program (Section 370.143, Florida Statutes) must be handled as appropriate, even if the circumstances occur after the time the license suspension becomes effective. The parties agree to bear their own costs and attorney's fees associated with these proceedings. The parties agree that breach of the settlement agreement between the parties will revive all rights and remedies available to the non-breaching party that the party had against the other prior to entering into the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which incorporates the provisions of the Settlement Agreement between the parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 M. B. Adelson, IV, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John A. Jabro, Esquire 90811 Overseas Highway, Suite B Tavernier, Florida 33070
Findings Of Fact On April 23, 1980, the county applied to DER for a permit to place approximately 334,000 cubic yards of sand along the southern 2.4 miles of the eastern shoreline of Key Biscayne to create an additional recreational beach for public use and to control beach erosion. The northern limit of the Project area is the southern boundary of Crandon park, the southern limit is the Cape Florida Lighthouse, and the seaward limit is the "design toe of fill", which results in establishing a new mean highwater line at approximately the 1913 shoreline. No fill will be placed along a 1600-foot area along the shore between 1500-feet and 3100-feet north of the lighthouse, where accretion has occurred since 1913. The re-nourished beach is proposed to average approximately 100 feet in width. On October 15, 1980, DER issued a letter of Intent to deny the requested permit. There are approximately 45 acres of sea grass within the Project Area which are proposed to be covered with sand as a result of the project. Sea grass is a major marine resource in Florida, and the anticipated loss of these 45 acres is one of the primary reason DER proposed to deny the permit application. Transects made by the County in December of 1977, and March of 1978, showed that the sea grass in the Project Area varies in density from "sparse" in approximately half of the Project Area to "dense" in approximately ten percent of the Project Area, with the remainder being considered being "medium" in density. Approximately 25 percent of the area to be filled is barren bottom. Sea grasses serve several important functions in the marine ecosystem. They are a vital and productive link in the marine food chain. By cycling energy from the sun into digestible plant material, sea grasses provide food for various organisms which, in turn, are eaten by other organisms in the food chain. Sea grasses assist in maintaining good water quality by causing a baffling effect which improves clarity, and by assimilating the potentially harmful nutrients from the water column. Sea grass roots bind sediments on the sea bottoms, thereby detering erosion. Additionally, sea grass beds function as prime nursery habitat for juvenile fish and other young marine animals as well as spawning grounds for various marine species. Sea grass beds further provide areas for concealment protection and feeding for all types of marine-creatures. Two types of marine sea grasses predominate in the area off Key Biscayne: Syringodium filiforme, or "manatee grass", and Thalassia testudinum, or "turtle grass". The sea grass beds proposed to be filled by this project are dominated by Syringodium filiforme, a long, slender grass which, when compared to turtle grass, offers less refuge to smaller marine animals because its leaves are slender and round and it does not occur in dense groups. In addition, Syringodium filiforme is not as good a soil stabilizer as turtle grass, due primarily to its root structure. It also offers comparatively less surface area for the attachment of epiphytes and algae. A significant portion of the sea grasses in the northern part of the Project Area are ephemeral: that is, they have grown in since 1967, and could very likely be destroyed during a major storm event. It is unlikely that they will be in place for sufficient periods of time to become a major influence on the grain size of the sand in the area, nor will they have a major influence on the long-term sediment dynamics of the area. The 45 acres of sea grass in the Project Area constitute only about two percent of the approximately 2,000 areas of sea grass habitat located immediately to the east of the Project Area. In addition, there are approximately 150,000 acres of sea grass beds lying within that portion of Biscayne Bay in Dade County, Florida. There is an almost solid belt of turtle grass beginning on the offshore or ocean-side of Key Biscayne extending southward of Key West out to the Merquesas Islands and, with a slight break, to the Dry Tortugas. Unlike Syringodium filiforme, turtle grass serves as a true nursery ground for marine organisms in their early life stages. The portion of the sea grass community proposed to be filled in the Project Area is not a good nursery ground, primarily because of the small amount of turtle grass present. The turtle grass beds present in the Project Area do not constitute a mature stable community comparable to those located slightly farther offshore Key Biscayne. These better turtle grass beds have longer blades that do not show wear from wave action and are covered with epiphytes and other marine organisms. Further, unlike the turtle grass in the Project Area, these beds are dense, with little open space between them, and have little or no other plants growing with them. The sea grass beds in the Project Area are simply not qualitatively as rich as these adjacent beds. These offshore sea grass beds serve as true nursery grounds for marine life. Shrimp and certain game and commercial fish, as examples, are located primarily in nursery grounds in Biscayne Bay and Hawk Channel, where there are more mature and stable turtle grass communities. In light of the extent and condition of the sea grasses in the fill area and the associated sea grass communities both inshore and offshore Key Biscayne, taken together with the design of the overall project as hereinafter described, the total effect of the proposed fill on marine life should be inconsequential. The sand to be placed in the Project Area will be dredged from a borrow area located approximately one mile south of Key Biscayne. This site was selected by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A consultant retained by the County has recommended that certain portions within this borrow area not be used, and that other areas adjacent thereto be utilized if necessary. This modified borrow area falls within the area described in the County's permit application for the source of the fill material. The depth of the sand above the substrate in the borrow area ranges from 1.0 to 9.5 feet, with a substantial portion of the area having in excess of a five-foot depth of sand. Assuming sand will be removed to a depth of five feet, the sand will be taken from approximately a 2,000 by 1,000-foot site. If done in this manner, only about one-third of the borrow area designated by the Corps of Engineers and modified by the County's consultant will be utilized. The entire borrow area designated by the Corps of Engineers contains approximately one million cubic yards of sand. There are no known corals or hard-bottom communities within the proposed borrow area. In addition, there appear to be very few benthic organisms in this area, which is comprised primarily of shifting sand. The benthic organisms that do exist in the area will, of course, be removed during dredging. However, the borrow area can reasonably be expected to repopulate with these organisms as soon as the dredging operation is concluded. Further, the area from which the fill is proposed to be obtained is well removed from any areas of persistent sea grass cover. There are only five or six patches of sea grass in the borrow area, the largest being approximately 12 feet across. These patches do not contain turtle grass and may be easily avoided during dredging. The record in this case clearly establishes that use of the sand from the borrow area should not have an adverse impact on the environment surrounding that area. The sand proposed to be placed on the beach is similar in grain size and composition to the sand that is on the existing beach, owing probably to the fact that it was at one time located on the beach and has been removed through the process of erosion. This sand is of such quality that there should be only minimal turbidity occurring during the dredging operations. There are very small quantities of fine material within the borrow area, and the chemical and physical composition of the sand there closely matches the chemical and physical composition of the sand on the beach. As stipulated by the parties, it is not anticipated that any turbidity problems will result from a physical or chemical breakdown of the material after it is deposited on the beach, and it is also not anticipated that significant long-term turbidity will result from the actual fill being placed on the beach because of the small quantity of fine material contained in the fill. The sand is proposed to be dredged from the borrow area by means of a hydraulic dredge, and transported in a sand/water mixture via pipeline to the Project Area. The sand will be placed on the beach by a method known as longitudinal diking, which permits most of the sand to precipitate before the water returns to the ocean, thereby keeping most of the sand in the Project Area and reducing the impact on receiving waters. The 45 acres of sea grass in the Project Area discussed above will not be covered immediately by fill. This acreage figure represents the total area of sea grass that will be covered after the fill has reached the "theoretical- toe of fill". The theoretical design profile of the beach cannot be achieved immediately because it is not possible to operate the necessary equipment below the waterline. The project design calls for fill to be placed on the beach in a different configuration than will ultimately be obtained, and allows natural wave action to reshape the sand to achieve the design profile. It is anticipated that the entire process will take approximately two years. This is not a unique process, in that the Crandon Park beach immediately north of the Project Area was renourished in a similar fashion in 1969. The Crandon Park design profile was achieved in 1971, and the record establishes that sea grasses offshore Crandon Park were not adversely affected by the sand placed on that beach. Further, no additional fill has been placed on Crandon Park beach since its original renourishment in 1969, and that beach is still very close to the original design profile. The design profile for Crandon Park beach is identical to that proposed for the Project Area. Accordingly, once the design profile for this project is achieved, the greater weight of the evidence in this cause establishes that the sand in the renourished area should not migrate beyond the design toe of fill. A rock structure referred to as the "terminal groin" is proposed to be constructed in connection with the project at the lighthouse at the southern extremity of the beach. The purpose of the terminal grain is to retain the sand placed along the beach. This structure will extend seaward approximately 350 feet, with a top width of seven feet, and top elevations ranging from plus 2.6 feet mean low water at the most seaward location, to plus 7.0 feet mean low water at the beach. The County proposes to modify the slope of the groin to create additional intertidal and subtidal habitat by placing native limestone boulders along the entire 350-foot length of the south side of the groin. By making this modification, approximately 7,000 square feet of subtidal rock habitat will be provided. In addition, this modification will create approximately 36,750 cubic feet of void space for potential marine habitat. The approximate cost of this structure is $200,000. The terminal groin will provide a type of rocky habitat which naturally existed in the Biscayne Bay area, but which has been largely eliminated by man-made improvements. This type of habitat, of course, will not duplicate the type currently provided by the 45 acres of sea grass proposed to be covered by fill. Specifically, rocky habitat does not serve the nursery and breeding functions which sea grasses provide. Further, it neither contributes food stuff by way of primary productivity nor cycles energy into the marine ecosystem in the same manner as sea grasses. The County, in fact, had at one time considered replanting sea grass to mitigate for the loss of the grass communities in the Project Area, but abandoned that alternative in view of the existing large areas of sea grass adjacent to the project, and the fact that the barren bottoms in the Project Area and in adjacent areas have occurred as a result of high wave energy. As a result, it was felt that any attempt to replant the sea grasses by way of mitigating the effect of the proposed project would be unsuccessful. With a properly designed terminal structure, the renourished beach should last approximately 30 years. The rate of erosion on the beach when the project is concluded should approximate 15,000 cubic yards per year. Accordingly, it is unlikely that the beach would require renourishing in less than ten years following the project. As noted above, the Crandon Park beach was restored in excess of 12 years ago, has not been renourished, and still is very close to the original design profile. Sea turtles nest at Bill Baggs State Park and at Crandon Park. The record in this case establishes that these turtle nests can be fairly easily found and relocated. The Corps of Engineers has a turtle protection program with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under which contractors on beach renourishment projects are required to relocate turtle nests, utilizing persons licensed by the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Dade County also has a turtle relocation program which is currently being utilized in Crandon Park. The record in this case does not establish that the proposed beach renourishment project will adversely affect the nesting of sea turtles within either the Project Area or areas adjacent thereto. Extensive erosion has occurred on the beaches on the eastern shore of Key Biscayne. It is currently not possible, for example, to walk from one end of the beach on Key Biscayne to the other without climbing seawalls and jetties, since portions of the beach are completely under water at all times except during extremely low tidal periods. A substantial portion of the project Area is completely submerged even during low tide. The Hearing Officer personally viewed the extent of the erosion in the Project Area. The placement of fill in the northern 1.2 miles of the project will create public access between Bill Baggs State Park and Crandon Park, which is maintained by Dade County. The project will also create a public beach where currently none exists eastward of the proposed erosion control line for the northern 1.2 miles of the project. Beach renourishment will provide support for and stabilize the restored beach on Crandon Park, thereby enabling that beach to last longer, and will also provide erosion control for the entire length of the eastern shoreline of Key Biscayne. The project, as designed, will protect against a ten-year storm of 24-hour duration, thereby helping to diminish serious injury to property and persons by reason of violent storms. Additional protection will also be provided to the Cape Florida lighthouse, a State historical landmark. Although not a hurricane surge protection project, the beach renourishment program will provide some degree of protection from hurricanes. More protection is provided to upland structures by increasing the distance between them and adjacent water bodies. Pursuant to Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, the Department of Natural Resources has determined that severe beach erosion has occurred along the southern 2.4 miles of Key Biscayne, and that the beach either has been or will be destroyed in the immediate future unless a publicly financed program is undertaken. In 1978, and in 1979, the Florida Legislature appropriated funds for the project, and additional funding has also been approved by the Governor and Cabinet. Tourism is Florida's largest industry. In 1980, approximately 35.9 million visitors spent $17 billion in the State of Florida, generating $785 million in tax revenues and supplying employment for 535,000 people directly employed in the tourist industry. There are primarily four reasons that visitors come to the State of Florida: (1) rest and relaxation; (2) beaches; (3) climate; and (4) other attractions, primarily manmade. Over 60 percent of the visitors to Florida have indicated that beaches are their primary reason for visiting the State of Florida. In 1980, 12.6 million tourists visited Dade County. Of these, 10.3 million were domestic tourists, and 2.3 million were international tourists. these tourists spent a total of $9.5 billion in Dade County, making the tourist industry by far Dade County's largest single industry, directly accounting for 25 percent of employment in Dade County. In 1950, over $4.77 million were collected in the taxable areas of Dade County by imposition of a resort tax of two percent on hotels and motels for transients. Tourism on Key Biscayne contributed approximately $300,000 to the Dade County resort tax collection, which is 6.2 percent of the total tax collection for 1980. 57.2 percent of the domestic tourists in Dade County came to Dade County because of the beaches. Tourists visiting other sections of Dade County used the beaches on Key Biscayne because they are very convenient and pleasing. During the course of this proceeding, the deposition of Dr. Anitra Thorhaug was taken by Petitioners, and the parties have requested that the Hearing Officer, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 28-5.208, Florida Administrative Code, and Rule 1.390, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, determine a fair and reasonable expert witness fee to be paid to Dr. Thorhaug for her deposition. Having considered the submissions of the parties on this issue, including the actual time spent in deposition of two hours and 55 minutes, and the total time of 4.5 hours devoted by Dr. Thorhaug to the taking of her deposition, it is determined that a reasonable fee for her services is $350.
The Issue Whether the application of Respondent Bradley Development's agent, James M. Stilwell, for a Gopher Tortoise Relocation Permit should be granted if the survey markers identifying the tortoise burrows are no longer present.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, James M. Stilwell was the agent of Respondent Bradley during the application process for successive Gopher Tortoise Relocation Permits from FGFWFC. Respondent Bradley currently seeks the permit because it plans to develop the site in North Fort Myers that the gopher tortoises currently inhabit. Site development plans preclude the creation of an on-site gopher tortoise habitat. The proposed project is a low income, federally supported housing development known as the Barrett Park Development. The permit originally issued for the proposed gopher tortoise relocation expired on August 31, 1991. Respondent FGFWFC is the regulatory agency with permitting jurisdiction over the proposed gopher tortoise relocation activity. The gopher tortoise is classified as "a species of special concern" in Florida. FGFWFC issues permits regarding this species upon its reasonable conclusion that the permitted activity will not be detrimental to the survival of this wildlife species in Florida. Petitioner Homeowners is a Florida corporation. It intervened in this permitting proceeding to protect the Barrett Park Development gopher tortoises as these tortoises are a natural resource of this state. The Motion for Administrative Hearing filed by Petitioner disputes the appropriateness of the Intent to Issue filed by FGFWFC on November 13, 1991. There is one area of controversy identified by Petitioner in its request for a formal hearing which the original Hearing Officer allowed to be heard in this 120.57 proceeding. This dispute involves the current condition of the survey markers placed at the site to identify the location of the various tortoise burrows. Petitioner contends a new survey should be required by FGFWFC before the tortoises are excavated from burrows by non-harmful means. The guidelines for gopher tortoise relocations established by FGFWFC provide as follows, in pertinent part: No more than four weeks prior to relocation, all potential gopher tortoise habitat ... on a given development site should be thoroughly and systematically surveyed using appropriate, biologically sound methodology. Permit applications are encouraged to submit preliminary survey methodology proposals for evaluation, which should include estimates of the total number of tortoises on a subject site, ... and a general characterization of the habitat. The Notice of Intent to Issue Permit does not specifically provide that Respondent Bradley has to adhere to FGFWFC's "Gopher Tortoise Relocation Guidelines" as one of the permit conditions. Petitioner has a bona fide and direct interest in the result of this administrative hearing which concerns permitting activity that could be detrimental to the survival of a wildlife species in Florida designated as a "species of special concern" pursuant to Rule 39-27.005, Florida Administrative Code. The pleadings filed by Petitioner together with the evidence it presented at hearing demonstrate that its involvement in this permit review was for a legitimate purpose. The number of gopher tortoises to be relocated was not set forth in the Notice of Intent to Issue Permit. The application, however, utilized the FGFWFC's formula and conversion factor of 0.614 in relation to the 56 burrows considered to be active in the most recent survey conducted between September 3- 7, 1990. This converts to a determination that 35 gopher tortoises will be relocated. The computation was completed as follows: Conversion factor x number of active burrows = number of gopher tortoises relocated. Mathematically, the computation arrives at the conclusion that 35 gopher tortoises will be relocated [0.614 x 56 = 34.384 or 35].
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered approving Respondent Bradley's application for a Gopher Tortoise Relocation Permit made through Mr. Stilwell for the Barrett Park site. The "Gopher Tortoise Guidelines" should be attached to the permit and incorporated into the permit as a permit condition. The number of gopher tortoises to be live-captured by non-harmful means should be expanded if the final survey demonstrates the estimated number of gopher tortoises is above the current approximation of 35 when the number of active burrows is recounted in the final survey. The FGFWFC's formula conversion factor should be utilized in this final determination. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 29th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #2. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. The FGFWFC does not require the submission of FLUCCS maps as part of its evaluation procedure. Thus, the lack of such a map as part of the evaluation process does not fatally flaw the permit review. Improper legal and factual conclusion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rejected. Speculative and argumentative. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Respondent Bradley's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Omitted from proposed findings of fact submitted. Omitted from proposed findings of fact submitted. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #10 - #11. Accepted. Accepted as to application requirements only. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement and HO #5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #6 - #7. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, except for number of tortoises to be relocated. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Respondent FGFWFC's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #4. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #1 and #5. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10 - #11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: STEVEN R MAXWELL/QUALIFIED REPRESENTATIVE 232 LAGOON DR FORT MYERS FL 33903 KENNETH McLAUGHLIN ESQ ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA GAME & FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION 620 S MERIDIAN ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1600 GERI WALKER ESQ PEPER MARTIN JENSEN MAICHEL & HETLAGE 2000 MAIN ST - STE 600 FORT MYERS FL 33901 JAMES ANTISTA ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA GAME & FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION 620 S MERIDIAN ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1600 COLONEL ROBERT M BRANTLY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA GAME & FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION 620 S MERIDIAN ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1600
The Issue Whether the Buntins and the Stovalls should receive an after-the-fact coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit to allow a sand-filled HESCO Basket System constructed in the aftermath of Hurricane Dennis in 2005 and that is now primarily a vegetated dune to remain as a permanent structure in Walton County?
Findings Of Fact Sea Turtle Nesting Habitat on a Hurricane-battered Coast Along the northernmost reaches of the Gulf of Mexico, roughly in the center of the Florida Panhandle coast, the beaches and shores of Walton County have been subject to the many vicissitudes of coastal climate over the years. So have marine turtles, several species of which have relied through the ages on Florida beaches and shores, including those in Walton County for nesting habitat. Survivors of shifting circumstances brought by weather, sea turtles are now imperiled by exposure to man-made dangers. Anthropogenic turtle hazards on populated beaches are numerous and, without educational efforts of the Department and the Commission, not likely to be recognized by beach-goers interested in the enjoyment of surf and sun. Folding beach chairs and canopies, board walks designed to protect the dune system, and other seemingly-harmless by- products of human beach activity, even holes dug by children building sand castles, can contribute to sea turtle injury and cause sea turtle fatality. While sea turtles in recent times have made their way across the Walton County beach toward their nests through obstacles set up by human beings and hatchlings have scurried toward the sea through these same impediments, owners of beachfront property have had to contend with powerful tropical storms, particularly in the relatively recent past. Especially damaging to property along the Walton County Coastline have been three hurricanes that hit in the span of a decade: Opal in 1995, Ivan in 2004 and Dennis in 2005. The intense storm surge of Hurricane Opal destroyed much of the dune system along the stretch of Seagrove Beach in Walton County that is the subject of the aerial photography introduced into evidence in this case. Ivan, which made landfall just west of Gulf Shores, Alabama, as a Category 3 Hurricane on September 16, 2004, caused heavy damage to the Walton County coastline and areas west. Of the three, though, the damage done by Dennis is the sine qua non of this proceeding brought by Petitioners to preserve and protect their property. The Stovall and Buntin Property When Hurricane Dennis hit, the Stovalls had owned the property located at 711 Eastern Lake Road, Santa Rosa Beach, Walton County, for some time. Purchased by both Mr. and Mrs. Stovall and in both their names at the time the petition was filed, by the time of hearing, the property had been transferred into Mrs. Stovall's name only. The Stovalls bought the lot around 1997 give or take a year. "[T]he house itself is about 11 years old," tr. 17, built in 1998 or thereabouts. Seaward of the CCCL established on December 29, 1982, construction of the house required a CCCL permit from the Department. In the words of Mr. Stovall, the permitting process required "hundreds of hoops to jump through." Tr. 18. The lot had been in foreclosure and the permit was obtained through the services of a reputable architectural firm. The house, therefore, was designed and constructed to survive a major hurricane, a requirement of the permit. The house was built on pilings sturdy enough to support the house in the event of a major hurricane. High enough to allow the bottom floor of the house to be above storm surge, the pilings' height and house elevation also allowed ample parking for vehicles beneath the house. At the time the Stovall house was built, despite the damage done by Opal, there remained a good natural dune system seaward of the house, one that was "beautiful . . . wonderful," tr. 19, in the words of Mr. Stovall. After the house was constructed, Mrs. Stovall took particular pleasure in the dune system and worked to preserve and cultivate sea oats in its support. She also was thrilled by the presence of two turtle nests not long after the purchase of the lot, one nest found in 1998 and the other discovered on July 22, 1999. After the discoveries, Sharon Maxwell, the County- authorized "local turtle coordinator," tr. 295, and "the only person in the County permitted to touch . . . turtles," tr. 296 was contacted. Ms. Maxwell measured the nests from points related to the Stovall house. They were at least 20 feet seaward of the toe of the most seaward dune. Because the nests were on a busy stretch of the beach, protective measures were implemented. Among the protective measures were actions by Mrs. Stovall. In addition to working with the local turtle coordinator, Mrs. Stovall became involved in circulation of information to neighbors about sea turtle conservation. She was part of an effort to encourage the information to be placed in rental units in the neighborhood. The information recommended turning out lights on the beach that interfered with turtle nesting, "brought out the importance of a single . . . beach chair [that] can misdirect and kill over hundreds of endangered hatchlings . . . [and] umbrellas . . . left overnight [that] can interfere with nesting." Tr. 293. She called local government commissioners and attended commission meetings where she advocated beach removal of items hazardous to sea turtles, their nests and their offspring. Her efforts have extended off-shore as well. As a scuba diver, she learned how to respect sea turtles and their marine habitat and "encouraged others to stay away and not harass the turtles, which many divers do." Tr. 195. The Buntin property, located at 701 Eastern Lake Drive, is adjacent to the Stovall property on the east side. Owned by the Buntins since 1990, the house on the lot was built in 1991 or early 1992. Like the Stovall house, the Buntin house is seaward of the CCCL and built to withstand the forces of major tropical storms. The Buntins, similar to the Stovalls, care about the beaches and shores of Walton County and particularly the beach adjacent to their property. Their intent with regard to the coastal environment is to protect it. There have been times over the past two decades when the Buntins greatly enjoyed their property. Their relationship to it, however, has changed. As Mr. Buntin put it at hearing, "[I]t's a situation we put ourselves in [but] I wish we didn't have any beach property. And I imagine there's a lot of other folks that wish that, too,. . ." Tr. 54. A major factor in Mr. Buntin's change-of-attitude is damage done by Hurricane Dennis. Hurricane Dennis Hurricane Dennis made landfall near Navarre Beach not far west of the Stovall and Buntin Properties on July 10, 2005, having struck the tip of peninsular Florida the day before. Classified according to the Saffir-Simpson Scale as a Category 4 Hurricane at moments in its journey through the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico, it came ashore in the northern Gulf as a Category 3 hurricane. Some of the worst damage it caused was along the panhandle coast. One of its damaging effects was enormous erosion of the beaches and shores along the coastline where the Stovall and Buntin property is located. That stretch of beach remains classified as a "critically eroding beach." After the storm, there was nothing left of the dunes seaward of the Stovall and Buntin houses. The Stovall house, itself, was not structurally damaged; there was not "a crack in the Sheetrock. The house stood solid." Tr. 30. It had lost its bottom deck and the deck on its western side but true to the CCCL permitting criteria, the house, perched on pilings about the storm surge, had also withstood the Category 3 force winds of the hurricane. Dennis had caused more damage to the property, however, than just the loss of a few decks. It had eroded the beach as far up as landward of the Stovall's house. At hearing, Mr. Stovall described his first view of the property post-Dennis: [T]he water was lapping back . . . behind the house. And if anybody walked up to where it was, it would just cave in. I fully believed that if that storm would've gone on another two hours, it would have been in the man's house behind me[.] . . . [W]e had no access to the front door and one of the neighbors down the street brought in a ladder . . . It would have taken a 20 or 21-foot ladder to have gotten up to [the] first deck level . . . . Tr. 25. Without a ladder, the house was not accessible. Most pertinent to the Stovall's persistence in bringing this proceeding, there was nowhere to park their vehicles. The parking area under the house had been scoured out. The Buntin property likewise suffered the impact of the hurricane's scour. Mr. Buntin was contacted by a neighbor and told that the scouring under his house was so bad that the air-conditioners midway between the seaward and landward sides of the house were "hanging over a 20-foot drop-off." Tr. 45. Mr. Buntin did not give the report much credibility at first but, to his dismay, found it true when he visited the property shortly after the storm. Just as in the case of the Stovall property, a car could not be parked under the house in the space that had served as the parking area prior to Dennis. Half of a car could be parked under the house but the rest of the sand- based parking area was gone. In its place was a steep embankment that "dropped off 20 feet." Tr. 46. A Serious Parking Problem Eastern Lake Road runs roughly east-west just north of the Stovall and Buntin properties. The roadbed lies in a roadway and utility easement. Because of the easement, property owners along the roadway are not allowed to use it for permanent parking. The restriction includes the entire right-of-way that extends beyond the roadbed. As a combination of the easement and the parking restriction, under-story parking is the only permanent parking place that can serve the properties. Aware that their properties were seaward of the CCCL, the Stovalls and Buntins sought guidance as to how to re- establish parking for their beach front property. They turned both to local government and to DEP. DEP's Emergency Order On the same day that Hurricane Dennis hit South Florida (the day before it made landfall on the panhandle coast), the Department issued an Emergency Final Order (the "Emergency Final Order." Styled, In re: EMERGENCY AUTHORIZATION FOR REPAIRS, REPLACEMENT, RESTORATION AND CERTAIN OTHER MEASURES MADE NECESSARY BY HURRICANE DENNIS and dated July 9, 2005, the Emergency Final Order followed a declaration by Governor Jeb Bush of a state-wide emergency. By State of Florida Executive Order No. 05- 139, the Governor declared that a state of emergency exists throughout the State of Florida, based upon the serious threat to the public health, safety and welfare posed by the Hurricane. Department Exhibit 9, paragraph 2., at 1. The Department's Emergency Order, therefore, had state-wide application and applied to Walton County even though Dennis had not yet come ashore onto the panhandle coast. The Final Emergency Order made the following findings: The Department finds that the Hurricane has created a state of emergency threatening the public health, safety, welfare and property throughout the Emergency Area. As a result of the emergency, immediate action by Florida's citizens and government is necessary to repair, replace, and restore structures, equipment, surface water management systems, works, and operations damaged by the Hurricane. The Department finds that an emergency authorization is required to address the need for immediate action because the normal procedures for obtaining the necessary authorizations would not result in sufficiently timely action to address the emergency. The Department finds that immediate, strict compliance with the provisions of the statutes, rules, or orders noted within this Order would prevent, hinder, or delay necessary action in coping with the emergency, and that the actions authorized under this order are narrowly tailored to address the immediate need for action and are procedurally fair under the circumstances. Department Exhibit 9, at 2. With regard to "Coastal Construction Control Line Activities," Section 3., of the order was clear. It did not "authorize the construction of structures that did not exist prior to the emergency . . . ." Id. at 17. The Final Emergency Order contained a provision, however, that may have related directly to the predicament of the Stovalls and the Buntins. Paragraph 3.b., entitled "Activities Requiring Local Authorization," opens with an introductory statement with regard to certain activities and then lists those activities as follows: Local governments are authorized to issue permits in lieu of Department permits to private and public property owners for the activities listed below. * * * (4) Return of sand to the beach dune system which has been deposited upland by the Hurricanes. Id. (emphasis added). The activity of returning sand to the beach dune system is subject to a section of the Final Emergency Order dedicated to "General Conditions." Id. at paragraph 4., pp. 20- In addition to the requirement that the activities "be performed using appropriate best management practices" id. at 20, in accord with the Florida Land Development Manual, the General Conditions section contained explicit provisions with regard to sea turtles: The nature, timing, and sequence of construction activities authorized under this Order shall be conducted in such a manner as to provide protection to, and so as to not disturb . . . listed species and their habitat, including threatened or endangered sea turtles If activities under C.3 of this Order occur during the marine turtle nesting season (March 1 through October 31 in Brevard and Broward County, May 1 in all other coastal counties), such activities must be coordinated with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's Imperiled Species Management Section to ensure that all activities comply with state and federal requirements for the protection of seat turtles, their nests, hatchlings, and nesting habitat. Nothing in this order authorizes the taking, attempted taking, pursuing, harassing, capturing or killing of any species (or the nests or eggs of any species) listed under Rule 68A-27 of the Florida Administrative Code or under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Id. at 21-22. Under Section D., "GENERAL PROVISIONS," of the Emergency Final Order, the order cautioned, "[u]nder no circumstances shall anything contained in this Order be construed to authorize the repair, replacement, or reconstruction of any type of unauthorized or illegal structure, habitable or otherwise." Id. at 27, 28. The Emergency Final Order declared its effectiveness for 60 days following its execution on July 9, 2005, by the Secretary of the Department. Expressly set to expire on September 7, 2005, therefore, it promised in the meantime, "to act on requests for field authorizations in a timely and expeditious manner." Id. at 28. The Field Permit True to its word, the Department issued a field permit to Mr. Stovall on August 16, 2005. See Department Exhibit 10. The project is described in the field permit as repair and replacement of wooden decks and "repair/replace understructure concrete/brick paver parking area to original condition." Id. The repairs included electrical, plumbing and HVAC work and replenishment of approximately 1800 yards of sand for foundation pilings. The permit stressed, "[n]o other activity is authorized." Id. And, as part of its special conditions, the permit listed, "all construction shall comply with attached marine turtle conditions." Id. In the attempt to return the understory parking to its original condition, simply replacing sand did not work. "[I]t became pretty obvious to us as we put the sand in there," Mr. Stovall testified at hearing, "the sand was running out." Tr. 31. The Buntins were experiencing much of the same difficulties. Mr. Buntin compared the situation right after the hurricane to four years later at the hearing: There was so much confusion going on . . . we are so far after the fact now [August of 2009]. It's kind of hard to put yourself back in the position we were in at the time [summer of 2005] because there were an awful lot of questions and very few answers. You would get referred . . . this is what the regulations say. Well, you read the regulation and it is left to interpretation . . . the written word is . . . wonderful, but if you've got three people reading it, it's kind of hard to figure out exactly what it means. Now [August of 2009], after the fact . . ., we [have] answers . . . we didn't have at the time. Tr. 51 (emphasis added). Mr. Buntin knew one thing for sure: placing sand under the house would not be enough, "you've got to have some way to keep it underneath . . . because you're going to have to build a parking pad on top of it." Tr. 47. Neither an expert in CCCL regulations nor a coastal engineer, Mr. Buntin had no doubt "[y]ou can't just pile up sand and park the car on sand." Tr. 48. Mr. Buntin knew that in a coastal environment the understory parking would require a base of sand and a means of retaining the sand base under the house. The answer to the quandary was presented by Mike Jones, a contractor hired initially by the Stovalls and eventually by the Buntins, too. Mr. Jones suggested a HESCO Basket System. The HESCO Basket System In the aftermath of the storm, it was difficult to get assistance from repair companies. Mr. Stovall described the difficulty at hearing: "That was a tough job because everybody along the beach had damage, too, and getting someone to even come out there and give you a bid on it was like pulling eye teeth." Tr. 30. Eventually, through his brother, Mr. Stovall learned about Michael Alan Jones ("Mike Jones"), a general contractor licensed in Georgia. Mr. Jones agreed to look at the property. At hearing, he recalled his initial assessment of the Stovall and Buntin repair jobs: [T]here was a crater below the residences. We had to use an extension ladder to gain access to the Stovall property and we had to use some unique engineering to be able to access Mr. Buntin's property. There was no place to park. I noted on the Stovall property that . . . a paver system . . . was used for his parking area and the end of Eastern Lake Road as well, and the majority of that system was either currently . . . in the ocean or was in various stages of disrepair. It was falling apart. It was sagging one foot, 18 inches in many areas. It appeared . . . unsafe. * * * Some of . . . the pressurized [water] lines had been broken. The drain lines that lead into the septic or the county sewer were broken . . . the same on both properties. The air conditioning units were hanging by the power cables [I'd guess] 15 to 20 feet in the air, which, of course, poses a serious threat to anybody that walks . . . underneath them when the cable . . . unhook[s] itself from whatever connector or breaks. I noted at Mr. Stovall's, the whole bottom level of his deck was missing. * * * Mr. Buntin's dune walkover and much of his deck were sagging and unsafe [with] pieces missing. There was no . . . foundation on which to place a vehicle or anything for that matter underneath . . . the houses. I also noted . . . several onlookers . . . were using the area underneath the Stovalls' and Buntins' houses to access the beach, which was, in my opinion, extremely unsafe . . . [because of] falling five pound bricks and air conditioners hanging and wood falling off the side of the house. Tr. 82-83. The "crater" under the houses was not just a parking problem. Before the necessary repairs could be started, the understory had to be shored up. In the meantime, efforts were made to keep "onlookers" from using the area under the houses but they were not completely successful. Every morning that Mr. Jones visited the site at the beginning of his efforts, there was evidence left behind by people under the house the night before. Mr. Jones was of the same opinion as the Stovalls and the Buntins. For replacement of sand to work, there had to be a system for retaining the sand under the house. For several weeks, he conducted research by traveling up and down the beach discussing the issue with other contractors. Ultimately, Mr. Jones reached the conclusion that "the least invasive, most efficient . . . , environmentally friendly" system was a HESCO Basket System. HESCO Baskets HESCO Baskets are wire-framed open cell structures. One cell consists of four flat panels of wires of the same gauge. The "top" of the cell or basket is completely open as is the "bottom." Each of the four sides consist of horizontal wire rods spaced equally apart and welded to four similar-sized rods in a vertical position to form a panel of squares framed by the rods but which are mostly open space. The fours sides are bound together by a coil of wire of a gauge identical to the wire used in the rest of the structure. Attached to the sides on the inside of the cells is felt-like material that is water- permeable. Two baskets are created by joining three wire panels to an existing basket. Only seven panels, therefore, are needed to create two baskets since one of the panels is shared. Used in military applications to create revetment structures to protect aircraft and personnel and in river settings for flood control in places as diverse as Alaska and the Middle East, HESCO baskets also have commercial applications. These were investigated by Mr. Jones as he talked to other contractors in the area. Ultimately, he viewed the process of installation of HESCO baskets locally, obtained a list of installers from a HESCO basket distributor and picked Robert Klemen, an installer who worked in the area of the Stovall and Buntin properties to hire as a subcontractor under his supervision. Before installation, however, a permit was required. Under the DEP Final Emergency Order authorizing local governments to issue permits for temporary emergency protection seaward of the CCCL, separate permits for the Stovall and Buntin properties were issued by Walton County. The Walton County Permits On October 28, 2005, Billy Bearden, Building Official for Walton County, issued two building permits to Robert Klemen. The first, Permit No. SW398Dennis, (the "County Stovall Permit") was for 711 Eastern Lake Dr., the Stovall Property. The second, SW400Dennis, (the "County Buntin Permit") was for 701 Eastern Lake Dr., the Buntin Property. The County Stovall Permit gives Mr. Kleman permission for "TEMP SEAWALL STABLILIZING BASKETS." Department Exhibit 8. Similarly, the County Buntin Permit gives Mr. Kleman permission for "TEMP Stabilizing BASKETS." Each permit recited that "[t]he Florida Department of Environmental Protection in Hurricane Dennis Emergency Final Order 05-1700 is attached," and warned that "[p]ursuant to the FDEP emergency order, care must be taken for the protection of sea turtles, their nests, hatchlings and nesting habitat." Department Exhibit 8, the 7th and 15th pages of fifteen un- numbered pages. The two permits also recited the following: All temporary retaining walls (or other types of beach armoring), permitted as an emergency measure as a result of Hurricane Dennis and Katrina, must be removed within 60 days of completion or applied to be permitted through DEP as a permanent structure. * * * For ease in monitoring and control, Walton County will consider all temporary restraining walls complete no later than October 28, 2005 and therefore must be removed within (sic) 60 days of completion or by December 27, 2005, whichever is sooner (unless complete application made to DEP). Department Exhibit 8 (emphasis added.) Each permit contained a drawing of the permitted activity. The County Stovall Permit drawing depicts a system consisting of three rows of baskets, two on bottom and one on top, that runs for 70 feet seaward of the Stovall House and then in an "L-fashion" 30 feet to the west of the house. The baskets are shown to be 3 feet wide each so that the bottom row is 6 feet wide. The height of each basket is depicted as 4 feet so that the height of the structure would be 8 feet. The drawing is consistent with the representation at hearing that each basket within the vegetated dune the structure now supports is 3 feet by 3 feet by 4 feet. The drawing also shows a connection to the Buntin system to be installed to the east. The County Buntin Permit shows the same type of structure with three rows of baskets, two on bottom and one on top. The structure extends 60 feet to the east of the Stovall structure seaward of the Buntin house. Prior to construction, it was made clear to Mr. Jones that the "system needed to be as much within the footprint of the house," tr. 93, as possible. The information was communicated from both county representative who conducted inspections and DEP representatives who "were around the property during the process of doing the beach walkovers, as well as the HESCO systems . . .". Id. The HESCO Basket System was not designed to meet coastal armoring standards. Nor was it designed to minimize impacts to sea turtles. Installation Pursuant to the County permits, the Hesco Basket Container Systems were installed on the Stovall and Buntin properties over the course of several weeks. The official CCCL location of the installation is approximately 285 to 399 feet east of DEP's reference monument R-93 in Walton County with a project address of 701 and 711 Eastern Lake Road, Santa Rosa Beach. The purpose of the installation of the man-made structures, consistent with their design, is to assist the retention of sand beneath the understory parking area of the two houses. As depicted on the permit drawings, the Stovall and Buntin systems were unified into one structure, that is, connected so that the structure ran without a break seaward of the Stovall and Buntin houses. During the construction process, Mr. Jones saw and conversed with several DEP representatives who were taking pictures along the beach. Although Mr. Jones "acted firmly in the belief that there would be no problem getting a permanent permit for [the HESCO] structure," tr. 96, he was never told by any DEP representatives, either on site or in phone conversations with Department employees in Tallahassee, that the structure would be permitted permanently by the Department. He was not told that such a permit application would be denied, either, he simply "was never able to get an actual answer . . .". Id. The structure on the Buntin property was constructed as depicted on the permit drawing. There were two rows installed on the bottom and one row on top for a total height of 8 feet. The structure installed on the Stovall property, however, was more elaborate than what was shown on the permit drawing. "[T]he Stovall property has three on the bottom, then two in the middle and then one on the top stacked pyramid style." Tr. 97. Twelve feet tall, the HESCO structure installed on the Stovall property was four feet higher than specified by the County permit. The structures were covered with sand in order to "rebuild the dune," tr. 109, in other words, the HESCO Baskets were installed in such a way as to serve as the core of a restored dune feature. The purpose of the installation was to provide a means of stabilizing the sand under the houses to restore the under-story parking. The installation was complete on November 4, 2005. The sand wall installed by Mr. Jones and his crew was then plugged with sea oats that were watered in the hope that their establishment would encourage the creation of a dune. A Vegetated Dune Pictures introduced into evidence reveal that the HESCO structure installed by the Stovalls and the Buntins, the sand installed on top and around it and the planting of the sea oats has resulted in a well-vegetated dune. As Mrs. Stovall put it at hearing, "y'all have got to admits that's the prettiest set of sea oats y'all [have] ever seen in your lives." Tr. 296. By the time of hearing, the dune had been maintained for nearly four years without any more sand imported by human hands. There has occurred, however, some exposure of wires of the HESCO system. A corner of one of the baskets in front of the Stovall house was exposed at the time of hearing and a picture introduced into evidence showed exposure of the top of several baskets in 2007. Mrs. Stovall expressed a desire to add more sand and ultimately to restore the dune to its pre-Opal status which "would add five-and-a half feet and make [the dune] level with the deck." Tr. 298. No sand has been added since the installation in November of 2005, however, because of the uncertain outcome of this proceeding. The exposure to date of the HESCO Baskets is in all likelihood the result of wind. Wave action, should it reach the system and be strong enough, will cause even more exposure. In fact, the HESCO Basket dune is not likely to be able to withstand wave action from 15 and 25-year return storms and a storms of such strength could expose the entire HESCO Basket structure leaving a jumble and tangle of wires on the beach. A recent series of aerial photographs from 2004 to 2007 show that the dune position to the west of the Buntin/Stovall property is approximately 30-to-50 feet further landward. The dune created by the HESCO baskets, therefore, is more seaward and more interactive with coastal processes than the dune to the west making the HESCO basket dune less likely to survive wave action than the dunes to its west. Nonetheless, as of the time of hearing, the system has maintained its integrity since installation. After the installation, the Stovalls and the Buntins were under no illusion that they had done all that was required in the way of governmental permitting. They knew that the County permits were good for only 60 days. They knew that they needed a CCCL permit from the Department if the structure were to achieve permanent permitting status. For that, they turned to their Qualified Representative in this proceedings, Ong-In Shin. Mr. Shin duly filed a CCCL permit application. The Application and Action by DEP On June 28, 2006, the Department received two applications for permits for construction seaward of the CCCL. Both were filed by Mr. Shin. One was filed on behalf of the Stovalls, the other on behalf of the Buntins. Section 4., of the applications, which called for "[a] brief description of the proposed work, activity or construction," contains the description: "Coastal Armoring." By letter dated July 11, 2006, the Department requested additional information related to the application. Among the eight separate requests was a request for a description of the proposed activity: "Please describe the work done at the subject property for which this After-the-Fact application has been submitted." Department Exhibit 7, at 80. In the notes of the request for additional information there appears the following: Please be advised that structures to be protected must be eligible and vulnerable as per Rule 62B-33.051, F.A.C. * * * Id. at 82. DEP has been notified by the Florid (sic) Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission that Hesco box structures require an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service. The application was deemed incomplete a number of times and specific information was requested for it to be deemed complete. During the course of DEP's correspondence and additional submittals by Mr. Shin on behalf of the Stovalls and the Buntins, the Commission wrote to the Department on May 10, 2007, about its concern with regard to sea turtles. Based on Mr. Shin's representation that HESCO boxes are designed to collapse if subject to wave attack, Robin Trindell, Ph.D., wrote on behalf of the Commission to DEP, "Sea turtles attempting to nest or hatchlings in an area with HESCO containers could become entangled in these collapsible structures. Therefore, we do not recommend that these blocks be installed in sea turtle nesting habitat." Id. at 49. The application was deemed complete on August 30, 2007. On November 28, 2007, the Department issued a notice of denial that was received by Mr. Shin on December 4, 2007. While the HESCO Box System was found to meet applicable siting requirements, it was found to have failed to meet coastal armoring criteria related to eligibility, vulnerability, and design. Furthermore, the Department concluded that "the construction of the HESCO Box Container System does not meet the Department requirements for . . . absence of significant adverse impact to marine turtles." Id. at 9. A December 17, 2008, memorandum from Mr. Shin, received by the Department on December 24, 2007, put DEP on notice of his clients' intent to appeal the denial of the permit. The memorandum requested a 60-day extension of time to research the issues associated with the denial before beginning the "formal appeal process." Id. at 2. Mr. Shin filed the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing with DEP on February 15, 2008. It initiated this proceeding at DOAH when the Department on February 29, 2008, requested assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct the proceedings. The issues in this case fall under two broad categories: Coastal Armoring and impacts to marine turtles. Coastal Armoring "Armoring" is defined by Florida Administrative Code Rule 59C-33.001(5): "Armoring" is a manmade structure designed to either prevent erosion of the upland property or protect eligible structures from the effects of coastal wave and current action. Armoring includes certain rigid coastal structures such as geotextile bags or tubes, seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or similar structures but it does not include jetties, groins, or other construction whose purpose is to add sand to the beach and dune system, alter the natural coast currents or stabilize the mouths of inlets. (emphasis added). There is no question that the Stovall/Buntin Hesco Basket System is a manmade structure. Its purpose is to retain the sand under the Stovall and Buntin houses. At the same time, its construction resulted in sand added to the beach and dune system. One thing is clear: the HESCO Basket System is not conventional coastal armoring. Unlike "seawalls, revetments, bulkheads, retaining walls or similar structures" listed in the rule as examples of coastal armoring, the construction of the HESCO System led to a vegetated dune. Coastal armoring is closely regulated under Chapter 161 of the Florida Statutes by the Department and its Bureau of Beaches and Shores because that chapter is "all about protection of the beach dune system." Tr. 337. Coastal armoring usually contravenes such protection. "Coastal armoring does not protect the beach dune system. It's purpose . . . is to protect upland development." Id. While the purpose of the HESCO Basket System is to protect upland development unlike typical coastal armoring, it has added not only sand to the beach but has resulted in the creation and presence of a well-vegetated dune. Prior to 1995, "coastal armoring was only authorized as a last case possibility . . . ." Tr. 337-338. And it was only authorized when approval was given at the highest level of the state executive branch of government, the Governor and Cabinet. But the law was changed in 1995 in recognition that property owners have a right to protect their property. The Coastal Armoring Rule was amended to set up eligibility, vulnerability, siting and design criteria that would strike a reasonable balance between protection of the beach dune system and a property owner's right to protect his or her property. The law was amended again in 2006 to incorporate a new technology for dune restoration: geotextile systems. HESCO Basket Systems use in coastal armoring is also a new technology when it comes to Florida's beaches and shores. Use of HESCO baskets was described at hearing as "very new", tr. 344, relative to the time of the filing of Stovall and Buntin application. If the HESCO Basket System constructed on the Stovall and Buntin properties constitutes "armoring," then it must meet the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.051 which govern "Coastal Armoring and Related Structures" (the "Coastal Armoring Rule"). These requirements include conditions related to "eligibility", "vulnerability", and "design," some of the bases upon which the Department's denial of the after-the- fact permit rests. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.0051(1)(a) and (2). Mr. McNeal's testimony established that the HESCO Basket System does not meet the "eligibility," "vulnerability," and "design," criteria for coastal armoring. But the Coastal Armoring Rule also encourages applicants for coastal armoring to "be aware that armoring may not be the only option for providing protection." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.0051(1). To that end, applicants for would-be armoring "are encouraged to evaluate other protection methods . . . such as dune restoration." Id. The HESCO Basket System installed by the Stovalls and Buntins follows the encouragement of the rule: it is a protection method that has resulted in dune restoration. CCCL Permit General Criteria Regardless of whether the HESCO Basket System and the vegetated dune it now supports constitutes coastal armoring, the structure on the Stovall and Buntin property must meet the General Criteria contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005 for issuance of CCCL permits. Applications for those permits must be denied "for an activity which . . . would result in a significant adverse impact . . .". Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(3)(a). Impact assessments conducted by the Department "shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on . . . marine turtles." Id. Marine Turtle Behavior Marine turtles spend most of their lives at sea often foraging hundreds of miles from their nesting habitat. Adult females migrate from feeding grounds and their foraging areas and aggregate off shore beginning in May of nesting season, generally from May through August. Off shore, the female turtles wait for nightfall to swim ashore and crawl landward in search of a spot to nest. Four species of marine turtles typically nest in Walton County: the Loggerhead, the green turtle, the Leatherback and Kemp's Ridley. Because the Loggerhead and green turtle are by far the most prevalent on Walton County beaches, the Commission focused on their specific behavior when it presented the testimony of Dr. Witherington. The mechanics of crawling differ between Loggerhead and green turtles. Loggerheads use an alternating gait while green turtles have simultaneous butterfly-style strokes. Both species drag the plastron or "belly shell" using all four flippers. Their crawls enable them to scale slopes and penetrate dune vegetation but they are not able to crawl backward. They are capable of crawling up a slope that is steeper than one to one. At a location between the recent high water mark, often observable by a wrack line (floating seaweed washed ashore) and the crest of the primary dune, the female selects a spot. The female creates a pit that she can slide her body into it. Loggerheads do so by scraping sand from the front with their front flippers and by gathering sand from beneath at the posterior to push it behind. This behavior referred to as "body pitting" tr. 474, results in a pit that the turtle eases into at a slight angle posterior end-downward at the deepest part of the pit. Green turtles have similar body-pitting behavior but it is more elaborate. "A green turtle will . . . blast the sand out in front of it, dig an enormous pit . . . two or more feet deep and create a very large mound." Tr. 475. Beneath the body pit, the turtle digs an egg chamber. For Loggerheads the depth of the egg chamber is "a little over two feet . . . say 26 inches or so," tr. 482 from the surface of the sand. For a green turtle, the depth is closer to 3 feet. On average, clutch size for a Loggerhead is 115 eggs. The range is from 70-to-170 eggs per clutch. Average clutch size for green turtles in Florida is roughly 128 with a range from 70 to 200. Turtles and the Stovall/Buntin Property Assuming no obstacles such as an exposed HESCO Basket, a sea turtle would have no trouble making its way to the crest of the HESCO Basket dune on the Stovall/Buntin property. The Stovall/Buntin dune supported by HESCO baskets is mostly vegetated with sea oats. There is Seaside Evening Primrose and some Beach Morning Glory, too. As long as the turtles are not interfered with by the HESCO baskets, a sea turtle would have no problem nesting amidst the vegetation on the Stoval/Buntin dune. Heavily eroded beaches do not discourage sea turtle nesting behaviors. But where sea turtles choose to nest on a heavily eroded beach is altered by the erosion. Dr. Witherington explained: [F]ollowing a severe erosion event, . . . [t]he beach tends to be flatter and in some cases broader and with escarpment from erosion that has occurred. And almost invariably following severe erosion events . . ., sea turtles aim for the high ground. In part, because that is the only dry sand remaining on the beach, . . . [a]nd they're choosing the safest sites on the beach to nest. Tr. 485. Thus, the erosion that has occurred on the Stovall/Buntin property is not likely to deter sea turtles from nesting there. Almost all of the area seaward of the Stovall and Buntin houses is nesting habitat, but if a sea turtle chooses to nest there, the most likely place is somewhere on the dune created by the HESCO Baskets. Threats to Sea Turtles Sea turtles encounter numerous threats, impediments and hazards when they are attempting to nest on beaches visited by human beings as much as the beaches of Walton County currently. Coastal armoring is commonly recognized as a threat to sea turtle nesting because it serves as a barrier to sea turtle nesting habitat -- precisely the opposite of the Stovall/Buntin HESCO Basket-supported dune which is an appealing place along a severely eroded beach in which to nest. Man-made debris is a threat to sea turtles. There are numerous types of debris: monofilament line is one example. Holes in the sand dug by beachgoers, beach furniture and walkways are either barriers or can cause entanglement that can lead to sea turtle injury or death. If a turtle gets up on a sea wall and falls, the fall can seriously injure the turtle or result in death. Artificial lighting is a particularly dangerous and prevalent threat. The lighting can disorient both nesting turtle and hatchlings causing them to move away from the ocean or gulf. Death can result from dehydration in the morning sun, wandering inland and falling prey to predators, or ending up on highways and being struck by cars. In addition, there are natural threats to sea turtles. A variety of predators dig into sea turtle nest for the eggs. The eggs may be swept away when the sediment around the clutch is washed away. Inundation, as well, if over too long a period can destroy the eggs. Exposed HESCO baskets are a threat to sea turtles and their hatchling in multiple ways. The ways in which they could injure or kill a turtle were described by Dr. Witherington: HESCO baskets accessible to sea turtles would act as a barrier to a sea turtle reaching an appropriate nesting habitat. An open HESCO basket . . . could act as a trap, . . . [for] turtles that might end up inside the top of the basket itself, and then there's an entanglement effect that would probably be of very little concern for HESCO baskets that were not exposed, but when they do become exposed, the entrapment effect would be much . . . larger . . . Tr. 502. Dr. Witherington also described three problems that could be posed by an exposed HESCO basket shown in a photograph taken on the Stovall property and attached to a Site Inspection Report date November 19, 2007. See Department Exhibit 16P, at 9. These were first, "the pitfall hazard," tr. 504, second, a vertical fall that the turtle might take from atop an exposed basket, and, third, entrapment. As for entrapment, Dr. Witherington opined, "it may look to many that the open HESCO baskets don't leave much opportunit[y] for the sea turtle to become entrapped, but one thing we learned is that sea turtles often make their own traps," id., when presented with situation similar to that of an exposed HESCO basket. There is another hazard to sea turtles posed by a HESCO basket if the baskets were buried beneath where a nesting turtle was digging its nest. If the turtle were to dig into the basket and strike it, it could cause the turtle to abandon the site and return to the sea. If the dune that the HESCO Baskets support were to be washed away in a storm and the basket structure were to fail, the debris left would be a "particularly pernicious tangle of wire and mesh that would very much have the potential to ensnare sea turtles." Tr. 507. A Sea Turtle Take In Dr. Witherington's opinion, HESCO baskets constitute significant habitat modification or degradation that could significantly impair the essential behavioral pattern of breeding. If HESCO baskets killed or injured a marine turtle, therefore, they would constitute a "Take," as defined by Section 373.2431(1)(c)2., Florida Statues: "'Take' means an act that actually kills or injures marine turtles, and includes significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures marine turtles by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering." "Any person . . . that illegally takes . . . any marine turtle species, or the eggs or nest of any marine turtle species . . . commits a third degree felony, punishable as provided [by law.]" § 379.2431(1)(e)5., Fla. Stat.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Coastal Construction Control Line Permit applied for by the Stovalls and Buntins be issued with the conditions listed in paragraph 110, above. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, 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 30th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bryant Building, Room 108 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Kelly L. Russell, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Ong-In Shin Florida Coastal Development Consulting, Inc. 4654 East Highway 20 Niceville, Florida 32578 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Michael W. Sole, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Should the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (the Commission) impose discipline on Respondent in association with his law enforcement certificate?
Findings Of Fact The Commission has the power to certify and revoke the certification of law enforcement officers. § 943.12(3), Fla. Stat. (2006). Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer. At times relevant to the inquiry he served in that capacity in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Based upon the record, it is inferred that his employment was in association with what has been identified as the Volusia County Beach Patrol (Beach Patrol). That organization was constituted of law enforcement officers and other employees, to include an ocean rescue life guard and EMT. The latter employment position was referred to in the organization as a Beach Safety Specialist. The accusations against Respondent in this case involve conduct seen by and directed to two females, Captain Tamara Marris, a law enforcement officer and Beach Patrol Specialist Christine Dobmeier. Both worked for the Beach Patrol at times relevant to the inquiry. The incidents that form the basis for this complaint took place in a building (the station) utilized by the Beach Patrol. The basic design of the building is set out in Petitioner's Exhibit numbered one, admitted. The drawing or diagram is not to scale. It does reflect the location of a locker room, the door to that locker room, a bathroom and an office in the building. It also shows the location of Respondent's locker within the locker room. The door into the locker room is kept shut. It has a combination lock on it that must be unlocked to gain access to the locker room. In the summer 2004, Respondent and Captain Marris finished their duty shift at the beach and returned to the station. They were the only employees in the station at the time. Respondent was in the locker room, which was not intended to be a dressing room. The bathroom is the place where people change their clothes from the duty clothing into other attire. Respondent was facing his locker wearing only a towel when Captain Marris entered the locker room. While in the locker room Respondent's genitals were exposed to her view. On this first occasion Captain Marris thought that the exposure was just an accident. On a second occasion when the two officers, Captain Marris and Respondent were closing the shift, Captain Marris walked into the locker room and Respondent dropped the towel he was wearing exposing himself, that is exposing his genitals. The second incident took place in approximately August 2004. There was a third incident at the station between Respondent and Captain Marris. This time before Captain Marris entered the locker room, she said some words to the effect, "Hey, are you decent," to which Respondent replied, "Yeah, come on in." When she entered the room, Respondent dropped his towel to pull up his shorts and she saw his genitals again. In her mind, with the third incident having transpired, she concluded that Respondent's actions were deliberate. As a consequence beyond that point, when Captain Marris needed to put her work gear away in the locker room, she would wait until Respondent left the station. On the third occasion which occurred sometime around September 2004, Respondent and Captain Marris were alone as they had been on the prior two occasions. When Captain Marris determined in her mind that the Respondent was acting intentionally in exposing his genitals, she considered this to be vulgar or indecent. She did not believe that anything in the conduct was legitimate. Certainly by the third occasion, if not before, Respondent's conduct could be seen as intentional and without legitimate purpose. Christine Dobmeier was subject to Respondent's inappropriate conduct. She was a full-time ocean life guard and EMT in the position Beach Safety Specialist. She had similar experiences with Respondent to those between Respondent and Captain Marris. As Ms. Dobmeier recalls, ordinarily the male personnel would wear "life guard baggies" at work. At times the male employees would wrap a towel around the life guard baggies. This reference is understood to mean some form of pants or shorts worn by the male personnel which they would cover with a towel. In July or August 2004 around closing time, Ms. Dobmeier entered the locker room where Respondent was located. He was wearing a towel when she entered the room. At that moment his towel fell exposing his genitals. She stated, "I am so sorry" and walked out. On that occasion the door to the locker room had been open when she entered. A couple of weeks later Ms. Dobmeier entered the locker room. This time the locker room door had been closed. She did not bother to knock because most people in her experience would change their clothes in the bathroom. She pushed the lock mechanism which made a loud noise. She entered the room and saw Respondent, who was wearing only a T-shirt. Respondent was facing his locker. When Ms. Dobmeier entered the room he turned toward her, exposing his genitals. Ms. Dobmeier apologized for seeing Respondent in his undressed state and immediately left the room. There was a third incident involving Respondent and Ms. Dobmeier, a few weeks after the second incident. This time Ms. Dobmeier knocked on the locker room door and Respondent told her to enter the room. When she did he was standing naked and she walked right back out. Later, Ms. Dobmeier asked Respondent about the third incident and said, "Why did you tell me to come in," and Respondent in reply, as Ms. Dobmeier explains, "Just kind of laughed." After the third incident Ms. Dobmeier felt that the Respondent intended the conduct in exposing himself. There was a fourth incident in the locker room. This time Ms. Dobmeier knocked on the locker room door and did not hear anything in response. She activated the locking mechanism and Respondent was found in the room with his penis erect facing her. He asked Ms. Dobmeier whether he, as Ms. Dobmeier states, indicating Respondent, "Was as large as my boyfriend." This is understood to mean a comparison between Respondent and Ms. Dobmeier's boyfriend as to their genitals. No other persons were in the station when this encounter took place. Ms. Dobmeier considered the Respondent's exposure of his genitals as vulgar. As a result of the last encounter Ms. Dobmeier decided not to enter the locker room while Respondent was at the station. At the beginning of 2005 there was another incident. This time Respondent grabbed Ms. Dobmeier's breast after a swim drill. The incident took place in the locker room with the door open and 10 to 12 lifeguards in the main area outside of the room. Only Respondent and Ms. Dobmeier were in the locker room when he performed this act. His action was not invited or acquiesced to. Ms. Dobmeier responded by telling Respondent, "Don't ever touch me again" and walked away.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding violations of the statutes and rule referred to and revoking Respondent's law enforcement certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 17th day of October, 2006.
