The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should approve Petitioner’s application for a coastal construction control line permit.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts2 Petitioner, Beach Group Investments, LLC (Beach Group), is a limited liability corporation under Florida law. Its address is 14001 63rd Way North, Clearwater, Florida 33760. On December 19, 2005, Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Tech) on behalf of Beach Group submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct 17 luxury townhome units in two four-story buildings, a pool, a dune walk-over, and ancillary parking and driveway areas (hereafter “the Project”). The Department designated the application as File No. SL-224. The property on which the Project is proposed (hereafter “the Property”) is located between the Department's reference monuments R-34 and R-35, in St. Lucie County. The Property’s address is 222 South Ocean Drive, Fort Pierce, Florida. The Property is located seaward of the CCCL line established in accordance with Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62B-33. On April 21, 2006, the application was determined to be complete. By letter dated June 5, 2006, the Department notified Beach Group that the Project appeared to be located seaward of the 30-year erosion projection of the seasonal high water line (SHWL), and that in accordance with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, the staff could not recommend approval of the Project since major structures are seaward of the estimated erosion projection. By letter dated July 7, 2006, and subsequent submittals, Beach Group requested a waiver of the 90-day time period for processing completed applications pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, until October 31, 2006. On August 30, 2006, Beach Group submitted a certified engineering analysis of the 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL for the Department's consideration pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024(1). Beach Group's analysis determined that the proposed major structures associated with the Project were located landward, not seaward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department also performed its own 30-year erosion projection of the SHWL, and determined that the proposed major structures were located seaward, not landward, of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department asserts that the proposed structures are located between 87 feet and 68 feet seaward of the Department's determination of the 30-year erosion projection. The Department disagreed with Beach Group's analysis because the analysis appeared to be inconsistent with Section 161.053(6), Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024, and the Department's own analysis. The Property is located just south of the Fort Pierce Inlet, and landward of a federally maintained beach restoration project that had approximately 14 years of life remaining under the existing Congressional authorization when the permit was submitted to the Department. By proposed Final Order dated November 1, 2006, the Department provided to Beach Group notice of its intent to deny the permit application. The proposed Final Order was received by Beach Group on November 8, 2006. Beach Group's petition for hearing was timely filed with the Department. Since the Department proposes to deny Beach Group's CCCL permit application, its substantial interests are clearly at issue, and it has standing to maintain this proceeding. On December 11, 2006, the Department issued an environmental resource permit for the Project. The Department denied Beach Group’s permit application because the Project extends seaward of the 30-year erosion projection calculated by the Department and because the Project’s impacts to the beach-dune system had not been minimized. The permit was not denied on the basis of the existence, or absence, of a line of continuous construction in the vicinity of the Project. The 30-year Erosion Projection (1) Background Fort Pierce Inlet (hereafter “the inlet”) was constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1920’s. The channel of the inlet is protected by two jetties that extend several hundred feet into the Atlantic Ocean. The jetties act as a barrier to the littoral transfer of sand from the north to south that would otherwise occur along the beach in the vicinity of the Property. The jetties cause accretion on the beach to the north of the inlet and erosion of the beach to the south of the inlet. The inlet channel beyond the jetties also restricts the littoral transfer of sand in the area. The deepening and widening of the channel in 1995 likely contributed to the increased erosion observed south of the inlet in recent years. The beach to the south of the inlet, including that portion on the Property, is designated as a “critically eroded beach” by the Department. The inlet is the primary cause of the erosion. Congress first authorized beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1965. That authorization expired in 1986. Congress “reauthorized” beach nourishment south of the inlet in 1996. That authorization expires in 2021, but St. Lucie County has requested that the authorization be extended for “another 50 years.” The first “major” beach nourishment south of the inlet occurred in 1971. Subsequent “major” nourishments occurred in 1980, 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2005. Another “major” nourishment is planned for 2007. There was a “moderate” nourishment of the beach in 1995, which included the placement of geotextile groins on the beach just to the north of the Property. “Small” nourishments occurred in 1973, 1978, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1997, and 1998. Cumulatively, the nourishments that occurred between the “major” nourishments in 1980 and 1999 involved approximately 419,000 cubic yards of sand, which is more than the volume involved in several of the “major” nourishments. Beach nourishment south of the inlet has been an ongoing effort since it started in 1971. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the nourishment project that is authorized through 2021 is a continuation of the project started in 1971 rather than a separate and distinct project. Various erosion control efforts have been used south of the inlet in conjunction with the beach nourishment efforts. For example, geotextile groins (which are essentially massive sandbags) have been installed and removed on several occasions since the mid-1990’s in order to “temporarily stabilize the shoreline until such measures could be taken to design, permit and construct a long-term solution”; concrete rubble and other riprap has been placed on the beach over the years (without a permit from the Department) to protect upland structures from erosion; and a "spur jetty" was constructed on the south jetty in an effort to reduce erosion south of the inlet. These efforts have not slowed the pace of the erosion or minimized the need for beach nourishment south of the inlet. Indeed, the need for and frequency of “major” nourishments south of the inlet have increased in recent years. Beach erosion south of the inlet will continue to be a serious problem so long as the inlet exists and the jetties remain in place. There is no reason to expect that the inlet or the jetties will be removed in the foreseeable future and, as a result, beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue to be necessary. The Department has recognized the need for continuing nourishment of the beach south of the inlet, as reflected in both the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the St. Lucie Beaches and the Ft. Pierce Inlet Management Study Implementation Plan. Those plans acknowledge the long-term need for continued nourishment of the beach at a rate of at least “130,000 cubic yards on an average annual basis.” The plans do not, however, guarantee that future beach nourishment in the area will occur at that, or any, rate. (2) Rule Methodology Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 contains the methodology for determining the 30-year erosion projection, which is the projected location of the SHWL 30 years after the date of the permit application under review. Where, as here, the beach at issue is subject to an ongoing beach nourishment project, the methodology requires consideration of “pre-project” conditions -- i.e., the conditions that existed before the beach nourishment efforts started -- because those conditions are used to project how the beach will migrate landward in the periods over the next 30 years when there may not be any beach nourishment activity. The coastal engineering experts presented by the parties -- Michael Walther for Beach Group and Emmett Foster for the Department -- used essentially the same methodology to determine the location of the 30-year erosion projection. However, the variables that they used in each step of the methodology differed. Step 1: Locate the Pre-Project MHWL The first step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to locate the pre-project MHWL. If a pre-project erosion control line (ECL)3 has been established in the area, it is to be used as the starting-point for the determination of the 30-year erosion projection. Otherwise a pre-project survey of the MHWL is to be used as the starting-point. Mr. Walther used a 1997 ECL as the starting point for his analysis. Mr. Foster used a March 2002 survey of the MHWL as the starting point for his analysis because he did not consider the 1997 ECL to be an appropriate pre-project ECL. The March 2002 survey of the MHWL is not itself an appropriate starting point for the analysis. The survey is not a “pre-project” survey, no matter how the project is defined; the survey occurred more than 30 years after the nourishments started in 1971, and three years after the first “major” nourishment pursuant to the Congressional reauthorization of the project. Moreover, as discussed below, there is an appropriate pre-project ECL in the area. There are two lines that might be considered to be a pre-project ECL in this case -- (1) the ECL established in 1997, and (2) the South Beach High Tide Line (SBHTL) established in 1968. The 1997 ECL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL performed on May 5, 1997. The survey occurred two years after a “moderate” beach nourishment and the placement of the geotextile groins on the beach. There was also a “small” nourishment in 1997, but the record does not reflect whether that nourishment occurred before or after the survey. The SBHTL was established based upon a survey of the MHWL between 1966 and 1968, prior to the initial nourishment of the beach south of the inlet. It is approximately 65 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. The SBHTL is the functional equivalent of an ECL, and it roughly corresponds to the “best fit line” for the March 2002 survey used by Mr. Foster as the starting point for his determination of the 30-year erosion projection in this case. The Department contends that the 1997 ECL is not based upon a “pre-project” survey of the MHWL because the applicable beach restoration project south of the inlet began in the 1970’s and has been ongoing since that time. Beach Group contends that the applicable project is the current one that is authorized through 2021, and that the 1997 survey preceded the start of the nourishments authorized by that project. The Department has used the 1997 ECL as the starting- point for determining the 30-year erosion projection in several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project,4 and in an April 9, 1999, memorandum discussing the 30-year erosion projection in the vicinity of monuments R-35 and R-36, Mr. Foster stated that “the ECL represents the pre-project [MHWL].” Mr. Foster no longer considers the 1997 ECL to be the appropriate pre-project MHWL for purposes of determining the 30- year erosion projection south of the inlet. He testified that had he been aware of “the complete background” of the 1997 ECL and the extent of the nourishments in the 1980’s and 1990’s, he would have brought the issue to the Department’s attention so that the Department could consider whether the 1997 ECL or “an earlier prenourishment line” was the appropriate pre-project MHWL. Although it is a close question, the more persuasive evidence presented at the final hearing establishes that the 1997 ECL is not an appropriate pre-project MHWL because the applicable “project” includes the beach nourishment efforts started in 1971 that have continued through the present, even though those efforts were intermittent at times. Thus, the appropriate starting point for determining the location of the 30-year erosion projection is the SBHTL, not the 1997 ECL used by Mr. Walther or the March 2002 MHWL survey used by Mr. Foster. Step 2: Locate the Pre-Project SHWL The second step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the location of the pre-project SHWL. Mr. Walther located the pre-project SHWL 26.4 feet landward of the 1997 ECL. That is the surveyed distance between the MHWL and SHWL in June 2005. Mr. Foster located the pre-project SHWL at the most landward location that the SHWL was surveyed in March 2002. The line is between 50 and 75 feet5 landward of the “best fine” line used by Mr. Foster as the pre-project MHWL, and it is as much as 25 feet landward of the surveyed location of the SHWL in some areas. Mr. Foster used “an average [of] 50 feet” as the MHWL- to-SHWL distance in his analysis of several prior permits in the vicinity of the Project.6 Mr. Foster testified that the distance between the MHWL and SHWL in this area varies “from the 20s in the immediate post-nourishment situations . . . all the way up to 70-some feet” and that the “the averages gravitate towards 40 feet.” Consistent with that testimony, the distance between the surveyed locations of the MHWL and SHWL depicted on Department Exhibit 6 is approximately 40 feet, on average. The MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther is not a reasonable projection of the pre-project distance because it was based upon survey data taken immediately after a “major” beach nourishment when the shoreline was unnaturally steep and, hence, not representative of “pre-project” conditions. The SHWL located by Mr. Foster is also not a reasonable projection of the pre-project SHWL because it was based upon a March 2002 survey (which is clearly not "pre- project"); because it used the most landward surveyed location of the SHWL rather than a “best fit” line or an average of the distances between the surveyed MHWL and SHWL; and because it runs across areas of well-established dune vegetation. In sum, the MHWL-to-SHWL distance calculated by Mr. Walther (26.4 feet) is too low, whereas the distance resulting from Mr. Foster's siting of the SHWL based on the March 2002 survey (50 to 75 feet) is too high. Those distances are essentially endpoints of the range observed in this area, as described by Mr. Foster. A more reasonable estimate of the pre-project MHWL-to- SHWL distance is approximately 40 feet. See Findings 51 and 52. Thus, the pre-project SHWL is located 40 feet landward of and parallel to the SBHTL. That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37, it roughly corresponds to a straight line between the points where the red- dashed line intersects the Property’s north and south boundaries. Step 3: Calculate the Erosion Rate The third step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to calculate an erosion rate. The erosion rate used by Mr. Foster was -7 feet per year (ft/yr). That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monument R-35 for the period from 1949 to 1967. The rate would have been higher had Mr. Foster averaged the rates for the nearby monuments.7 The erosion rate used by Mr. Walther was -4.9 ft/yr. That rate was calculated based upon an average of the shoreline change data for monuments R-34 to R-39 over the period of 1930 to 1968. An erosion rate of -7 ft/yr south of the inlet was referenced in permit applications submitted by Mr. Walter’s firm, Coastal Tech, for several shore protection structures south of the inlet; was used by Mr. Foster in his review of several prior CCCL permit applications south of the inlet; and was included in reports on the inlet prepared by the Army Corps of Engineers over the years. An erosion rate of -3.3 ft/yr was used and accepted by the Department in its review of another permit application in the general vicinity of the project.8 That erosion rate was based upon data from the period of 1972 to 1994, which is after the beach nourishment started south of the inlet. It is not entirely clear why Mr. Foster chose to use a data set starting in 1949, particularly since his report stated that the “1928-30 survey already shows significant erosion occurring south of the inlet.” His testimony did not adequately explain the choice of that data set. The use of a longer data set is typically more appropriate when calculating a historical rate. In this case, however, the use of the shorter period of 1949-68 is reasonable because the 1930-49 erosion rate was considerably lower than the 1949-68 rate,9 which has the effect of skewing the erosion rate calculated for the longer period of 1930-68. The higher erosion rate calculated by Mr. Foster also better takes into account the increased frequency of the nourishments in recent years as well as the continued need for shore stabilization in the area. In sum, the higher erosion rate of -7 ft/yr calculated by Mr. Foster using the 1949-68 data set better reflects the historical post-inlet, pre-nourishment erosion rate than does the lower erosion rate calculated by Mr. Walther. Step 4: Determine the Remaining Project Life The fourth step in determining the 30-year erosion projection is to determine the “remaining project life” of the “existing” beach nourishment project. It was stipulated that there are 14 years remaining until the currently authorized federal beach restoration project expires. It is reasonable to expect that beach nourishment south of the inlet will continue well beyond the expiration of the current federal project, but there were no other funded and permitted projects in place at the time Beach Group’s permit application was filed. Potential future beach nourishment projects are not considered “existing” under the rule methodology in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.024 unless they are funded and permitted at the time the application at issue is filed. Mr. Walther used the 14-year remaining life of the existing federal project in his calculation of the 30-year erosion projection, as did Mr. Foster. The “remaining project life” applicable to this case is 14 years, notwithstanding the likelihood of continued beach nourishment in the area beyond the expiration of the existing project. Step 5: Calculate the 30-year Erosion Projection The final step in determining the location of the 30- year erosion projection is a calculation using the variables determined in the previous steps. The calculation is as follows: first, the remaining project life determined in step four is subtracted from 30; then, that result is multiplied by the erosion rate determined in step three to get a distance; and, finally, the SHWL is moved that distance landward of its pre-project location determined in step two. Subtracting the remaining project of 14 years from 30 equals 16 years. Multiplying 16 years by the erosion rate of -7 ft/yr equals 112 feet, which means that the 30-year erosion line is located 112 feet landward of the pre-project SHWL (or 152 feet landward of the SBHTL). That line is not depicted on any of the exhibits, but it roughly corresponds to a straight line than runs across the Property parallel to the SBHTL just landward of the “conc. pad” and “existing conc. Pile caps (typ)” shown on Petitioner’s Exhibit 37. The line is 25 to 30 feet seaward of Mr. Foster’s 30-year erosion projection depicted on that exhibit. (3) Ultimate Finding Regarding the Location of the Proposed Structures in Relation to the 30-year Erosion Projection The Project includes major structures seaward of the 30-year erosion projection, as determined above. Impacts of the Project on the Beach-Dune System The Project includes 17 luxury town home units in two four-story buildings, a pool and spa, landscaping, and an elevated dune walkover. The units will range from 2,700 to 4,400 square feet of living space and are projected to be offered for sale in the $1.5 to $2.5 million range. Beach Group’s principal, Harold Seltzer, testified that the Project is sited as far landward as possible to allow for the development of all 17 units while still complying with the local setback and height restrictions; that the Project’s financial viability depends upon it being developed as proposed; and that the Project cannot be redesigned and remain financially viable. The CCCL permit application included a letter from the City of Ft. Pierce confirming that the Project is consistent with the applicable local development codes. Mr. Seltzer testified that the Project’s local development approvals expired in September 2006 because the CCCL permit had not been issued, and that Beach Group is having to go back through the local permitting process. The seaward extent of the Project is the 1978 CCCL, which is approximately 250 feet seaward of the current CCCL. The buildings on the adjacent properties are also located on the 1978 CCCL. The Project does not extend further seaward than the nearby development, including the structures authorized by the Department in File Nos. SL-162 and SL-173.10 The seaward boundary of the Property is the SBHTL. That line is approximately 295 feet landward of the MHWL established in June 2005, and as noted above, it is approximately 65 feet landward of the ECL established in 1997. The adjacent properties are developed with multi-story residential buildings. There is a densely vegetated dune feature in front of the building to the south of the Property. There is some vegetation, but no discernable dune in front of the building to the north of the Property. The Property as a whole is sparsely vegetated, but there are areas of “prolific vegetation” on the Property. The seaward extent of the vegetation on the Property roughly corresponds to the location of the 1978 CCCL. There are several mature sea grape clusters in the vicinity of that line. The beach in front of the Property is devoid of vegetation. It has a steep slope immediately landward of the water line; a wide (approximately 270 feet) expanse of relatively flat beach; and a gently sloping dune feature that starts just landward of the Property’s seaward boundary, crests approximately 30 feet farther landward, and then gradually slopes downward across the Property all of the way to State Road A1A. The dune feature on the Property is the frontal dune. It is the first mound sand located landward of the beach that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value. The crest of the frontal dune is seaward of the vegetation line on the Property, and ranges in height from +9.7 to +12.2 feet NAVD.11 The seaward toe of the dune is shown on the topographic survey for the Property at elevations ranging from +7.27 to +7.85 feet NAVD. Similar elevations occur on the landward side of the dune crest, just landward of the 1978 CCCL. The vegetation on the Property extends landward of the 1978 CCCL and landward of the line shown on the topographic survey of the Property as the “approximate location of sparse grass and ground cover.” The landward extent of the vegetation does not in and of itself define the landward extent of the dune; changes in the slope of the ground must also be considered. The more persuasive evidence establishes that the landward toe of the frontal dune is landward of the 1978 CCCL, but not as far landward as suggested by Department witness Tony McNeal.12 The landward toe of the dune on the Property is best defined by the elevations landward of the dune crest similar to the elevations shown for the seaward toe of the dune. The Project extends into the frontal dune on the Property, and it will requires minor excavation of the frontal dune, primarily in the area of the proposed pool. All aspects of the project, except for the proposed dune walkover, will be landward of the crest of the frontal dune and the mature sea grape clusters located on the dune. There will be no net excavation on the Property as a result of the Project. The sand excavated for the pool will be placed on-site, and additional beach-compatible sand will be used as fill for the site. Overall, the Project will result in the net placement of approximately 66 cubic yards of sand on the Property. The proposed structures will be elevated on piles, which will allow the beach-dune system to fluctuate under the structures during storm events. The finished floor elevation of the proposed structures is approximately +8 feet NAVD, which is slightly higher than the elevations associated with the toes of the frontal dune. The Project will not destabilize the frontal dune, even though it will encroach into the dune. The impacts of the Project on the beach-dune system will be mitigated by the placement of additional sand into the beach-dune system, as described above. The Project’s impacts will be further mitigated by the enhancements to the frontal dune described in the permit application. Mr. Walther testified that the frontal dune on the Property could “very easily” be enhanced to be of comparable height and magnitude of the dunes on the adjacent properties. The permit application proposes enhancements to the frontal dune as part of the Site Landscaping Plan for the Project. The proposed enhancements include increasing the crest of the dune to a height of +15 feet NAVD, and extensive planting of the dune with sea grapes, beach morning glories, and sea oats. The plantings would extend from the 1978 CCCL to the seaward toe of the existing frontal dune. The dune enhancements proposed in the permit application should be included as a specific condition of the CCCL permit for the Project, if it is approved.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying Beach Group’s application for a CCCL permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Community Affairs, is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and the regulations promulgated thereunder. The Department has the authority to appeal to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission any development order issued in an area of critical state concern pursuant to Sections 380.031(18), 380.032, and 380.07, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding and to DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI, Petitioner, Fred Snowman, owned the real property known as Lot 75, Matecumbe Ocean Beach subdivision, Lower Matecumbe Key, in Monroe County, Florida (the subject property). A building permit issued by Monroe County, described below, for this property was the subject of DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI (the underlying proceeding.) The lot is approximately 100 feet wide and, at different points, between 200 and 225 feet deep. The subject property is bounded on the landward side by U.S. 1 and fronts the Atlantic Ocean in an area known as Matecumbe Beach. Matecumbe Beach is a known resting and nesting habitat for marine turtles. This building permit constituted a development order on property within the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern. On September 30, 1993, Monroe County issued to Mr. Snowman, as the owner and general contractor, building permit number 9330008850, which authorized the construction on the subject property of a single-family residence containing 2,472 square feet of heated and cooled area, 1,568 square feet of porches, 1,435 square feet of storage enclosure below base flood elevation, and a swimming pool. The authorized construction was to be consistent with the building site plan, which was also approved by Monroe County. On November 18, 1993, the Department timely appealed the subject building permit to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) pursuant to Section 380.07, Florida Statutes. FLWAC referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned DOAH Case Number 93- 7165DRI. A formal hearing was conducted in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI in Key West, Florida, on June 30, 1994. Following the formal hearing, the parties were afforded the opportunity to file post-hearing submittals. Thereafter, a recommended order was entered which recommended that FLWAC enter a final order that dismisses the Department's appeal. After the entry of the recommended order, the Department voluntarily dismissed its appeal. FLWAC subsequently entered a final order of dismissal. Petitioner, Fred Snowman, was the prevailing party in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI. SMALL BUSINESS PARTY The issue as to whether Petitioner is a "small business party" as defined by Section 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes, was disputed by the Department in this proceeding. The parties stipulated that Mr. Snowman meets the remaining criteria contained in Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, for an award of attorney's fees and costs. The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner was the sole evidence pertaining to the number of employees of the Petitioner: Could you tell us a little bit about your business? What's the nature of your business? Primarily I'm a speculation - spec builder and general contractor in the Florida Keys, and have been since 1973. Q. How many employees do you maintain on a regular basis? A. I mainly have subcontractors. Occasionally when I have a job, I hire for that particular job. But I'm the sole proprietor and I'm the employee. (Transcript, page 9, lines 12-22.) While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner was the sole proprietor and sole employee of his business, it does not establish that Petitioner had fewer than 25 employees in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. 1/ The following testimony elicited by Petitioner's counsel of the Petitioner pertains to his net worth: Q. What is your net worth? Let me ask you this. Does your net worth exceed a million dollars? A. No. Q. Less than a million dollars? A. Yes. (Transcript, page 9, line 23 through page 10, line 3) The following testimony elicited by Respondent's counsel of the Petitioner on cross examination also pertains to his net worth: Q. When you're identifying your net worth, what exactly are you considering? A. Well, net worth is all my assets minus my liabilities. Q. All of your personal assets? A. Which are far and few between (sic) today. Q. Do you have business assets? A. No. Q. Do you own any property? A. Lot 75. Q. Any property other than Lot 75? A. I own three lots, small lots in Plantation Key. Q. Are they developed or undeveloped? A. No, they're undeveloped. Q. Do you know how much they're worth? A. They're valued at fifteen thousand per lot. Q. They're not on the water? A. Not on the water. Q. Lot 75, do you know what that property's worth? A. That property is worth about a hundred and seventy-five thousand. Q. Without the house on it? A. Without the improvements, yes. Q. How about in its improved condition? A. I would say, in the improved condition, with this home, it would be about five hundred thousand. Q. Okay. Other than the real estate, do you have any personal or business investments, stocks or -- A. No. Q. No? A. Just my condo. (Transcript, page 10, line 8 through page 11, line 13.) There was no other evidence presented as to Petitioner's net worth. While the foregoing testimony establishes that as of May 15, 1995, Petitioner had a net worth of less than two million dollars, it does not establish that his net worth was below that figure in 1993 when the Department initiated its actions against him. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTIFICATION The Department's appeal initially raised several issues. All issues in the underlying proceeding but one were voluntarily dismissed by the Department either prior to the hearing or at the hearing. The only issue litigated at the formal hearing in DOAH Case Number 93-7165DRI was the appropriate setback from the portion of the beach-berm complex located on the subject property known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 9.5-345(3)(f), Monroe County Code, provides: 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 was no dispute in Case 93-7165DRI that the turtle nesting setback applied to Mr. Snowman's property. The dispute was how to apply the setback. There was a bona fide factual dispute as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property that should be considered to be "beach berm complex which is known to serve as an active nesting or resting area of marine turtles" within the meaning of the setback ordinance. The Department established that it followed its standard procedures in deciding to appeal the subject development order. The Department maintains a field staff in the Florida Keys that routinely reviews development orders issued by Monroe County for consistency with the land development regulations, the Monroe County comprehensive plan, and Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. The permit package typically reviewed, and reviewed in this case, includes the permit, a permit conditions sheet, surveys, and site plans. The Department staff usually reviews a biological survey or habitat evaluation index, reviews the County's entire file, reviews aerial photographs and conducts a field assessment. In this case, the Department also looked at records of the Department of Natural Resources and of the Save A Turtle volunteer environmental group. In this case, the Department conducted a field assessment of Mr. Snowman's lot and measured the point it considered to be the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Kate Edgerton, an experienced biologist employed by the Department, measured the point the Department asserted was the landward extent of the turtle nesting setback line. Ms. Edgerton made a good faith assessment of the beach berm complex and considered the property to contain one beach berm complex. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93-7165DRI, page 166, line 17.) Ms. Edgerton testified in the underlying proceeding that she considered herself bound by the definitions in the Monroe County land use regulations and that she believed herself to be applying the pertinent definition when she measured the setback line. (Transcript, DOAH Case 93- 7165DRI, page 163, lines 20-23.) Following field staff review, a report is prepared and forwarded to Tallahassee for review by additonal staff, including the Department's administrator of the critical state concern program. Department staff in Tallahassee review the field staff report and participate in formulating a recommendation as to whether to appeal the permit. The appeal decision is then made either by the Department Division Director or by the agency head. Each material step in the Department's customary practice of reviewing permits was followed in reviewing the subject permit. Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, contains the following definition of the term "beach berm" that was found to be pertinent to the underlying proceeding: (B-3) "Beach berm" means a bare, sandy shore- line 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. 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. At the formal hearing in the underlying appeal, there was conflicting evidence as to the extent of the beach berm complex on the subject property. The Recommended Order found that there were two distinct ridges located on the subject property. The issue of whether both ridges could be considered part of the "beach berm complex" was one of first impression. Succinctly stated, it was the position of the Department in the underlying appeal that both ridges were in an area of potential habitat on a beach that is known habitat and it asserted the position that both ridges should be considered to be one beach berm complex. The Department asserted the position that the setback should be measured from the landward extent of the second ridge (the more landward of the two ridges). Monroe County had measured the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge. Mr. Snowman agreed with the County's determination of the setback. Mr. Snowman presented evidence that the County had, for several years, applied the setback from the landward extent of the first ridge and argued that, based on the foregoing definitions each ridge should be considered to be a separate beach berm, but that only the first should be considered to be a beach berm. The Department presented evidence that the County had applied the setback provision in an inconsistent manner by measuring from the crest of berms in some cases and measuring from the landward extent of berms in other occasions. The Recommended Order rejected the Department's position and concluded that the definition of "beach berm" contained in Section 9.5-4(B-3), Monroe County Code, and the description of "berm" in the comprehensive plan were unambiguous. Although the Department argued that other provisions of the code and comprehensive plan supported their construction of the setback requirement, it was concluded that the issues should be resolved based on the unambiguous definition of "beach berm". It was also concluded that no deference should be afforded the Department's construction of the term "beach berm" because there is a plain and unambiguous definition of the term that is a part of the Monroe County Code. It was observed that "[w]hile a greater setback may better serve the goals of the comprehensive plan, as argued by the Department, the imposition of a greater setback requirement should come from a change in the Monroe County Code." This observation was made because the Department had found support for its interpretation of the setback requirement from other parts of the code and comprehensive plan. This case involved bona fide disputed issues of material fact and legal issues that were of first impression. It is found that those issues, although resolved against the Department following the formal hearing, were of sufficient merit to substantially justified the Department's actions in initiating the underlying appeal.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Environmental Protection was the state agency responsible for the regulation of certain activities conducted on and in the coastal waters of this state. Respondent was a commercial crab fisherman operating out of Tarpon Springs, Florida. In the operation of his business, Respondent, James Ikey House, places and maintains several thousand wooden crab traps in the waters off western- central Florida for the purpose of catching stone crabs. He, or someone in his employ, builds his traps on his premises. Late in the afternoon on September 2, 1993, Marine Patrol Officer Umberto Navarro, while on duty as a land patrol from Tarpon Springs to St. Petersburg Beach, on Roosevelt Boulevard in Tarpon Springs, saw a stack of greenish colored crab traps on a lot beside the street. The greenish color of the traps he saw that day made him wonder what they had been dipped into for preservation. Navarro's family has been in the commercial fishing business for years and some are competitors of the Respondent in the Tarpon Springs area. He contends this has nothing whatever to do with his investigation, however. He has worked with fishermen all his life and before becoming a Marine Patrol officer, he built thousands of crab traps similar to those he saw that day and dipped them in motor oil as a preservative. Navarro saw a young boy on Respondent's premises dipping bundles of slats into a vat containing a dark liquid. The slats were 2 to 3 feet long and were tied with string, and based on his experience in the business, and the fact that a lot of the prepared and stacked traps were the same color as the wood being dipped, Navarro concluded that they were going to be made into crab traps. He asked the lad to whom the traps belonged and subsequently found out they were owned by the Respondent. When Respondent came to the site where Navarro was talking to the boy and the boy's father, Respondent's grandson and son respectively, Navarro, after identifying himself as a Marine Patrol officer, asked Respondent if the traps were his. In response, Respondent asked, "What's it to you?" Navarro then asked Respondent what the substance being used was and explained why he asked. He advised Respondent that it was unlawful to dip crab traps, or the material to be made into traps, in any substance made from petroleum. Respondent asked to see where that was in the law and Navarro showed him the statutory provision included in a book of relevant laws and rules carried by all Marine Patrol officers. Even when this was shown to Respondent, he remained hostile and uncooperative, though he ultimately stated he was using mineral oil and copper as a dip. Only when Navarro said he would take a sample of the substance did Respondent admit the dip contained a petroleum product, and he said he guessed that he was in violation of the law along with the other million people who dipped traps. Officer Navarro went over to where the dip substance was being used and asked if Respondent had any cans from which it had come around for him to look at. Respondent refused to show Navarro any cans, so as a result, even though he did not have a search warrant to do so, Navarro started to take a sample for further identification. With that, Respondent told Navarro to get off his property. Nonetheless, Officer Navarro took two samples of the substance using a piece of what appeared to him to be abandoned water hose he saw lying on the ground. One was taken from the vat in which the slats were being dipped, and the other was taken from a 55 gallon drum of the substance nearby. He did so because he saw what he considered to be a crime being committed in front of him and he wanted to preserve a sample of the substance being used. Navarro gave Respondent a receipt for the samples and the hose. He did not take any of the traps. He also took photographs of the scene including the dip process, the stacked traps, and the surrounding locale. Respondent objected to the pictures being taken. The substance was subsequently released to Mr. Rossbach of the Department's Emergency Response office who had the samples analyzed by an independent accredited laboratory. In determining what tests to run on the substance, Mr. Rossbach and the laboratory official considered its appearance and its odor, and based on that, the laboratory personnel suggested what tests should be done. Mr. Rossbach got prices for those tests and, before approving their completion, took the samples back to his office, secured a purchase order for the tests, and then took the samples back to the lab for analysis. The report of the tests done on these samples indicated the substance contained a significant amount of copper and mineral spirits, a petroleum product. The total cost of the investigation into this incident by the Department, including the laboratory analysis which was priced at $855.00, came to $1156.26. This figure also includes the mileage for the patrol car, the cost of sample jars, a proration of the salaries of the Marine Patrol and Department personnel involved, photography costs, and clerical expenses. In addition, the Department proposes to assess a fine of $500.00. In this regard, the Department has authority to assess a fine of up to $10,000 per day for pollution violations proscribed by Chapter 376, Florida Statutes. In 1990, the Florida Legislature revised Chapter 376, Florida Statutes, to provide that after 1990, no traps may be impregnated with a petroleum based solution. After 1995, no traps which have been impregnated with a petroleum based solution may be used in the waters of this State. The statute was drafted this way to allow those fishermen who had traps already impregnated at the time the statute was passed to use them until they wore out or for a reasonable time prior to the effective date of the prohibition against their use. Captain House categorically denies having dipped any of the traps Navarro saw stacked, or any of the traps he has used since 1989, in mineral spirits though before the law was changed he used to do so. He has been a commercial fisherman for 50 years, and while he formerly dipped his traps to preserve the wood and keep worms out, he no longer does so because of the cost of the chemicals and the labor to do it. He now uses commercially treated lumber to fabricate the traps which, though more expensive to buy, is cheaper for his purposes than the cost of regular wood plus the treatment process. The vat which Mr. Navarro saw contains a green liquid which is made up of mineral spirits and a copper wood preservative. Respondent claims he uses the wood which is dipped into the vat for a variety of purposes and, on occasion, gives it to others. He also lets others use his vat to dip their wood. The dipping is done to protect the wood against rot and he uses it in boat building and in the construction and maintenance of two houses he owns in Tarpon Springs. He claims not to have used it for crab traps, however. Respondent claims Officer Navarro's inquiry into his operation is the result of commercial competition. There is no evidence of this however. Respondent also claims that from his inquiry of a Ms. Moegling of the same laboratory which conducted the analysis for the Department, he was advised that it would take between 5 and 7 days to test for suspected petroleum products, and that the test would cost $150.00. The report of analysis done by the lab reflects a comprehensive testing for numerous chemicals. Respondent took a sample of his dip to another laboratory, Personal Services Industries, Inc., in Clearwater on May 18, 1994, where he paid $115.00 for an analysis of the substance. There was no evidence as to what the result of this analysis was, however, or what tests were completed. In light of the fact that the statute and rule prohibit dipping in petroleum based products, a less comprehensive test than that run here would have sufficed. Though there is no direct evidence of the cost of such a test, other than theestimate by PSI, Inc. of $115.00, and the cite of a fee of $150.00 to Respondent by a representative of V.O.C. Analytical Laboratories, Inc., it would seem reasonable that such a test could be done for less than $855.00. Using the cited alternative costs as a guide, the sum of $150.00 appears reasonable. Respondent also presented several receipts for the purchase of lumber which he claims was pressure treated lumber to be used for the construction of his crab traps. Again, the documents do not indicate that the lumber is pressure treated, and as with the results of the independent analysis, the only evidence of Respondent's claims is his own testimony. Respondent also introduced three affidavits from individuals who claim to be aware of Respondent's activity from witnessing his conduct for anywhere from three to twelve years. Each of these individuals claims to have seen Respondent build many crab traps, but none has ever seen him dip the traps in or spray them with chemicals. The statements are hearsay and the similarity of the language of these affidavits leads to the conclusion they were prepared in advance by Respondent or his representative and submitted to the affiant for signature.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner pay a fine of $500.00 and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $451.26. RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Accepted but not relevant to any issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 20. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not proven. & 24. Accepted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Respondent's post hearing submittal did not constitute Proposed Findings of Fact, but more an analysis of and argument on the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Maureen M. Malvern, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road, MS 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Brad D. Hicks Qualified Personal Representative percent House 514 Island Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 James Ikey house 514 Island Avenue Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Virginia B. Wetherell Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Ocean Reef Club, Inc., is the developer of certain lands located on the northern end of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. The development began as a fishing village in the 1940's and now includes private residences, a marina, and residential docking facilities. Ocean Reef applied in 1982 to DER for a permit to construct a residential docking facility known as Fisherman's Wharf. The facility was to provide a number of parallel docking spaces with an access channel following an existing tidal creek to the northeast connecting to a waterway known as the Harbor House Basin. The permit was issued on October 5, 1984, authorizing construction of a 4-foot wide parallel dock approximately 600-feet long, the dredging of a turning basin through the excavation of approximately 1800 cubic yards of material and the dredging of some 200 cubic yards from an existing tidal creek along a 480 lineal foot length of the creek to a width of 5-feet; all located in No Name Creek, a tidal creek connecting Harbor House Marina to Pumpkin Creek, in Card Sound, Key Largo, Monroe County, Section 11, Township 59 South, Range 41 East. That permit was extended by a letter dated June 10, 1987, and now carries an expiration date of October 5, 1989. The existing permit held by Ocean Reef Club, valid until 1989, would allow the direct dredging of a tidal creek vegetated by seagrasses over a 400- foot length yielding a direct dredging of seagrasses of some 3000 square feet. During the two-year processing time leading to issuance of the permit, Ocean Reef sold a portion of the property comprising the access channel to third parties who now will not grant their permission authorizing channel construction across their property. As a result, in 1987, Petitioner requested a major modification to permit no. 440601649. Although Petitioner attempted to show that its change of plans had been inconsistently processed by DER as a new permit application when DER was obligated to treat it as a modification of a prior permit which would require no new application, processing, or permit, Petitioner was unable to do so. Petitioner's expert professional land surveyor, Joseph Steinocher,, concurred with DER witnesses Kelly Jo Custer and David Bishof that the Ocean Reef plan changes were so significantly altered as to constitute a wholly new project. Steinocher specifically indicated it was a "significant change in that there is no relationship between the two," and Custer, DER's marina permitting specialist, testified that DER's consistently applied policy is to require all such significant permit modifications to be processed de novo as wholly new permit applications because to do otherwise would not be in the public interest. Custer was also qualified as an expert in marine biology and water quality, and from Custer's viewpoint, the changed plans constitute a new and different project for many reasons but primarily because the project impacts on water which have been designated Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW) during the intervening years. The project revision/new permit application plans changed the configuration of the turning basin, providing for a kidney-shaped upland basin with the utilization of an additional portion of No Name Creek, extending Southeasterly toward the entrance of a water body known as Fisherman's Cove. Because the project initially proposed disturbance of wetlands and dredging of mangroves, a mitigation area of some 10,300 square feet was included in the plan. The original proposal called for the straightening of an oxbow in the existing tidal creek and the placement of fill through approximately one-half the reach of the tidal creek to gain access to the dredge area with the fill to be removed after construction. During the processing of the latest permit application, adverse comments were received from DER staff members, and the Petitioner modified the application to eliminate the straightening of the oxbow. The pending proposal involves the construction of 24 boat slips along a floating dock, the installation of boulder rip-rap, and the placement of culverts to allow access to a central island to remain after construction of the docking facility. As a result of prior permit agreements between the parties, Ocean Reef Club had conveyed approximately 730 acres to the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund by special warranty deed dated March 17, 1982. Petitioner asserted but failed to prove up that all construction involved in the pending proposal is landward of those lands either conveyed by that special warranty deed or otherwise in the control of the State of Florida and in fact would be wholly upon its own property. Even had the private property encapsulation of the construction been established, Petitioner's registered land surveyor admitted that the tidal creek entrance is within the limits of the deed to the State of Florida. Access for the proposed 24-slip facility will be through the existing tidal creek that has water depths ranging from minus 2.2 feet to in excess of minus 8 feet at low tide. The earlier proposal would have required only a small portion of the natural creek to be used by motor boats. The project contemplated in 1984 and the one which is the subject of the present litigation are not comparable either biologically nor legally. It is noted that one condition of the 1984 permit even required navigational barriers to be placed at the mouth of No Name Creek. Accordingly, it is specifically found that the significant plan changes render the pending Ocean Reef permit application truly a new project rather than a minor modification as contemplated by Chapter 17-12 F.A.C. Petitioner also attempted to demonstrate that DER's denial of the new permit application was inconsistent with its issuance of permits for similar marina projects in other locations. Neither these allegedly similar applications, supporting plans therefor, nor permits were offered in evidence for comparison. Moreover, for one reason or another, some of the named projects differed so much from the subject application that one witness, Kenneth L. Eckternacht, expert in hydrographic engineering, physical oceanography, and navigation, characterized the comparison as "apples to monkies." Some projects could only be compared to the applicant's proposal by one similar component, i.e. elimination of, and mitigation with regard to, mangroves. For this reason, Dr. Snedeker's limited testimony in this regard is discounted. Some projects could not be conclusively identified as within OFW. None involved the use of the type of creek system involved in the instant project. Ocean Reef Club also could not show that the current permit denial is inconsistent with the granting of the permit for the project as previously conceived in 1984, and which project cannot now be constructed due to Ocean Reef's sale of certain land to uncooperative third parties. As set forth in the foregoing findings of fact, the two projects are neither biologically nor legally identical or even clearly comparable. Petitioner's assertion that it has proposed special or enhanced mitigation because the existing permit, still valid until 1989 but now impossible to comply with, allows direct dredging of approximately 3,000 square feet while the present permit application, as modified, would not require dredging this 3,000 feet, is rejected. Under the new project plans, the proposed basin will be located immediately adjacent to the existing tidal creek which would provide the navigational access to and from the basin. The connection will be created between the basin and the creek by excavating only 100-150 square feet of mangroves which lie between the creek and the area of the proposed basin. In making the immediately foregoing finding of fact, the testimony of witnesses has been reconciled without imputing any lack of credibility to any of them. Respondent's expert, Kelly Jo Custer, expert in marine biology and water quality and also their agency marina specialist, testified that the cross-hatching on the project plans, if read to scale, confirms the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses that the square footage of mangroves to be removed is 100-150 square feet and that the cross-hatching must take precedence over the raw number copied onto the plans. The wetlands in and around the project site, including No Name Creek, are within an OFW, specifically the Florida Keys Special Waters. The project site is located in North Key Largo, approximately one-half mile north of John Pennekamp State Park within the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent to the Biscayne Bay/Card Sound Aquatic Preserve. All of these waters are Class III surface waters. The marina basin itself will be excavated to a depth of minus four feet mean low water. The 24 proposed boatslips will accommodate moorage of boats as large as 25 feet with a draft of two feet. The marina basin will enhance recreational values and channel, despite its greater depth, and at the inner portions of its several bends. It is also implausible that Petitioner's plans to limit boat size through condominium documents to be enforced through a homeowners association, to install mirrors, signalling devices, and latches at certain points along the creek, and to install tide staffs at creek entrances will prevent potential head-on boat collisions or bottlenecks in No Name Creek. It is equally implausible that these procedures can provide reasonable assurances that there will not be a chronic increase in water turbidity from increased use or damage to biota from propellers and boat impact. The witnesses generally concurred as to the present ecological status of No Name Creek. It contains Cuban shoalweed and turtlegrass scattered with varied density throughout, and especially found in two patches between the proposed basin and the point at which there is a drastic bend or oxbow in the creek. The seagrasses in the creek serve many valuable functions including providing a substrate upon which epiphytes may attach, and providing a source of food and refuge for fish and small invertebrates. Seagrasses also fix carbon which they absorb from the sediments and water column through photosynthesis. Green and red algae found throughout the creek provide habitat and carbon fixing functions similar to that provided by the seagrasses. Corals and sponges are present. Three species of sponge located in the creek are found only in the Florida Keys and nowhere else in the United States. Other creek biota include barnacles and oysters attached to mangrove roots, lobsters, anchovies, needlefish, grunts, mojarres, electric rays, various small fish, and invertebrates. Biological and botanical diversity is an important measure of the creek's rich ecological quality and value. The increased boat use of No Name Creek inherent in this dredging project will adversely affect the quality and diversity of the biota. In a creek of this configuration with mean low tide occurring roughly every 12 hours and NEAP tides approximately every two weeks, direct impact of boat propellers is a certainty. The shallowest parts of the creek tend to be limerock shelves which provide a hospitable substrate for the corals, and which are most susceptible to propeller damage, as are the seagrasses and sponges. Petitioner's assertion through Mr. Castellanos and Dr. Roessler that all boaters can be relied upon to employ tilt motors to best advantage in shallow water so as to avoid overhanging mangrove branches at the creek's edges (shores) and so as to keep their boats within the portion of the channel away from submerged mangrove roots and further can be trusted to proceed slowly enough to allow slow-moving water creatures to escape their propellers is speculative and unrealistically optimistic. Despite all good intentions, the strong currents of this creek and its meandering nature work against the average pleasure boater keeping to the narrow center channel. An even more compelling problem with this project is that increased sustained turbidity from propellers and boat movement within close range of the creek bottom will scour the creek bottom and/or stir up the bottom sediment on a regular basis. Once suspended, bottom particles will be redeposited on the seagrasses, impeding photosynthesis and smothering the sponges and corals. Upon the testimony of Custer, Echternacht, and Skinner, and despite contrary testimony of Roessler and Larsen, it is found that the admittedly strong currents in the creek will not flush the particles sufficiently to alleviate the loose sediment problem, and may actually exacerbate the chronic turbidity problem. Strong currents can create a cyclical situation in which, as the seagrasses die or are uprooted, even more particulate matter is loosened and churned up. Chronic turbidity of No Name Creek has the potential of violating the applicable water quality standards for biological integrity, for turbidity, and for ambient water quality. These impacts will not be offset by Petitioner's creation of 38,100 square feet of new underwater bottom because, although this new area will become vegetated, it will never be as rich or as diverse as the existing bottom. This is also true of the pilings and rip rap in regard to sessile animals/barnacles. Petitioner's plan to replant red mangroves over 10,300 square feet may be sufficient in mitigation of the loss of 100-150 square feet of mangroves by itself (see Finding of Fact 16) but for the foregoing reasons, it does not constitute full mitigation for the new permit application. The project will be of a permanent nature. The project will not adversely affect significant historical and archeological resources.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying the requested permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 20th day of September, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH Case No. 87-4660 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 20, and 25 are accepted. Accepted except for the last sentence which is rejected upon the greater weight of the credible evidence as a whole. Accepted but specifically not adopted as stated because the plan calls for destruction of certain mangroves (100- 150 ft.) and the planting of others as opposed to mere "addition." 6, 9, 12, and 27 are accepted in part and rejected in part. There was a failure of proof by both parties as to whether the Petitioner would or would not be conducting all activities landward of those lands conveyed. Although there is testimony to this effect, none of the surveys introduced nor other competent evidence allow the undersigned to definitely plot the description contained in Exhibit P-9 with respect to the current permit application plans. In any case, the proposals are not dispositive of the material issues in this case. The reservation, if it does apply, supports denial of the permit. See FOF 9. 8, 26, 28, 29, and 32 are rejected as subordinate and unnecessary, and in some cases as mere recitation of testimony or unproved. See next ruling. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 30, 31 and 33. Portions of these proposals are accepted in substance as reflected in the FOF. In part, they are rejected as mere recitation of testimony or as subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder is not accepted due to the relative weight of the credible testimony which is reflected in the facts as found. 34-36. Rejected for the reasons set out in FOF 13. Respondent's PFOF 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 11, 14-22, 24-34, 38-43, 48-52, 54, sentence 2 of 57, all except sentence 1 of 59, and 60 are accepted but not necessarily adopted in the interest of space and clarity or because they are cumulative or mere recitations of testimony. 3. Rejected for the reasons set out in FOF 16. Rejected. There was a failure of proof by both parties as to whether the Petitioner would or would not be conducting all activities landward of those lands conveyed. In any case, the proposal is immaterial to the environmental issues dispositive in this case. See FOF 9 and ruling on Petitioner's 6, 9, 12 and 27. Rejected as this was the unproven opinion of Mr. Poppel. No consent judgment is in evidence. 10, 12, and 13. Portions of these proposals are accepted in substance as reflected in the FOF. In part, they are rejected as mere recitation of testimony or as subordinate and unnecessary. The remainder is not accepted due to the relative weight of the credible testimony as reflected as the facts as found. 23, 53, sentence one of 57, and sentence one of 59, are rejected as argument of counsel or statement of position. 35-37, 44-47, 55, 56, 58, and 61-64 are rejected as subordinate, unnecessary or cumulative to the facts as found. COPIES FURNISHED: Dale Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Robert A. Routa, Esquire Post Office Drawer 6506 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6506 Richard Grosso, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
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 The issue is whether Respondent, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should grant Petitioners’ application for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit to armor the beach seaward of the CCCL at their properties on Alligator Point in Franklin County (permit number FR-740).
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own property fronting the Gulf of Mexico on Alligator Point in Franklin County. Finley and Jean McMillan own Lot 7, and Angelo Petrandis owns Lot 8, in Block V of Peninsula Point, Unit 6, a subdivision platted and recorded in Plat Book 2, page 2, of the Public Records of Franklin County. Petitioners complain that they applied to armor the beach at their properties, using rock rip-rap seaward of the CCCL, in the early 1990’s, but the Department of Environmental Regulation (the regulatory agency that preceded DEP) indicated its intent to deny the application and required Petitioners to build a wooden seawall that would be expendable in a major storm. Storms destroyed the wooden seawall and the Petrandis home on Lot 7. In 1995, Hurricane Opal severely damaged the McMillans’ home, which was later condemned and demolished. These homes have not been rebuilt. Since Opal, DEP permitted the construction of rip-rap revetments seaward of the CCCL to armor the beach and protect the homes of Petitioners’ neighbors to the west (Lot 6) and east (Lot 9)(an after-the-fact permit issued in September 2003). In October 2003, Petitioners applied for a CCCL permit to armor the beach seaward of the CCCL at their properties on Alligator Point (permit number FR-740). They proposed a rock rip-rap revetment to be constructed seaward of the approximate mean high water line, between 285 and 295 feet seaward of the CCCL, to tie into and “close the gap” between the rock rip-rap revetments of their neighbors to the east and west. DEP requested additional information, including documentation of ownership or control of the project area, all of which appeared to be seaward of the mean high water line, and requested payment of the application fee. The information and fee were provided, and DEP declared the application to be complete in August 2005. In September 2005, Petitioners’ engineering consultant filed, on their behalf, a waiver of the statutory 90-day limit DEP had to either grant or deny the application. See § 120.60(1), Fla. Stat. In May 2007, DEP gave notice of inactive 90-day clock waiver, meaning that there had been no activity on the application, which would be deemed withdrawn unless Petitioners notified DEP to the contrary. In June 2007, Petitioners’ engineering consultant responded with a request for “an additional 90-day extension to the . . . project” for Petitioners to revise the application to propose a tie-in to the rock revetment of the neighbor to the west but a 90 degree turn at the property boundary to the east to form an “L” there. However, no actual revision to the application was made. In May 2008, DEP gave a second notice of inactive 90-day clock waiver. There was no evidence of any response. In July 2009, DEP gave notice of its intent to deny the application. DEP’s notice of intent was issued because: there are no structures on Petitioners’ properties to be protected by the proposed armoring seaward of the CCCL; Petitioners’ proposed armoring project would not “close a gap” of 250 feet or less in a continuous and uniform armoring structure construction line; and Petitioners’ proposed armoring project would have a significant adverse impact on marine turtles. There are no structures on Petitioners’ properties. While the rock revetment on the property of the neighbor to the west is stable and would prevent upland erosion from a 15-year return interval storm, there is no such structure for well over 250 feet to the east of Petitioners’ properties. The dwelling on the property to the east has suffered severe storm damage and has been abandoned. The armoring structure permitted and built on that property is in disrepair, dilapidated, disorganized, and made of rocks that are too light in weight to be stable or capable of preventing upland erosion from a 15-year return interval storm; from the evidence, including the damage from storms since 2003, it is not clear whether the structure ever was capable of preventing upland erosion from a 15-year return interval storm. Female marine turtles instinctively return to lay eggs on the beach where they were born. Threatened and endangered marine turtles use the sandy beaches of Alligator Point for nesting. One successfully used Petitioners' beach for nesting in June 2005. If rigid coastal armoring prevents a turtle from nesting, the turtle will seek a nearby alternative. If a good alternative is not found easily enough, the turtle may abandon nesting and release her eggs in the water, where they will perish. This makes a dry sandy beach between stretches of armored beach (a so-called “pocket” beach) valuable for turtle nesting. For these reasons, Petitioners’ beach is valuable for turtle nesting, and it is expected that turtles will again use it for nesting (although no nest has been documented on Petitioners’ beach since 2005.) Petitioners’ proposed armoring structure would prevent nesting marine turtles from coming ashore at their beach. Petitioners did not prove that their proposed beach armoring structure would not significantly impair breeding by marine turtles, or that the resulting “take” of marine turtles has been authorized. Petitioners complain that they should have been allowed to build a rock rip-rap revetment in the early 1990’s, instead of being denied and required to build the wooden seawall that was destroyed by storms. However, it was not proven that their earlier application should have been granted, or that it was error to approve the wooden seawall application. Petitioners complain that DEP should be responsible for the delay in processing their application, which they now claim would have been granted if acted on promptly. Clearly, events that occurred during the delay, including the major storms that struck in 2004 and 2005, complicated Petitioners’ application and gave rise to grounds to deny it. However, Petitioners did not prove that that the rock revetment of the neighbor to the east ever was suitable for “closing the gap.” Even if the rock revetment to the east was suitable for “closing the gap” in 2003, the evidence did not prove that DEP was responsible for any delays in the permitting process either before or after the storms of 2004 and 2005. Since Petitioners’ application was not complete until August 2005, it cannot be said that their application would have been granted if acted upon before then. The next month, Petitioners’ consultant relieved DEP from responsibility for further delay by waiving the “90-day clock.” It appeared from Petitioners’ testimony at the final hearing that they misunderstood the meaning of the “90-day clock waiver.” They thought it imposed a duty on DEP to act on their application within the following 90 days. Actually, it was a blanket waiver. Similarly, they seemed to think the notice of inactive 90-day clock waiver deactivated the waiver and restarted the 90-day clock. Actually, it notified Petitioners that there had been no activity since the waiver and that DEP would deem their application to be withdrawn unless Petitioners told DEP otherwise. The consultant’s response to the second notice of inactive 90-day clock waiver was couched as a request for a 90-day extension, which Petitioners interpreted as reactivation of the 90-day clock. Actually, it was a request that DEP not consider the application withdrawn for 90 days, during which Petitioners would be revising their application. No revision was filed, and DEP did not deem the application withdrawn after 90 days. Instead, DEP proceeded with its review of the pending application and denied it approximately a year later. Even if DEP were responsible for this last delay of over a year, there was no evidence of anything occurring during that time that further complicated Petitioners' application or gave rise to any additional grounds for denial. Petitioners complain that DEP should not have approved the rock rip-rap revetments of their neighbors to the east and west. They contend that the revetment to the east should not have been permitted since it was destroyed by the storms of 2004 and 2005 and that both had marine turtle nesting habitat comparable to their property. The destruction caused by the storms of 2004 and 2005 did not prove that the revetment to the east should not have been approved. There was no evidence of actual turtle nesting on Lots 6 and 9 at the time of the approval of the rock revetments there. In addition, impacts on nesting marine turtles from the neighboring revetments would have been reduced by the existence of Petitioners’ unobstructed beach; conversely, the existence of the neighboring revetments increased the value of Petitioners’ property for marine turtle nesting, as possibly indicated by the successful nest in 2005. In addition, the evidence was that Petitioners possibly could get a permit to “take” marine turtle nesting habitat as a result of a beach armoring project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying Petitioners’ application for CCCL permit FR-740. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Finley L. McMillan Jean B. McMillan Post Office Box 68 Panacea, Florida 32346-0068 Norman West Gregory, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Angelo Ernest Petrandis Post Office Box 189 Panacea, Florida 32346-0189 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: On March 26, 1991 Venice applied to the Department for a CCCL permit to construct a 475 foot wooden retaining wall seaward of the coastal construction control line and to place a shell road immediately adjacent to, and landward of, the retaining wall from approximately 100 feet south of Granada Avenue to approximately 50 feet south of Ocala Street on Venice's right-of-way of The Esplanade in Venice, Florida. The Petitioners Roy B. and Patricia B. Olsen are residents of Venice, Florida and reside at 304 Ocala Street. They own Lot 1, The Esplanade, which is immediately east and south of the southern terminus of the proposed retaining wall. Petitioner, Nina Howard is a resident of Venice, Florida and resides at 721 Ocala Street. Ms. Howard's residence is located to the south and across Ocala Street from the site of the proposed retaining wall. Intervenors, Roger and Irene Fraley are residents of Venice, Florida and reside at 221 The Esplanade South, which is immediately landward (east) of the site of the proposed retaining wall. Intervenors, Howard and Evelyn Barbig are residents of Milton, Florida but are owners of lot 4, The Esplanade South, located north of the Fraleys' property and immediately landward (east) of the site of the proposed retaining wall. The Petitioners oppose the granting of the CCCL permit. The Petitioners have expressed their opposition to the granting of the CCCL permit based upon their belief that the construction of the proposed retaining wall will have adverse impacts to the beach dune areas and to the adjacent properties. Specifically, it is their belief that the construction of the proposed retaining wall will accelerate the erosion of the beach dune areas and the adjacent properties. The Petitioners disagree with the conclusion reached by the Department in the final order that, "the activities indicated in the project description are of such a nature that they will result in no significant adverse impacts to the beach dune areas or to the adjacent properties." Intervenors, Fraley and Barbig are in favor of the issuance of the CCCL permit because it will prevent seasonal erosion which results in exposure of, and damage to, the sewer line along The Esplanade, and will provide public access over the shell road within the right-of-way of The Esplanade for those properties between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street that do not have public access from time to time due to the seasonal erosion. On April 17, 1991 the Department advised Venice that the CCCL permit application was determined to be incomplete, and advised Venice of those things needed to make the application complete. Subsequent to this letter, the Department determined that, although the application was not an emergency, it did deserve "fast tracking", and assisted Venice in bringing the application to a "complete" status. On April 25, 1991 the Department issued a Final Order administratively approving CCCL permit number ST-820 for the construction of a wooden retaining wall and shell access road as described in Venice's application. On April 26, 1991 the Department issued a Notice to Proceed Withheld to Venice, which advised Venice not commence construction of the project authorized by the permit until certain permit conditions had been met. This notice also gave notice to those whose substantial interests would be affected by the proposed project of their right to a formal hearing. An engineering assessment was made for this project, and although not a formal written engineering assessment, the engineering assessment did consider all conditions of adverse impacts. In making this assessment, the Department considered and reviewed available aerial photographs, photographs taken of the area of the proposed project site and erosion tables concerning the area. A formal written engineering assessment is not required by statute, rule or Department policy. This assessment also indicated that there are severe impacts due to winter storm events which contribute to the seasonal profile changes. The seasonal beach profile is depicted by the build up of the beach (sand) during the summer months and the removal (erosion) of beach (sand) during the winter months. However, due to an inlet, a major rock-out cropping and the rock grain structures located in the vicinity of the proposed site, there is a limitation on the natural movement of sand along the coast which prevents natural renourishment and results in severe erosion in the area of the proposed site during the winter months. This erosion during the winter months causes the sewer pipes along The Esplanade to be exposed and sometimes broken, and prevents access over the right-of-way of The Esplanade to certain properties located along The Esplanade between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street. The wooden retaining wall is designed to retain sand just landward of the wall and allow a shell access road to be placed on the right-of-way of The Esplanade. The wooden retaining wall will be constructed as follows: (a) 8" x 20' wooden piling will be placed on 6' center and driven to an approximate depth of -14.00 (NGVD); (b) 2" x 8" planking will be attached to the landward side of the piling from the top of the piling (+7.0 NGVD) to a depth of appropriate 7 feet (0.00 NGVD); (c) with a filter "x" cloth covering the planking on the landward side. At the time of the application, the existing beach was +5.0 (NGVD) which would leave approximately 2 feet of the retaining wall exposed on the seaward side. The purpose of the retaining wall is to protect the shoreline in the immediate vicinity of The Esplanade and thereby protect the sewer line and access road which are landward of the seaward (west) right-of-way line of The Esplanade. The proposed wooden retaining wall is to be located as far landward as possible, and will be the minimum size and configuration to protect the sewer line and the shell access road along The Esplanade right-of-way. The retaining wall is designed to be temporary in nature in that its design will not allow it to survive under a major storm event. In that regard, the retaining wall comes within the definition of a minor structure as defined by rule and does not require a formal written review. The access road will enable Venice to establish a public road on public right-of-way for ordinary and emergency utilization by the residents and Venice. Previous attempts by Venice to protect the sewer line by "shoring up" the area with sand bags have proven unsuccessful. A wooden retaining such as the one proposed would be the next logical step to prevent the exposure and damage to the sewer line and still be consistent with the coastal armoring policy adopted by the Governor and Cabinet in December 1990. Dr. Al Deveraux, Bureau Chief, Control Engineering, personally viewed the site prior to approval of the project and waived compliances with certain provisions of the application. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that: erosion is occurring in the area of the proposed site without the presence of the proposed retaining wall; without the proposed retaining wall, Venice will be unable to prevent that erosion, particularly during the winter storm events, which will result in exposure and damage to the sewer line and lack of public access to certain properties located along The Esplanade between Granada Avenue and Ocala Street; and upon construction of the retaining wall, the beach dune area and the adjacent properties to the south of the proposed project will experience some increase in erosion above that presently occurring, but it will be minimal and will not have a significant impact on the area. The application submitted by Venice was processed and approved in accordance with statutes, rules and Department policy. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that granting CCCL permit number ST-820 and constructing the retaining wall and access road as set forth in Venice's application would be in the best public interest. The Petitioners' expert witness on coastal engineering concluded that there would be substantial erosion of the beach dune area and adjacent properties south of the proposed retaining wall as a result of constructing the retaining wall. However, this conclusion was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Special permit condition 1 requires Venice to provide the Department with a Sea Turtle Protection Plan approved by the Florida Marine Research Institute in St. Petersburg, Florida. This special condition takes into account the Department's policy for the protection of sea turtles as described in Rule 16B-33.005(9), Florida Administrative Code. The project is consistent with the thirty-year erosion projection and is not located seaward of that line.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, accordingly recommended that the Department enter a Final Order issuing CCCL permit number ST-820 to the City of Venice, Florida subject to all the special conditions contained therein, and adding one other special condition requiring the City of Venice, Florida to monitor the beach dune system and adjacent properties south of the project site on a semi-annual basis for a period deemed necessary by the Department, and report any accelerated erosion that might occur in that area to the Department for review and action. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1991.
The Issue The issues are whether a beach restoration and dune nourishment project proposed by Respondent Town of Palm Beach, Florida is entitled to a joint coastal permit (coastal construction and environmental resource permits), pursuant to Section 161.055, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-49.003; proprietary authorization for activities on sovereign submerged lands, pursuant to Section 253.77(1), Florida Statutes; and variance from water quality standards, as set forth in the rule limiting permissible mixing zone limits, pursuant to Section 403.201(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Introduction Overview Palm Beach, a municipality, has applied for the permits necessary to construct a beach restoration and dune nourishment1 project along a portion of the shoreline of Palm Beach Island known as Reach 8. Specifically, Palm Beach seeks a joint coastal permit (JCP), which consists of an environmental resource permit (ERP) and coastal construction permit (CCP); letter of consent constituting authorization to use state-owned lands; and variance to water-quality standards. Palm Beach seeks approval for the following major activities: excavating Borrow Areas (BA) V and VI, which are about 1500 feet offshore of Reach 8; slurrying the fill from these borrow areas by pipe and placing the slurried fill on the existing beach of Reach 8; except for the southernmost 2764 feet of Reach 8, contouring the fill from the dunes to the intertidal zone to conform with the permitting template; for the southernmost 2764 feet of Reach 8, contouring the fill along the dunes only; covering during (i.e., directly) and after (i.e., indirectly) construction about seven acres of nearshore existing hardbottom immediately adjacent to and downdrift from (south) of the location in which the fill is placed; and creating about eight acres of nearshore mitigation hardbottom north of Reach 8. The ERP is for dredging and filling activities mostly in, but also adjacent to, surface waters and includes upland dune nourishment because the expected, post-construction erosion of the dune will result in fill entering surface waters. The CCP is for activities seaward of the erosion control line. The proprietary authorization is for a letter of consent from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board of Trustees) for the use of state-owned land, which is that seaward of the mean high water line: this authorization would pertain to the borrow areas and the fill area seaward of mean high water. The water-quality variance is for an expanded area, or mixing zone, of elevated turbidity levels--during construction only--in the area at which the hydraulic residue from the slurry runs off the beach and re-enters the ocean. Lake Worth, also a municipality, intervened in this case to oppose Palm Beach's application. Most of Reach 8 is within the jurisdiction of Palm Beach, but, as noted below, a short segment of Reach 8 is within the jurisdiction of Lake Worth. This segment consists of the Lake Worth Municipal Beach, which includes the Lake Worth Pier. Because this segment is within Reach 8, but not within the project area, it is sometimes referred to as the Lake Worth Gap. DEP is the state agency with all relevant permitting or authorization responsibilities--where necessary, by agreement with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and pursuant to the policy of the Board of Trustees. Reach 8 spans 10,818 feet, or about two miles, of shoreline on Palm Beach Island, according to the latest survey.2 The net project area, though, is 9472 feet, or about 1.8 miles, because of the exclusion of the Lake Worth Gap, which covers 1346 feet of shoreline.3 Locations along the shoreline will be identified by DEP reference monuments, such as "R-137."4 Reach 8 extends from R-125 to R-134 plus 350 feet.5 The following planview of Reach 8 depicts the project area, as described in more detail below. This is Figure 1, Town of Palm Beach Reach 8 Beach Restoration Project Environmental Assessment, prepared by Palm Beach's consultant, Coastal Planning & Engineering, Inc. (CPE) (October 2007). For the purposes of this case, Reach 8 comprises four segments. From north to south, these segments are the North Segment (R-125 to R-127 plus 597 feet), Lake Worth Gap (R-127 plus 597 feet to R-128 plus 954 feet), Center Segment (R-128 plus 954 feet to R-133 plus 500 feet), and South Segment (R-133 plus 500 feet to R-134 plus 350 feet). The Lake Worth Pier is at R-128 plus 50 feet. The land boundaries dividing Lake Worth's upland ownership from adjacent upland, in the immediate vicinity of the Lake Worth Gap, are perpendicular to the shoreline and regular or linear. These four segments largely correspond to DEP designations of Critically Eroded Beaches (CEBs), which are discussed in more detail below. The North Segment, which is 2725 feet, and South Segment, which is 1047 feet, are CEBs. The Center Segment, which is 5700 feet, is not a CEB. The northernmost one-third of the Lake Worth Gap is CEB;6 the remainder of the Lake Worth Gap is not CEB. Thus, only 38 percent of Reach 8 is CEB. Excluding the CEB within the Lake Worth Gap, only 35 percent of the beach within Reach 8 that is proposed for beach restoration or dune nourishment is CEB. The dune-only portion of the project covers the entire South Segment plus the southernmost 1717 feet of the Center Segment. Thus, the only portion of Reach 8 that is both CEB and proposed for beach restoration is the 2725 feet of the North Segment. The Inlets, Jetties, and Reaches of Palm Beach Island As shown in the preceding illustration, Palm Beach Island is in central Palm Beach County along the shore of the Atlantic Ocean, which is Class III waters in this vicinity. Palm Beach Island is a barrier formation with various reported lengths, all between 15 and 16 miles. In 1992, Palm Beach Island varied in width from 250 feet to 3600 feet and in height up to 25 feet. Reach 8 occupies the southern third of Palm Beach Island. Ten miles north of the north end of Reach 8 is the Lake Worth Inlet (also known as the Palm Beach Inlet). Three miles south of the south end of Reach 8 is the South Lake Worth Inlet (also known as the Boynton Inlet). These are two of the eight artificial inlets on the east coast of Florida, which now has 19 inlets.7 The Lake Worth Inlet was cut in 1917, and the South Lake Worth Inlet was cut in 1927. Because sand naturally transports along the shoreline, jetties were constructed at each inlet to slow the rate at which sand filled the dredged channel of each inlet. In general, sand naturally transports north to south, due to the predominant wave direction, although lesser transport to the north takes place during the summer. Thus, for nearly a century, these jettied inlets have interrupted the natural transport of sand along this part of the east coast of Florida. To offset the sand losses caused by both inlets, sand transfer plants were constructed on each inlet's north jetty to pipe some of the detained sand across the inlet. The sand transfer plant for the Lake Worth Inlet was built in 1957, meaning that this jettied inlet interrupted the transport of sand to Palm Beach Island, without inlet-sited compensation, for nearly 40 years.8 At least twice in recent years, the Lake Worth Inlet sand transfer plant was not operational. The longer of these two interruptions was from May 1990 to May 1996, at which time the plant was repaired and upgraded in connection with the 1995 Midtown Project, described below. The sand transfer plant sustained damages during the 2004 hurricane season and was not in operation from November 2004 to March 2005. In 1996, Palm Beach's Shore Protection Board, which is discussed below, divided Palm Beach Island into 11 reaches. The division of shoreline into reaches was based on the extent to which each shoreline segment shared four characteristics: predominant coastal features, including sand movement and erosion rates; reefs and hardbottom; number and condition of shore-protection structures; and existing adjacent land uses. Reach 1 runs from the Lake Worth Inlet to the south, ending at Onondaga Avenue. Extending from R-76 to R-78, Reach 1 is the shortest reach, covering only 2410 feet. The longest reach, at 13,660 feet, Reach 2 runs from Onondaga Avenue to 1080 feet north of Wells Road, or R-78 to R-90 plus 400 feet. Reach 3 runs from 1080 feet north of Wells Road to Via Bethesda, which is at the south end of The Breakers golf course. Reach 3 is 5800 feet long, spanning R-90 plus 400 feet to R-95. Reach 4 runs from Via Bethesda to 270 feet south of Banyon Road; this reach is also known as Midtown, as it includes Royal Palm Way, which connects Palm Beach with the central business district of West Palm Beach. Reach 4 is 8065 feet long and extends from R-95 to R-102 plus 300 feet. The Midtown beach offers public access, but little public parking. Reach 5 extends from 300 feet south of Banyon Road to 170 feet north of Widener's Curve. Reach 5 is 9065 feet long and runs from R-102 plus 300 feet to R-110 plus 100 feet. Reach 6 runs from 170 feet north of Widener's Curve to Sloan's Curve. Reach 6 is 6685 feet long and extends from R-110 plus 100 feet to R-116 plus 500 feet. Reach 7 extends from Sloan's Curve to the Ambassador Hotel. Reach 7 runs 8725 feet, from R-116 plus 500 feet to R-125. Palm Beach's Phipps Ocean Park is located at the north end of this reach and provides the public with beach access and parking. The second longest of the 11 reaches, Reach 8 runs from the Ambassador Hotel to La Bonne Vie. Ten years ago, when the data for the other reaches were collected, Reach 8 extended 10,690 feet.9 Palm Beach County's Kreusler Park is located in the Lake Worth Gap and adjoins the Lake Worth Municipal Beach and Lake Worth Pier. Considerable public parking supports these facilities. Except for some metered parking, there is little public parking and little public access north of the parks located in Reaches 7 and 8. Reach 9 runs from La Bonne Vie to the Lantana Avenue access. Reach 9 runs 3655 feet from R-134 to R-137 plus 400 feet. Reach 10 runs from the Lantana Avenue access to Chillingsworth Curve. Reach 10 runs 8560 feet from R-137 plus 400 feet to R-145 plus 740 feet. Reach 11 runs from Chillingsworth Curve to the South Lake Worth Inlet. Reach 11 runs 5530 feet from R-145 plus 740 feet to R-151 plus 300 feet. Physical Environment and Natural Processes Selected Terms and Concepts The beach extends from mean low water landward to the vegetation line.10 The beach and dune system is that portion of the coastal system where there has been or there is expected to be, over time and as a matter of natural occurrence, cyclical and dynamic emergence, destruction, and reemergence of beaches and dunes.11 Landward to seaward, the sand-sharing system or beach profile comprises the dune, dry berm, beach face, and nearshore bar. The dry berm is the flat part of the beach that is subaerial. The beach face, or wet beach, is the seaward-sloping part of the beach that receives the uprush from wave action. The swash zone is the area that is alternatingly wet and dry from wave action. The surf zone is the area from the seaward extent of the swash zone to the breakers. Sometimes, the nearshore is used synonymously with the surf zone; nearshore designates nothing more than the area immediately seaward of the mean low tide. In either case, the offshore runs seaward from the seaward extent of the nearshore. Longshore is the direction parallel to the shoreline. Cross shore is the direction perpendicular to the shoreline. A plan view (or planview) of the beach is the view from above. A profile view of a beach is from the side. For example, a line running from the left hand side of this page in a downward direction to the right hand side of this page may depict part of the beach profile by tracing, from left to right, the descending elevation, from landward to seaward, of the dune, dry berm, and beach face. The proposed beach restoration template comprises advance fill and design fill. Sacrificial in nature, advance fill is expected to erode during the life span of the nourishment project, leaving the design fill, which is what is intended for the more persistent protection of upland structures. After the contractor contours the fill to conform to the beach-restoration template, which extends seaward of mean low water, the natural processes of waves, currents, and wind move the fill cross-shore and longshore until it reaches a point of equilibrium. Movement by wind is largely irrelevant to this case. In response to the forces of waves and currents, particles of sediment will move by bedload or entrainment into the water column, depending on conditions discussed in more detail below.12 Movement by bedload is movement along the bottom by rolling or sliding, but the particle remains in contact with the bottom and never entrains into suspension in the water column. Stationary grains or grains moving by bedload do not create turbidity or sedimentation. Movement by entrainment into the water column is movement that lifts the particle into the water column where it remains in suspension unless and until energy conditions are reduced sufficiently to allow the particle to settle out of the water column. Suspended particles contribute to turbidity, which is a measure of the loss of the water column to transmit light. Settled particles contribute to sedimentation of objects, such as hardbottom, that has previously been uncovered, although these objects may also be covered by particles moving by bedload. For the most part, the equilibration process involves the movement of the fill based on such factors as the slopes of submerged bottoms, grain sizes of bottom sediments, and expected movement of sediments in response to waves and currents. A calculation of the point of equilibrium is a useful approximation, but the point of equilibrium is only a point of substantial equilibrium, and the equilibration process only substantially concludes. Over time, when subjected to sufficient forces, fill (and pre-project sediments in the area) will continue to move. At the point of equilibrium, the depth of the water at the point farthest offshore is the closure depth. There is no similar term for the location of the fill in the longshore direction at the point of equilibrium.13 The movement of fill during the equilibration process is by bedload, as discussed below, rather than by entrainment into the water column, also as discussed below, except for the transport of fill insignificant distances by entrainment into the water column. The forces of wind, current, and wave, which move sediments on the beach, along the submerged bottom, and into the water column, are strongest when associated with storms, whose intensity is generally described by return intervals. In any given one-year period, a 100-year (or greater) storm has a one percent chance of occurring, a 25-year (or greater) storm has a four percent chance of occurring, and a 10-year (or greater) storm has a ten percent chance of occurring. The record does not suggest a precise relationship between the intensity of these storms and the forces that they produce. For present purposes, it is sufficient to acknowledge that the forces increase in direct relationship to the intensity of a discrete storm. The sediments in this case are predominantly siliciclastic or carbonate in origin. Siliciclastic materials, such as quartz, derive from terrestrial deposits, such as the Appalachian Mountains, from which they are transported by rivers to the Atlantic coast. These siliciclastic materials are then transported southerly along the coast by the prevailing wave direction. These materials resist breakage. Carbonates are biogenic materials consisting mostly of offshore shell and coral fragments. Grains of carbonate materials are much more susceptible to breakage than siliciclastic grains when subjected to increased forces, such as when dredged from relatively tranquil depths and placed in the surf zone. Upon exposure to the higher energy forces of the surf zone, relatively coarse materials are abraded to clay- or silt-sized materials in as little as one week. The resulting turbidity associated with these abraded materials often bears the signature of a milky appearance in the water column. Rigid coastal structures include jetties, groins, breakwaters, seawalls, revetments,14 and geotextile bags.15 A groin is a structure installed, usually in a cross-shore direction, to trap or alter longshore transport of sediment or to retard erosion of coastal system.16 Groins may be constructed of rock, concrete, or geotextile bags. A breakwater is a structure that protects shoreline areas, harbors, inlets, or basins from the forces of currents or waves.17 A revetment is a sloped, seaward-facing structure made of an armoring material, such as large rocks or pieces of concrete, that is designed to protect an embankment or upland structure from erosion from waves or currents.18 Armoring means to install an artificial structure to prevent erosion of upland property or protect structures from waves and currents and includes geotextile tubes or bags, seawalls, revetments, and retaining walls, but not groins, jetties, or other structures whose purpose is to add sand to the coastal system, alter the natural coastal currents, or stabilize the mouths of inlets.19 A geotextile container is a bag or tube, made of "blanket-like" synthetic fibers manufactured in a loose or woven manner, that contains a large mass of sand, so as to form a rigid tubular structure.20 Based on an article that he co-authored five years ago, Dr. Finkl has classified Florida beaches as dissipative, intermediate, or reflective. Beaches in Dade and Broward counties are reflective. Most beaches in Palm Beach County, including Reach 8, are intermediate although closer to reflective. Beaches in northern Palm Beach, Martin, St. Lucie, Brevard, and Volusia counties are dissipative. Reflective beaches have medium- to coarse-grained sand, surging breakers, low wave heights, constant wave reflection, no bars, steep beach profiles, and low sediment transport, mostly as bedload. This means that relatively large forces, in the form of waves and currents, are required to move the larger-grained sediments forming reflective beaches, and, when they move, they roll or tumble along the bottom, rather than enter into suspension and become transported within the water column. Reflective beaches provide more protection to upland structures than dissipative beaches do, although there is an inverse relationship between protection to upland structures and morphodynamic stability in beaches, meaning that dissipative beaches will change in dimensions frequently. Dissipative beaches are flatter and formed by fine- grained particles. These beaches are characterized by large waves, multiple low-relief bars, multiple spilling breakers, and relatively flat berms and beach faces. Dissipative beaches are morphodynamically stable, partly due to the storage role of the bars, but offer little protection of upland structures because their low profiles and low berms facilitate overwash by surge. The flat profiles of dissipative beaches allow high waves to quickly submerge the beach, and the dissipative beaches' fine grains are more readily eroded and entrained into the water column. Intermediate beaches have fine- to medium-grained sand, medium wave heights and periods, one or two bars, and a high degree of shoreline mobility. However, intermediate beaches provide the most protection, evidently due to their protection of upland structures and morphodynamic stability. Geology, Sedimentology, and Coastal Processes Physiographically, subaerial southeast Florida occupies the coastal plain adjacent to the continental shelf. Most of this part of the continental shelf was subaerial as recently as 18,000 years ago, during the last period of expanded glaciation. The present interface has been near its present elevation for the past 5000-6000 years, and the present shoreline has been maintained for about 3000 years, although many believe that sea levels are again on the rise. Although the regulatory timeframe is well short of geologic time, the functions of the ecological resources and systems, such as the nearshore and beach, that are the focus of this case must be understood in terms of the geological and coastal systems, of which these resources and systems are a part. The extent to which proposed activities coordinate or fail to coordinate with these resources and systems assists in determining the extent of any impact of the proposed activities on these resources and systems. In particular, the geology of Reach 8 provides a backdrop against which the offshore reef and nearshore hardrock can be evaluated. The geology of these resources reveals their rarity and the vast periods of time required for their formation and emergence. The geology of Reach 8 also complicates the process of describing and predicting sediment transport. The Anastasia Formation informs the behavior of the entire island in response to storm events and beach erosion and the resulting nearshore sediment transport, especially as it is affected by the occurrence of nearshore hardrock. Much of the present offshore reef structure, which defines the boundary between the continental shelf and the deeper continental slope, was exposed during the last glacial maximum. The exposure of carbonate structure to air resulted in an irregular topography, upon which the modern offshore reef became established. Episodic submergings have contributed to the complexity of this structure, which is now known as the Florida Reef Tract or, simply, offshore reef. The third largest barrier reef chain in the world, the Florida Reef Tract extends from the Florida Keys north to the Bahamas Fracture Zone, which, as depicted in the following figure, crosses Florida's east coast between the Lake Worth Inlet and Reach 8. The Florida Reef Tract is generally continuous, although it contains gaps, including three offshore of Reach 8. The Florida Reef Tract is relatively close to the shoreline along central and south Palm Beach County. The offshore shelf zone tends to be quite narrow from the Bahamas Fracture Zone to the Hillsboro Inlet, which is an inlet in north Broward County that is 26 miles south of the Bahamas Fracture Zone. The offshore shelf zone in this area ranges in width from six miles in north Palm Beach County to 1.25 miles at the Palm Beach/Broward county line. This narrowed offshore shelf zone marks the southernmost extent of a discontinuous field of diabathic channels, which are described below. An abrupt and steep slope seaward of the Florida Reef Tract forms the western edge of the Straits of Florida. For obvious reasons of practicality, the landward edge of the Florida Reef Tract marks the limit of the area from which bottom sediments may be mined for fill to be placed on the beach along Reach 8. Interpreting mapping derived from laser airborne sounding done from 2001 to 2007, Dr. Finkl has mapped the seabed components landward of the offshore reef. Landward of the Florida Reef Tract, these components are, in order, the backreef apron, offshore sand flat, diabathic channel field, nearshore sand flat, and, where present, nearshore rock. The figure below is a map of the seabed prepared by Dr. Finkl; the area is just north of Reach 7, but includes the site (R-106 to R-108) proposed for the mitigation nearshore rock in this case and, according to Dr. Finkl, sufficiently represents the seabed directly offshore of Reach 8. This is Figure 2.b in "Shelf Geomorphology along the Southeast Florida Atlantic Continental Platform: Barrier Coral Reefs, Nearshore Bedrock, and Morphosedimentary Features," Journal of Coastal Research, Vol. 24, No. 4 (2008), by Charles W. Finkl and Jeffrey L. Andrews. The backreef apron contains materials driven by storms off the Florida Reef Tract. Such materials are mostly broken pieces of coral, shell hash, and other carbonates. The grain size of the sediment of the backreef apron thus tends to be large, but subject to breakage when introduced into higher- energy settings. The sand flats were paleolagoons during periods of lower sea level. BA III and IV, which were the borrow areas for the Reach 7 project described below, are located in the sand flats, relatively close to the backreef apron of the offshore reef. This probably explains the deposits of relatively coarser-grained sediments that were excavated, at least from BA III, for the Reach 7 project, also as discussed below. Also known as a hurricane storm bar, a long, discontinuous field of diabathic channels extends from Martin County south to the Hillsboro Inlet. Each diabathic channel, which is oriented perpendicular to the channel field, runs in a cross shore direction and is about 300 meters wide from channel edge to channel edge. Diabathic channels are of particular importance in this case because BA V and BA VI have been sited within such channels, and it does not appear that these channels have previously been excavated, at least intentionally. Previously, as in the cases of BA III and BA IV, sediments have been excavated farther seaward in the sand flats. As Dr. Finkl testified, the mean grain size of offshore sediments is a function of place, but also time in relationship to major storm activity, as sand is constantly in movement in both cross shore and longshore directions. The role of diabathic channels, which are carved into what is essentially a long storm bar, is to store sand removed from the beach after hurricanes until natural forces return the sand back to the beach, although the period required for the sand to be returned to the beach may be quite long. Excavating the diabathic channels, rather than the offshore sand flats, provides greater protection to the offshore reef due to the greater distance between the excavation site and the offshore reef. However, excavating the diabathic channels presents its own risks because deep borrow areas closer to shore raise the risk of altering wave action so as to accelerate beach erosion, especially if the closure depth of the equilibrated beach extends into a borrow area. Also, excavating the diabathic channels, rather than the offshore sand flats, presents a great risk of impact to the nearshore hardbottom, again due to the proximity of the excavation to the resource. In contrast to areas south of Palm Beach Island, where a middle coral reef and inner coral reef may be found landward of the Florida Reef Tract, the area offshore of Palm Beach Island contains sedimentary deposits framed only by nearshore hardbottom and the offshore reef. These sedimentary deposits comprise the above-described sand flats, diabathic channels, and some reef overwash on the landward (or leeward) side of the offshore reef. Based on his interpretation of the laser airborne sounding, Dr. Finkl has estimated that the offshore bottom, from Martin County to Hillsboro Inlet, is about 47 percent hardbottom, which encompasses both reef and rock. However, very little of this hardbottom is found landward of the Florida Reef Tract, which, itself, constitutes only about 1.5 percent of this area. In terms of nearshore bottom coverage, nearshore reef accounts for about 0.4 percent, nearshore patch reef is about 0.1 percent, and nearshore rock is 0.1 percent of the bottom. The nearshore rock expresses the geological control of Reach 8, Palm Beach Island, and much of the east coast of Florida. Palm Beach Island is perched on this bedrock, which, when exposed from beneath the sediments, is the nearshore hardbottom. Shoreline recession facilitates the emergence of this hardbottom, which typically is buried at a relatively shallow depths--two to three meters--for native beach berms in Florida. Although Dr. Finkl's mapping, as shown in the figure immediately above, describes the nearshore structure as "nearshore reef," he testified that "nearshore rock" would better describe this structure. When uncovered, this hardbottom outcropping appears as it does in the following photograph of a portion of Reach 8. This is Photograph 13, Town of Palm Beach Reach 8 Beach Restoration Project Environmental Assessment, prepared by CPE (October 2007). However, when viewed by the Administrative Law Judge during the late afternoon and early evening in early October 2008 (about two hours after low tide), the beach revealed hardly any exposed hardbottom, visible from the beach. As Dr. Finkl has written, geologically controlled barrier islands do not migrate like sandy barrier islands in response to energy inputs and rising sea level. Described aptly by Dr. Young as a rock ridge, Palm Beach Island is thus not prevented from migrating by shoreline armoring and upland development. This geological control along Reach 8, interrupting a relatively uniform sandy bottom, also undermines the ability of models to predict longshore sediment transport, as discussed below. The nearshore reef identified by Dr. Finkl in the illustration is more prevalent north of Reach 8. However, smaller nearshore reefs may occur throughout the nearshore, and any nearshore rock may also host coral-algal formations. The habitat value of relatively these isolated patches of nearshore hardbottom may enhanced by their scarcity. The remainder of the seafloor--slightly greater than half--is sandy bottom or covered by other sedimentary material. This sandy bottom is of obvious interest as a sand source, but, as noted below, the sandy bottom hosts various ecological functions. Nearshore sand flats constitute about 25 percent of the entire area. These flats are composed of mainly sand-sized siliciclastics and carbonates. Offshore sand flats make up about 9 percent of the entire area. Diabathic channels form about 6.6 percent of the entire area and represent about 15 percent of the sand resources of Palm Beach County. Occurring in water depths of 7.5-10 meters, diabathic channels average about 300 meters in length and width. They lie about 400 meters off the shoreline--500-750 meters off Reach 8--and display about one meter in relief. Diabathic channels, which mark a slope change on the shoreface, are probably unrelated to offshore reef gaps, which nonetheless may be important passageways as sand from offshore sand flats, seaward of the Florida Reef Tract, may be transported landward under the right conditions. Characteristics of Sediments by Grain Size and Role of Grain Size on the Performance of a Beach Grain size determines whether a particle is classified as clay, silt, sand, or gravel, in ascending order of size. A grain size less than .0039 mm is clay; a grain size greater than clay, but less than .0625 mm, is silt; and a grain size greater than silt, but less than 2.0 mm, is sand. Coarser grained particles, which are not relevant to this case, are granule, pebble, cobble, and boulder, in ascending order of size, according to the Wentworth classification system. Nothing in this record suggests that these classifications in grain size were developed to correspond in any way to beach function. A curious relationship exists in certain natural settings between siliciclastic grain size and nondimensional sheer stress, at least involving laminar surfaces, such as the unidirectional water current running along the bottom of a river or drainage canal. The lowest value of sheer stress, which may be thought of as velocity, to cause a grain to entrain into suspension occurs when the grain is about 0.2 mm in size--not larger and not smaller. As noted above, this size is within the finer range of sand. It is intuitive that higher velocities are required to suspend larger grains, which first enter into bedload movement before entering suspension. But grains smaller than 0.2 mm also require higher velocities to enter suspension: they do not first enter into bedload movement and resist entering into suspension due to electrical charge and cohesiveness. Using the grain-size classification system set forth above, siliciclastic fine sands at 0.2 mm in size will offer less resistance to entrainment into suspension than will siliciclastic silts, clays and sands finer than 0.2 mm, as well as, of course, siliciclastic sands coarser than 0.2 mm. A graphic display of this phenomenon is called Hjulstrom's Curve. There are three views as to the applicability of Hjulstrom's Curve to this case. In Dr. Wanless's view, it governs in the swash zone, surf zone, and nearshore. However, the bidirectional flow in the swash and surf zones, turbulence introduced by wave action, and absorption of a portion of the wave energy into the porous beach face itself preclude a finding that Hjulstrom's Curve applies to the swash and surf zones. In Mr. Brantley's view, Hjulstrom's Curve is irrelevant. Taking an intermediate view, Mr. Finkl and Dr. Dean agree with Mr. Brantley that the law does not apply in the swash and surf zones. Mr. Finkl believes that Hjulstrom's Curve could be used seaward of the surf zone. Dr. Dean testified that Hjulstrom's Curve may have limited applicability in this case, but not within the swash and surf zones. The intermediate view of Mr. Finkl and Dr. Dean is credited. The consequence of this finding is that, as velocities along the bottom increase seaward of the surf zone, the first sediments to entrain into suspension are not silts or clays, but finer-grained sands, about 0.2 mm in size. The consequence of the distinction between transport by bedload and transport by entrainment into the water column is that, although both will cover hardbottom, only transport by entrainment into the water column causes turbidity also. The transport of sediment by bedload does not contribute to turbidity because the sediment remains in contact with the submerged bottom. However, another size of importance is 0.02 mm, which is within the silt range. After entrainment, particles larger than 0.02 mm tend to settle to the bottom quickly, but particles smaller than 0.02 mm tend to remain suspended in the water much longer. Grain size alone does not determine the susceptibility of a particle to entrain. Carbonate particles of the same size as siliciclastic particles may enter suspension with less energy due to their shape or porosity. Also, larger carbonate particles dredge from deeper waters, when deposited in the swash or surf zone, will abrade into smaller particles. The percentage of carbonates in Florida beaches is as high as 60 percent, at Cocoa Beach, and many beaches containing more than 40 percent carbonates and less than 60 percent siliciclastics. Beaches closer to warm marine waters, which are highly productive, tend to display higher carbonate percentages. Because finer grains will support shallower slopes, the addition of, say, finer-grained sediments to an intermediate beach will push it toward a dissipative beach, with its characteristic low protection of upland structures. Dr. Finkl testified on rebuttal that the mean grain size of 0.23 mm and 0.24 mm in BA VI and BA V, respectively, as compared to a presumed existing mean grain size of 0.30 mm, was not a sufficient reduction in grain size to cause the Reach 8 beach to transform from an intermediate beach to a dissipative beach. But he admitted that 0.20 mm "might" be very close to the boundary between the intermediate and dissipative beach states. However, many factors drive beach state and, as between grain size and energy, energy is ultimately going to determine the beach state more than the size of grains placed by man onto the beach profile. In other words, the forces to which a beach has always been subject will rework the fill placed on the beach and restore the beach to its preexisting state--in the above scenario, back to intermediate from dissipative. The process by which excessively small particles are distributed seaward, until they finder lower-energy locations in deeper water, is called cross-shore sorting. It is not unlikely that the finer the fill, relative to the existing beach sediments, the quicker the forces will work to reestablish the pre-existing beach state, given equal energy inputs. Even an unrestored beach within any of the three classifications is going to experience cross-shore sorting in response to wave and current forces. Where the highest energy is experienced, which is in the intertidal zone, the largest grain sizes will be found. Grain sizes decrease in size as the water deepens because the forces on the bottom sediments decrease in direct relation to increasing depth. As Dr. Dean memorably testified, the finer-grained sediments behave in this respect no differently than dust on one's floor, which works its way to the lowest-energy nooks and crannies of the house. Erosive Factors at Reach 8 By far, the most substantial factor removing sediments from Reach 8, over the long run, is not storms, seawalls, or groins; it is the Lake Worth Inlet and its jetties. Dr. Dean has estimated that 80-85 percent of the erosion on Florida's east coast beaches is caused by jettied inlets, and Dr. Finkl agrees that this remains true today. Dr. Dean has estimated that, from 1918 to 1942, the inlet deprived the beaches to the south of 6.2 million cubic yards of sand. From 1929 to 1986, Dr. Dean estimates that 5.2 million cubic yards were dredged from the inlet and placed at sea, and 1.2 million cubic yards were dredged from the inlet and placed inland. It is difficult to allocate the remaining sand losses between other anthropogenic factors and storms, but clearly the construction of seawalls and groins north of Reach 7 and seawalls along Reach 8 have contributed substantially to any sand deficits that Reach 8 has suffered. Seawalls accelerate beach erosion by reflecting waves, causing increased turbulence and entraining additional particles, and accelerating longshore currents. In 1998, about 1630 feet of Reach 8 was seawalled. Presently, 5260 feet of the 10,985 feet of Reach 8 is seawalled, including all 1300 feet of the Lake Worth Gap. Also, as noted below, the groins north of Reach 7 will require decades before they fill in and effectively stop intercepting sand on its natural journey south along Palm Beach Island, although, given the apparent effect of the cessation of operation of the sand transfer plant on Reach 8, the unfilled groins north of Reach 7 may pass some sand, in certain energy conditions, at least when the sand transfer plant is operating. The long-term impact of storms on Reach 8 is difficult to quantify. Palm Beach County beaches enjoy some protection from the Bahamas Banks, at least from long swells from the east, although prevailing winds from the north or south may generate long swells that can cause considerable beach erosion. Dr. Dean testified that beaches fluctuate in the short-term due to seasonal and storm effects, perhaps implying that long-term fluctuations are not as dependent on seasonal effects and storms. The record would bear out such an implication. From November 1974 to August 1990--a 16-year period-- the shoreline advanced for all of Reach 8, except for the portion south of R-132. The North Segment experienced a 10-30 foot advance. The shoreline of the Center Segment advanced from 60 feet at R-129 to 0 feet at R-132. South of R-132, the shoreline of the Center Segment retreated from 0 feet to 30 feet. The shoreline of the South Segment retreated about 38 feet. During this entire 16-year period, the sand transfer plant piped sand across the Lake Worth Inlet for longshore transport south of the inlet. From August 1990 to September 2000, the shoreline for nearly all of Reach 8 retreated, except for a short length at the extreme north end. From R-125 to R-126, the advance was 20 feet to 0 feet. The rest of the North Segment experienced a retreat from 0 feet to 57 feet. For the Center Segment, the shoreline from R-129 to R-132 retreated from 57 feet to 0 feet. From R-132 to R-134 plus 350, which is the remainder of the Center Segment and all of the South Segment, the shoreline advanced from 0 feet to 30 feet. During the first six years of this 10-year period, the sand transfer plant was not operational. Based on historical data, Dr. Dean has estimated that, over the past 2000 years, 591 hurricanes have passed within 300 nautical miles of Palm Beach County. More recently, though, Palm Beach Island has experienced a marked increase in strong storm activity. The 2004 hurricane season was the most active in Florida since weather records began in 1851, and the 2005 hurricane season broke all records with 27 named storms, of which five hurricanes and two tropical storms impacted Florida. However, Florida experienced a mild tropical season in 2006 and a relatively mild tropical season in 2007, although persistent northeasterly storms in the winter of 2007 eroded a few Atlantic erosion hotspots.21 Major summer storms impacting Palm Beach Island in the past five years are Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in September 2004, Hurricane Wilma in October 2005, Subtropical Storm Andrea in May 2007, and Tropical Storm Noel in November 2007. The combined effect of Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, which were only two weeks apart, was the equivalent of a 213-year return storm. In other words, the likelihood of such a storm event, represented by both storms, in any single year is less than one- half of one percent. For Palm Beach Island, Hurricane Wilma was a 27-year storm, and Subtropical Storm Andrea was a 19-year storm. From August 2004 to April 2008, various transects revealed that the shoreline of the North Segment advanced from 81 feet to 35 feet, the shoreline of the Center Segment retreated from 105 feet to two feet, and the shoreline of the South Segment advanced nine feet. More particularly, from August 2004 to August 2006, while the sand transfer plant was again not operational, the beach retreated, but, from May 2007 to April 2008, coinciding with the return to service of the sand transfer plant, the beach regained some of its earlier losses. Even two hurricanes as close together as Frances and Jeanne, which removed sand from the observable beach, may not permanently deprive the beach of this eroded sand. As noted in a study cited in "Rapid Changes in the Nearshore Habitat: Is Resource Burial an Appropriate Measure of Project Impact" by Matthew Lybolt and Sandra Tate, both employed by CPE, the twin hurricanes of 2004 removed from a study area 259,700 cubic meters of sand from the dunes to a depth of -3.7 m, but deposited 251,500 cubic meters from a depth of -3.7 m to -9.1 m. For 2004-05, three transects in the North Segment reflected, from north to south, advances of 97 and 29 feet and a retreat of 16 feet. Five transects in the Center Segment reflected, from north to south, retreats of 42 feet, 33 feet, 35 feet, 45 feet, and nine feet and an advance of 24 feet. One transect in the South Segment reflected an advance of 19 feet. Suggestive of a natural restorative process, for the quieter one-year period from May 2007 to April 2008, the North Segment transects reflected advances of 25 feet, 79 feet, and 88 feet; the Center Segment transects reflected a retreat of 28 feet and advances of 6 feet, 23 feet, 13 feet, and four feet; and the South Segment transect reflected an advance of five feet. The natural process of erosion and accretion varies by season. Winter is normally a time of beach erosion as episodic strong winds produce strong waves with a strong seaward motion after the wave breaks, pulling large amounts of beach sand out to sand bars. Summer is normally a time of beach accretion as the typical waves exhibit greater landward motion than seaward motion, transferring large amounts of sand from the sand bars back to the beach. Beach-Restoration and -Nourishment Projects on Palm Beach Island Reaches 1-6 The record details no beach-engineering projects until the mid-1940s, but the reaches22 probably received fill from the dredging of the Lake Worth Inlet at an early date, even though the record does not identify the source of fill for the early beach projects described immediately below. As part of the federal Palm Beach Harbor Navigation Project, the Lake Worth Inlet is dredged frequently to maintain a depth of 35 feet. In 1984 and 1985, 2.1 million cubic yards of sediment was dredged from the inlet, but it was all dumped offshore. However, from 1975 to 1990, 558,000 cubic yards of sand and other sediments were dredged from the inlet and placed on the beaches of Palm Beach Island. From 1990 to 2001, 1.048 million cubic yards of sand and other sediments were dredged from the inlet and placed on the beaches of Palm Beach Island. In broad terms, one source23 reports over 1 million cubic yards of fill to Reach 2 in 1948, over 1 million cubic yards of fill to Reaches 4 and 5 in 1948, nearly 900,000 cubic yards of fill to Reach 4 in 1977 and 1995, and nearly one-third million cubic yards to Reach 6 from 1949 to 1987. In 1944, 282,000 cubic yards of fill was placed on the beach adjacent to Mediterranean Avenue (Reach 1). In 1948, 225,000 cubic yards of fill was placed "south of Lake Worth Inlet," and 2.3 million cubic yards of fill was placed on the beach adjacent to Eden Road (Reach 2), Tangier Road (south end of Reach 2), and Banyan Road (south end of Reach 3). In 1949, 380,000 cubic yards of fill was placed on the beach adjacent to Mediterranean Avenue, and 100,000 cubic yards of fill was placed south of Sloan's Curve (Reach 7). In 1953, 463,000 cubic yards of fill was placed "south of Lake Worth Inlet." From 1970-1978, 450,000 cubic yards of fill was placed "south of Lake Worth Inlet." In 1976, the beach adjacent to Chilean Avenue (Reach 3) received 86,000 cubic yards of fill, and beach from Sloan's to Widener's Curves (Reach 6) received 100,000 cubic yards of fill. Reach 1 has benefited from the operation of the Lake Worth Inlet sand transfer plant. From 1975 to 1990, the Lake Worth Inlet sand transfer plant pumped 1.6 million cubic yards of sand across the inlet. After upgrades in 1995, in connection with the 1995 Midtown Project, described below, the sand transfer plant transferred 885,300 cubic yards from 1996 to 2001. From 1994-2000, Reach 1, which has wide beaches, received annually an average of 289,000 cubic yards from the sand transfer plant and the placement of spoil from inlet maintenance dredging. From 2000 to 2004, the average annual volume of sediments dredged from the Lake Worth Inlet was slightly in excess of 100,000 cubic yards. Reach 1 has also received nearly all of the dredge spoil from maintenance dredging of the Lake Worth Inlet, at least when such spoil is placed on the beach of Palm Beach Island. This spoil is deposited within 3000 feet of the south jetty, which would span Reach 1 and only the northernmost 600 feet of Reach 2. It is not entirely clear from the source,24 but it appears that all of this spoil was placed on Reach 1 and the northernmost 600 feet of Reach 2. Reach 1 and Reach 2 probably continue to receive annually about 100,000 cubic yards of dredge spoil and, as discussed above with respect to the Lake Worth sand transfer plant, about 200,000 cubic yards of bypassed sand. It is unclear whether Reach 2 has received much sand from the Lake Worth Inlet sand transfer plant, but this reach experienced accretion from 1974-90, while the plant was in operation, and erosion from 1990-97, while the plant was shut down. In any event, Palm Beach plans to upgrade the Lake Worth Inlet sand transfer plant by extending its discharge pipe 2000 feet south to transfer relatively small amounts of sand directly to Reach 2. This activity will also benefit the north end of Reach 3, as pumped sand is expected to be spread across the remainder of Reach 3 and northern part of Reach 4. From 2000 to 2004, the sand transfer plant bypassed annually an average of 202,000 cubic yards of sand--which is its goal since expansion. For the preceding four years, though, the plant averaged only 115,000 cubic yards of bypassed sand. Reach 3 received sand in connection with the 2003 Midtown Project, described below. With Reach 4, Reach 3 has received a Prefabricated Erosion Prevention (PEP) Reef on two occasions in 1987 and 1991. The first installation was found to have little beneficial effect before it was removed, and the second was found to have accelerated erosion, rather than accretion, so it too was removed. By 1988, nearly the entire length of Reach 3 was seawalled and its southern end features several groins, which are at the north end of the Breakers property. Due to a combination of the prevalence of groins along its shoreline and to the south and the distance from the sand transfer plant outfall, Reach 4 probably represents the southernmost beneficiary of sand from the sand transfer plant. Nearly 80 percent seawalled by 1987 and displaying groins nearly its entire length, Reach 4 has been the subject of at least three recent, fairly large beach-engineering projects, so Reach 4 cannot be entirely discounted as a source of sand for Reach 8, although, again, intervening groins would greatly limit the amount of sand that can escape these reaches with numerous unfilled groins. In late 1995, Reach 4 received 880,000 cubic yards of sand through the Midtown Beach Restoration Project, as mitigation for impacts from the Lake Worth Inlet Management Plan. The sand source was an offshore borrow area 2000 feet south of the Lake Worth Inlet, just south of the Lake Worth Inlet ebb shoal. This project added advance fill for a projected duration of eight years; the design fill was for a 25-foot wide beach at 9 feet NGVD.25 The 1995 Midtown Project also involved the replacement of old groins with 11 new, adjustable groins, which were completed in April 1996. Because there were no impacts projected to nearshore hardbottom, no mitigation was required. The 1995 Midtown Beach Restoration Project maintained the beach berm for its eight-year life expectancy, but suffered significant erosion at the north and south ends of the beach fill. At the end of four years, the project retained about 70 percent of its fill, and, at the end of seven years, it retained about 50 percent of its fill. The persistence of this project was likely influenced by the numerous groins along Reach 4. In early 2003, Reaches 3 and 4 received a nourishment/restoration of 1.27 (or 1.29) million cubic yards of sand as part of the 2003 Midtown Project. The source of the fill was an offshore borrow area adjacent to the one used for the 1995 Midtown Project. The fill was placed in two segments to leave a 400-foot gap to avoid impacting The Breakers' "Rock Pile," which is the site of concrete rubble from an old pier. The Rock Pile has since been colonized by wormrock and other benthic species. The permit required quarterly environmental, post-construction monitoring, which reportedly revealed no unanticipated hardbottom impacts a couple of years later. The 2003 Midtown Project was considerably less durable than the 1993 Midtown Project. The 2004 hurricane season removed all of the advance fill and at least part of the design fill of the 2003 Midtown Project, so FEMA funded a nourishment known as the 2006 Midtown Project to nourish Reaches 3 and 4 to restore the design template from the 2003 Midtown Project. This involved the placement of 893,000 cubic yards of fill. The 2006 Midtown Project was constructed from January 24 to February 24, 2006. Featuring numerous groins along their lengths, Reaches 5 and 6 are fairly healthy, and Palm Beach has no plans for these beaches other than to monitor them.26 By 1987, over 80 percent of the Reach 5 shoreline was fronted by seawall or revetment, and groins lined its entire length. By 1987, over 90 percent of the Reach 6 shoreline was fronted by seawall or revetment. However, Sloan's Curve, which is at R-116, received 34,000 cubic yards of sand in 1987 to restore the dunes. Also, in the same year, the Florida Department of Transportation placed a rock revetment north of Sloan's Curve to provide storm protection, and the revetment remains in place. The ability of these extensively groined shorelines along Reaches 5 and 6 to deprive reaches to the south of naturally transported sand is significant, as perhaps suggested by their relative health today. The cumulative impact of the groins and revetments may be partly revealed by the accelerated rate of sand loss in Reach 7 in recent years: the average annual rate of sand loss in Reach 7 from 1990-97 was 3.5 times greater than the rate of sand loss in Reach 7 from 1974-90. The three miles of shoreline north of Sloan's Curve is especially marked by extensive armoring structures, such as revetments, seawalls, and groins--including a "monster" groin at Widener's Curve (near R-110) that has yet to fill in with sand. Final Supplemental Environmental Information Statement for Reach 7 project, p. 64. The statement reports that this groin and others may require "decades" before filling with transported sand and allowing excess sand to continue transporting longshore to the south.27 Reaches 9-11 Due to their proximity to the north jetty of the South Lake Worth Inlet, whose sand transfer plant obviously does not transfer all of the trapped sediment across the inlet, Reaches 9-11 have benefited materially from this interruption in longshore transport of sand, although Palm Beach has received, in the past, a consultant's recommendation to restore or nourish Reaches 9 and 10. Even if any restoration work has taken place on these reaches, it would have almost no impact on Reach 8 given the normal direction of longshore transport of sediments to the south. Reach 8 Until the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005, Palm Beach merely monitored Reach 8, like it monitors Reaches 5 and 6. The proposed project is the first beach-engineering project for Reach 8, except for some relatively minor work that Palm Beach undertook after the recent hurricanes. In 2005, Palm Beach trucked 50,000 cubic yards of sand from upland sources and placed it landward of the mean high water line to form an emergency berm. In 2006, Palm Beach transferred something less than 58,500 cubic yards of sand that had been excavated for Reach 7 and nourished the dunes from R-116 to R-134 plus 100 feet. (Palm Beach had received permission to transfer 58,500 cubic yards, but the start of turtle nesting season brought a halt to the project just before it was completed, so the amount of fill placed in these dunes is less than 58,500 cubic yards.) Reach 7 Reach 7 has undergone a single restoration project. Known as the Phipps Ocean Park Beach Restoration Project or Reach 7 Project, this project used 1.1 million cubic yards of sand from BA III and BA IV to restore 1.4 miles of beach to 9 feet NGVD, although a related project, at about the same time, focused on Reach 7 and 8's dunes. At the time of these projects, DEP had designated all of the beach as CEB. The Reach 7 Project involved the construction of 3.1 acres of mitigation hardbottom to mitigate for adverse impacts to 3.1 acres of ephemerally exposed hardbottom. The contractor constructed the mitigation hardbottom in mid-2004, and constructed the project itself from February 19 to April 17, 2006, so that it began as the 2006 Midtown Project was ending. All of the advance fill from the Reach 7 Project eroded offsite within the first two years, post-construction; based on the anecdotals set forth below, a substantial portion of the erosion process probably took place in the first year. Unfortunately, the record does not reveal the storm events associated with this accelerated erosive process. Compared to 2004 and 2005, 2006 and 2007 were not significant for summer storms, but, as noted above, greater erosion occurs during the winter, when the storms bear no names; in any event, the record does not supply storm information for winters. The hardbottom that was exposed prior to the project, but that was covered directly or indirectly by the project, is again exposed today, two and one-half years post-construction. These aspects of the project performance are important to the present case for three reasons. First, undetermined amounts of fill from Reach 7 transported to Reach 8, probably very shortly after the completion of the Reach 7 project. These sediments may have transported to Reach 8 prior to the collection of sediment-size data by CPE in 2006 and thus biased the data toward smaller values. Second, the turbidity associated with the Reach 7 project was significant. As noted below, evidence of turbidity is anecdotal and derived from persons who, with one exception, are not professional collectors of such data. However, these persons have intimate familiarity with the beach, both before and after construction. Absent professional collection of post- construction turbidity data in connection with normal and storm conditions, the alternative to amateur data collection is no data collection. Palm Beach expert, Craig Kruempel, conducted a post- construction assessment of submerged bottom 36 months after the construction of the Reach 7 mitigation reef. Because this reef was built two years prior to the Reach 7 beach and dune projects, Mr. Kruempel's work took place in 2007--only one year after the completion of the Reach 7 beach and dune projects and emergency Reach 8 dune project. His findings were complicated by the effect of storms, but, in any event, involved sedimentation only. To the extent that he found uncovered hardbottom, it is an indication of the movement of excessive fines by entrainment into suspension with the suspended particles carried relatively far in the water column, as opposed to movement by bedload. His report refers to another sampling event in 2008, prior to the hearing, but this report is not in the record. Third, the Reach 7 project provides useful information in determining mean grain size of the existing beach at Reach 8, suggesting a range of overfill ratios for Reach 8, and describing possible issues with post-construction turbidity or reduction in water clarity. The Reach 7 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement discusses native beach sediments at some length, finding that the mean grain size of 0.34 mm, as reported in 1977, had been supplanted with sediments with larger mean grain sizes, as years of erosion removed the finer-grained particles. After wave action and erosion, mean grain sizes in 1993 ranged from 0.44 mm to 0.57 mm for four locations within Reach 7. Physical sampling six years later suggested 0.43 mm as the most representative value. On the other hand, the mean grain sizes within the Reach 7 borrow areas--BA III and IV--were, respectively, 0.32 mm and 0.22 mm. The mean grain size of BA III is probably misleadingly large because it proved to contain coarser-grained carbonates that quickly abraded when placed in higher-energy zones than those from which they had been dredged. Also, the existing beach lacked any silt, but BA III was 2.9 percent silt, and BA IV was 1.5 percent silt. Although other factors are involved in calculating overfill factors, the mean grain sizes of the sand source and existing beach are important factors. For BA IV, for which the mean grain size was 0.22 mm, and the "existing native beach," for which the mean grain size was 0.43 mm, the overfill factor was 3.0, according to the Reach 7 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This means that three times as much fill was required as would have been required if the mean grain size of the borrow area had been the same as the mean grain size of the beach. Although the Reach 7 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement does not address the discrepancies in mean grain sizes on the existing beach and in BA III and IV, it warns that turbidity is one of the major limiting factors for coastal water quality in Palm Beach County. The statement notes that background turbidity is highest in the winter, in connection with winter storms, and lowest in the summer. However, the discussion of the proposed project and turbidity is limited to turbidity during construction and the need for a mixing zone and never addresses post-construction turbidity. As is found elsewhere in the literature sponsored into evidence by Palm Beach's witnesses, the Reach 7 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement dismisses concerns about the impact of turbidity on the nearshore biological communities with the observation that the nearshore organisms occupy an already-turbid environment. As is true of the other literature, the Reach 7 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement dismisses the impact of turbidity on these communities without attempting to quantify the intensity, persistence, or frequency of turbidity, pre- and post-construction (i.e., before and after placing, in the case of BA IV, sediments whose particle size was half the size of the existing sediments' particle size). Not all of the available anecdotals are relevant. One complaint of piles of coarser-grained fill placed on Reach 7 has no bearing to this case, except to the limited extent that the coarser-grained materials abraded into finer-grained materials. Located farther landward from the backreef apron source of larger carbonate materials, BA V and VI do not likely contain such coarser-grained materials. Second, one or more complaints of extensive post- construction sedimentation off Reach 7 resulted in an investigation by a DEP scientist. He found, as had DEP scientists elsewhere along the east coast, that a muddy grey layer of sediment, associated with a mid-column plume of turbidity, had covered much of the bottom structure. He justifiably attributed the source of these sediments to deeper marine deposits that had been disturbed by recent storms. The presence of the same conditions elsewhere militates strongly against any association with the Reach 7 project. The remaining anecdotals are relevant to this case because they describe the post-construction consequences, in terms of increased turbidity or decreased water clarity, of introducing finer-grained particles, though not necessarily silt-sized, into a beach consisting of considerably coarser- grained particles. Contrary to the approach of DEP to the issue of post- construction turbidity, the point is not that, per se, turbidity increased at all, or that it increased in excess of 29 NTUs above background turbidity. The point is that the turbidity increased sufficiently, regardless by how many NTUs over background, to eliminate all or nearly all of the functional value of a significant area of marine habitat along Reach 7 for a significant period of time, pursuant to a permit that required absolutely no mitigation for these losses except to the extent that they involved some nearshore hardbottom. Kerri Smith, former president or chair of Surfrider's Palm Beach Chapter, described persistent murkiness in the water along Reach 7, post-construction. The excavated sediments deposited on the beach were much siltier than the existing sediments on the beach. Hardbottom was likewise covered by these dredged sediments, although presumably this was hardbottom for which DEP had required mitigation. A surfer, Ms. Smith testified that the murkiness of the water precluded surfing due to the enhanced possibility of a shark, unable to ascertain the shape in front of it, attacking a surfer. The last observations by Ms. Smith, who is herself a beachfront owner south of Reach 8 on Palm Beach Island, were in the fall of 2007. Ms. Connie Gasque, a resident of Palm Beach County for over 30 years, assists the Reef Research Team in collecting in-water data, usually by diving. She also is a member of the board of directors of Surfrider's Palm Beach Chapter. Ms. Gasque testified that Reaches 7 and 8 are the only places to which she can drive, park her car (at Phipps Ocean Park in Reach 7 and the Lake Worth Municipal Beach/Kreusler Park in Reach 8), and snorkel in the nearshore waters adjacent to the beach. Public access, especially in the form of parking, precludes these activities along much of Palm Beach Island, north of Reach 9. Due to the prevalence of nearshore hardbottom, Ms. Gasque regularly observed, during these excursions prior to the Reach 7 Project, tarpons, snook, hammerhead sharks, spinner sharks, nursery sharks, green turtles, parrotfish, juvenile grunts, crabs, and other marine life. Although Ms. Gasque's reports of covered hardbottom along Reach 7 must be considered in light of the mitigation required for such impacts, her description of post-construction turbidity identifies a condition for which no mitigation was required. One time, she saw a turbidity plume extending from the northern end of Reach 7 as far as she could see. She got into her car and followed the plume for 12 miles before it finally disappeared at the Lake Worth Inlet. Although Ms. Gasque's reports of coarse-grained materials are irrelevant to the present case for the reasons stated above, she found, post-construction, considerable deposits of finer-grained materials, mud-like in consistency. This material ran from the Lake Worth Pier north a considerable distance. Captain Danny Barrow is a charter guide captain and writer for Outdoor Florida magazine. He has walked the beaches and fished the nearshore waters of Palm Beach Island his entire life. As a charter guide captain, he targets inshore fish, mostly snook and tarpon. Although Captain Barrow catches snook as far out as the offshore reef, he mostly catches them in water from the shoreline to 10 feet of depth. He also catches live bait along the shoreline. These baitfish consist largely of menhaden, cigar minnows, Spanish sardines, and finger mullet, which are plentiful around the Lake Worth Pier. Captain Barrow described the pre- and post- construction scenes along Reach 7 in terms of marine life displaced for extensive periods following construction. Prior to construction, he snorkeled the hardbottom along Reach 7 and found juvenile lobsters, crabs, croaker (favored by snook), juvenile snook, and a small school of three or four tarpon ranging in size from 20 to 40 pounds. After construction was completed in May 2006, the water was so milky that Captain Barrow would not enter it. He tried fishing the area and caught nothing; there was no sign of life. Two or more weeks later, he returned again and found conditions unchanged. Even the sand fleas that normally occupy the wet beach, and are an important food source for pompano and permit, were absent. Over the next several months, the water off Reach 7 began to clear up. By the fall of 2006, the water clarity was much better. But Captain Barrow reports that water clarity remained unduly sensitive to wave energy: as the waves picked up, so did the turbidity, much more than the turbidity had been, during similar wave conditions, prior to construction. In November 2006, Captain Barrow returned to Reach 7 during a storm, and the turbidity was as bad as it had been during active construction. At Phipps Ocean Park, he reported a "nasty milky color" to the water, and Captain Barrow found similar water conditions at the Lake Worth Pier. Captain Barrow reports no fish kills from the post- construction turbidity. Instead, the bait fish and their predators left the nearshore waters of Reach 7 until the waters cleared. Once the natural process of removing the fill from the observable beach was completed, the waters off Reach 7 returned to pre-construction condition, the hardbottom was re-exposed, and bait and predator fish returned to the nearshore waters. As of the time of the hearing, Captain Barrow described the nearshore waters off Reach 8 as "beautiful." However, he testified that the Reach 7 nearshore waters remain uncharacteristically susceptible to clouding in response to storms, at which point the fishing again suffers. Selected Local and State Actions to Preserve Beaches Palm Beach In addition to its participation in various beach- engineering projects, in 1996, Palm Beach formed a Shore Protection Board to advise the Town Council on beach management issues. As noted above, this board divided Palm Beach Island into 11 reaches in 1996. In a preliminary report, the Shore Protection Board stated 12 conclusions, including that the Lake Worth Inlet is the primary cause of Palm Beach's erosion, Palm Beach projects should be combined in a plan with other municipalities to achieve an "inlet to inlet" concept in place of "crisis management" or "spot projects," and all beach projects must include ongoing monitoring because "[l]ack of solid historical data is one of the Town's biggest problems and has crippled its ability to determine which programs have been successful " In discussing proposed projects, the Shore Protection Board specified an intent to obtain beach protection against a 15-year storm. The fill would thus be sufficient to absorb the erosion between nourishment events, which the board assumed would be eight years, and the occurrence of one 15-year storm. Based on his modeling, in 1992, Dr. Dean calculated that the beach profile containing Reach 8 would experience an 8.6-foot total storm tide from a 30-year storm, an 8.3-foot total storm tide from a 25-year storm, a 7.7-foot total storm tide from a 20-year storm, a 6.5-foot total storm tide from a 15-year storm, and a 5.6-foot total storm tide from a 10-year storm. As noted below, the design elevation of the beach berm in this case is 9.0 feet, so that it appears designed to protect from the 30-year storm. The Shore Protection Board noted that the few failures of nourishment projects in Florida have been due to inadequate quantities of sand, fine grain size, short project length, or extraordinary circumstance. Dr. Dean explained the importance of project length: essentially, the longer the beach nourishment project, the longer the nourished beach will last. The general rule, according to Dr. Dean, is that doubling the length of a project quadruples its longevity. Dr. Dean testified that a beach nourishment project of less than one mile is "not effective." As Dr. Dean explained, a project loses sand in the longshore and cross shore directions, but the supply of fill at the ends is less than the supply of sand along the template's much longer seaward face. DEP DEP is the state agency with primary responsibility over Florida's 825 miles of unsheltered beaches, including 389 miles on the Atlantic Coast. Palm Beach County contains 45 miles of unsheltered beaches, which equals the total of such beaches in Broward and Dade counties. In May 2008, DEP updated its Strategic Beach Management Plan for the state of Florida. The Strategic Beach Management Plan begins with the following statement: Beaches are dynamic land forms at the edge of the ocean or Gulf of Mexico subject to both natural and man-induced erosion. Sand moves along the shore due to wind driven currents and tides, and storms can cause dramatic changes to the beach. The majority of man-induced erosion is due to the creation and maintenance of inlets, where the sand has historically been removed from the coastal system, and the natural drift of sand along the shore is blocked by jetties, trapped in channels, or moved into ebb and flood shoals. Development and the placement of infrastructure too near the shore has also contributed to coastal erosion by limiting the amount of sand stored in dunes and hardening the shore in order to protect upland property.28 The Strategic Beach Management Plan identifies repair and maintenance strategies to carry out the state responsibilities of a comprehensive, long-range, statewide program of beach erosion control, beach preservation, restoration and nourishment, and storm and hurricane protection by adhering to the following principles: Maximize the infusion of beach-quality sand into the coastal system; Implement those projects that contribute most significantly to addressing the state’s beach erosion problems; Promote inlet sand bypassing to replicate the natural flow of sand interrupted by improved, modified or altered inlets and ports; Extend the life of beach restoration projects and reduce the frequency of nourishment; Encourage regional approaches to ensure the geographic coordination and sequencing of projects; and Reduce equipment mobilization and demobilization costs.[29] The Strategic Beach Management Plan warns that projects included in the plan must still obtain all necessary state and federal permits. Among the various permitting considerations are "an assessment of the compatibility of sand proposed to be utilized with the existing beach; project dimensions that may adversely affect nearshore hardbottom . . .; [and] turbidity levels at the borrow site and placement site[.]"30 DEP's Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Southeast Atlantic Coast Region, issued in May 2008, identifies 20.7 miles of beaches as the Palm Beaches subregion, which includes Palm Beach Island. This subregion contains 14.9 miles of CEBs, of which 6.1 miles have been restored or maintained. The Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Southeast Atlantic Coast Region divides the Palm Beaches subregion into three smaller areas: Northern Palm Beaches, Palm Beaches, and Southern Palm Beaches. Palm Beaches includes all of Palm Beach Island plus short segments of beach north and south of the two inlets defining the island. The Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Southeast Atlantic Coast Region states that Northern Palm Beaches includes 13.3 miles of beach, of which 8.4 miles are CEB, including 3.6 miles of beach that has already been restored and maintained; Palm Beaches includes 20.7 miles of beach, 14.9 miles are CEB, including 6.1 miles of beach that has already been restored and maintained; and Southern Palm Beaches includes 11.8 miles of beach, of which 7.9 miles are CEB, including 6.7 miles of beach that has already been restored and maintained. Palm Beaches contains only two segments of nonCEB. The northerly of these is Reach 8's Center Segment. This means that DEP has designed as CEB a continuous stretch of beach from the Lake Worth Inlet almost to the Lake Worth Pier. This span of CEB encompasses Reaches 1-7 in their entirety and, as noted above, the northernmost 3117 feet of Reach 8: the North Segment and the northernmost 392 feet of the Lake Worth Gap. The CEB designation that attaches to the South Segment continues past the end of Reach 8 at R-134 plus 350 feet to R-137.4.31 The remainder of Palm Beach Island from R-136.7 to the South Lake Worth Inlet is nonCEB. This means that Reaches 10 and 11, and the southernmost 300-400 feet of Reach 9 are all nonCEB, which confirms the range of influence of the north jetty of the South Lake Worth Inlet. The Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Southeast Atlantic Coast Region discusses potential beach-management strategies and the availability of offshore sand sources for each of the three subsubregions. For Palm Beaches, the plan notes that Palm Beach has agreed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) for the latter to deposit on Midtown spoil from the maintenance dredging of the Lake Worth Inlet, and it acknowledges the subject Reach 8 Project, including as to the nonCEB. Also, the plan recommends that Palm Beach implement a "regional beach, inlet, and offshore data collection and processing program [for] their monitoring programs."32 As for potential sand sources, the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Southeast Atlantic Coast Region warns that DEP and COE had found sufficient offshore sand for restoration, but not "long- term nourishment." Nor is much offshore sand available to the north and south. For Northern Palm Beaches, the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the Southeast Atlantic Coast Region reports that DEP and COE have conducted an extensive offshore sand search and found sufficient sand for restoration, but not maintenance, of these CEBs. The situation is only a little better for Southern Palm Beaches. The plan states that transferring sand from the ebb tidal shoal at the Boca Raton Inlet may be sufficient for a project known as the South Boca Raton Project, but it is not yet clear whether sufficient offshore sand has been found for the "long-term project needs" of the Delray Beach, Boca Raton (North), and Boca Raton (Central) projects. Due the widespread acknowledgement of the limited availability of offshore beach compatible sand, DEP has not previously approved a beach restoration or nourishment project, using offshore sand, for a nonCEB until this case. As noted above, DEP is proposing the use of this limited resource for a beach that, by far, is mostly nonCEB. DEP attempts to work in cooperation with federal and local authorities in managing Florida's beaches. From 1964 through 2006, Florida has expended over $582 million in beach nourishment and hurricane recovery, under the Strategic Beach Management Plan, pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. These cooperative efforts and expenditures are crucial in Florida. Of the state's 825 miles of beaches, 485 miles are experiencing erosion; 387 miles have experienced "critical erosion," which, as noted below in the discussion of CEBs, indicates a level of erosion that threatens substantial development, recreational, cultural, or environmental interests; and 192 miles have been restored. From 1989 to 2003, the miles of CEBs increased from 218 to 333, and, in 2003, 62 percent of the shoreline in southeast Florida was designed CEB. In the 1998-99 fiscal year, Florida transitioned from its previous beach management policy of focusing on local, short-term needs and began assisting local governments in the preparation of Long Range Beach Management Plans, which emphasize a regional approach to beach management. Biological Functions and Potential Post-Construction Impacts Communities of the Nearshore and Beach A robust food chain exists in the beach and nearshore. Waves bring onshore phytoplankton to create a nutrient-rich zone in the nearshore waters. The base of the food chain, phytoplankton requires light to grow. Nothing in the record provides guidance as to the effect, if any, of ongoing, elevated turbidity and the resulting attenuation of light in the water column on the abundance of phytoplankton in the nearshore water column. The smaller organisms feed on the phytoplankton. In turn, macroinvertebrates, such as coquina clams (Donax) and mole crabs or sand fleas (Emerita talpoida), nourish bottom-feeding surf fish, such as pompano and flounder, and shore birds. Small fish in the nearshore environment are food for these fish and birds, as well as mackerel, jack, and blues. Wind and waves limit the number of species that occupy the high-energy beach habitats. Intertidal beaches host relatively few species, although in relatively great abundance. The upper portion of the beach is dominated by various talitrid amphipods and the ghost crab (Ocypode quadrata). In the midlittoral zone, polychaetes (a class of worms), isopods (e.g., sea mites or pill bugs), and haustoriid amphipods (shrimp-like crustaceans) dominate. In the swash and surf zones, coquina clams and mole crabs are found. Shallow subtidal habitats, which are in up to three feet of water, are occupied by polychaetes, gastropods (snails), portunid crabs, and burrowing shrimp. In water 3-10 feet deep, polychaetes, haustoid and other amphipod groups, and bivalves such as coquina clams prevail. Fish favoring the softbottom surf zone are relatively few. In order of prevalence in Palm Beach County (most common to least common), they are Atlantic threadfin herring, blue runner, spotfin mojarra, southern stingray, greater barracuda, yellow jack, and ocean triggerfish, none of which has any commercial value. The individuals in this nearshore area tend to be small or juvenile, although larger individuals will visit the nearshore to find prey. The offshore soft bottom provides habitat to a greater variety of species than the nearshore soft bottom because the offshore areas are less subject to wave distress. Offshore soft bottom is dominated by polychaetes with seasonal, extensive growth of macroalgaes. Larger invertebrate macrofauna in the offshore soft bottom between the second and third reef lines include the queen helmet, king helmet, Florida fighting conch, milk conch, Florida spiny jewel box, and calico clam. The only commercially valuable species is the Florida lobster, which crosses this area as it migrates from offshore to nearshore areas. The habitat of greatest value in the nearshore is hardbottom. As noted above, it is relatively scarce. But the value of hardbottom is in its physical characteristics, as compared to the more prevalent soft bottom. Hardbottom, or "beach rock," presents habitat in the nearshore areas in the form of coquina shells, sand, and calcareous limestone--i.e., the Anastasia outcropping described in detail above. The intermittent outcrops of hardbottom represent the highest elevations of a contiguous formation, which, where exposed, exhibits the spur and groove characteristics of reefs exposed to wave action. Hardbottom outcrops are often found in 0-10 feet of water and are stressed physically by waves, sediment transport, turbulence, and lack of water clarity. The width and vertical profile of the hardbottom outcrop determines its significance as a biological resource and natural wave break. Larger outcrops display greater habitat heterogeneity, which generate increased biomass, biodiversity, and abundance. The suitability of a specific hardbottom outcrop as habitat is a function of its permanence and rugosity. The larger outcrops tend to be persistent; the smaller outcrops tend to be ephemeral because they are more likely to be buried by sand and more likely to be buried longer by sand. Hardbottom outcrops serve as habitat for epibenthic species that are able to attach to the hard substrate. The considerable fluctuations in the physical environment permit colonization of hardbottom mostly by encrusting and boring organisms. Different algal species will occupy the outcrop, depending on whether it is low profile, smooth, subtidal, or intertidal (algal mat communities); exposed and intertidal (green algae Ulva lactuca and barnacle Tetraclita squamosa); subtidal; or high profile. Various macroinvertebrates--encrusting and nonencrusting--are found along the nearshore hardbottom in Palm Beach County. Among the most prevalent species are star coral (Siderastria radians), various species of wine glass hydroids, several species of tube-type sponges, the boring sponge (Clinoa celata), the wormrock-building polychaete (Phragmatopoma lapidosa), and the fire coral hydroid (Millipora alcicornis). The wormrock-building polychaetes live in tubes that they build around themselves by cementing sand grains together and, in suitable areas, build large, biologically significant wormrock reefs. Wormrock structure added to hardbottom provides habitat of significant complexity and, thus, value. The list is long of species that favor wormrock reefs and hardbottom in general. Toward the top of the food chain, bull and tiger sharks, as well as coastal pelagic species, such as Spanish mackerel, jacks, mullet, and bluefish, visit the nearshore hardbottom primary to find smaller fish for food. Of these, Spanish mackerel and mullet have commercial value. Surf zone fish typically seen around the hardbottom include the Atlantic croaker, pompano, snook, jacks, anchovies, and herrings, of which only the snook and pompano have commercial value. Reef fish also use the hardbottom outcrop when traveling from the offshore reef. These species include snapper, grouper, grunt, and wrasses, as well as some damselfish, blennies, gobies, angelfish, and parrot fish, of which the snapper and grouper have commercial value. Smaller mobile species such as the Florida lobster, sea urchins, and brachyuran and xanthid crabs also use the nearshore hardbottom, mostly the holes and crevices. In general, due to the complexity of the habitat providing both sanctuary and food, nearshore hardbottom provides nursery habitat for 34 species of fish. Early-life individuals constitute over 80 percent of the individuals at nearshore hardbottom sites. Nearshore hardbottom is critical habitat for juveniles of another species, green turtles, and, to a lesser extent, hawksbill and loggerhead turtles. After spending 3-5 years in the open ocean, juvenile green turtles move into coastal waters during the "many years" required for them to reach sexual maturity. "Home Range and Habitat Use of Juvenile Atlantic Green Turtles on Shallow Reef Habitats in Palm Beach County, Florida," November 2005, by Christopher Makowski, et al. (including Michael Salmon), p. 1167. While in the coastal waters, nearshore hardbottom provides juvenile green turtles with critical foraging and resting habitat. The diet of juvenile green turtles is primarily algae and sponges that colonize the nearshore hardbottom, although they will feed on sandy bottom with seagrass or patches of algae. Id. at p. 1174; "A Survey of Juvenile Green Turtles and Their Resting and Foraging Habitats Off Broward County, Florida 03/01/86 - 12/31/87," January 1988, by Robert Wershoven and Jeanne Wershoven, p. 8. Among the favorite food sources of the green turtle, which is the only herbivorous sea turtle,33 according to Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida, Volume III, edited by Paul E. Moler, is a red algae (hypnea musciformis) that grows on hardbottom along Palm Beach Island. The loggerhead also favors algae and sponges. The juvenile green turtle's algal food sources are vulnerable to the increases in turbidity associated with beach- restoration or -nourishment projects. Wershovens, pp. 13-14. As the water loses its ability to transmit light, the algae decline, just as they do when they are covered by sediment. It is not merely that the algae cannot grow; in response to the heavy forage of juvenile green turtles, the algae must re-grow repeatedly in order to supply the turtles with nourishment. Makowski, p. 1174. The juvenile green turtle displays considerable site fidelity, both for foraging and resting. Resting and foraging in the same hardbottom provides security, especially from sharks. Makowski, p. 1177. At night, each of four turtles tracked by Makowski returned to each of four identical resting sites. Two turtles maintained two separate resting sites at opposite ends of their relatively limited home ranges. Makowski concluded that site fidelity for foraging and feeding is probably linked to the need for hiding spots and escape routes in the face of the constant threat of predation. Id. at p. 1173. Engaging in a longterm capture-and-release study of juvenile green turtles, whose range of carapace length was from about 11 inches to 26 inches, Wershovens at p. 9, Robert and Jeanne Wershoven reported that nocturnal recapture locations of 19 juvenile green sea turtles and two hawksbill varied by an average of 0.5 km. Wershovens at p. 8. Two green turtles were recaptured under the identical ledge where they were originally captured--one after 18 months had elapsed since the preceding capture. The same hawksbill was recaptured seven times. The Wershovens described the hardbottom ledge habitat--the most valuable hardbottom habitat for juvenile green turtles--as a "time share" arrangement because the turtles shared, at different times, the limited, higher-relief hardbottom in the study area. Id. at p. 8. Of course, the other habitat of importance in this case is the dry beach. Palm Beach Island provides especially favored habitat for the reproduction of sea turtles because they lay their eggs in the sandy sediments of the island's beaches, including Reach 8. Florida is the second largest nesting site for loggerheads in the world, and Palm Beach County is second only to Brevard County among Florida counties for loggerhead nesting activity. Palm Beach County is also second only to Brevard County for numbers of green turtle nests in Florida. Actual and Potential Impacts to Biological Processes from Reach 8 Project Actual and Potential Impacts to Dry Beach as Nesting Habitat The impact of beach-nourishment projects on nesting sea turtles has received considerable attention from the scientific and regulatory communities, likely due to the relative accessibility of the dry beach habitat and the widespread popularity of beach-climbing and burrowing sea turtles, as distinguished from, say, the furtive wanderings of bug-like isopods or the distribution in the nearshore water column of multitudinous, typically imperceptible phytoplankton. Nearly all of the relevant risks have long been addressed by the sponsors of beach-nourishment projects, their consultants, and DEP. If the fill is too coarse, the turtle will be unable to excavate a burrow because the sides will fall in. If it is too fine, oxygen will not pass through the sand to the eggs. A variance in color between the fill and existing beach may alter the ability of the sand to transmit heat to the eggs, which can alter the gender of the hatchlings. Pre- and post-construction variations in beach compaction, beach slopes, escarpment formation, and possibly salinity levels may impede nesting, including by producing more false crawls in which the sea turtle crawls out of the surf and onto the beach seeking to dig a burrow and deposit her eggs, but returns to the sea without completing these tasks. Experts do not seem to dispute with much conviction that the nourished or restored beach is of reduced value for nesting for the first year, post-construction, or that sea turtles successfully nest on the beach the following year. The potential impact in subsequent years is at issue in this case. The problems in the first year include a variety of disturbances. Recent research suggests, for instance, that excessive total dissolved solids in the fill may deter females from using the post-construction beach for the first year. During the first year, rain and stormwater rinse these total dissolved solids out of the fill, which can then return to a salinity level approximating what existed prior to the construction. Regardless of design and implementation of a particular beach project, rain will eliminate this problem by the end of the first year, so the quality of the beach project does not especially affect the duration of the loss of nesting habitat for sea turtles. Conceivably, the contractor could rinse the fill artificially at the time of construction and restore post-construction salinity levels immediately, but no one has attempted this, and its practicability is not yet established, especially because other factors may still discourage first-year utilization. In contrast to the possible problem with total dissolved solids, scientists have long recognized that first- year problems with beach slopes, escarpments, and compaction discourage nesting on the newly restored or nourished beach. It is unclear as to whether, or to what extent, a beach filled with excessive fines is likely to succumb repeatedly to these conditions, at least until the coastal system removes the excessive fines from the dry beach. But as discussed in some detail immediately below, the removal process in this case is unlikely to take more than one year. Potentially more serious is the presence of excessive coarse materials because, to the extent they are siliciclastic and will not abrade in their new, high-energy setting, these particles will resist erosion by wind and surf. However, this issue is irrelevant to the proposed project, as there is no evidence whatsoever that BA V and VI may contain excessive coarse materials. Also potentially more serious is the presence of different colored sediments in the fill, as compared to the existing beach. The proposed fill is greyish, as compared to the tanner existing beach, but the difference appears to be small and some lightening can be expected once the sediment is exposed to the elements. Surfrider's expert, Dr. Michael Salmon, testified that, although the nourished beach is unsuitable nesting habitat the first year after construction, it is typically suitable nesting habitat the second year. In this regard, Dr. Salmon and Palm Beach's main witness on this issue, Dr. Kirt Rusenko, are in agreement. They part company, however, when Dr. Salmon opines that ongoing erosion deterred sea turtles from nesting on the nourished beaches in the third and following years. Clearly, Dr. Salmon's testimony identifies a potential long-term risk to nesting habitat, but it does not apply in this case. Dr. Salmon's testimony partly relies on other testimony suggesting that the beach, once nourished, will always require nourishment, implicitly due to accelerated erosion. Nothing in the record explains this process. In particular, the Administrative Law Judge has examined the record to find some suggestion that nourishment or restoration increases pre-construction erosion processes or reduces pre- construction accretion processes, but he has found nothing to this effect. Theoretically, a beach project could alter nearshore bottom so as to alter wave and tidal forces--a possibility that Surfrider's witness tried, without success, to establish in this case with respect to the quality of waves for surfing. More likely, an alteration might change erosion patterns at a nearby beach, but this record is undeveloped as to when and under what conditions such a process takes place. Based on the present record, any suggestion that the excavation of BA V and VI and placement of sandy sediments in the nearshore bottom can alter the long-term erosion or accretion experienced by a beach, after cross-shore sorting of the fines in the fill has been completed, remains a hypothesis to be tested. Rejecting this part of Dr. Salmon's testimony raises one of the central factual issues of the case: how long, post- construction, will the cross-shore sorting process generate incidents of substantially reduced water clarity as the excessive fines are transported to deeper waters? As noted below, CPE has materially understated the mean grain size and overstated the silt content of the existing beach. CPE's understatement of mean grain size of the existing beach relieved it of the necessity of dealing with a much larger overfill factor than the 1.68 factor stated by CPE, which uncovers one of the conundrums of this case: would the contractor place fill in conformity with the template of advance and design fill, as expressed in the post-construction beach profiles, or in conformity with the Permit provision of 724,200 cubic yards of fill? The contractor cannot comply with both specifications due to the understatement in the overfill ratio. It seems less likely that the contractor will attempt to calculate volumes while the dredge is slurrying sediments onto the beach than that the contractor will try to place fill within the design templates provided it by CPR. This means that substantially more than 724,200 cubic yards of fill would be placed on Reach 8. The potential impact to sea turtle nesting after year 2 is thus inapplicable to this case due to the evident reliance by Dr. Salmon on elevated or even ongoing erosion of the restored or nourished beach during those years. Based largely on the Reach 7 experience and the role of grain size in coastal processes, the excessive fines proposed for Reach 8 would undergo cross-shore sorting much more quickly than projected by Dr. Dean, who testified that the advance fill on Reach 8 would last six years. Findings of a shortened fill-erosion process should be consistent with Dr. Dean's pioneering work on overfill ratios, as well as his testimony that doubling project length quadruples project life and that Reach 8 has become a fairly short project. But, regardless whether consistent with Dr. Dean's views on these matters, the finding is that CPE's attempt to push Reach 8, an intermediate beach tending toward reflective, to a dissipative state promises a quick push back by the natural forces that produced, in the first place, an intermediate beach tending toward reflective. A process that might take six years, if the consultant were to maintain beach states with identical sand in terms of mean grain size, silt content, and sustainable slopes, will take substantially less time given present circumstances. Because of the likelihood of a relatively quick fill- erosion process, Dr. Salmon's testimony concerning loss of nesting habitat after year 2 for Reach 8 is rejected. Although Dr. Salmon described in detail one beach in which sea turtle nesting suffered in years three and following, he did not provide the relevant details of the restoration or nourishment project, so he failed to demonstrate that the performance of that beach is relevant to the performance of Reach 8, post- construction. Perhaps the fill-erosion process took longer in that case, and erosion after the second year was especially disturbing to nesting sea turtles. On the other hand, Dr. Salmon's testimony concerning the relative abundance of suitable nesting habitat along Florida's coast for sea turtles is credited. In particular, given the accretion patterns for Reach 8 discussed above, Dr. Salmon's testimony is credited over the contrary testimony of Palm Beach's experts, who suggested that the no-action alternative would leave harm sea turtles because of the loss of Reach 8 beach for nesting. Relying in part on Dr. Salmon's testimony concerning ample nesting habitat for sea turtles, it is also found, as Palm Beach's experts testified, that, for the year that the female sea turtles find the post-construction beach unsuitable for depositing eggs, they can move up or down the beach a relatively short distance and finding suitable nesting habitat. For these reasons, the potential for nesting disturbances after year one is irrelevant in this case. Even compaction is not an issue, although excessive fines lend themselves to compaction. Permit conditions require anti- compaction procedures, which will become unnecessary after one year due to the removal of most of the fill by then. 2. Potential Impacts to Hardbottom Habitat and Water Column For the same reason that impacts to nesting after year two are not likely in this case--i.e., accelerated erosion of excessive fines placed on an intermediate beach tending toward reflective--the proposed project is likely to cause impacts to hardbottom habitat in the form of burial of more than 6.9 acres and to the water column in the form of reduced clarity for at least one year. This is developed in more detail below. The burial of hardbottom destroys the algae, sponges, and coral that support the bottom of the food chain. The burial of the hardbottom deprives multiple species of this valuable habitat for foraging and resting. Prominent among such species is the juvenile green turtle. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined that the burial of 6.9 acres of hardbottom, as allowed by the Permit, would result in the death of some juvenile green turtle, according to NMFS. This finding by NMFS is credited. In a letter dated March 13, 2008, the National Marine Fisheries Service stated that, at the rate of five juvenile green turtles per acre of hardbottom, 35 juvenile sea turtles would be displaced by the burial of 6.95 acres of hardbottom. NMFS declined to find that all 35 individuals would be injured or killed from this impact. Instead, the NMFS reasoned that, based on typical rates of infection with fibropapillomatosis, which is a benign tumor disease to which green sea turtles are particularly susceptible, 19 of these 35 individuals are infected. NMFS then assumed that the stress from the loss of habitat would be enough to kill already- infected individuals, so the take, in the form of death, is 19 juvenile green turtles. The NMFS opinion concludes that this loss would not jeopardize the endangered species, which evidently is the criterion for a letter permitting this incidental take. In his written report, Dr. Rusenko correctly challenges the NMFS calculation as unduly pessimistic in one respect: juvenile green turtles in nonlagoon settings experience a much lower infection rate, about 14.8 percent. The resulting take would be 5, not 19, turtles. Although Dr. Rusenko does not accept that even five turtles would die from the loss of 6.9 acres of habitat, this finding of NMFS is credited. The potential exists for even more mortality among uninfected juvenile green turtles. Given the unusual degree of site fidelity exhibited by juvenile green turtles, it is possible that some of the 30 fibropapillomatosis-free individuals will suffer fatal predation due to their increased vulnerability caused by the confusion, disorientation, and even malnutrition following their loss of their familiar habitat. However, the record permits no finding as to the likelihood of this taking place or how many uninfected juvenile green turtles would also likely suffer mortality from the loss of habitat, so the take, in the form of death, will be found to be five per 6.9 (actually 7, as approximated by NMFS) acres of impacted hardbottom. While allowing the incidental take of 19 juvenile green turtles, NMFS added a conservation recommendation to its incidental take statement. The recommendation implies concern that CPE's projections of indirect hardbottom coverage are unduly optimistic. NMFS recommended that Palm Beach limit the fill to no more than 260,000 cubic yards, based on 40 cubic yards per linear foot, which NMFS believed is sufficient to protect against the 25-year storm. NMFS also recommended that COE prepare an environmental impact statement for the cumulative effects of beach nourishment projects on nearshore hardbottom to determine the impacts on listed species using such habitat. Palm Beach presented considerable evidence that elevations in turbidity and sedimentation would not affect or would not materially affect at least certain organisms in the beach or nearshore waters. In general, this evidence is credited for the proposed project, but only after about one year. As seen below, even the scholarly articles on which Palm Beach relies anticipate displacement of certain biological communities for different periods of up to one year. One of the recurring problems with Palm Beach's no- impact evidence is its failure to account for a nourishment project specifying fill with excessive fines and the resulting reduction in water clarity and increase in sedimentation that will ensue as that fill is redistributed in the nearshore environment. For instance, in "Guidelines for Beach Restoration Projects, Part I: Biological," July 1985, at pages 35-36, Walter G. Nelson attempts to support the assertion that large- scale storms produce impacts to the beach and nearshore similar to those impacts from beach nourishment projects--thus, nearshore fauna could survive post-construction turbidity. Nelson cites several studies that generally found little or no disturbance to various macroinvertebrates following strong storms. However, Nelson makes no effort to determine the intensity, frequency, or duration of turbidity following comparable storm events--one impacting an unnourished beach, for which little, if any, cross-shore sorting is taking place, and one impacting a beach nourished by excessive fines, where cross- shore sorting is ongoing. Nelson completely ignores the relationship between energy input and sediment particle size, instead implying that the impact to water clarity is the same following equal forces of waves and currents striking beaches with already-sorted native sediments versus beaches with excessive fines, which are awaiting these forces to redistribute these fines to lower-energy sites in deeper water. For the most part, the witnesses called by CPE, Palm Beach, and DEP implicitly accepted the idea that organisms would not use the filled beaches and nearshore for a short time after construction. The real dispute between the parties was how long would these habitats be deprived of their habitat functions. One of Surfrider's expert witnesses, Dr. Pete Peterson, testified for a longer-term loss of habitat value, post- construction, but admitted that the conditions of his primary experience were materially different from the conditions that would be produced by the proposed project. His experience was with excessive coarse-grained materials, which present entirely different problems from projects with excessive fine-grained materials. The findings below rely heavily on evidence presented by Palm Beach concerning the duration of species abandonment due to habitat impacts, but blends this evidence with the anecdotal evidence presented by the witnesses called by Surfrider. The critical period for the elimination of functional habitat, even including the burial of nearshore hardbottom, seems to be about one year. Precluding the use of habitat for one year corresponds with how long it took the coastal system at Reach 7 to move a substantial fraction of the excessive fines from the beach and nearshore to deeper waters. The proposed fill for Reach 8 is also excessively fine, although by a slightly smaller amount, so one year is probably a reasonable estimate of how long it would take the coastal system to move a substantial fraction of the fines from the beach and nearshore to deeper waters. Nelson himself seems to adhere to this general time frame when he suggested post-construction biological sampling at weekly intervals for one month after nourishment and monthly for nine to twelve months, although characteristically he made no effort to link the sampling with storm events. Nelson, p. 49. Extending somewhat the duration of species abandonment from the values suggested by Palm Beach's evidence is supported on several grounds. First, the authors of the articles offered by Palm Beach and admitted into evidence failed to address the re-entrainment of excessive fines into the water column more often, in greater intensity, and for longer periods of time than occurred at the same beach, pre-construction, due to the greater resistance of coarser-grained materials to enter into suspension or, given Hjulstrom's Curve seaward of the surf zone, the lesser resistance of particles almost exactly the size of those proposed for fill in this case to entrain into the water column. Second, nothing in the record addresses the impact of subsequent turbidity events on the phytoplankton, algae, and sponges, on which the nearshore hardbottom habitat relies for its foraging value. In addition to the processes that are based on grain sizes, as described above, the most persuasive facts are the dead zone that Surfrider's witnesses reported in the nearshore waters along Reach 7 for up to one year after the project was completed, and the ongoing, uncharacteristic susceptibility of this coastal system to display abnormally high turbidity following storms that previously had not produced turbidity of this intensity or duration. Palm Beach and DEP have not accounted for the impacts of post-construction elevations of turbidity, focusing instead on post-construction sedimentation of hardbottom. But in the face of what these concerned citizens saw and what is known about the performance of beaches based on comparative mean grain sizes, likely impacts from the Reach 8 project would include biologically significant impacts not only to hardbottom, but also to water clarity for a period of approximately one year after construction. Upon placement of the fill, the beach and nearshore will experience the loss of nearly all life through death by burial or movement away from the disturbance. After construction, the filled area will be devoid of common macroinvertebrates, such as mole crabs and coquina clams, but also the algae and sponges that are covered by fill. The record does not permit a finding as to the post-construction presence of phytoplankton in the nearshore waters. However, there will clearly be a major disturbance of the bottom of the nearshore food chain. With a better match of existing grain size with fill grain size, the beach and nearshore habitats, except for hardbottom projected for burial, would recover most functions within six months and nearly all of the remaining functions within one year after construction. The role of sediment size in resource recovery is not a new concept. As noted by works cited in "Deposition and Long-Shore Transport of Dredge Spoils to Nourish Beaches: Impacts on Benthic Infauna of an Ebb-Tide Delta," by Melanie J. Bishop, et al. (including Dr. Pete Peterson), p. 531: "The degree of concordance between native and introduced sediments is considered the most important factor determining the rate of recovery of populations of beach invertebrates following nourishment." When the fill contains excessive fines, it is not, as suggested by one of Palm Beach's witnesses, merely a matter of the availability of new individuals, who may be readily recruited34 to the impacted beach and nearshore by waves and currents. When the fill contains excessive fines, it is also a matter of whether these newly recruited individuals find, upon their arrival at the filled site, sufficient functional habitat in terms of such important items as food supply and, in some cases, water clarity. Nelson noted that mole crabs, which occupy the swash zone, will typically recolonize a nourished beach within six months after the construction. Mole crabs are more susceptible to mortality from burial in coarser sediments than finer sediments, but demonstrate survival in finer sediments only in burial depths of about four inches--considerably less than what is proposed in this case. Nelson at p. 37. Given the last sentence in this paragraph, it is not unlikely that Nelson was studying projects with excessive fines in the fill, so his finding of six months' disturbance is entitled to some weight. However, even after six months, Nelson concedes that only the numbers of individuals are the same; because of disproportionately high numbers of juveniles, the biomass available as food was still "greatly reduced" at six months, post-construction. Id. at p. 15. Interestingly, Nelson cites a study that suggests that the adults were lost during the preceding winter due to increased, post-construction turbidity. Id. Occupying the intertidal zone, coquina clams also begin to repopulate a nourished beach about six months after the construction. Due to limited mobility, coquina clams suffer mortality from burial by sediment and are especially sensitive to burial in finer sediments. Id. at pp. 18 and 37. Intertidal-dwelling haustoriid amphipods are slow to return to nourished beaches, probably because they are not strong swimmers and, residing where the effects of filling are the greatest, suffer high mortality rates during construction. Id. at p. 24. Residing higher up on the beach, ghost crabs may be reduced by 50 percent during the summer after nourishment, which is often about six months, post-construction. Although the fill is largely placed seaward of the portion of the beach that they occupy and they are able to burrow through the overburden, the reduced population is probably due to the loss of food source for the ghost crab. Id. at p. 30. Nelson noted that nearshore fish may suffer from relatively high (but unidentified) turbidity values because the gill cavities of the fish will fill with fine sediments and the fish will suffocate. Pelagic, filtering fish are more susceptible to this than benthic feeding fishes. Also, juvenile fish, which, with small adults, tend to predominate in the nearshore, also tend to be more affected by particles in the water. And sublethal concentrations may still produce serious stress levels in the fish. Nelson, p. 28. Nelson cited a study that reported that fish returned to nourished beaches within four months after construction, but notes that the author cited no data to support his assertion. Nelson reported that this author suspected that the destruction of nearshore habitat may be a bigger factor on fish presence than turbidity because nearshore fish tolerate high turbidities, but, as is typical, neither author attempted to measure the turbidities following a beach-nourishment project with the turbidities associated with the same beach, pre-construction. Nelson, pp. 28-29. Where the other author stated that the populations of jawfish, a cardinalfish, and a blenny had been negatively affected seven years after construction, though, Nelson faulted the author for failing to consider alternative explanations. Nelson, p. 29. Without comment, Nelson cited another study that finds an increase of fish immediately post- construction. However, the absence of specifics in that study precludes reliance upon it. Turbidity or reduction in water clarity works in at least four ways to reduce the function of the nearshore habitat. First, by reducing the ability of the water to transmit light, elevations of turbidity limit the abundance of algae and sponges, which are important food sources for, among other things, juvenile green turtles. Second, by reducing the transparency of the water, elevations of turbidity disturb the balance between predator and prey in which pre-construction kill rates reduce substantially because sight-feeding predators, such as permit and pompano, can no longer find their prey. Third, elevations of turbidity may result in sedimentation as the particles settle out; like fill, sedimentation will kill algae, sponges, and coral. Fourth, as noted above, elevations of turbidity may damage the gills of certain fish. Recreational Opportunities on Reach 8 Based on the testimony of Brett Fitzgerald, who lives near Reach 8 and regularly takes his wife and two young children to the Lake Worth Municipal Beach, the nearshore hardbottom at the beach is in the swash zone, so he and his children, since they were three years old, are easily able to snorkel the area and see tropical fish that they could not see elsewhere. The water is so shallow that one can easily stand up and walk out of the water. The mitigation reef proposed for Reach 8 would be near Sloan's Curve, which is about one mile north of Phipps Ocean Park. The ease with which Mr. Fitzgerald and his wife can pack the children and beach accessories into the car, drive to the Lake Worth Municipal Beach, lay out their things, and enter the water would be lost at the mitigation reef. The one-mile haul with the children and beach accessories would prevent them from swimming with the children on the mitigation reef. With their children, they could effectively access the reef only with a boat, but do not have one. The loss of water clarity, post-construction, also raises fears of shark attacks. Frequenting the pier are various sharks, including bull, tiger, hammerhead, blacktip, and spinner. The risk of attack increases with turbidity. Reduced clarity, presumably well short of increases of 29 NTUs over background, raises the risk that the shark will confuse humans in the water for preferred prey and mistakenly bite the humans. In addition to a favorite swimming beach, largely due to plentiful public parking relative to elsewhere along Palm Beach Island other than Phipps Ocean Park, the Lake Worth Municipal Beach and Lake Worth Pier are the focus of considerable surfing. Wave conditions and accessibility attract surfers from all of southeast Florida and even the entire east coast of the United States. Surfers are attracted by the break in the water that produces good waves for surfing. The waves at the pier feature an open shoulder that permits surfers to practice maneuvers and improve their skills, so they can go on to national and international competition. Eight-time world champion and Florida native Kelly Slater has surfed the Lake Worth Pier. Three others who started surfing at the Lake Worth Pier have become professional surfers. Surfrider uses the Lake Worth Pier to sponsor annual events to introduce children to the sport of surfing. The Lake Worth Pier is also Captain Barrow's favorite place to find bait, such as menhaden, cigar minnows, and Spanish sardines. Every October, the mullet run along the shoreline, and they draw their predators, such as snook, in large numbers. In the spring, as the water warms, redfish and tarpon begin to visit the beach in larger numbers. The Lake Worth Pier is a popular spot for shore fishing all year, as fishers without boats, or fishers looking to get out of their boats and save fuel, take advantage of the good fishing on either side of the Lake Worth Pier. At sunrise in October, as many as 30 persons may be surf fishing along the beach around the pier. Many of the fishers are retirees, so the pier area may be used for fishing throughout the day. Sunset and evening are also popular times for fishing. However, Captain Barrow reports that the fines that have spread from Reach 7 have caused the nearshore waters along the Lake Worth Municipal Beach to cloud up considerably whenever wave action increases--far more often and cloudier than the same wave action produced before the Reach 7 project. No one disputes that the placement of fill on the North Segment would quickly spread onto the submerged bottom of the Lake Worth Gap. Due to the excessive fines in the fill, the Lake Worth Municipal Beach would experience substantial turbidity increases and sedimentation for a period of at least one year. During this year, fishing at the Lake Worth Municipal Beach would cease because of the disruption of the food chain and absence of fish. Swimming would probably cease, as the turbid waters would discourage nearly all persons from entering them on grounds of aesthetics and safety, not just from shark attacks, but also from collision with any unseen underwater hardbottom incompletely covered by the spreading fill from the North Segment. It is impossible to determine the impact on waves of this spreading fill, but the increasingly turbid waters, without regard to any loss of wave break, would discourage surfing, as well. Even the visual attraction of the beach would be diminished by the unappealing presence of cloudy waters washing up onto the beach face. Except for persons seeking to lie on the warm sand and tan, typical beach users would likely cease using the beach, even though they would not have any nearby alternatives offering the same combination of recreational opportunities and accessibility. The loss of a year or possibly two of use would be especially hard on retirees and young children, for whom the window of recreational opportunity or, in the case of the children, recreation-induced personal development is more limited. Application and Responses to Requests for Additional Information Activity Prior to Filing Application In meetings with DEP prior to filing the application described immediately below, Palm Beach proposed placing one million cubic yards of fill on Reach 8 from R-125 to R-134. DEP warned that the hardbottom impacts at the south end of the project would be too great and suggested shortening the southern end of the project. Application: June 2005 In June 2005, Palm Beach filed with DEP the Town of Palm Beach Reach 8 Beach Restoration Project Joint Coastal Permit Application (Application). The Application, which was submitted CPE, combines requests for a JCP and proprietary authorization from DEP and a dredge and fill permit from the COE. The COE has simultaneously processed the Application and is awaiting state water-quality certification, which takes the form of final agency action from DEP issuing the JCP. The summary of the contents of the Application and each response to a request for additional information omits material information, if a subsequent submittal were to change the information, unless the earlier statement of this information is useful to an understanding of the facts of this case. The Application states that the intent of Palm Beach was to obtain COE and DEP approval for Reach 8 construction in the fall of 2005 or winter of 2006, so the Reach 8 project could be conducted at the same time as the 2006 Midtown Project and Reach 7 Project. The Application states that the north end of Reach 8 is a continuation of the Reach 7 Project. However, the Reach 7 Project was too far along for the Reach 8 Project to catch up. In the Application, Palm Beach shortened the project by about 3600 feet to 6990 feet (1.3 miles) by proposing fill from R-125 to R-131, instead of R-134, as originally proposed, and reducing the volume of fill to 506,000 cubic yards of "compatible beach quality sand." The proposed fill is in the shape of a trapezoid. The two shortest sides, which are approximately equal in length, are on the northern and southern ends of the project. The longest side is the landward, shoreline-parallel side. Thus, the proposed fill tapers off as it extends into the water. The two ends taper between R-126 and R-125 and R-130 and R-131. The planform diagrams disclose three bands of fill from landward to seaward. The characteristics of these bands is revealed by the profile diagrams. From the planview, the project is depicted in the following illustration, in which the yellow depicts the construction berm crest and the more seaward line, with lines extended from the yellow in a cross-shore direction, depicts the construction toe of fill where the slope is 1:15: The profiles, which are not uniform from north to south, depict the current and equilibrium beach profiles, as well as a design profile for the beach project. Each profile reveals, from landward to seaward, a design berm elevation of 9 feet, a slope of 1:50 to an elevation of 7 feet (i.e., for 100 feet), followed by a slope of 1:10 to the seaward toe of the fill. Characteristic of beach nourishment or restoration projects, the proposed project involves the placement of considerable fill in the water so as to effectively extend the shoreline seaward. Characteristic of beach nourishment or restoration projects, the proposed project anticipates the loss of a considerable amount of this fill, as well as fill added at higher elevations, as the nourished beach seeks equilibrium after the completion of the project. At R-130, for instance, the fill would extend the mean high water line about 150 feet seaward of its present location, although, at equilibrium, the mean high water line would only be about 50 feet seaward of its present location. Fill would be added about 200 feet seaward of the present mean high water line. Also, the nearshore bottom at equilibrium would be a little higher (i.e., the water would be shallower) 300-500 feet seaward from the present mean high water line, and the bottom would equilibrate about 1400 feet seaward of the present mean high water line, which is about -22 feet: this is the closure depth. Addressing BA III and BA IV, which were originally proposed as sand sources for Reach 8, the Application notes that, respectively, the composite mean grain sizes are 0.32 mm and 0.22 mm, and the average silt content is 2.3 percent and 1.7 percent. The Application states that each of the berm widths described above averages about 143 feet, and the fill template will provide about 72 cubic yards of fill per linear foot of beach. The slope and fill per linear foot of beach are partly driven by the mean grain size: the smaller the grain, the shallower the slope. The Application addresses CEBs. Noting that DEP had already designed the North and South segments as CEBs, the Application, citing the 2004 hurricanes, requests reconsideration of the Lake Worth Gap and the Center Segment, so all of Reach 8 would be CEB. This request is in the form of a letter dated February 7, 2005. In support of the request, Attachment 7, Table 1, shows, for R-128 to R-133, an average shoreline loss of 5.9 feet from 1990 to August 2004 and an average shoreline loss of 30.9 feet from August 2004 to November 2004. A series of beach profiles revealed that the second hurricane in quick succession had a relatively greater effect on the beach above NGVD 0 (or mean sea level), that the effect of Hurricane Frances had been to transfer sand to a higher-than-prestorm elevation seaward to a depth of about -8 feet NGVD (roughly 150-250 feet seaward of the point at which NGVD 0 intersected the beach, post-Hurricane Jeanne), and that CPE did not survey to this depth or distance, post-Hurricane Jeanne. DEP has declined at all times to designated these segments as CEB. Attachment 23 identifies existing shoreline structures. Some of the armoring of Reach 8, at the south end, is close to the surf zone and may interrupt longshore sand transport. The most seaward-located seawall is about 700 feet north of R-134. More landward-located seawalls are near R-127, R-129, and R-130. A wall extends 1300 feet along the Lake Worth Gap, which represents all, or nearly all, of the Lake Worth Gap. The Lake Worth Pier extends seaward 950 feet from the vegetation line, but the pilings of the pier do not affect coastal processes nearly as much as would an impermeable groin. Also, at the time of the submittal of the Application, the effect of the pier was further reduced by its partial destruction during the recent hurricanes. Attachment 27 calls for construction to start as early as November 1, 2005. The first 10-14 days of construction would be for the mobilization of the dredge, dredging and filling would continue for 30 days, and demobilization would take another 10 days. Any necessary beach tilling would be completed before May 1, 2006. Attachment 29 describes the three major resource areas affected by the project: 1) beach, dune system, and uplands; 2) nearshore ocean habitats; and 3) offshore ocean habitats. The most prominent resource is the beach nesting habitat provided for three of the five sea turtles found in the area: green turtle, leatherback turtle, and loggerhead turtle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has listed the first two as endangered and the third as threatened. Noting that the beach width is generally less than 100 feet in Reach 8, Attachment 29 states that the beach may provide resting and foraging habitat for shore and wading birds, such as pelicans, herons, egrets, terns, plovers and sandpipers. Also inhabiting the beach zone are infaunal invertebrates, such as amphipods, isopods, coquina clams, polychaetes worms, and various crabs, such as mole crabs and ghost crabs. The dune system found at Reach 8 is dominated by sea grape. Also present are sea oats, inkberry, bitter panicum grass, bay cedar, and seashore elder. The nearshore provides habitat in two zones: intertidal and subtidal. The intertidal zone is inhabited by the following invertebrates: polychaetes worms, isopods, sand dollars, amphipods, mole crabs, and coquina clams. Invertebrates occupying the subtidal zone include annelid worms, crustaceans, gastropod mollusks, sponges, and various species of crabs and shrimps. Fish using these nearshore waters include snook, jack, seatrout, grouper, snapper, redfish, and grunt. Algae found in the nearshore environment include Caulerpa taxifolia, and stony coral are also found in this setting. In February 2005, CPE investigated the nearshore hardbottom from R-125 to R-134 plus 100 feet. Along this 2.05 miles of coastline, which is only 250 feet short of the ultimate project area (less the Lake Worth Gap), CPE observed nine areas of hardbottom and documented the associated biota. Hardbottom occurred frequently in the intertidal zone south of the Lake Worth Pier. In March 2005, CPE investigated the hardbottom south of R-132. The landward edge of this hardbottom occurs about 300-325 feet offshore of the dry beach. CPE set three cross- shore transects covering the area of this hardbottom. The results were findings of mostly low relief hardbottom (under one foot) in water depths of 6-13 feet. Average percentages in excess of 0.7 percent of coverage were as follows: sediment--41.8 percent, turf algae--21 percent, bare hard substrate--14.9 percent, and macroalgae--12.7 percent. Attachment 29 notes that the project area includes Essential Fish Habitat, as designated generically by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. However, for each fish or shellfish likely to use such area, it is capable of escape upon encountering the adverse conditions of construction. Nothing in Attachment 29 addresses the impact of post- construction water clarity on this Essential Fish Habitat. Attachment 30 addresses endangered and threatened species. The threatened loggerhead sea turtle nests on coastal islands of the United States from North Carolina to Florida. It is the most common sea turtle in Palm Beach County. Its nesting and hatching season in Palm Beach County takes place from March 15 to November 30. The loggerhead female nests from one to seven times per season with a mean of four nests. The mean clutch size is 100-126 eggs in the southeastern United States. Eighty percent of the nests in the southeastern United States are found in Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, and Broward counties. Over 10,000 females nested in south Florida in 2004, and Palm Beach County was the location of 13,413 nests in 2003. The green sea turtle breeding populations in Florida and the Pacific coast of Mexico are endangered; otherwise, the species is threatened. Large numbers of nests are in the same six counties listed above for the loggerhead sea turtles. Some nests have been found along Florida's Gulf coast. Green sea turtle nesting and hatching season takes place from May 1 to November 30 in Palm Beach County. The green sea turtle nests one to nine times per season with an average of 3.3 nests. The average clutch size is 136 eggs. Sometimes, females will produce clutches in successive years. FWS estimates that 150 to 2750 females nest each year along the coasts of the continental United States. Palm Beach County was the location of 763 green sea turtle nests in 2003 and 968 green sea turtle nests in 2004. According to Attachment 30, the wide-ranging, but endangered, leatherback sea turtle can be found from Canada to Argentina. They nest in small numbers along the southeast coast of Florida from mid-February through mid-November. Palm Beach County was the location of 306 leatherback turtle nests in 2003 and 166 leatherback turtle nests in 2004. The endangered Hawksbill sea turtle is found in the tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. Its nesting and hatching season in Palm Beach County would extend from February 15 to November 15, but only a few nests occur from the Florida Keys to Cape Canaveral. No Hawksbill nest has ever been found in Palm Beach County, although the Hawksbill can be found in the offshore waters adjacent to the county. According to Attachment 30, the endangered Kemp's Ridley sea turtle has never been known to nest in Palm Beach County and is seen only rarely in the offshore waters adjacent to the county. Only one nest of the Kemp's Ridley turtle has been found in Florida since 1988 and that was in 1989 in Madeira Beach. Attachment 30 reports that West Indian manatees and numerous types of whale, including the Finback, Humpback, Sperm, and highly endangered Right whale, but no impacts to whales was anticipated. Manatees are addressed in the Permit. Attachment 33 itemizes the project's effects on the coastal system. In general, Attachment 33 states that the net effects are positive. For the dune system, Attachment 33 states that the project area includes a "large natural dune system that supports a variety of plants and animals." Attachment 33 identifies these dunes within Reach 8 as a "relatively unique resource" due to the loss of most dunes in south Florida to development or erosion. Attachment 33 concedes that about 50 feet of these dunes will need to be removed to allow the contractor's equipment access to the beach, but the "project specifications" will require the restoration of this vegetation, post- construction. Also, the restoration of the foredune will protect the dune from wave attack. Attachment 33 states that sea turtle nesting will be enhanced by the project due to the replacement of material lost to erosion. Attachment 33 advises that a monitoring and nest- relocation program will be implemented if fill placement occurs during nesting season. Attachment 33 addresses hardbottom communities in terms of susceptibility to coverage by fill spreading cross- shore and longshore. As to cross-shore spreading, Attachment 33 notes that the closure depths of the Manalapan and Ocean Ridge projects were -22 feet, which is the closure depth projected for the Reach 8 project. Assuming even a larger amount of cross- shore spreading, Attachment 33 nonetheless states that no offshore hardbottom coverage will ensue from the project and the movement of the fill during the equilibration process. As to longshore spreading, Attachment 33 notes the nearshore hardbottom extending from R-132 to R-134 plus 500 feet, which, at the time of the original Application, was outside the project area. Attachment 33 states that impacts to this hardbottom were reduced or eliminated by shortening the project area and reducing the fill volume, as noted above. Relying on GENESIS, a longshore sand-transport model that is discussed in detail below, Attachment 33 assures that no more hardbottom would be covered by the reduced project than would have been covered if the project did not take place. As to turbidity, Attachment 33 states that increases will occur in the nearshore mixing zone as a direct result of fill placement. The contractor will monitor water clarity to ensure that turbidity does not increase by more than 29 NTUs outside of the permitted mixing zone. Excavation of fill from the borrow areas may result in the temporary loss of benthic infauna and the temporary generation of localized, increased turbidity, and beach infauna may be lost by the placement of fill. Also, the borrow areas may not return to their pre- dredging composition, depending on changes in sediment grain size composition. Nothing in Attachment 33, the Application, or subsequent responses to requests for additional information discusses post-construction turbidity. Attachment 33a is the description of the use of the GENESIS shoreline model. GENESIS, which stands for Generalized Model for Simulating Shoreline Change, is a numerical model for predicting wave-driven longshore transport of sediment. The model is used in planning a beach nourishment or restoration project and predicting the transport of the fill, post- construction. For this project, CPE linked GENESIS with STWAVE, which is a model for wave height and angle. Outputs from STWAVE were wave heights at the projected closure depth of -22 feet. Using these outputs as inputs, GENESIS could then predict longshore sediment transport, once it has been suitable calibrated and verified. CPE calibrated GENESIS using shoreline data from 1990-2000 for shoreline from R-105 to R-150. Attachment 33a, Table 33-2, reveals considerable shoreline retreat in Reach 8 during this ten-year period. The initial calibration run of GENESIS did a fairly good job of predicting the direction and amplitude of change for Reach 8; the final calibration run did a better job. After calibrating GENESIS to the conditions at Reach 8, CPE verified the model by running it for the same shoreline during an earlier period, 1974-1990. The purpose of this process is to run a calibrated model in a setting for which real-world data are available--and to see how well the calibrated model does in "predicting" these natural processes. This verification effort was an irredeemable failure. But CPE proceeded with the calibrated model as though the verification process had been successfully completed. The most likely explanation was that Palm Beach wanted to commence construction within five months of filing the Application, and there was not time to fix the model verification or find a new model and run it. Attachment 33a, Table 33-3, reveals that the calibrated model was useless for "predicting" shoreline retreat or advance during this period. In reality, Reach 8 experienced shoreline advances of 20 feet at the north and south ends of Reach 8 and 80 feet in the center. As calibrated, GENESIS predicted almost the exact opposite: no change at the north end and a retreat of 20 feet at the south end and a retreat of 70 feet in the center. The verification run produced the same result for Reach 7 and for much of the remainder of the shoreline modeled. For the majority of the shoreline modeled, GENESIS, as calibrated by CPE, produced a rough mirror image of what actually took place in terms of shoreline advance or retreat. In Attachment 33a, CPE gamely described the verification run as follows: "Over the majority of the study area, the model overestimated the amount of erosion." For areas of accretion, this statement is misleading. CPE tried to explain the anomalies by stating: "These discrepancies occurred due to the fact that erosion prior to 1990 occurred in different locations than it did after 1990." This statement implies that GENESIS is of no value if the erosion or accretion moves from one area to another within Reach 8 during the period modeled and that GENESIS cannot identify such shifts. CPE attempted to justify continued reliance on its calibration of GENESIS by noting: "Overall, the verification indicates that near the Reach 8 project area, the calibrated model is a conservative shoreline model." It is difficult to understand the use of "conservative" in this statement, as CPE concludes that, within Reaches 7 and 8, the calibrated model can "overestimate" the amount of erosion. Again, this statement is misleading. Again, "overestimating" erosion meant "predicting" erosion of a certain magnitude when accretion of the identical magnitude actually took place. These problems with CPE's use of GENESIS for the Reach 8 project did not go unnoticed, as CPE had evidently hoped. In its response to the Application, which is described below, DEP essentially rejected the GENESIS data and the analysis based on such data. DEP's expert witness, Bob Brantly, testified that he did not rely on the GENESIS model output in considering whether to issue the Permit. Petitioner's expert witness, Dr. Robert Young testified that the GENESIS output, in this case, was unreliable. Dr. Young reasoned that the geological control characteristic of this area undermines conventional expectations concerning the movement of sand in response to wave action. Lacking a thick envelope of sand, the beach profile of a geologically controlled area responds differently, such as in finding equilibrium after nourishment, than does the beach profile of a beach with a thick envelope of sand. Also, Dr. Young explained how a beach subject to geological control, which can be extremely variable over a short distance, does not behave as predictably as other beach systems. This testimony of Dr. Young is credited. Relying on GENESIS, CPE projected the longshore transport that would take place, post-construction. At this point, CPE's reliance on GENESIS was an embarrassment, and its predicted limits of longshore transport were worthless. Frankly, the main effect of GENESIS in this case is to cast doubt on CPE's other assurances concerning the performance of this project and, specifically, belated new findings of a finer mean grain size on the existing beach, as discussed below. The first discussion of the mean grain size of the existing beach is in Attachment 33c, which considers the compatibility of the fill material with the "native" sediment. The native sediments are derived from samples collected by Palm Beach in 1993 at R-127 and R-130; the only fill added since 1993 was a relatively small amount of trucked fill after Hurricane Jeanne. Attachment 33c, Table 33c-1, states that the mean grain size of the native sediment at R-127 and R-130 is 0.35 mm with no silt, 44 percent carbonate, and a dry Munsell color of 10YR-6/2. Table 33c-1 explains that the dry Munsell color information covers hue, value, and chroma. Hue indicates the combination of red, yellow, green, blue, and purple colors. Sands with higher color scores are at the blue/purple end of the spectrum. Value, the most important of these three characteristics, refers to the lightness of the sand color with a higher number indicative of a lighter sand sample. Grey sand equals 5 or 6, light grey sand is a 7, and very light grey to light brown sand is at 10. The native sand at R-127 and R-130 is brownish grey. Chroma refers to the intensity of color with the higher number being more intense. Attachment 33c, Table 33c-1, reports for BA III and IV, respectively, mean grain sizes of 0.32 mm and 0.22 mm, silt of 2.66 percent and 1.71 percent, and dry Munsell color of 5Y- 6/1 (for both sources). Attachment 37 claims that no mitigation is required due to the information obtained from the GENESIS modeling, which showed no difference between the project and the no-action alternative in terms of hardbottom impacts. This later changed. Attachment 38 considers project alternatives. Alternative A is the no-action alternative, for which CPE predicts continued erosion and shoreline recession--claims unsupported by the record, as noted above. Alternative B is the continuous beach fill alternative through the entire Reach 8. This option would result in hardbottom impacts offshore of R-132 to R-134. Alternative C is the reduced-impact fill alternative, in which the project area is reduced, evidently as presented in the Application. Although the benefits in terms of beach recreation and sea turtle nesting habitat are reduced, the Application states that, with this alternative, Palm Beach would be most likely able to place fill in the fall of 2005. Alternative D is the discontinuous beach fill alternative, in which restoration activities would be limited to CEBs. According to CPE, the potential hardbottom impacts are the same as in Alternative B, but the disadvantage of this alternative is that Palm Beach would not be able to restore the beach at the Lake Worth Gap, which was still in the project area at the time of the Application. Alternative E is dune enhancement only, which would provide "modestly increased storm protection to a portion of Reach 8," which Attachment 33d does not identify, but would provide little protection to the rest of Reach 8. Response to First Request for Additional Information: June 2006 By letter dated July 13, 2005, DEP provided CPE with the First Request for Additional Information (RAI 1). One of DEP's concerns was the discrepancy between, on the one hand, the estimated loss of 105,000 cubic yards of sand between R-128 and R-133 and the relatively low background erosion rate and, on the other hand, the proposal to fill this segment of Reach 8 with 506,000 cubic yards of material. DEP questioned the need for this fill, reasoning that it had declined to designate this segment of Reach 8 as a CEB because "the existing dune and beach provide a measure of protection against damage from high- frequency (minor) storm events." DEP also asked for the post- Jeanne profile to be extended as far seaward as the pre-Frances and post-Frances profiles extended, as noted above. DEP questioned CPE's closure depth of -22 feet and, in particular, its reliance on the Ocean Ridge beach project, where few of the profiles extended beyond the -20 foot contour. On a related point, DEP noted that the GENESIS verification run provided no reasonable assurance for the predicted results. DEP requested the use of an analytical solution of longshore spreading of fill. DEP questioned the absence of mitigation for impacts to the nearshore hardbottom. Citing a 2002 report by Applied Technology and Management, Inc., which had done most of the Reach 7 design work, DEP noted that this low-relief, algae- covered rock had persisted in the intertidal zone since at least 2001 and thus had not emerged due to the recent hurricanes. DEP requested mitigation for the hardbottom directly covered by the fill and for the hardbottom indirectly covered by the fill as it drifted offsite to the south, past R-136. On June 28, 2006, CPE filed its response to RAI 1 (RRAI 1). In the cover letter, CPE advised that it had lengthened the project by extending it to R-134 plus 250 feet and increasing the volume to 900,700 cubic yards, although the revised project now excluded the Lake Worth Gap. RRAI 1 identifies BA III and BA IV as the sand sources. In addressing the need for the Reach 8 project, RRAI 1 asks DEP to reconsider its decision not to designate the Center Segment as CEB. RRAI 1 adds that the project will cover nearshore hardbottom, and Palm Beach will construct an artificial reef as mitigation for the loss of this hardbottom. In addressing the request to survey post-Jeanne profiles as far seaward as the post- and pre-Frances profiles extended, RRAI 1 states that surveys had been conducted that extend these beach profiles past the predicted closure depth. In the narrative, RRAI 1 notes that 486,300 cubic yards of sand eroded from Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne, including 98,200 cubic yards from the dry beach. Following Hurricane Frances, the submerged profile partially recovered, but, even after a trucked-fill operation in January 2005, the post-Jeanne dry beach had 53,900 cubic yards less than it had pre-Frances. RRAI 1, Table 7-2, depicts volume changes since Hurricane Frances to May 2005 to the North Segment and the north half of the Center Segment, but not to the rest of the project area. At closure depth, for the North Segment, the profile along the transect from R-125 lost 59.5 cubic yards per linear foot, the profile along the transect from R-126 gained 4.4 cubic yards per linear foot, and the profile along the transect from R-127 lost 20.6 cubic yards per linear foot. At closure depth, for the north half of the Center Segment, the R-129 profile lost 0.4 cubic yards per linear foot, the R-130 profile gained 51.3 cubic yards per linear foot, and the R-131 profile lost 18.2 cubic yards per linear foot. At 0 feet NGVD, for the North Segment, the R-125 profile lost 20.1 cubic yards per linear foot, the R-126 profile lost 6.7 cubic yards per linear foot, and the R-127 profile lost 13.4 cubic yards per linear foot. At 0 feet NGVD, for the north half of the Center Segment, the R-129 profile lost 3.6 cubic yards per linear foot, the R-130 profile lost 0.6 cubic yards per linear foot, and the R-131 profile lost 10.2 cubic yards per linear foot. RRAI 1 states that, following Hurricane Wilma in 2005, Palm Beach constructed a dune nourishment project from April 5 to May 4, 2006, using stockpiled fill from the Reach 7 project. RRAI 1, Table 7-3, depicts shoreline changes from Hurricane Frances to May 2005 for all of Reach 8. The shoreline reportedly advanced 26 feet at R-133 and 15 feet at R-134, retreated about eight feet at R-126 and five feet at R-132, and retreated from 20-46 feet at all other monuments within Reach 8. The average retreat for all of Reach 8 was 23.4 feet. RRAI 1 states that more losses resulted from Hurricane Wilma in 2005 and explains that, between April 5, 2006, and May 4, 2006, Palm Beach stockpiled some fill during the Reach 7 project and, upon completion of that project, trucked the fill to Reach 8 and placed it along the dune line as a temporary protective measure. In response to a DEP comment noting that the equilibrium toe-of-fill was based on anticipated cross-shore spreading only and asking for an equilibrium toe-of-fill based on anticipated cross-shore and longshore spreading, the RRAI 1 states: "An equilibrium toe-of-fill evaluation that includes longshore spreading cannot be predicted accurately from models." The RRAI 1 adds that RRAI 1, Attachment 25, provides an equilibrium toe-of-fill based on cross-shore spreading. In response to a DEP comment about the details of construction, the RRAI 1 states that a hydraulic cutter head dredge "may" be used to excavate BA III and BA IV: at the hearing, Palm Beach committed to the use of a hydraulic cutter head dredge. RRAI 1 states that the contractor will place the submerged pipeline to avoid contact with the hardbottom. Bulldozers will construct dikes on the beach to contain the material deposited there and reduce turbidity. Construction will require 60-75 days to complete. RRAI 1, Figure 1, discloses that BA III and BA IV are in an area of inter-reefal sand, just seaward of the diabathic channels. RRAI 1 states that inter-reefal sands have been the source of fill for beach nourishment since the early 1960s. The deposits in these sediments, which accumulate between the reefs, are relatively uniform in composition--i.e., siliciclastics with small carbonate fractions--and grain size--i.e., sand sized. But there are finer and coarser facies. According to RRAI 1, the shallower inter-reefal sand deposits often have sediments resembling the active beach landward. Deeper inter-reefal sand deposits have beach sands mixed with reworked marine sediments and reef fragments. Thus, inter-reefal sediments are finer in the center, but coarser seaward and landward. RRAI 1 offers detailed analysis of the sediments in BA IV in response to a DEP comment that the sediments in this area were only "marginally acceptable." Covering about 95 acres in 30-45 feet of water, BA IV extends from R-132 to R-134 and is about 0.6 to 0.7 miles offshore. The mean grain size for BA IV is 0.21 mm with silt content averaging 1.79 percent. RRAI 1 concludes that BA IV sand, which was used for Reach 7, was within the sediment quality limits for Reach 7 and should be suitable for Reach 8. Given Reach 7's performance, this assertion inspires little confidence in CPE's ability or willingness to identify comparable sediments, in terms of mean grain size, between sand sources and the existing beach. RRAI 1, Table 33a-1, responds to DEP comments concerning closure depths. The closure depths for Reach 8 from August 1990 to May 2005 averaged -22 feet, with only one value as shallow as -19 feet and no value deeper than -23 feet. Responding to DEP comments about the calibration and verification of the GENESIS model, RRAI 1 again explains how erosional areas moved with time, so that calibrations based on one period of time may not yield satisfactory results in another period of time. RRAI 1 states: "Such undulational erosion patterns make the accurate calibration and verification of plan- view shoreline change models such as GENESIS, DNRBS (Dan and Grant, 1988), or the Walton and Chiu (1979) analytical models difficult." RRAI 1, p. 27. This is an interesting comment, given CPE's choice later to use the Walton and Chiu to confirm its work with the GENESIS numerical model in projecting longshore spreading. Responding to DEP concerns that the native beach sand composite mean grain size, based on 1993 data, may have been affected by a fill project done after Hurricane Jeanne, RRAI 1 acknowledges that about 50,000 cubic yards of beach and dune fill were placed above mean high water in January 2005 from R-117 (Sloan's Curve) to R-134 plus 136 feet. Not surprisingly, given the history of data collection in connection with beach projects, no one took samples of the fill material, so CPE was unable to determine how the beach composition may have been altered due to fill placement. RRAI 1 states that the impacts to infaunal organisms at the borrow areas are significant, and the recovery time for abundance and diversity recovery may be 1-2 years. However, impacts to benthic organisms on the dry beach and in the intertidal zone are reported to be generally less significant, partly due to the likelihood that organisms adapted to the high- energy intertidal zone can adapt better to the impact of filling, so that recovery of these organisms takes 2-7 months. This claim has been discredited above. The impact on shorebirds and fish feeding on such infauna is reportedly minor, given the ability of the shorebirds and fish to move to nearby foraging habitat. RRAI 1 notes that Florida previously required infaunal community sampling at borrow and fill sites among the monitoring requirements imposed on sponsors of beach nourishment projects, but discontinued this requirement in the mid-1990s due to reportedly rapid recolonization of these sites by natural recruitment of infauna. As noted above, the Reach 7 experience rebuts this assertion. RRAI 1 identifies only three project alternatives. Under the no-action alternative, the beaches "may" continue to degrade. Again, CPE's claims of erosion for Reach 8 are seriously overstated. Under the alternative of continuous beach fill, fill would be placed for the entire length of Reach 8 and would provide the greatest storm protection. Under the alternative of discontinuous beach fill, fill would be placed for all of Reach 8, except the Lake Worth Gap. CPE identifies this alternative as feasible. RRAI 1, Attachment 7, contains beach profiles as of August 2004 (pre-Frances), November 2004 (post-Jeanne), and May 2005. A typical transect in the North Segment, R-127, shows retreat of the shoreline above mean high water from August 2004 to present (with no accretion from November 2004 to May 2005), and the loss of elevation in the surf zone (with no accretion from November 2004 to May 2005, but considerable recovery since November 2004 at a depth of about 10 feet, which is roughly 200 feet offshore. Two transects in the Center Segment, R-130 and R-132, show that the shoreline above mean high water has regained much of its loss from August to November 2004. For R-130, the profile shows sediment at a higher elevation in May 2005 than in August 2004 out about 150 feet, in four feet of water. This improvement continues out to about 500 feet, in about six feet of water, where, for a short distance, the May 2005 bottom elevation is several feet lower than the August 2004 bottom elevation, but eventually the May 2005 bottom elevation is at least a couple of feet higher than the August 2004 bottom elevation for 700 feet. The situation is roughly the same for the R-132 transect, except the differences are smaller. The only transect in the South Segment, R-134, shows that the shoreline above mean high water has advanced from where it was in November 2004 (and even August 2004) and generally has improved upon the conditions in August 2004, except for about 300 feet starting about 500 feet out, in about eight feet of water. RRAI 1, Attachment 24c, is water quality monitoring results for the dredging and filling areas in the Reach 7 project over three days in February 2006. Turbidity sampling took place at the borrow areas, fill site, and hardbottom site. On only one occasion did an increase of over 29 NTUs take place and that was at the fill site when the dredge hit bottom; a few minutes later, another set of samples revealed no turbidity violation. This is a measure of the unlikelihood that post- construction turbidity would exceed 29 NTUs over background. RRAI 1, Attachment 28c, is the Sand Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan (SQCQA Plan) for Reach 8. Stating that it is required by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-41.008(1)(k)4.b, the SQCQA Plan is to ensure that the sediment from the borrow areas will meet the Permit standards. The SQCQA Plan allocates responsibilities among the engineer, Palm Beach, the contractor, and the state of Florida. As for the engineer, the SQCQA Plan states that it has relied on "limited" remote sensing techniques and a "limited" number of vibracores to design the borrow areas. The engineer has the personnel and testing facilities to sample and test sediment that has been placed on the beach. Palm Beach has the authority to modify the project within the constraints of the Permit, if non-beach compatible sediments are placed on the beach. The contractor will rely on the engineer's findings and may assume that all sediment from the authorized dredge cuts is beach compatible, but will have onsite personnel to identify "obvious changes" in sediment quality at the pipeline discharge. The contractor has or can acquire the equipment and personnel necessary to remediate the beach, if directed to do so by Palm Beach. The state of Florida acknowledges that "unsuitable" sediments may exist in the permitted borrow areas. The SQCQA Plan requires the contractor to operate the dredge at all times with electronic positioning equipment to monitor the precise position of the dredge and its depth. The horizontal accuracy must be within three feet, and the vertical accuracy must be within 0.1 feet. The contractor must record this information. If the contractor encounters "unacceptable" material during dredging, it shall cease dredging, relocate the dredge cutter head into acceptable material, and notify the engineer. The contractor must visually monitor the fill placed on the beach and must notify the engineer or Palm Beach if it observes any non-beach compatible sediment. The SQCQA Plan requires Palm Beach and the engineer "to seek to enforce" the Permit and construction contract related to sediment quantity. During active construction, construction observation and contract administration shall be performed seven days per week, 12 hours per day, with the possibility of random nighttime observations. The engineer shall provide onsite observation by an individual with relevant training or experience, and the project manager shall supervise the observer. The engineer will review the contractor's daily reports of the nature of the sediments and the dredge positions. The engineer will collect a representative subsurface sediment sample from each 100-foot long section of constructed beach to visually assess fine gravel content, coarse gravel content, wet Munsell color, shell hash content, and silt content. If the engineer determines that the content of any of these items fails to comply with the quality requirements of the SQCQA Plan for a continuous area greater than 10,000 square feet, the engineer will notify the contractor and Palm Beach, and the material will be removed and replaced or otherwise remediated. In the event of such a noncompliance, DEP must be notified. Remediation includes excavating the noncompliant material and mixing with specification material to achieve a sand mixture that complies with sediment criteria; excavating the noncompliant material, transferring it to an upland location, and replacing it with compliant material; or excavating the noncompliant material, transferring it to a submerged portion of the profile, and replacing the it with compliant material. The state of Florida is encouraged to visit the beach during construction to observe sand quality. Table 1 of the SQCQA Plan specifies the limits of the parameters mentioned above. For wet Munsell value, it is 5 or lighter. For shell hash content, it is 0-20 percent, based on a visual estimate. For maximum fine gravel, it is 12 percent. For maximum coarse gravel, it is 1 percent. For maximum silt, which is any material passing a #230 sieve, it is 5 percent. A #230 sieve will allow to pass any particle smaller than 0.06 mm. It is impracticable to expect a contractor to differentiate between grain sizes of 0.2 mm and 0.3 mm in real time as slurry is deposited on the beach or the fill is moved into the water. Response to Second Request for Additional Information: March 2007 On July 28, 2006, DEP issued RAI 2, in which it again declined to designate the Center Segment and the undesignated portion of the Lake Worth Gap as CEBs. RAI 2 asks for an analysis of the remaining sediment in BA III and IV in terms of quantity and mean grain size, as well as other characteristics. For longshore spreading projections, RAI 2 asks for analytical support of the numerical output of GENESIS, whose "verification . . . does not match the observed data and does not give reasonable assurance for the model predicted results." RAI 2 questions the equilibrium profile shape of the fill, in its cross-shore dimension, based on the particle size expected to be excavated. RAI 2 states that DEP engineering staff rejected CPE's method of calculating this shape because "the grain size distribution of the proposed beach fill material (0.22 mm) is significantly finer than the existing beach sediments (0.35 mm). RAI 2, p. 7. RAI 2 also questions the proposed slope of 1:10, which the contractor had been unable to maintain in other projects. RAI 2 warns that the relationship between hardbottom impacts and the steepness of the slope (i.e., the steeper the slope, the more fill placed on the beach) may result in a Permit condition prohibiting overfilling, which would mean that the contractor could not achieve the anticipated beach width if the contractor were unable to maintain a 1:10 slope. RAI 2 asks for the analysis of the storm protection afforded by the proposed beach restoration project. DEP advises that storm protection will be "critical" in justifying the impacts. On March 26, 2007, Palm Beach filed its RRAI 2. RRAI 2 notes that, assuming that construction of Reach 8 would take place in 2007 or 2008, Palm Beach decided to extend the project and increase the fill to 900,700 cubic yards. However, after the issuance of RAI 2, Palm Beach had decided, in an effort to expedite permitting, to terminate the project at R-132 and limit the fill to 505,700 cubic yards, plus periodic dune maintenance fill. RRAI 2 again asks DEP to reconsider its refusal to designate the remainder of Reach 8 as CEB. RRAI 2 again promises an erosion control line survey. As it had previously, DEP reminded CPE that it had to obtain an erosion control line survey, prior to obtaining a letter of consent, so that the landward limit of sovereign land could be determined prior to construction; otherwise, this line of demarcation would shift seaward with the mean high water line as a result of the addition of the fill. RRAI 2 mentions that CPE is considering alternatives to BA III and IV in the form of additional borrow areas. RRAI 2 notes that BA III has some rock and BA IV has "includes somewhat finer sand" and has the potential for rock. Thus, CPE would probably be proposing two additional borrow areas. RRAI 2 notes that the Reach 7 fill samples, which were not so numerous as to permit statistical analyses, revealed that the mean grain size of sediments placed from R-119 to R-124 was 0.25 mm with average silt of 1.01 percent, and the mean grain size of sediments placed at R-125 was 0.45 mm with average silt of 1.92 percent. RRAI 2 adds revised longshore spreading projections based on the analytical method of Walton and Chiu. RRAI 2 changes the construction slope from 1:10 to 1:15 to avoid scarping. RRAI 2, Attachment 33, reports that the mean grain size of BA III is 0.32 mm and the silt value is 2.66 percent, and the mean grain size of the native beach is 0.35 mm and the silt value is 0. In response to DEP's concern about CPE's methodology to predict cross-shore adjustment of the fill, given the fact that the mean grain size of the fill, at 0.22 mm, is "significantly finer" than the mean grain size of the existing beach sediment, at 0.35 mm, RRAI 2 states that CPE is finding new borrow areas and reanalyzing the existing sediment on the beach. As seen below, unable to find sand sources with significantly larger mean grain sizes, CPE eventually tried to reduce the mean grain size of the existing beach. Prior to 2006, when excavation took place for Reach 7, the mean grain size of BA III was 0.32 mm, and the mean grain size of BA IV was 0.22 mm. Noting that most of the dredging took place in BA IV, CPE implied that BA III would be more likely the source of fill for Reach 8, provided the rock issue could be solved. The methodology used by CPE was reportedly valid if the difference in mean grain size was 0.32 mm in the fill and 0.35 mm in the existing beach. Attachment 33 to RRAI 2 states that the design berm width is 25 feet. At construction, including the advanced fill, the berm width will range from 110-223 feet. At equilibrium, excluding the effects of erosion and spreading, the berm width will be 68-92 feet. And at six years, the end of the useful life of the project, the berm width will be 25-34 feet. Again, the berm elevation is specified at nine feet NGVD. At construction, fill will be placed at depths ranging from -3.2 feet to -5.9 feet NGVD, and, at equilibrium, the fill will reach a closure depth of -22 feet NGVD. The mean grain size of the fill and the mean grain size of the native beach are assumed to be 0.32 mm and 0.33 mm, respectively. Attachment 33 states that the area of hardbottom to be covered is 4.48 acres. The 9507-foot long dune project will receive 25,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of fill to an elevation of 14-16 feet NGVD. The life expectancy of the dune project will be six years, assuming two feet of erosion per year. Attachment 33 indicates that, from 1974-1990, when the sand transfer plant at the Lake Worth Inlet was in continuous operation, Reach 7 gained 1.4 feet per year, and Reach 8 gained 2.6 feet per year. From 1990-2004, which was marked by a six-year cessation of operation of the sand transfer plant, Reach 7 lost 1.9 feet per year, and Reach 8 was unchanged. The 2004 data are prior to Hurricane Frances. Attachment 33 states that Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne struck Martin County and caused shoreline retreat of 40 feet along Reach 8. A year later, Hurricane Wilma caused shoreline retreat of 23 feet in the same area. Although the beach fill area had regained some of its losses, post-Wilma, the dry beach and dunes had not, and the gains along Reach 8 were likely due to the longshore transport of the fill placed in Reach 7 in early 2006. With these data, Attachment 33 explains the need of the project, noting that a storm of at least tropical storm strength passes within 50 miles of Reach 8 every 2.5 years, on average. One of the unadopted alternatives discussed in Attachment 33 is groins. Using a T-headed rock groin field with individual groins spaced 240 feet apart, similar to the Ocean Ridge project already in place, would require 31 such groins, all filled with beach compatible sand. The total cost of this project would be $31 million, plus the cost of the sand to fill the groins. Geotextile groins in this array would cost only $6.2 to $9.3 million, but would last only 5-10 years, as compared to 20-50 years for rock groins. Another alternative discussed in Attachment 33 is periodic dune maintenance. Noting that Palm Beach had nourished the dunes in January 2005, as described above, and added 25,000 cubic yards to Reach 8's dunes in early 2006, Attachment 33 describes dune nourishment as only a temporary solution. One problem is the most eroded beaches offer the narrowest area within which to nourish dunes. Attachment 33 described CPE's use of the Walton and Chiu analytical model to project longshore spreading of the fill. The model operator must input a closure depth. Cross- shore spreading is then estimated using a translated beach profile from 9 feet to -22 feet. The translated beach profile is a key component in this exercise. Attachment 33 explains that CPE chose the translated beach profile over the Dean equilibrium profile "because the grain sizes of the native material and fill material are assumed to be similar at this time." RRAI 2, Attachment 33, p. 22. Attachment 33 adds that the mean grain size of the of the native beach is 0.35 mm, and the mean grain size of BA III is 0.32 mm. Noting the mean grain size of 0.22 mm in BA IV, Attachment 33 cautions as to the unsuitability of such a fine grain size: "given the fine grain size [of BA IV] and that potentially new borrow areas are being developed [BA V and VI--which CPE did not yet know would produce sediments with about the same mean grain size as those produced in BA IV], only a small portion, or none of [BA] IV will be used to construct the Reach 8 project." RRAI 2, Attachment 33, p. 23. In discussing fill-volume alternatives, CPE selected a background erosion rate of 2 feet per year, explaining that that was the rate for Reach 7 from 1990-2004. Attachment 33, p. 24. This is of course true, but the background erosion rate for Reach 8, which is receiving the fill, was zero during the same period, so the first assumption of CPE produced overfill. Attachment 33 then analyzes alternatives with 313,400 cubic yards of fill, 389,300 cubic yards of fill, 488,900 cubic yards of fill, and 505,700 cubic yards of fill. The selected alternative is the last, which will terminate beach fill at R-131. This alternative includes a 25-foot design berm fronted by six years of advance fill. Choosing the project with the most fill because it will produce the most beach and upland protection, CPE asserts that the fill will not spread past R-133 plus 540 feet or cover, directly and indirectly, more than 4.48 acres of hardbottom, on average over time. Attachment 33 acknowledges the need for a shallower construction template of 1:15, rather than 1:10, to avoid escarpment. The equilibrium cross-sections assume a translated beach profile due to the similarity of the existing and borrow sediments in terms of mean grain size. Attachment 33 notes that, if the borrow sediments prove larger than the existing beach sediments, the fill volume for the selected alternative will provide a longer life expectancy for the project. But if the borrow sediments prove smaller than the existing beach sediments, Palm Beach will either have to settle with the approved fill volume, which would mean a shorter life expectancy for the project, or add more fill to the project to compensate for the smaller-sized borrow sediments. It is consistently assumed in the RRAI materials that the solution will be more fill, not a shorter life expectancy for the project. The design beach profile template governs over estimates of approximate volumes of fill for the overall project. Attachment 33 notes that sand collected in 2006 was "currently being analyzed to support borrow area investigations." CPE never explains why the existing-beach data collected in 2006 would not yield a mean grain size and silt value for over one year after the collection of the data--that is, until CPE had ascertained the mean grain sizes and silt values for the new borrow areas. Thus, Attachment 33 continues to report that the mean grain size of the existing beach is 0.35 mm and the existing beach contains no silt, as compared to BA III, whose mean grain size is 0.32 mm and silt value is 2.66 percent. CPE reasoned that, because the BA III sediments were below 5 percent silt, the "DEP limit," the silt content of BA III is "acceptable as beach quality material." RRAI 2, Attachment 33, p. 31. However, CPE promised to reevaluate the silt content of the existing beach and new borrow areas as part of its ongoing geotechnical work. Noting that grain size compatibility is quantified by the overfill factor, RRAI 2, Attachment 33, explains that a factor of 1.0 means that no extra fill is required because of no difference in mean grain sizes between the sand source and the existing beach. An overfill factor of 1.28 means that 28 percent more fill is required to achieve the same performance as that which would have ensued if the sand source mean grain size had equaled the mean grain size of the existing beach. Raising the overfill factor does not extend the life of the project. The overfill factor ensures that the beach profile template will be filled and, in the case of smaller grains from the sand source, compensates for the particle size difference by increasing the volume, so the same effect is achieved as would have been achieved if the fill grain size had perfectly matched the existing beach grain size. If the project life remains the same, more fill must be eroded, over the same period of time, to result in the beach profile template that applies at the end of the project's life expectancy. This means that, the higher the overfill factor, the faster the rate of erosion. Attachment 33 identifies two methods of calculating overfill factors: COE's Shore Protection Manual and Dean's Overfill Ratio, which tends to result in smaller overfill factors than those produced by the Shore Protection Manual. For BA III and the native beach, the Shore Protection Manual overfill factor is 1.25, and Dean's Overfill Ratio is 1.05. Attachment 33 states that the relatively low ratios indicate compatibility between the sand in BA III and on the existing beach and "justify" the "use of the translated beach profile to estimate volume requirements and cross-shore spreading." RRAI 2, Attachment 33, p. 32. Attachment 33 explains that, based on recent experience, specifying the location of the dune fill is impractical, as the needs and desires of upland property owners and project sponsors required numerous adjustments to dune alignment in the field. Based on these previous projects, though, it was likely that the dune nourishment would be to 14-16 feet NGVD with side slopes of 1:3 with 25,000 to 50,000 cubic yards of fill required. Third Response to Request for Additional Information: July 2007 On April 26, 2007, DEP issued RAI 3. This response indicates that DEP is considering Palm Beach's request to designate the Center Segment as CEB. This response also challenges Palm Beach's elevated shoreline change value of two feet per year of erosion for Reach 8 from 1990 to 2004. This response questions the trade-off of environmental impacts for a beach project that would offer protection against a one-year storm, as described by Palm Beach. With respect to the failure to specify an alignment for the dune nourishment, DEP noted that escarpments had formed along the dunes added to the north end of Reach 8 at the time of Reach 7 construction, and the dune fill had encroached into the active beach profile. RAI 3 addresses sand sources and questions CPE's post-project spreading analysis. First, DEP notes that it cannot accept BA III as a sand source for the Reach 8 project. Second, DEP states that Palm Beach needs to identify grain-size distribution in BA IV, so that cross-shore spreading and closure depths could be projected. Third, for longshore spreading, Palm Beach needs to explain its withdrawal of the GENESIS model and substitution of the Dean method with a simplified assumption of incident wave direction. Also, DEP questioned the assumption of two feet per year of shoreline erosion on Reach 8, given its long term stability. On July 7, 2007, CPE issued the RRAI 3, which describes another change in the project size. Beach restoration and dune nourishment will take place from R-125 to R-132, and dune nourishment only will take place from R-132 to R-134 plus 350 feet, for a total of 724,200 cubic yards of fill. RRAI 3 identifies BA V and BA VI as new potential sources of fill, although Palm Beach was still seeking permission to use all four borrow areas to ensure that it could excavate sufficient fill for the project. RRAI 3 states that CPE reran GENESIS for the new proposal of 724,200 cubic yards of fill to confirm spreading projections from the Walton and Chiu model. Addressing the ongoing effort to obtain DEP designation of CEB for the portion of Reach 8 not already so designated, RRAI 3 states that, in response to Tropical Storm Andrea in May 2007, the Reach 8 shoreline retreated an average of 35 feet and that much of the dune fill placed in 2006 was lost. In response to the objection concerning the use of a shoreline erosion rate of two feet per year from 1990 to 2004, RRAI 3 states that CPE will break down the shoreline change rate into three rates during this period of time and add a fourth period, August 2004 to February 2006. In response to a related comment concerning CPE's assumption of erosion throughout Reaches 7 and 8 and admission of difficulty in extrapolating from a wave-like pattern of erosion, RRAI 3 notes that CPE's erosion analysis treats Reaches 7 and 8 as a single beach-fill project, as the erosion wave extends from Sloan's Curve at R-116.5 (the northern end of Reach 7) to Lantana Public Beach at R-138. In RRAI 3, CPE finally discloses the information obtained from samples taken of the existing beach the prior year. The mean grain size of the existing beach is now 0.30 mm, and the silt value is 1.21 percent. RRAI 3 also reports the values for BA V and VI, which are, respectively: 0.24 mm and 1.49 percent and 0.23 mm and 1.50 percent. RRAI 3 restates these values for BA III and IV, which are, respectively: 0.33 mm and 1.46 percent and 0.26 mm and 0.78 percent. Using these values, the Shore Protection Manual overfill factors are 1.47 and 1.68 for BAs V and VI, respectively, and the Dean Overfill Ratios are 1.18 and 1.25. The following fill volumes and cross-shore estimates assume the highest overfill ratio, 1.68. These new values for the existing beach are derived from 2006 sampling, but RRAI 3 does not provide support for these new values. The December 2005 Environmental Assessment for Reach 8 reports the mean grain size for the existing beach as 0.35 mm and no silt, and the October 2007 Environmental Assessment for Reach 8 reports these values as 0.30 mm and 1.21 percent--with no discussion of the reason for the changes. Neither RRAI 3 nor the October 2007 Environmental Assessment discloses the proximity in time of the Reach 7 project in early 2006 and the sampling, also in 2006, as the relatively quick erosion of finer materials from Reach 7 could have influenced the sediments sizes found along Reach 8. Of particular assistance would have been a discussion of the differences between the 2006 sampling and the 1993 data, on which CPE had been relying up to this point. Likewise, there is no analysis of the new data on mean grain size and silt for BA IV. However, as the new sand sources did not yield larger sediment sizes, CPE reduced the sediment size of the existing beach. RRAI 3 discusses the use of the Walton and Chiu model in a passage almost identical to that contained in RRAI 2. However, this time, after explaining that cross-shore spreading is estimated using a translated beach profile, there is no justification of this method based on the assumed similarity of mean grain sizes of the sand sources and existing beach. Before, CPE justified the translated beach profile on the basis of the similarity of the particle sizes; now that the particle sizes are not similar, CPE merely uses the translated beach profile. RRAI 3 selects the same alternative as that selected in RRAI 2: the 25-foot design berm with six years of advance fill. Comparing RRAI 3, Attachment 33, Table 19, with RRAI 2, Attachment 33, Table 11, the effect of the dissimilarity in mean grain sizes is apparent. Both RRAIs describe the same length of beach restoration. RRAI 2 calls for 505,700 cubic yards of fill, and RRAI 3 calls for 639,500 cubic yards of fill--both for beach restoration only without any dune nourishment. Even crediting, for the sake of discussion, CPE's newer value of 0.30 mm mean grain size for the existing beach, the incompatibility in sediments necessitates that CPE add another 135,000 cubic yards of fill to the beach--which additional 135,000 cubic yards of fill will wash out with the remainder of the advance fill, if not also portions of the design fill, within six years following construction, according to CPE, but much sooner, based on the experience at Reach 7. Interestingly, RRAI 3, Attachment 33, reports that, at year 3, longshore spreading will not extend past R-133 plus 560 feet, which is only 20 feet farther south than the extent of longshore spreading at year 3 projected in RRAI 3. Even if this projection were reliable, and it is not due to discrepancies in mean grain sizes, it understates the longshore spreading because CPE has understated the mean grain size of the existing beach and has thus distorted the application and output of the Walton and Chiu model. RRAI 3 projects that total hardbottom impacts will now be 6.4 acres. Regarding the use of GENESIS, RRAI 3 reports that CPE reran the model for the new project length, now to confirm the projections of the Walton and Chiu model. Attachment 33, which is the Revised Engineering Report dated July 2007, discusses the results obtained from both models. The Walton and Chiu model projects little or no erosion of the design fill during the six- year life of the project and no spreading south of R-133 plus 560 feet, for total hardbottom coverage would be 6.4 acres. The new run of the GENESIS model predicts some erosion into the design fill by year three, but no spreading south of R-132 plus 1154 feet, for total hardbottom coverage of 5.8 acres. Appendix F of Attachment 33 of RRAI 3 reveals a new effort at validating the GENESIS model. After calibration, CPE ran the model to "predict" shoreline change from May 1986 to August 1990. Prudently shortening the validation period from 16 years in the earlier, failed attempt to four years in this attempt, CPE was able to avoid the mirror-image effect of the earlier validation run, in which GENESIS correctly projected the magnitude of change, but unfortunately predicted erosion when accretion actually occurred. Even shortening the projection period by 75 percent, CPE was evidently compelled to satisfy itself as to the validation process by accepting that GENESIS would continue to "predict" erosion when accretion actually took place. Reducing the prediction period to only four years, though, permitted CPE to obtain a model output that reduced by half the amount of erosion when compared to the amount of erosion predicted by the first run of GENESIS. However, GENESIS still does not produce reliable output in this case. This time, though, CPE seems to concede as much. CPE's explanation of the obvious deficiencies of GENESIS in this application reveals the inaptness of the model for this project. Appendix F to Attachment 33 to RRAI 3 concedes that GENESIS is "not well suited to projecting the future erosion rates." Appendix F, p. F-4. CPE observed that the problem with the GENESIS model was that Reaches 7 and 8 exhibit no erosion hot spots, but instead, as noted above, experience erosion as a wave, evidently from south of Sloan's Curve. The discussion offers GENESIS as a tool in comparing longshore spreading, if the project is built with longshore spreading under the no-build alternative, but the relationship between erosion, such as in projected closure depths, and longshore spreading suggests very limited use for the model, even in this modest undertaking. RRAI 3, Attachment 33, discusses depth of closure for Reach 8. Data for the 2006 Midtown Project suggest a depth of closure of -18 feet, but data for Reach 8, Manalapan, and Ocean Ridge suggest a range of -22 to -25 feet. Attachment 33 explains that CPE focused on data from three different periods for Reach 8, which suggested a range of -18 feet to -27 feet, for a median of -23 feet. This estimate approximates the -22 feet closure depth for Manalapan, so CPE chose to use this figure. This analysis is generally reasonable except for the fact that it does not analyze differences between mean grain sizes and silt values for the sand source(s) and existing beach at Manalapan. RRAI 3 acknowledges the impact of mean grain size on closure depth and longshore spreading. Using 0.30 mm for the existing beach and 0.23 mm for the sand source with the smallest mean grain size (BA VI), RRAI 3 estimates an overfill factor of 1.68 at the fill site to compensate for this difference. RRAI 3, pp. 14-15. Given the actual mean grain size for the existing beach, the overfill factor is probably closer to 2.00. Essentially, the smaller grain size in the fill, as compared to the beach, requires more overfilling to fill the beach profile template, and this makes more sediment available for post-construction transport. Of course, at least landward of the breakers, the sediment is more available for transport before of its smaller grain size. RRAI 3, Attachment 33, implicitly acknowledges the critical role of similarity in sand size between the source and the fill sites. At page 36, RRAI 3, Attachment 33, completes the same discussion of the Walton and Chiu model as took place in RRAI 2, Attachment 33. However, RRAI 2, Attachment 33, justifies the use of a translated beach profile from 9 feet to -22 feet "because the grain sizes of the native material and fill material are assumed to be similar at this time [i.e., 0.35 mm for the native beach and 0.32 mm for BA III]." RRAI 2, Attachment 33, p. 22. This quote is omitted from the otherwise nearly identical discussion in RRAI 3, Attachment 33, of the use of the Walton and Chiu model. RRAI 3, Attachment 33, p. 36. And CPE offers no explanation. The evolving statements of discrepancy between the mean grain sizes of the sand sources and the existing beach spell trouble for the use of the Walton and Chiu analytical model in this case. As noted below, the 1993 data, which are credited, supply an even higher value for the existing beach than 0.35 mm. When compared to sand sources with mean grain sizes barely over 0.20 mm, this large of a discrepancy no longer justified CPE's use of the Walton and Chiu analytical model for predicting longshore spreading. This left CPE with no model support for its projection of the limits of longshore spreading. RRAI 3, Attachment 33, considers various alternatives. The selected alternative provides six years of advance fill by the construction of a 25-foot-wide beach berm seaward of the design fill line. With the dune fill, this alternative offers protection from the 19-year storm and, without the fill, this alternative offers protection from the 12-year storm. For six years of protection from the 19-year storm (actually, during the first three years, the project would protect against at least the 24-year storm), the selected alternative requires 639,500 cubic yards of fill on the beach and 84,700 cubic yards of fill on the dunes, for a total of 724,200 cubic yards of fill. With the correct overfill factor, the total fill would be considerably more than 724,200 cubic yards. Further analysis of the selected alternative includes graphs showing that, at the third year, post-construction, the longshore spreading of fill would extend roughly midway between R-133 plus 560 feet; this would cover, directly and indirectly, 6.4 acres of hardbottom (including 2.8 acres covered directly by construction). At year six, which represents the maximum limit of spreading projected by CPE, the longshore spreading would extend to R-134 plus roughly 300 feet, but the analysis does not project the area of hardbottom to be covered directly and indirectly. RRAI 3, Attachment 33, notes that the spreading analysis for each of the alternatives used the Walton and Chiu analytical model and GENESIS model. As previously noted, use of these models are problematic for the present project. Exacerbating the problem, the Design Summary in RRAI 3, Attachment 33, at page 64, implies that CPE used mean grain sizes for the sand sources of 0.23 mm to 0.33 mm--even though BA III, which was 0.33 mm, would soon be withdrawn, and the remaining three borrow areas were around 0.24 mm. Fourth Response to Request for Additional Information: October 9, 2007 On August 7, 2007, DEP issued RAI 4, which is the final request for additional information. As with the three preceding requests, this one also addressed considerable biological information. One comment notes that DEP staff believe that hardbottom impacts will occur south of R-133.5 to about R-137. This is a reasonable response to the problems set forth in the preceding section. As for sands, RAI 4 requests more analysis of comparative grains on the beach and in the borrow areas. RAI 4 notes that the beach sand is tanner, and the sand from the borrow areas is greyer. RAI 4 states that DEP expects to be able to approve BA V and VI, but not BA III due to an excessive incidence of rock in the fill excavated from this area during the Reach 7 project. RAI 4 requests an alternative analysis of longshore spreading based on a closure depth of -15.9 feet. RAI 4 asks why, if additional longshore spreading takes place between years 3 and 6 of the project, CPE did not project additional coverage of hardbottom. On October 9, 2007, CPE filed RRAI 4. Concerning the possibility of additional coverage of hardbottom, the RRAI 4 states that CPE has already conducted extensive numerical and analytical modeling of longshore and cross-shore spreading, and the "modeling results provide a consensus that the hardbottom seaward of the sandbar south of R-134 will not be impacted by the project." RRAI 4, p. 9. According to RRAI 4, DEP offered no basis for its opinion, as contrasted to the "extensive analytical and numerical modeling of potential longshore and cross-shore spreading." RRAI 4, p. 10. The consensus of the two models, according to RRAI 4, is that the longshore coverage will not extend past about R-133.5. In an abundance of caution, CPE has extended projected impacts to R-134, and Palm Beach will agree to monitor, post-construction, hardbottom farther south, but this is the final word from CPE and Palm Beach on the critical issue of how far longshore spreading will extend, post- construction. Given the bad inputs concerning mean grain size of the existing beach and probably the sand sources (by including BA III's large value), the ensuing problems with the Walton and Chiu model, and the ongoing problems with GENESIS, CPE picked a bad moment to dig in and, relying on its modeling, disagree with DEP's analysis that hardbottom impacts would extend to R-137. In response to a request for a map showing where CPE collected the samples for analysis of mean grain size for the existing beach, RRAI 4 references a map at Attachment 33b-1. The map shows where CPE collected samples in March 2007 and August 2007, not 2006 as previously indicated. Attachment 33b-1 shows collection sites at R-125, R-128, and R-131 extending from the dune to points evidently seaward of the surf zone; these are for March 2007. Attachment 33b-1 also shows collections in August 2007 at R-127, R-133, and R-138 at or possibly landward of the dune line, but not seaward of the dune line. However, nothing else in RRAI 4 addresses the collection of these samples, the methodology used, or the analysis of the information obtained. Clearly, by 2007, finer fill from Reach 7 was in Reach 8. However, RRAI 4, Attachment 33b-3, is a compatibility analysis of the fill sediments with the existing beach sediments. The existing beach data is from samples collected in 2006, but, again, nothing is revealed about the circumstances of this collection event. The values for BA IV, V, and VI, as well as for the existing beach, are as reported in RRAI 3. The analysis states that the fill materials are grey, and the existing beach is greyish brown. After another summary of the COE and Dean overfill ratios, Attachment 33b-3 concludes with the assurance that any extra fill required due to differences in mean grain sizes "will be accounted for in the cross-shore spreading analysis and the total fill volume estimates," Attachment 33b-3, unnumbered p. 4. Not only was CPE unjustifiably sticking to its earlier projections of spreading--cross shore and longshore--in terms of hardbottom impacts, this statement indicates that the design beach template will govern over projections of fill volume when it came to the contractor's filling of the beach. It is unclear if 724,200 really assumes a 1.68 overfill volume, but, even if it did, the actual volume of fill, if the overfill volume is 2.00, may be in the area of 850,000 cubic yards. Addressing DEP's request to run a longshore spreading analysis with a shallower closure depth, RRAI 4 states that CPE did so, using one closure depth of -15.9 feet and another of -30 feet, which is the maximum observed closure depth observed in the area. At year 3, the farthest reaches of longshore spreading at -15.9 feet, -22 feet, and -30 feet closure depths are R-133 plus 1022 feet, R-133 plus 560 feet, and R-133 plus 136 feet, respectively. RRAI 4 concludes that the Walton and Chiu model used to project longshore spreading is not highly sensitive to the input of a closure depth. Concerning the failure to indicate covered hardbottom at year 6, RRAI 4 explains that CPE used the Walton and Chiu year-3 projection due to its agreement with the GENESIS model results through year 6. Proposed JCP, Proprietary Authorization, and Water-Quality Variance Intent to Issue On February 29, 2008, DEP issued a Consolidated Intent to Issue Joint Coastal Permit, Variance, and Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands dated February 29, 2008 (Intent to Issue). The JCP constitutes a certification of compliance with Florida water quality standards, so the COE may proceed with its permitting. The JCP also constitutes a finding of consistency with Florida's Coastal Zone Management Program. The Intent to Issue states that Palm Beach will excavate "beach-quality sand" from BA V and BA VI and restore the beach and nourish the dune from DEP reference monument R-125 to R-134 plus 350 feet. The Intent to Issue excludes activities at the Lake Worth Gap and allows dune restoration only from R-132 to R-134 plus 350 feet. Subject to this exclusion and limitation, Reach 8 extends from R-125 to R-134 plus 350 feet. The Intent to Issue identifies the North Segment, Lake Worth Gap, Center Segment, and South Segment. The Intent to Issue states that the berm elevation will be about 9.0 feet NGVD with a seaward slope of 1:15 (vertical to horizontal). The Intent to Issue states that the dune elevation will be about 16.0 feet NGVD with a slope of 1:3. The Intent to Issue states that DEP designated the North Segment as CEB due to continuity of management with Reach 7. The Intent to Issue states that the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the North Segment is beach restoration and periodic beach nourishment. The Intent to Issue states that DEP did not designate the Center Segment as CEB because it has been historically stable. The Intent to Issue states that DEP designated the South Segment as CEB due to historic beach recession that threatens upland development. The Intent to Issue states that the Strategic Beach Management Plan for the South Segment is dune restoration. The Intent to Issue identifies four other major components of this project: two borrow areas (BA V and BA VI), an artificial reef to be created as mitigation, a mixing zone, and a monitoring area. According to the Intent to Issue, BA V and BA VI, which will provide 724,200 cubic yards of sand to nourish the beach and restore the dunes, are about 1500 feet seaward of the fill area. BA V extends from R-129 to R-136 in depths of 22-30 feet. To the north of BA V, BA VI extends from R-122 to R-127 in depths of 23-33 feet. BA III and BA IV, which served the Reach 7 project, are 3500 feet offshore. BA V abuts the landward side of BA IV, and BA III is generally in the gap between BA V and BA VI, although, as noted, it is about 2000 feet farther offshore. According to the Intent to Issue, Palm Beach will be required to construct an eight-acre artificial reef to offset the anticipated destruction of seven acres of nearshore hardbottom. The artificial reef will be located about 300 feet offshore, in about 10 feet of water, between R-106 and R-108, which is north of the Reach 8 project alongside Reach 5. The Intent to Issue states that, if additional hardbottom is impacted south of R-132, Palm Beach will have to increase the mitigation. According to the Intent to Issue, the Variance will allow an expanded mixing zone of 300 meters offshore and 1000 meters downcurrent from the point at which water returns into the ocean following the hydraulic discharge of sand onto the beach undergoing nourishment. According to the Intent to Issue, Palm Beach shall be required to monitor the hardbottom from R-132 to R-137 to check for unanticipated hardbottom impacts. The area to be monitored will include the hardbottom seaward of the sandbar between R-134 and R-134 plus 250 feet. After the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, according to the Intent to Issue, dune fill was placed along parts of the project area to stabilize the beach. In January 2005, Palm Beach placed about 50,000 cubic yards of sand landward of mean high water within Reach 8 under an emergency permit to replenish the dune system using an upland source. In 2006, dune construction was undertaken within part of the Reach 7 project-- specifically between R-116 plus 450 feet to R-134 plus 100 feet--but this work has not dispensed with the perceived need for this project. The 2006 dune project within Reach 8, according to the Notice of Intent, was a major modification of the Reach 7 Project. The Reach 7 Project authorized 1.1 million cubic yards of sand to be dredged from BA III and BA IV. Only 24,000 cubic yards of the 58,500 cubic yards were placed in the dune area south of R-126 because of time constraints due to the start of the 2006 sea turtle nesting season. According to the Intent to Issue, the scope of the Reach 8 project has changed based on negotiations between Palm Beach and DEP. Initially, Palm Beach proposed beach restoration from R-125 to R-134, using one million cubic yards of dredged sand. Concerned with hardbottom impacts south of R-132, DEP induced Palm Beach to shorten the southern limit of the project by 3600 feet, to R-131, and reduce the required fill volume to 506,000 cubic yards. After submitting its application with this southern limit, Palm Beach revised its proposal to extend the southern limit to R-134 plus 250 feet, thus increasing the required fill to 900,700 cubic yards. Concerned about the increased fill and potential impacts to downdrift hardbottom, DEP induced Palm Beach to accept a southern terminus of R-132 with a fill volume of 505,700 cubic yards. However, Palm Beach again revised the project to its current southern termini: beach nourishment to R-132 and dune restoration only to R-134 plus 350 feet. The first "resource of concern" analyzed in the Intent to Issue is the hardbottom communities. The Intent to Issue states that these communities comprise three types: intertidal, nearshore hardbottom; shallow, subtidal, nearshore hardbottom in depths of less than three meters; and deeper, subtidal hardbottom located about 105-120 meters offshore, seaward of the shore-parallel sand bar, in depths of 2.5-3.5 meters. According to the Intent to Issue, the hardbottom is different north and south of the Lake Worth Gap. North of the Lake Worth Gap, the intertidal and shallow subtidal hardbottom is more susceptible to sand cover due to lower vertical relief and shallower water. According to the Intent to Issue, south of the Lake Worth Gap, most of the hardbottom is only partly covered by sand, and the subtidal hardbottom is continuous past the southern terminus of the project. The higher relief of the hardbottom south of the Lake Worth Pier--up to one meter vertical relief--protects the benthos from migrating sediments and enhances survival of certain organisms. The growth of colonies of S. siderea, a coral, as large as 10 centimeters in diameter suggests that this hardbottom community is exposed persistently for long periods of time--i.e., 5-10 years--and that periods of sand burial are relatively brief. The Intent to Issue states that these nearshore hardbottom areas are important foraging, shelter, and nursery habitat for several species of migrating fauna, including juvenile sea turtles and larval/post- larval fish. The Intent to Issue states that intertidal hardbottom habitat typically displays low cover and diversity of macroalgae. The community is dominated by microalgae and blue- green algae. Common benthic fauna include barnacles, limpets, and periwinkles. Some crab and fish species may occupy small pools in the intertidal hardbottom. The Intent to Issue states that subtidal nearshore hardbottom communities are characterized by an increased number of macroalgal species and fauna. These communities are adapted to a dynamic environment, even to the point of sand cover or scour, and the habitat would not considered to be degraded unless the natural cycle were altered. The Intent to Issue states that, although the deeper subtidal hardbottom, which is south of the shore-parallel sand bar and in water depths of 2.5-3.5 meters, is fragmented parallel to the South Segment, it resumes its continuity south of the southern terminus of the project. Coverage and diversity of macroalgal and sessile fauna, such as corals, increases in the deeper nearshore community. Also, sediment coverage, in terms of thickness and areal extent, is less, so this habitat is used by a higher diversity of open-water fish species. The Intent to Issue determines that each of the three hardbottom communities supports different communities and provides different habitat functions, and each is "vital to this ecosystem." Thus, to mitigate for the loss of these habitats, the mitigation proposal must include all functions provided by these three hardbottom types. The second "resource of concern" covered in the Intent to Issue is sea turtles. The loggerhead turtle, green turtle, leatherback turtle, hawksbill turtle, and Kemp's Ridley turtle--all endangered or threatened--are present offshore of Palm Beach County, according to the Intent to Issue. The sea turtle nesting season in this area generally extends from March 1 through November 30, with the main portion running from May 1 to October 31. During the 2006 season, 12,755 sea turtle nests were recorded in Palm Beach County. The Intent to Issue states that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FWC's) Imperiled Species Management Section reviewed the project and recommended permit conditions to help construction avoid and minimize impacts to sea turtles. The Intent to Issue notes that the impacts to sea turtles will likely result in a take, so the FWS and NMFS must grant "Incidental Take" permits or statements in their "Biological Opinions." The Intent to Issue states that FWS has issued a Biological Opinion for the loss of nesting habitat, and this document includes various conditions, which DEP has incorporated into the Draft Permit. The Intent to Issue states that NMFS is preparing a Biological Opinion with conditions that will, if deemed necessary, be included in a modification of the Permit, but, if NMFS fails to allow an Incidental Take, Palm Beach may not commence construction. The third "resource of concern" is manatees. The Intent to Issue notes that the FWC's Imperiled Species Management Section has recommended specific Permit conditions. The Intent to Issue notes that, pursuant to Section 161.088, Florida Statutes, beach restoration projects for CEBs are in the public interest and eligible for state funding. Because the Center Segment is not designated as a CEB, the Intent to Issue states that Palm Beach must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. The Intent to Issue acknowledges that Palm Beach is required to submit alternatives to the proposed project that would minimize adverse impacts to the coastal system, such as burial of the exposed hardbottom and temporary reduction in marine turtle nesting. Because the hardbottom within the boundaries of the fill area is in the surf zone immediately offshore of the beach, even a significantly reduced volume of fill will bury this existing exposed hardbottom, according to the Intent to Issue. DEP thus recommended dune restoration only in the area proposed for beach restoration, but Palm Beach contended that a project limited to dune restoration would not protect upland buildings from storm erosion cause by the direct impact of a major hurricane. Thus, Palm Beach offered mitigation for the loss of hardbottom that will be covered by fill. The Intent to Issue notes that, pursuant to Section 161.144, Florida Statutes, beach-quality sand for nourishment is an exhaustible resource that must be carefully managed. Noting that such sand would be used in this project on beaches that are and are not designated as CEBs, the Intent to Issue warns that, while DEP did not determine that this use made the project contrary to the public interest, "the supply of beach quality sand in the region may become a consideration for future nourishment events, depending on the status of the sand source and the competing needs of critically eroded beaches." The Intent to Issue defines beach restoration as the placement of beach compatible sand onto an eroded beach for the primary purpose of providing storm erosion protection for upland structures. The beach fill template comprises the design berm, which protects from storms and is designed to remain intact between periodic beach nourishment events, and "advance beach nourishment," which is seaward of the design berm and is designed to erode from normal wave and tidal conditions, but undergoes replenishment with periodic beach nourishment. The Intent to Issue identifies the principle design objective as protection from storm erosion. The design storm is the 25-year storm event. The Reach 8 project will create a 25-foot wide design berm. Palm Beach's engineer has estimated that the design berm will provide storm protection to upland development from the impacts of a 19-year storm event. However, DEP considers this a conservative projection; DEP projects that the design berm will protect upland structures from the 25-year storm event. According to the Intent to Issue, the addition of the Reach 8 beach fill will "likely" increase the storm erosion protection for upland structures to greater than a 50-year storm event. The Intent to Issue notes that the other primary design component is the volume of fill needed for the beach nourishment project. The specified volume of fill is derived from the historical erosion rate plus additional material to account for spreading losses due to the effect of waves and tides acting on the bulge left in the shoreline by the placement of beach fill and the dissimilarity of sediment grain size between the existing beach sand and the fill material from the borrow areas. The design objective is to maximize the longevity of the beach nourishment with the minimal amount of fill necessary to preserve the design berm between renourishments. The Intent to Issue notes that, due to construction constraints associated with the placement of fill below the water line, the seaward slope of the beach fill template during construction is steeper than the equilibrium slope after exposure to wave forces. The profile adjustment can adjust rapidly during the first year and give the appearance of significant erosion losses. Thus, a wider beach berm width is designed in the knowledge that it will recede as the slope adjusts through the cross-shore spreading of fill material to the submerged part of the beach profile. The Intent to Issue states that Palm Beach's engineer demonstrated adequate design analyses to provide reasonable assurance that the cross-shore profile adjustment and alongshore spreading of fill under normal wave and tide conditions will not impact adjacent environmental resources, but the demonstration "does not eliminate the potential for unexpected spreading losses." Thus, DEP required Palm Beach to implement a monitoring program. The engineer has used a background erosion rate of two feet per year in the design of the beach nourishment. Although historical shoreline data do not support this rate, the Intent to Issue states that the additional fill volume is not significant compared to the volume needed to offset spreading losses. The Intent to Issue states that Palm Beach's engineer submitted numerical modeling and analysis of ocean wave and coastal littoral processes that provide reasonable assurance of the expected effects of the excavation of the borrow areas on the coastal littoral system. The analysis shows that the excavation of the borrow areas will "change nearshore conditions under a limited range of weather conditions, but will not have the potential to interfere with the natural functioning of the coastal system or cause changes in the patterns of erosion and accretion of the beach" distinguishable from natural fluctuations in the shoreline position. The Intent to Issue states that, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-41.007(2)(j) (Sand Rule), only beach compatible fill may be placed on a beach or dune system. Palm Beach provided DEP with the results of geotechnical and geophysical investigations of the offshore borrow areas. The resulting vibracores yielded samples of BA V and BA VI that had a carbonate content of 48 percent, as compared to the composite carbonate content of 47 percent at the beach. According to the Intent to Issue, BA V has about 899,500 cubic yards of fill material, and BA VI has about 974,800 cubic yards of fill material, which, together, are more than double the volume required for the project. According to the Intent to Issue, the fill material in both borrow areas is similar to the native beach sediment in grain size, color, sorting, silt content, shell content, and carbonate content. The Intent to Issue states that the artificial reefs would be constructed in water depths similar to the natural hardbottom and would have similar vertical relief. Thus, DEP expects the artificial reefs to provide very similar habitat functions as those provided by the natural hardbottom habitat. Applying the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM), DEP assumed a time lag of two years for the artificial reefs to provide similar habitat functions as provided by the natural nearshore hardbottom, and DEP also anticipated the frequency and duration of exposure and characterized the hardbottom communities in the two borrow areas. Based on its UMAM analysis, DEP required eight acres of mitigation. According to the Intent to Issue, the artificial reef will be in a location where about two feet of sand covers the underlying limestone formation. If the artificial reef is constructed at the same time as the beach fill is placed, a two- year time lag is expected for the mitigation functions to become similar to natural hardbottom functions. If construction of the artificial reef is completed after placement of the beach fill, the mitigation area will be increased by 0.3 acres per year. The artificial reef will be located in an area with sediment thickness of less than one meter. Hardbottom communities have been identified in the vicinity of the mitigation area, so a 50-foot buffer must be maintained around the natural hardbottom. The Intent to Issue states that the artificial reef will be constructed of clean, dense limestone boulders with an average diameter of 1.1 meters and average weight of 1.9 tons. Vertically, the boulders placed on the bottom may not exceed 1.2 meters. The Intent to Issue states that the dune fill material will extend seaward to the mean high water line, so it will be affected by wave run-up almost immediately after placement. About 1.5 to 1.7 acres of nearshore intertidal and subtidal hardbottom habitat exist immediately seaward of the dune-only segment (between R-132 and R-134 plus 350 feet). The Intent to Issue reports that DEP expressed concern that impacts to more than the anticipated seven acres of hardbottom might occur due to the combined downdrift and cross-shore spreading of the dune and downdrift spreading of beach fill. Likewise, the expanded mixing zone could deposit sediments on hardbottom outside of the seven acres anticipated to be buried. Thus, in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-49.005(13), DEP determined that "additional reasonable assurance" is needed to ensure compliance with applicable rules and statutes, so DEP required submittal of such by a special condition. The Permit contains conditions for physical and biological monitoring of the performance of the beach fill, the associated effects on downdrift nearshore hardbottom, and a Contingency Mitigation Plan. The Intent to Issue states that the Contingency Mitigation Plan will be triggered by identified indicators of an unacceptable adverse impact to downdrift hardbottom communities. The Contingency Mitigation Plan shall demonstrate that adverse impacts will be adequately offset. The plan shall address the "mitigation type, design, location, funding, and ratio (pursuant to Rule 62-345, F.A.C.)." DEP must approve the draft Contingency Mitigation Plan prior to the issuance of a Notice to Proceed. The Intent to Issue states that the "complexity of coastal dynamics and bottom communities in this area make it difficult to predict the direct and secondary impacts of the beach restoration project," including the extent of offshore and longshore spreading of fill and the increased sedimentation from the adjusting fill. These direct and secondary impacts to nearshore hardbottom communities from the beach and dune fill are "primary concerns." Thus, DEP will require a Biological Monitoring Plan. As used in the Intent to Issue, "secondary" impacts means incidental impacts, especially as erosion and wave forces spread the fill beyond where it was originally intended. The Intent to Issue provides that monitoring of nearshore hardbottom will include assessments of hardbottom flora, sessile fauna, and fish populations. Monitoring will determine the condition and dynamics of nearshore hardbottom communities, movement of sand, effects of sedimentation and turbidity, the extent of burial from the seaward and downdrift adjustments of fill placed for beach and dune construction, the actual extent of equilibrating sand as compared to the predicted Equilibrium Toe of Fill (ETOF), secondary (i.e., indirect) impacts seaward and downdrift of the ETOF, impacts from the pipeline placement, and effects on marine turtle foraging habitat use. Biological monitoring and habitat assessments of the artificial reef shall assess the efficacy of the artificial structure to mitigate for the effects of burial of the shallow nearshore hardbottom habitat in the area of the project. The Intent to Issue does not require detailed biological monitoring of the borrow areas because of the distance between each borrow area and the adjacent nearshore hardbottom and adjacent offshore hardbottom. According to the Intent to Issue, these buffers provide reasonable assurance that the potential for impacts to hardbottom communities adjacent to the borrow areas is minimal. The Intent to Issue requires physical monitoring of the project through aerial photography and topographic/bathymetric surveys of the beach, offshore, and borrow areas. The objective is to measure the performance of the project, any adverse effects, and the need for any adjustments, modifications, or mitigation. These data will also facilitate the design of followup projects and reducing the impact on the environment. The Intent to Issue states that direct impacts to water quality from dredging material from the borrow areas is expected to be minimal. The hydrodynamic processes at the beach discharge point may cause turbidity to exceed 29 NTUs above background levels downdrift of the beach placement location within the maximum allowable mixing zone of 150 meters. Palm Beach has asked for a variance to extend the mixing zone 300 meters offshore and 1000 meters downdrift from the point of sand discharge at the beach disposal site. Palm Beach's analysis shows that turbidity should not exceed 29 NTUs above background levels outside of a 1000 meter shore-parallel mixing zone downdrift from the point of discharge and 300 meters offshore. Palm Beach shall maintain a shore-parallel sand dike to prevent water from the dredged discharge from running directly back into the ocean. By forcing most of the return water to flow over sand for a sufficient distance down the beach, most of the suspended sediment will settle out, according to the Intent to Issue. The Intent to Issue states that there are no practicable means to further minimize the potential for elevated turbidity using the selected borrow material and the hydrodynamic processes involved in the construction process. Pumping will cease if the turbidity plume exceeds 29 NTUs above background outside the approved mixing zone or causes excessive sedimentation on hardbottom. The Permit will not be valid until and unless DEP issues the Variance. Draft Permit The Permit, in is present form, did not exist at the start of the hearing. During the second week of the hearing, the Administrative Law Judge accepted a stipulation from DEP and Palm Beach that the method of dredging would by the cutterhead, which operates by suction on the sediments and water. At the conclusion of the second week of the hearing, on September 6, DEP provided the parties and Administrative Law Judge with copies of the "Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan" dated September 5, 2008. The parties had been awaiting final DEP approval of the form of this plan. DEP also provided the parties with a marked Permit, showing changes from the version challenged by Petitioners. Lastly, on September 18, 2008, DEP issued a final draft permit. This document contained substantive amendments to the draft permit that DEP had previously proposed to issue. These amendments are noted separately in the discussion below. The Permit is a five-year permit issued under the authority of Chapters 161 and 373, Part IV, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62 and operating agreements between DEP and the water management districts. The Permit authorizes Palm Beach "to construct a beach restoration and dune nourishment project using beach- quality sand" from BA V and BA VI, which are about 1500 feet seaward of the fill area. The Permit states that sand for beach restoration will be placed from T-125 to R-132, except for the Lake Worth Gap at R-127 plus 597 feet to R-128 plus 954 feet, and the dunes-only component will extend from approximately to R-134 plus 350 feet. The berm elevation will be about 9 feet NGVD with a seaward slope of 1:15, and the dune height will be at about plus 16 feet NGVD with a slope of 1:3. The Permit requires eight acres of mitigation in the form of an artificial reef about 300 feet seaward of the shoreline, to offset the expected burial of about seven acres of nearshore hardbottom. The Permit warns that delays in the construction of the mitigation will require additional mitigation because of the increased time lag and that "additional, unanticipated adverse impacts will also require additional mitigation." The Permit requires that the mitigation reef be located offshore of the shoreline segment that lies between R-106 and R-108, in about 10 feet of water. In anticipate of future nourishment events, perhaps for the same shoreline, the Permit states: Assuming that the mitigation is successful and remains intact and ephemerally exposed when these impacts are repeated for subsequent nourishment events, this shall be the only mitigation required for the anticipated events. The Permit expressly constitutes a finding of consistency with Florida's Coastal Management Program, as required by Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Permit also constitutes certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. Also, the Permit states that DEP has determined that the facility is located so it will not adversely impact Outstanding Florida Waters or Class II waters. The Permit does not disclose whether the adjacent Class III waters have been approved for shellfish harvesting. The Permit states that the activity qualifies for proprietary authorization to use sovereign submerged lands, and the Permit grants a Letter of Consent for the activity. The Permit contains 11 General Conditions, including one that requires the immediate cessation of all activities in the immediate area of any historic or archaeological artifacts uncovered anywhere on the project site. Another General Condition requires, within 30 days after the completion of construction or a subsequent maintenance event, Palm Beach shall provide DEP a written statement of completion and certification by a professional engineer, which shall verify all locations and elevations specified by the Permit and confirm that all authorized activities have been performed in compliance with the plans and specifications approved by the Permit, or describe any deviations. Specific Conditions 1-8 address general matters, Specific Conditions 9-16 address mitigation, Specific Conditions 17-19 address dredging, Specific Conditions 20-21 address biological monitoring, Specific Conditions 22-27 address manatees, Specific Conditions 28-45 address sea turtles, Specific Conditions 46-51 address shorebirds, Specific Condition 52 addresses water quality monitoring, Specific Conditions 53-54 address pipeline monitoring, and Specific Conditions 55-59 address physical monitoring. Specific Condition 2 provides that, prior to construction, the Board of Trustees must establish the line of mean high water for any affected area that does not already have an erosion control line, so as to distinguish between sovereign lands and upland properties. Specific Condition 3 prohibits any work until and unless DEP issues the Variance, which will relieve Palm Beach from the obligation to comply with Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.244(5)(c) and will authorize it to establish an expanded mixing zone for the project. As stated in the last revision of the Permit, Specific Condition 5 states that DEP may require additional monitoring of the mitigation reef and the nearshore hardbottom area between R-134 and R-138, consistent with Special Conditions 14, 15, 20, and 21 and the Final Mitigative Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan, "beyond the expiration date of this permit but before the time in which the beach and dune restoration project performance is complete, if a determination is made that the mitigation is not successful pursuant to [Specific Condition] 14 or that additional impacts to hardbottom have occurred pursuant to [Specific Conditions] 15 and 21." Specific Condition 6 prohibits any work until Palm Beach has received a Notice to Proceed from DEP. DEP will not issue the Notice to Proceed until it has received the Physical Monitoring Plan described in Specific Condition 56, documentation of an executed and recorded Erosion Control Line, final construction plans and specifications, and the turbidity monitoring qualifications described in Specific Condition 7. The last revision of the Permit removed some conditions that were vague. Specific Condition 7 requires that an independent, qualified consultant monitor the construction "to ensure that turbidity levels do not exceed the compliance standards" set in the Permit. Additionally, an individual familiar with beach construction techniques and turbidity monitoring must be present at all times when fill is discharged onto the beach, and this individual must have authority to alter construction techniques or shut down dredging or beach construction if turbidity levels exceed the compliance standards. Specific Condition 9 states that the "unavoidable" burial of about seven acres of nearshore hardbottom from the placement and spreading of beach fill shall be mitigated by the creation of "a minimum of 8.0 acres of hardbottom substrate." If the construction of the artificial hardbottom will be completed prior to or concurrent with the construction of beach fill, the mitigation area will be eight acres; otherwise, the mitigation area shall be increased by an area of 0.3 acres per year that the mitigation follows the construction. The last revision of the Permit requires the completion of the mitigation reef no later than two years after completion of beach construction. Specific Condition 10 provides that the mitigation reef shall be located in about 2.4 to 3.6 meters (8 to 12 feet) of water and placed on sandy bottom that has a sediment thickness over rock substrate of less than one meter (three feet), but generally at least 15 cm, and that does not contain any signs of hardbottom benthic community growing through the sand cover. After subsidence of the boulders onto the stable platform, the vertical relief of the artificial reef shall be generally between one and three feet above the sand substrate, although portions of the constructed mitigation reef, like the natural hardbottom impacted in the project area, may at times be completely covered by sand. Specific Condition 11 states that Palm Beach shall maintain a 50-foot buffer around any natural hardbottom to provide adequate protection during boulder placement. The greatest dimension of each boulder shall be placed parallel to the bottom, and a controlled method of placement shall be used with each boulder to place it on the sandy ocean bottom. Specific Condition 12 requires that boulders be placed side-by-side without stacking. Optimal spacing is for adjacent boulders to touch each other, but maximum spacing shall not exceed two feet (0.6 meter) between boulders. Specific Condition 13 requires the inspection and washing of boulders prior to placement to ensure that they are within the specific limits of size and free of cracks, soft seams, and other structural defects. Cleaning shall remove all debris and sources of pollution, prior to placement. The reef construction materials may not include reinforcing steel bar, steel, or other protruding materials. Specific Condition 14 specifies mitigation success criteria. Specific Condition 14.a states that, after the artificial reef boulders have subsided to their terminal elevation, each portion of the eight-acre artificial reef (or more, if required by Specific Condition 9 or 15) must be periodically exposed during natural seasonal fluctuations. The average area of mitigation reef exposed during the three post- construction monitoring events shall be at least 50 percent. If the three monitoring events reveal a trend toward permanent coverage, DEP may require additional monitoring to ensure that permanent coverage has not occurred prior to determining that this condition has been met. Specific Condition 14.b requires that 75 percent of all species or genera of macroalgae and attached invertebrates that were recorded on the natural hardbottom must be present in the artificial reef. Specific Condition 14.c requires evidence that the artificial reef is providing the same functions that were lost when the natural nearshore hardbottom was buried. Evidence shall include: documentation that juvenile green sea turtles are observed utilizing, or that the success of the colonization on the mitigation reef boulders enables the species to utilize the artificial reef as feeding habitat and shelter, and post-larval fish are using the artificial reef as shelter as specified in this permit and the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan. Specific Condition 15 states that Palm Beach shall be required to construct additional mitigation if, "after 3 years of post-construction biological monitoring," pursuant to Specific Condition 21, additional hardbottom impacts have occurred; if, within three years of construction of the mitigation reef, the original mitigation has not achieved success, pursuant to Specific Condition 14; or if construction of the original eight acres of mitigation is not complete prior to the completion of the beach construction, pursuant to Specific Condition 9. The additional mitigation shall conform to the requirements of the Contingency Mitigation Plan within the Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan and Specific Conditions 10-14. Palm Beach shall "implement" the additional mitigation within 12 months of a new letter of consent for the additional mitigation. Specific Condition 15 concludes: Prior to any subsequent nourishment events, the physical success of the mitigation shall be evaluated using the same survey methodology as specified in the Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan . . .. If the mitigation is not determined to be fully intact and ephemerally exposed as defined by success criterion 14.a, additional mitigation shall be required. Specific Condition 16 requires Palm Beach, after construction of the artificial reef, to complete a Materials Placement Report and submit it to FWC and DEP. Specific Condition 17 requires the contractor to push its equipment into the project area, rather than tow it, when within 1.5 miles of the shoreline to avoid cable drags and inadvertent impacts to offshore hardbottom resources. During all dredging operations, the contractor shall have electronic positioning equipment continuously measuring the vertical and horizontal location of the cutterhead at all times. The horizontal positioning equipment shall be interfaced with a depth-monitoring device. The position of the equipment shall be recorded, and the record shall be submitted as part of the final project report. Specific Condition 18 requires Palm Beach to notify DEP within 24 hours of anytime that the dredge operates beyond the borrow area boundaries or exceeds the authorized dredge depth. Specific Condition 19 states that, if the dredge operates outside the approved borrow areas, DEP shall be notified within 24 hours or the next business day, if the unauthorized dredge operation occurs during a weekend or holiday. If any damage is found, DEP may conduct a site inspection or require a field survey by qualified biologists to assess the potential for damage to adjacent hardbottom. Within seven days of the discovery of any damage, Palm Beach shall submit to DEP a detailed description of the damage, including an estimate of the area damaged, photographs, and a plan to prevent further damage. If significant irreparable damage remains, Palm Beach shall submit a Contingency Mitigation Plan, pursuant to Specific Condition 15. DEP reserves the right to take enforcement action as a result of the damage. Specific Condition 20 requires biological monitoring of the mitigation artificial reef immediately after its construction and during the next three summers for at least three years, using the same methodology as that specified for the natural hardbottom communities in Specific Condition 21. The biological monitoring shall coincide with the monitoring of the natural nearshore hardbottom. Monitoring shall include the degree of boulder subsidence until equilibrium is achieved; areal extent, location, and depth of burial or sedimentation on the artificial reef, which shall be compared to the results of the other monitoring events to determine the duration of burial; annual quantitative assessments of percent cover by algal species or genera, algal height, and biomass of different algal species or general (using the lowest taxonomic level possible); and a qualitative assessment of post-larval and juvenile fish utilization. The results of this monitoring shall be included in the monitoring reports required by Specific Condition 21. Specific Condition 21 requires monitoring of the nearshore hardbottom between R-134 and R-138 to detect adverse impacts from the project from burial or sedimentation. The monitoring shall quantify the degree and extent of any adverse impacts and compare changes over time. Specific requirements of the monitoring are set forth in several subparagraphs. The last revision to the Permit reduced the number of permanent compliance transects for the monitoring of hardbottom communities from "at least ten" to four. Specific Condition 21.a requires biological monitoring of intertidal-subtidal nearshore hardbottom communities by using permanent, cross-shore transects covering the entire width of exposed hardbottom. Specific Condition 21.a requires the establishment of at least 10 permanent compliance transects in the area directly south of the project in the intertidal-upper subtidal hardbottom between R-134 and R-138. At least five permanent control stations shall be established between R-139 and R-142. At least five permanent compliance transects shall be established in deeper subtidal hardbottom areas east of the nearshore sandbar between R-133 plus 300 feet and R-135 plus 200 feet. At least three permanent control transects shall be set between R-139 and R-142 along the same depth contours as the compliance transects. Each transect shall be run from the shoreward edge to the seaward edge of the hardbottom. Palm Beach shall conduct these monitoring events pre-construction, immediately post-construction in the summer following project construction, and again for three subsequent years (June through September) for a total of five monitoring events. Palm Beach shall establish appropriate control transects outside of the area of potential project influence and shall concurrently monitor them. DEP may require additional surveys beyond the three-year post-construction monitoring event, if impacts attributable to the project are evident at the conclusion at the end of the three-year monitoring. Specific Condition 21.b states that hardbottom monitoring shall include macroalgal surveys, which shall include annual quantitative assessments of percent cover by species or genera, algal height per quadrat and per species or general, and amount of sediment with the quadrat. The assessments shall also include the biomass of different algal taxa that are present. Long-term monitoring shall be done in replicate quadrats, as specified in the Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan. Algal biomass shall be measured and the taxa identified in additional plots measuring about 10 centimeters by 10 centimeters. To determine whether the lost functions have been offset, Specific Condition 21.c requires the qualitative assessment and comparison of summer use of nearshore hardbottom impact sites and post-construction mitigation sites by post- larval and juvenile fish, and Specific Condition 21.d requires the quantification and comparison of summer use of nearshore hardbottom impact sites and post-construction mitigation sites by juvenile marine turtles. Specific Condition 21.e requires aerial photography to obtain additional and comparative information on hardbottom distribution and beach/dune fill development. Palm Beach shall survey beach and nearshore areas between R-125 to R-137 immediately prior to construction, immediately following construction, and annually during the summer (June through September) for the three-year period following construction (five mapping events). Specific Condition 21.f requires Palm Beach to provide annual reports within 120 days of the completion of the hardbottom-related survey, but no later than December 1st of each year. The final report of the biological monitoring program shall be submitted to DEP within 120 days after completing the last survey. Specific Condition 21.g requires Palm Beach or its consultant to submit monthly progress reports from the time of commencement of each annual survey to the time of the submission of the associated report. The reports shall consist of a brief narrative describing the work progress during the month and the predicted schedule for the next month. Specific Condition 22 requires instruction of all personnel associated with the project regarding manatees, smalltooth sawfish, and sea turtles (in the water); speed zones; and the need to avoid collisions with and injury to manatees. Specific Condition 23 imposes an idle speed/no wake limit on all vessels associated with the construction project, when such vessels are in the immediate area and in water with less than a four-foot clearance from the bottom due to the draft of the vessel. Specific Condition 24 requires that any siltation or turbidity barriers be constructed of material that cannot entangle manatees, smalltooth sawfish, and sea turtles and shall be properly secured and regularly monitored to prevent entanglement of these listed species. Any such barriers may not impede movement of these species. Specific Condition 25 requires all onsite project personnel to observe water-related activities for the presence of manatees, smalltooth sawfish, or sea turtles. If one of these species approaches within 50 feet of the operation, all in-water operations, including vessels, must be shut down until the animal moves beyond a 50-foot radius of the project operation or until 30 minutes have elapsed since the animal last appeared. Animals may not be harassed into leaving the area. Specific Condition 28 requires that beach restoration start after October 31 and be completed before May 1. From May 1 to October 31, no construction equipment or pipe may be placed or stored on the beach. Specific Condition 29 provides that, if sand is placed from March 1 through May 1, early morning surveys for sea turtle nests must be conducted daily from March 1 through the end of nesting season. If the beach restoration project takes place from November 1 through November 30, early morning sea turtle nesting surveys must be conducted 65 days prior to project initiation and continue through September 30. Specific Condition 29.a requires that only experienced and trained personnel, with a valid FWC permit, may conduct the surveys and relocate eggs. Nesting surveys must take place daily from sunrise to 9:00 a.m. Construction may not take place until the surveyor notifies the contractor that the survey has been completed. Specific Condition 29.b states that, although nourishment may take place 24 hours per day, no new construction activities "should" proceed after 9 p.m. and before the morning sea turtle survey, unless a nighttime nesting survey has been conducted to ensure that no nesting turtles or unmarked nests are present. Specific Condition 29.c provides that only those nests that may be affected by construction will be relocated, and they must be moved no later than 9:00 a.m. on the morning after deposition. The eggs must be removed to a nearby self- release beach site in a secure setting where artificial lighting will not interfere with hatchling orientation. Relocated nests must be randomly staggered along the length and width of the beach in settings not expected to experience daily inundation by high tides or routine severe erosion or egg loss. Relocation may take place only to the extent that construction threatens nests. Specific Condition 29.d requires that nests deposited in areas where construction activities have ceased or will not occur for 65 days must be marked and left in place, unless other factors threaten the success of the nest. A marker must be placed in the beach wherever a nest has been relocated. A 10-foot radius must be staked around the nest, and nest sites must be inspected daily. Specific Condition 30 requires that Palm Beach submit reports of all nesting activity and marine turtle protection measures taken during construction for the initial nesting season after the completion of construction and for at least two additional nesting seasons. Specific Condition 31 provides that, if beach restoration will occur from March 1 through April 30, Palm Beach must conduct daytime surveys for leatherback sea turtle nests beginning March 1, and nighttime surveys for leatherback turtles shall begin when the first leatherback crawl is documented in the project area and through April 30 or, if earlier, completion of the project. Nesting surveys must be conducted nightly from 9:00 p.m. until 6:00 a.m. Specific Condition 32 limits direct lighting of the beach and nearshore waters from March 1 through April 30 and November 1 through November 30 to the immediate construction area. Lighting on offshore or onshore equipment must be minimized through reduction, shielding, lowering, and appropriate placement to avoid excessive illumination of the water surface and nesting beach. Shields must be attached to the light house to block light from all lamps from being transmitted outside the construction area. Specific Condition 33 requires that, during April, staging areas for construction equipment shall be located off the beach. Nighttime storage of construction equipment not in use shall be off the beach to minimize disturbance to sea turtle nesting and hatching activities. Specific Condition 34 requires that, from March 1 through April 30 and November 1 through November 30, staging areas for construction equipment must be located off the beach to the maximum extent practicable. Specific Condition 35 states that, immediately after completion of the placement of beach fill and prior to March 1, for three subsequent years, if placed sand remains on the beach, Palm Beach shall till the beach or obtain a waiver of this requirement. Tilling shall be to a depth of 36 inches and must be completed by March 1. If compaction surveys are conducted pursuant to Specific Condition 36, Palm Beach shall annually submit them to FWC. If the project is completed just before nesting season, tilling shall not occur in areas where nests have been left in place or relocated unless authorized by FWS in Incidental Take Statement. DEP may modify this condition if sand compaction problems are identified. Specific Condition 36 describes the process by which Palm Beach may obtain a waiver of the tilling requirement. The condition specifies a methodology for sampling at 500-foot intervals to check for sand compaction. Specific Condition 36.d requires tilling prior to April 15 if the average value for any depth sampled exceeds 500 pounds per square inch for two or more adjacent sampling sites. Specific Condition 37 requires visual surveys for escarpments along the fill area immediately following completion of the project and prior to March 1 for the following three years, if placed sand remains on the beach. All scarps shall be leveled or the beach profile shall be reconfigured to minimize scarp formation. Also, weekly surveys must be conducted during the two nesting seasons after completion of fill placement. Specific Condition 37.b requires, prior to March 1, leveling of escarpments that interfere with sea turtle nesting or greater than 18 inches for a distance of 100 feet, provided Palm Beach has obtained authorization from FWS for Incidental Take during scarp removal. If weekly surveys during marine turtle nesting season document subsequent formation of escarpment greater than 18 inches for at least 100 feet, Palm Beach shall contact FWC to determine appropriate action. Specific Condition 38 requires Palm Beach or a local sponsor to manage artificial beachfront lighting in the beach restoration area. Specific Condition 40 requires Palm Beach to submit reports on all nesting activity for the initial nesting season and for at least three additional nesting seasons. Palm Beach must monitor nesting activity in the seasons after construction by daily surveys and additional methods authorized by FWC. Palm Beach shall report the following data for the restored areas and adjacent areas, of equal length, of beach outside the project area: all nesting activity, nesting success rates, hatching success of all relocated nests, hatching success of a representative sampling of nests left in place (if any), and dates of construction. Specific Condition 41 states, upon the excavation of a sea turtle nest, all work shall cease, and an egg-relocation person must be notified so that the eggs can be moved to a suitable relocation site. Specific Condition 42 states that Palm Beach must notify FWC upon finding a dead, injured, or sick sea turtle that is listed as endangered or threatened. Specific Condition 44 requires Palm Beach to provide reports on the distribution and abundance of marine turtles near the nearshore hardbottom in the project area, including hydraulic fill locations and dune restoration locations and adjacent, undisturbed control sites. These reports shall be provided prior to any beach fill activity and for at least two additional years. Palm Beach shall monitor in-water sea turtle distributions by annual surveys in accordance with the Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan. Surveys for marine turtles shall be conducted within the locations of hydraulic fill placement, dune restoration, the hardbottom comparison areas (from R-125 to R-136), the mitigative reef, and adjacent undisturbed control sites. Survey transects shall run immediately adjacent to the shoreline, at or slightly deeper than 30 meters from the shoreline, 300 meters from the shoreline, and 600 meters from the shoreline--all for the impact site and mitigation reef site. Specific Condition 45 details the requirements of marine turtle monitoring activities. Data must be collected for the restored beach and an equal length of unrestored beach and must include the number of nests lost to erosion or wash out. Data must be reported by number and type of false crawls, in which the turtle crawls onto the beach but fails to produce a nest, lighting impacts, nests lost to inundation, erosion, vandalism, or lost markers, and emergence and hatching success. Specific Condition 46 requires Palm Beach to conduct shorebird surveys by qualified persons. Surveys of nesting season, which runs generally from April 1 to September 1 (although some nesting may occur through September), shall begin on April 1 or ten days prior to project commencement, if later, and shall be conducted through August or construction, which is earlier. Weekly surveys shall continue through August or fledgling or loss of identified nests or hatchlings, whichever is later. Surveys for detecting new nesting activity shall be done daily prior to moving equipment, operating vehicles, or performing other activities that could potentially disrupt nesting behavior or harass the birds, their eggs, or their young. The bird monitor must notify FWC within 24 hours once breeding is confirmed. Specific Condition 47 requires a 300-foot buffer around any location were shorebirds have been engaged in nesting behavior, including territory defense. All construction activities, including the operation of vehicles, shall be prohibited in the buffer zone. The width of the zone shall be increased if the birds appear agitated or disturbed by construction or other activities in adjacent areas. However, reasonable and traditional pedestrian traffic must be maintained where nesting birds will tolerate such traffic, generally including lateral movement of beach goers parallel to the shoreline at or below the highest tide line. Palm Beach must post designated buffer zones around the pedestrian access, and no construction activity, including the movement of vehicles or stockpiling of equipment, make take place within this buffer. Specific Condition 48 requires Palm Beach to obtain FWC approval for travel corridors outside the buffer areas. If adjacent to nesting sites, equipment, vehicles, and pedestrians may move past the nests, but may not stop or turn. These travel corridors must avoid critical areas for shorebirds, such as known nesting sites, wintering grounds, FWC-designated Critical Wildlife Areas, and FWS-designated critical piping plover habitat, as much as possible. To the extent possible, Palm Beach shall maintain some activity in these corridors daily. Specific Condition 49 requires the posting of shorebird nesting sites in the construction area. Specific Condition 50 suggests that Palm Beach "should" till and remove escarpment outside the shorebird nesting season, and contractors should avoid tilling and removing scarp in areas where nesting birds are present. Specific Condition 50.b requires that the contractor approximate the natural slope between the mean high water line and mean low water line. Specific Condition 51 prohibits the placement of pipes or sand seaward of a known shorebird nesting site during the shorebird nesting season. Specific Condition 52 directs Palm Beach to sample and analyze for turbidity at least three times daily, about four hours apart, during all dredging and filling operations. Background samples shall be collected at surface, mid-depth, and, if depths are greater than six meters, two meters from the bottom, all outside the influence of any artificially generated turbidity plume. Background samples shall also be taken about 150 meters from the dredge site in the opposite direction of the prevailing current flow and about 500 meters upcurrent of the point where the dredge discharge reenters the ocean, at the same distance offshore as the associated compliance sample, and outside of any turbid plume associated with the project. Compliance samples shall be collected at the surface, mid-depth, and, if depths are greater than six meters, two meters from the bottom, in the densest part of any visible turbidity plume generated by the project. Compliance samples shall be taken 150 meters downcurrent from the dredge head in the densest part of any visible turbidity plume and no more than 300 meters offshore and 1000 meters downcurrent from the point where the dredge discharge reenters the ocean within the densest part of any visible turbidity plume. Specific Condition 52 provides that the compliance locations are the limits of the temporary mixing zone for turbidity allowed during construction. If analysis reveals turbidity at any compliance site is more than 29 NTUs above the associated background levels, construction activities shall cease immediately and not resume until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels. Construction shall also cease immediately if sedimentation is observed on hardbottoms located in the mixing zone, but outside the area of predicted burial, and this sedimentation is greater than that concurrently observed in the control areas. The latest revision to the Permit adds turbidity monitoring obligations following construction. This post- construction monitoring shall take place twice monthly for one year after the end of construction or, if turbidity levels exceed 29 NTUs above background, then for an additional year, for a total of two years. The samples shall be taken "immediately offshore" of R-127 plus 597 feet, R-132, and R-134 plus 350 feet. These locations mark, respectively, the north end of the Lake Worth Gap, the north end of the dune-only project, and the south end of Reach 8. The samples are to be taken from the densest portion of any turbidity plume seaward of the surf zone. Samples are to be taken at either one meter or mid-depth, "whichever depth provides more indicative results." For background turbidity values, samples shall be taken at one meter depth offshore of R-116 and R-142. These samples must be taken immediately after the obtaining of the compliance samples and at the same distance offshore. The lower turbidity value shall be used for comparison with the compliance samples. Specific Condition 52 requires Palm Beach to submit to DEP all monitoring data, during construction, within two weeks of analysis and, after construction, within one week of analysis or two weeks of collection. Monitoring reports shall also include water temperature, time of day taken, depth of water body, depth of sample, antecedent weather, tide and direction of flow, and wind direction and velocity. Specific Condition 53 requires that a diver observe the entire length of the submerged pipeline from the western edge of the borrow area to the surf zone within one week of pipeline installation. If no hardbottom resources are observed or if to-be-impacted hardbottom is present, weekly vessel-based surface observations will be sufficient to monitor the submerged pipeline for leaks. These surface-based observations shall be conducted during periods of dredge operation. If a leak is detected, within 24 hours (weather permitting), a diver shall check for the presence or absence of a leak, and the contractor shall take any corrective measures necessary. Specific Condition 54 states that, if previously unidentified hardbottom resources are found within the pipeline corridor, weekly diver observations of the area within 400 feet of these resources shall take place. These observations are to detect leaks. All dredge and fill operations shall cease if substantial leaks are found; these are leaks resulting in turbidity in excess of state water quality standards. Operations may resume after appropriate repairs. Specific Condition 55 requires, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-41.005(16), physical monitoring of the project to acquire project-specific data, including at least topographic and bathymetric surveys of the beach, offshore, and borrow site areas, aerial photography, and engineering analysis. The monitoring data will allow Palm Beach and DEP to observe and assess, with quantitative measurements, the performance of any project, any adverse effects that have taken place, and the need for any adjustments, modifications, or mitigative responses. This scientific monitoring also supplies Palm Beach and DEP the information necessary to plan, design, and optimize followup projects. Specific Condition 56 requires that, prior to the issuance of the Notice to Proceed, Palm Beach provide DEP with a detailed Physical Monitoring Plan, which shall indicate the project's predicted design life. The Physical Monitoring Plan shall consolidate data collection, analysis, and reporting of the information collected from the monitoring of Reach 7 and Reach 8. The engineering report shall include findings on the effects of the projects on each other. Approval of this Physical Monitoring Plan shall supersede the physical monitoring set forth in the Reach 7 permit. At the request of Palm Beach, DEP may revise the approved Physical Monitoring Plan. Specific Condition 57.a requires the Physical Monitoring Plan to include topographic and bathymetric profile surveys of the beach and offshore conducted within 90 days prior to commencement of construction, and within 60 days after the completion of the construction of the project. Monitoring surveys shall then be conducted annually for three years and then biennially until the expiration of the project design life. Monitoring surveys shall be performed during a spring or summer month and repeated as close as practicable during that same month of subsequent years. Palm Beach may request a postponement of the first annual survey to the following spring/summer, if it would otherwise take place less than six months after the immediate post-construction survey. Palm Beach may submit a prior design survey of the beach and offshore for the pre-construction survey, if consistent with other requirements of this Specific Condition. Specific Condition 57.a adds that the monitoring area shall include profile surveys at each of the DEP reference monuments along at least 5000 feet of the adjacent shoreline on both sides of the beach fill area (5000 feet south of R-134 and 5000 feet north of R-125). All work activities and deliverables shall be conducted in accordance with DEP's Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, Sections 01000 and 01100. Because of the potential for impacts to nearshore hardbottom south of the beach fill area, additional physical monitoring data shall be required in the form of surveys conducted along the intermediate profiles spaced 250 feet apart in the southern part of the project, from R-132 to R-137. Beach and offshore profile surveys shall be conducted along each reference monument profile and intermediate profile about mid-point between reference monuments. The offshore survey shall extend seaward to a minimum of 3000 feet or -30 feet NAVD88, whichever is reached first. Additional intermediate beach profiles, between each of the above-described profiles, shall be conducted only to wading depth. All beach profile surveys shall be conducted to a minimum wading depth of -4 feet NAVD. Specific Condition 57.b requires bathymetric surveys of the borrow areas within 90 days prior to commencement of construction and within 60 days after completion of construction, concurrent with the beach and offshore surveys required above. A prior design survey may be submitted for the pre-construction survey if consistent with the other requirements of this Specific Condition. Survey grid lines shall be spaced not more than 500 feet and shall extend a minimum of 500 feet beyond the boundaries of the borrow area. Work activities and deliverables shall be consistent with DEP's Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, Section 01200. Specific Condition 57.c requires aerial photography of the beach taken concurrently with the post-construction survey and each annual and biennial monitoring survey required above, as close to the date of the beach profile surveys as possible. The limits of the photography shall include the surveyed monitoring area described above. All work activities and deliverables shall be consistent with DEP's Monitoring Standards for Beach Erosion Control Projects, Section 02000, with a different protocol if nearshore hardbottom is present within the project area. Specific Condition 57.d requires Palm Beach to submit an engineering report and monitoring data to DEP within 90 days after completion of the post-construction survey and each annual or biennial monitoring survey. Specific Condition 57.e requires Palm Beach to submit monitoring reports and data to DEP and warns that a failure to timely submit these reports is a ground for revocation of the Permit. Section 1.1 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan states that the purpose of the plan is to address concerns of DEP and the COE about "intertidal and nearshore hardbottom impacts" from the placement of "beach compatible sand" on Reach 8. The Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan notes that the dune fill will make up 84,700 cubic yards of the 724,200 cubic yards intended for the entire project. Fill for the dune project thus accounts for only 11.7 percent of the entire fill to be placed on Reach 8. Section 1.2 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan acknowledges that intertidal and nearshore hardbottom is present along portions of Reach 8. The plan states: "live/hardbottom habitat consists of a solid substrate to which an epibiotic community attaches, and around which mobile fauna is attracted." The epibenthic communities include macroalgae, sponges, octocorals, stony corals, bryozoans, and tunicates. The Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan notes that Anastasia Formation outcrops exposed in the surf zone are smoothed by wave and current action. In Palm Beach County, these outcrops are found along Palm Beach Island. In Reach 8, exposed intertidal hardbottom outcrops are found from R-129 to R-132, which is the approximate range of the entire beach project south of the Lake Worth Gap. Intertidal hardbottom is also prevalent from R-132 to R-137, which may not be the southern terminus of this area of prevalent intertidal hardbottom because the data collection and analysis ended at this point. The Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan reports that the intertidal hardbottom outcrops are typically ephemeral, as they are buried and exposed by seasonal fluctuations and high-energy events, such as tropical storms and hurricanes. The Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan states that, for about three years after construction, as the fill is transported longshore until it reaches equilibration, the exposed hardbottom from R-132 to plus 560 feet (the approximate southern limit of the Center Segment) will suffer indirect impacts (i.e., be buried). In an abundance of caution, according to the plan, Palm Beach calculated mitigation based on direct and indirect impacts to hardbottom to R-134. The Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan assures that Palm Beach will construct the mitigation prior to the completion of the beach restoration project. If construction of the beach restoration project precedes the construction of the mitigation, an additional 0.3 acres of mitigation shall be added for each year's delay. For hardbottom located between R-134 to R-137, the plan reports that Palm Beach will monitor for impacts from burial or sedimentation attributable to the beach restoration project. Any observed impacts are addressed in Section 7 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan, as discussed below. Section 1.3 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan states that the mitigation reef will be constructed offshore of R-106 to R-108 in 8-12 feet of water where less than three feet of sand overlies the bedrock formation. A specification of seven acres for the mitigation reef was deleted from Section 1.3, but this specification remains in Specific Condition 9 of the Permit. Section 3.0 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan identifies the goal of the monitoring is to assess, quantitatively and qualitatively, habitat and fish populations at the impacted and mitigated sites. In particular, the plan will allow Palm Beach to implement a mitigation relief that will meet specified acreage and physical relief, the biological criteria (over time) of the impacted natural hardbottom resources within and adjacent to the project area, and the overall ecosystem function (i.e., reproduction, recruitment, and support of the food chain) similar to the impacted natural hardbottom. To achieve these objectives, Palm Beach will conduct biological monitoring of the mitigation reef to confirm that it provides ecological functions similar to those provided by the impacted natural hardbottoms, provide statistically rigorous testing for reporting purposes, conduct physical and biological monitoring to determine if impacts due to burial or sedimentation have resulted from the project in excess of the seven acres projected to be directly and indirectly impacted, and conduct reasonable biological monitoring and analysis. Section 3.1 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan describes an elaborate benthic sampling methodology, developed by CPE, of sediment, macroalgae, turf algae, sponge, hydroid, octocoral, stony coral, tunicate, bare hard substrate, seagrass, anemone, zonanthid, Millepora, sessile worm, bivalve, bryozoan, and sessile anthropod. For sediment, the data are broken down into sand, shell-hash, and mud, and, for turf algae, the data are broken down into green, red, and brown. All assessment is noninvasive. Section 3.4 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan identifies four natural hardbottom sites--two north of Reach 7 and two south of Reach 8--for the production of data to compare with the data collected at the mitigation reef. Five monitoring events shall take place: one preconstruction, one in the summer following construction, and one in the summer of the first through third years following construction. Section 3.5 states that DEP may use these data to determine if hardbottom south of R-134 suffered sedimentation or if there are changes in the hardbottom community, by the end of three years after construction, so as to require additional mitigation. Section 3.8 states that sedimentation will be measured against the baseline condition and control sites and will be considered an unauthorized impact only if it exceeds such other sedimentation "by a statistically significant amount," although this section seems to provide that any burial of hardbottom constitutes an unauthorized impact. Sections 3.9 and 3.10 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan describe the methods of sampling fish and benthic invertebrates. Section 3.11 identifies the method of sampling macroalgae biomass. Section 3.13 identifies statistical inferences that Palm Beach will draw, in connection with these sampling efforts, so as to compensate for the possibility that intermittent community usage of a habitat may take place, but not during the monitoring event. Section 3.14 provides for aerial photography to monitor for hardbottom impacts. Section 4.1 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan acknowledges that the monitoring of intertidal and nearshore hardbottom may assist in determining if the project impacts exceed the expected limits within three years after project completion. The transects to be established for this monitoring include five permanent transects seaward of the nearshore sandbar between R-133 plus 300 feet to R-135 plus 200 feet. Control transects will be set at R-139 and R-142. Section 4.1.3 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan requires preconstruction macroalgae biomass sampling at the two control sites north of Reach 8 and two control sites south of Reach 8. During the preconstruction monitoring event, two sampling sites will be placed along exposed hardbottom in the southern portion of Reach 8. Macroalgae biomass sampling will then take place at these locations, as well as the mitigation reef, immediately after the mitigation reef's construction and annually for the three following summers. The assessment method and statistic inferences will be as described above. Likewise, sediment monitoring and aerial photography will take place as described above. The final revision of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan deletes various provisions for the monitoring of the offshore reef. These provisions were originally applicable only if Palm Beach excavated fill from BA IV, but, after Palm Beach dropped BA IV from its plans, the provisions bore no purpose. Section 4.3.5 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan requires Palm Beach to conduct turbidity monitoring at the fill and borrow sites by means of an independent contractor not associated with the dredging contractor. Section 5.0 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan contains the schedule of monitoring activities. The occasions of monitoring are immediately prior to construction, during construction, immediately after construction, one year after construction, two years after construction, and three years after construction. The only activity specified to be performed on all six of these occasions is sea turtle nesting; on each of these occasions, Palm Beach must submit monitoring reports also. Four activities must be performed on all of these occasions except during construction: nearshore/intertidal hardbottom biological monitoring, sea turtle inventory in the water, aerial photography and hardbottom mapping, and mitigative reef biological monitoring. Monitoring of the restored beach for escarpment formations and compaction takes place on the four occasions commencing with immediately after construction. Although the matrix states that water quality monitoring is required on only one occasion, during construction, Section 5.2.2 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan requires Palm Beach to conduct water quality monitoring at the fill and control sites after construction every two weeks for one year and, if exceedances are detected, for an additional year. However, the lone regulatory consequence for an exceedance (other than extended the monitoring for one year) is that DEP will "consider. . ." them in evaluating future project proposals. The final revision to the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan contains a new section devoted to contingency mitigation. (This is the Contingency Mitigation Plan referenced in the Permit.) Section 7.0 restates the requirement that if completion of the mitigation reef occurs after completion of the project, Palm Beach must add 0.3 acre to the mitigation reef for every year of delay. Section 7.0 of the Final Mitigative Artificial Reef and Biological Monitoring Plan largely tracks Permit Specific Conditions 14 and 15, although the requirements to be imposed upon Palm Beach if the project buried additional hardbottom, as promised in Specific Condition 15, are expressed in Section 7.0 as merely that DEP and Palm Beach "will conduct a cooperative effort to estimate compensatory mitigation" using the monitoring data and UMAM. Ultimate Findings Preliminary Matters The existing mean grain size on Reach 8 is at least 0.38 mm, not 0.30 mm. And the existing sediments contain less than 0.55 percent silt, not 1.21 percent silt. Until CPE identified BA V and VI as its sand sources, it did not revise its earlier values for the existing sediments: 0.35 mm and no silt. By the time that CPE collected new samples, the excessive fines from the quickly eroding Reach 7 project had reached Reach 8. The erosion process at Reach 7 had produced increasingly larger sediment sizes: from 0.34 mm in 1977 to 0.43 mm in 1993. There is no reason to believe that, after the short-term erosion process following the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005, the sediment size at Reach 8 had decreased from 0.38 mm in 1993 to 0.30 mm in 2006 and silt had increased-- unless, of course, Reach 7's excessive fines had already contaminated Reach 8. Other evidence supports a value of at least 0.38 mm for the existing beach. As summarized by Dr. Finkl in his report, "Reach 8 Beach-Sediments: Historical and Contemporary Comparisons of Grain Size," dated September 29, 2008, other presumably relevant values are: Manalapan--0.34 mm in 1961; southern Palm Beach County--0.34 mm and 3 percent silt in 1987; Sloan's Curve (R-115) to 2100 feet south of Manalapan (R-141)-- 0.38 mm and 0.44 percent silt; and Midtown--0.42 mm in 1999. A value of 0.38 mm fits with these data better than a value of 0.30 mm, at least when no explanation accompanies the claim of a 0.30 mm value. DEP's expert, Bob Brantly, seemed to display some reluctance over CPE's new figures for the existing sediments. Testifying at the hearing, Mr. Brantly spoke of a mean grain size of 0.30 to 0.35 mm and silt of zero to 1.2 percent. The 1993 data on which CPE originally relied in claiming 0.35 mm does not specify 0.35 mm as the mean grain size for the transects for which data was collected. In the Environmental Assessment of Coastal Resources in Palm Beach, Lake Worth, South Palm Beach, Lantana, and Manalapan, Palm Beach County, Florida, by the Palm Beach County Department of Environmental Resources Management and dated May 18, 1993 (DERM EA), the mean grain size for R-124 (Reach 8 starts at R-125) is 0.44 mm, R-127 is 0.39 mm, R-130 is 0.41 mm, and R-133 is 0.43 mm for an average of about 0.42 mm (with R-124) or 0.41 mm (without R-124). Id. at pp. 37-39. As it happens, Reach 8's mean grain size is typical of the mean grain size for the entire area, which ran from R-115 to R-142: 0.42 mm. Id. at p. 41. Although, perhaps due to a final weighting process, the text of the DERM EA states that the mean grain size for the entire area is 0.38 mm. Id. at p. 43. On the other hand, the values for BA V and VI, in terms of mean grain sizes and silt percentages, are reasonable. Dr. Finkl's sand search took place in conformity with appropriate methodological standards and produced reliable data. These values fit with the values of other offshore sand sources. The significance of a difference of mean grain sizes of, say, 0.22 mm and 0.38 mm is addressed in the DERM EA, which warns that the mean grain size of 0.38 mm is "substantially coarser" than the offshore sand samples, for which the mean grain size was 0.22 mm. Id. The DERM EA elaborates: Material of this quality [0.22 mm] may create a number of adverse effects if used in a beach/dune nourishment project. These include: greater coverage of nearshore hardbottom due to a high overfill ratio and mild slope of the equilibrium toe of fill and an increased probability of compaction and effects on sea turtle reproductive success. Id. at p. 43. Elsewhere, the DERM EA notes the distinction between the existing beach's mean grain size of 0.38 mm and less than 0.55 percent silt and the sand source's values of 0.22 mm and 0.42 percent silt. The DERM EA adds: If better material cannot be located, there will be a number of effects associated with this type of material. These include: a great overfill ratio . . .; short (and possibly long) term impacts on ambient water clarity, nearshore hardbottom and offshore reefs[; and increased sand compaction affecting sea turtles' reproductive success]. Id. at p. 70. The DERM EA warnings are credited: fill sediment with a mean grain size of 0.22 mm is incompatible with an existing beach with a mean grain size of 0.38 mm. It is impossible to reconcile these warnings with the assertions of witnesses called by Palm Beach and DEP who assure that the proposed sand is "high quality sand" or "beach compatible sand." These assurances are unfounded. Until the fill is transported out into deeper water where it will lie undisturbed, the excessive fines in the fill promise considerably more incidents of turbidity of greater intensity and persistence in response to energy inputs when compared to the turbidity that resulted, pre- construction, to the same energy inputs. In its proposed recommended order, DEP asserts that turbidity is a "natural and important part of the nearshore ecosystem." Id. at p. 25. No one can dispute this assertion. But if the unstated implication is that elevated turbidity values are irrelevant until 29 NTUs over background is reached, DEP ignores the fact that the functions of a balanced marine ecosystem may be impacted by elevations of turbidity of less than 29 NTUs, especially when the causes of elevated turbidity are anthropogenic in origin. It is unknown, but unnecessary to determine, whether the placement of nearly one million cubic yards of dredged sediment whose mean grain size is a little more than half of the mean grain size of the existing sediment will raise turbidity by 29 NTUs or more; based on the intra- construction readings near the excavation site on Reach 7, it may be assumed that post-construction erosion of these fines will not approach 29 NTUs over background. However, it is likely that the post-construction erosion of these fines will harm the beach, nearshore, and hardbottom habitats and the organisms using these habitats for a period of probably one year, and these turbidity-based impacts are entirely unmitigated. DEP has failed to distinguish water quality violations due to excessive turbidity with impacts to the water resources of the district from an activity that has caused increased turbidity more frequently for longer periods of time. An increase of one NTU over background is probably harmless to the water resources of the district, and water-quality antidegradation standards are inapplicable to this case because the subject waters are merely Class III waters with no special designation. But an increase of turbidity of less than less than 29 NTUs over background can harm the beach, nearshore, and hardbottom habitat and the species that rely on these habitats. DEP's suggestion that the Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan can "account for any unforeseen anomalies in the fill material" (Id.) ignores the facts that: 1) the discrepancies between mean grain size of the fill and existing beach are already known to characterize the two sand bodies in their entirety and cannot be regarded as mere anomalies; 2) even a trained professional cannot, in real time, collect and analyze the fill as it is deposited on the beach and in the surf zone; 3) accounting for hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of excessive fines dumped on a beach is easier said than done, as it is unclear what the contractor would do with these fines once they are slurried out of the borrow area; and 4) as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the assessment of impacts and identification of mitigation must take place prior to, not after, permitting. From a functional perspective, the impact of discrepancy in mean grain sizes and silt values in this case is significant. No one calculated an overfill factor based on these numbers, but the excessive fines will probably require the contractor to place 170 to 200 percent of the fill that it would have been required to place to fill the beach profile templates, if the sand source had contained identical mean grain sizes. For the reasons stated above, the contractor will likely pump as much fill as is needed to fill these templates, without regard to estimates of volume of fill. The additional silt is also significant. The existing beach is probably midway between zero silt and 0.5 percent silt. BA V and VI contain about 1.5 percent silt. Assuming an increase of one percent of the presence silt in the sediments, this means that, if the project resulted in only 724,200 cubic yards of fill, over 7000 cubic yards of additional silt, beyond the pre-existing silt mix on Reach 8, would be added to the beach. The characteristics of sediments by grain size and the effect of discrepancies between sand sources and existing beaches of the magnitude proposed in this case provide a context for understanding the meaning of the post-construction observations of Reach 7 reported by the citizens in the anecdotals collected above. Obviously, the credibility of these reporters is of paramount importance. These witnesses reported honestly what they saw. When the waters were fouled, they said so. When the waters cleared, they also said so. They did not bend their testimony to achieve a desired result. Doubtlessly, it would have been preferable to have comprehensive, detailed, post-construction data collection, linked to storm events, which themselves would be classified by wind, current, and wave forces; duration; and frequency. Palm Beach has long been on notice of the need to collect such data in order to be able to provide the reasonable assurances required by law. The Permit contains important provisions designed to require Palm Beach to do so on this project, but such an undertaking would aid future projects, not this one. The need to obtain comprehensive beach-performance data has long been highlighted in the professional literature, as well as by local officials, such as the Palm Beach DERM and the Palm Beach Shore Protection Board. Palm Beach cannot complain when the only source of such data is concerned citizens. The situation concerning post-construction hardbottom coverage is different from the situation concerning post- construction water clarity or turbidity levels: federal and state agencies focused closely on post-construction hardbottom coverage. And both NMFS and DEP expressed justifiable reservations about CPE's assurances about hardbottom coverage. By its conservation recommendation, NMFS implied either that a take of 19 juvenile green turtles was excessive, even though it expressly allowed the take of this number, or, more likely, that the actual coverage of hardbottom would exceed the 6.9 acres, so that the fill should be reduced to avoid additional impacts to hardbottom. DEP's concerns are more explicit. Consistent with its concerns during the permitting process, DEP required contingent mitigation to offset what it viewed as the possibility of more than 6.9 acres of hardbottom being covered. As already noted, the models on which CPE relied in projecting longshore spreading do not support CPE's conclusion as to the extent of coverage. The problems with the use of GENESIS in this case have been amply described. The problem with the use of the Walton and Chiu model is due to CPE's failure to acknowledge the actual discrepancy in mean grain size between the sand sources and the existing beach. The actual discrepancy and resulting overfill factor, both being much larger than CPE has acknowledged or considered in its modeling, promise that an undetermined amount of additional hardbottom will be covered, for an undetermined period of time, as the excessive fines in the fill transport beyond the limits projected by CPE before eventually undergoing cross-shore sorting into deeper, lower-energy waters. The area potentially affected by additional longshore spreading, though, is rich in hardbottom habitat. For instance, the DERM EA, which studied R-115 to R-141, notes that R-117 to R-124 contains an inner nearshore band of hardbottom of less than 100 feet wide with scattered nearshore bands of hardbottom of less than 40 feet wide near the Lake Worth Pier. The hardbottom became more extensive south of the Lake Worth Municipal Beach and consisted of two bands: an inner nearshore band 60-150 feet wide from just south of the Lake Worth Municipal Beach to south of R-141 and an outer nearshore band 100-250 feet wide from R-132 to south of R-141. Additional spreading to the south would cover more hardbottom. It is possible, on this record, to determine that additional hardbottom that would be covered by the spreading fill, but not the area of this additional hardbottom. Consequently, Palm Beach has failed to provide reasonable assurance that only 6.9 acres of hardbottom would be buried, directly or indirectly. As noted above, the hardbottom provides irreplaceable foraging and resting habitat for juveniles of various species, including the green turtle. The temporary loss--permanent, if ongoing nourishment events are assumed--of 6.9 acres of hardbottom habitat--although not the attendant loss of species, especially the five green turtles--is appropriately mitigated here. Palm Beach has underestimated the area of hardbottom impact and thus, among other things, underestimated the deaths of juvenile green turtles, which will die at the rate of five multiplied by the additional area in acres multiplied by 14.8 percent (the Rusenko fibropapillomatosis-infection rate). In the final revision of the Permit, Palm Beach and DEP removed the monitoring requirements for the offshore reef. The uniqueness of this resource has been detailed above. Because of the rare confluence of conditions required for its creation, the Florida Reef Tract cannot be replaced in any timeframe short of geologic time, so its protection, even from remote risks, must be a matter of exceptional regulatory concern. The turbidity resulting from the excavation seems short-lived. The relatively deep waters of BA V and VI are not subject to energy events sufficient to resuspend these particles, so once the dredge moves on, they quickly resettle to the bottom. Also, BA V and VI are relatively great distances from the Florida Reef Tract. It is not the excavation sites that pose even a potential threat to the offshore reef. Again, though, the performance of the beach, filled with excessive fines, poses a potential threat to the offshore reef. Storm-driven plumes of unnatural turbidity can carry these particles from Reach 8 to the offshore reef, where they may settle on the coral, obviously harming or killing this critical resource. It is impossible to find, on this record, that the likelihood of this event is such that it represents a probable impact to this resource, but, given the paramount importance of the Florida Reef Tract, the requirement of monitoring was not only a prudent, but necessary, provision as part of the reasonable assurance to be provided by Palm Beach concerning the water resources of the district. CRP Criteria Palm Beach has failed to provide adequate engineering data concerning shoreline stability and performance, post- construction, and the potential impacts of the project upon the beach-dune system of Reach 8. Palm Beach has failed to provide sufficient mitigation to assure the performance of the Permit with respect to the covering of hardbottom. Palm Beach has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and indirect coverage of hardbottom will be limited to 6.9 acres, so it has failed to provide adequate mitigation. Palm Beach has failed to provide any mitigation whatsoever for the expected deaths of five juvenile green turtles from the loss of 6.9 acres of hardbottom and additional juvenile sea turtles from the loss of additional hardbottom. Palm Beach has failed to provide any mitigation for the turbidity that would result from the project and deprive a wide range of species from the use of these beach and nearshore habitats, other than the mitigated hardbottom, for a period of about one year. Palm Beach has failed to justify the scope of this project, given the large overfill factor that results from the relatively large discrepancy between the mean grain size of the sand source and the existing beach. Palm Beach has failed to establish that Reach 8 is eroding, especially the majority of it that is not designated CEB. Palm Beach has failed to justify the use of a limited resource--offshore sand--to restore considerable lengths of nonCEB, especially where they may be other, dissipative beaches that are CEBs and that feature mean grain sizes closer to the mean grain size of BA V and VI, so that the ratio of upland protection and environmental impact would be improved compared to the poor ratio offered by the present project. Palm Beach has failed to show that the proposed project would produce a net positive benefit to the coastal system. To the contrary, the project would produce a net negative impact to the coastal system, again due to the use of excessive fines in the fill. The impacts from turbidity are unmitigated; the impacts from hardbottom coverage are only partly mitigated. Palm Beach has failed to undertake a monitoring program to assure that the project does not have an adverse impact on the Florida Reef Tract. Palm Beach has failed to protect all of the environmental functions of Florida's beaches by proposing to fill Reach 8 with fill whose mean grain size is little more than half the mean grain size of the existing beach and will not maintain the general character and functionality of the beach, dune, and coastal system of Reach 8. ERP Criteria Palm Beach has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project protects the water resources of the district from harm. Palm Beach has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. If, as DEP Director of Division of Water Resource Management Janet Llewellyn testified, the legislative declaration of public interest as to the relatively short North and South Segments is a consideration, but not determinative, in applying the public interest test, Palm Beach's showing in this regard would still be insufficient. Palm Beach failed to show that the project would satisfy any one of the public-interest criteria except the criterion concerning archaeological and historical resources; even for the criterion of temporary versus permanent, the recurring nature of beach nourishments, on a cycle of probably two or three years, lends to the project a certain permanency. The project would affect the property of others in essentially closing the Lake Worth Municipal Beach and Lake Worth Pier for about one year. The project would interfere with public safety by elevating the turbidity of the local waters, so as to raise the risk of shark attacks and collisions between swimmers and partly concealed hardbottom. The project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, and their habitats. The project will likely result in the death of five juvenile green turtles plus an unknown number of additional juvenile green turtles based on the destruction of hardbottom in addition to 6.9 (or 7) acres. For about one year, the project will remove a wide swathes of habitats favored by species, many of whom are juvenile and many of whom display marked levels of habitat fidelity, and will remove from this area the species that use these habitats. For about one year, the beach and nearshore waters in the vicinity of Reach 8 will be largely devoid of marine life, and the beach will be unsuitable for sea turtle nesting. The project will remove longer-term (and permanently, if routine nourishments followed the restoration) 6.9 acres of mitigated hardbottom and an unknown additional area of unmitigated hardbottom. The project will cause harmful erosion of the filled beach. The project will adversely affect the fishing, recreational values, and marine productivity of the waters adjacent to Reach 8 for about one year. The project is of a temporary nature, although Palm Beach intends to renourish the beach, as needed, so the temporary impacts would recur, unless Palm Beach found a more suitable source of fill. Dr. Dean predicts a six-year life expectancy for the project, but the renourishments would be needed at more frequent intervals if Palm Beach continued to use excessive fines in the fill. The project will not affect historical or archaeological resources. The current condition and relative value of the functions performed by the hardbottom and beach are high at present. From an environmental perspective, the beach is not as impaired as Palm Beach claims. In due time, from the perspective of, say, sea turtles and their nesting needs, the beach is recovering from sand losses from unusual storm years. It is less clear whether, in due time, from the perspective of upland landowners, the beach is recovering from sand losses from these unusual storm years, although one witness called by Surfrider was an oceanfront owner who opposed the project, except possibly for dunes-only nourishment. The mitigation offered by Palm Beach is inadequate. It fails to mitigate for the impacts, for about one year, to the beach and nearshore, including hardbottom, except for 6.9 acres of hardbottom. It fails to mitigate for the loss of five endangered green turtles plus an additional number of green turtles based on impacted hardbottom in addition to 6.9 (or 7) acres. The project would also cause cumulative impacts. Palm Beach offers mitigation in the same drainage basin, which DEP reasonably construes to be the area between the two inlets. But the mitigation does not offset all of the adverse impacts, so cumulative impacts must be considered. The cumulative impacts of poor beach management practices in the past include failing to maintain the sand transfer plant at the Lake Worth Inlet, managing Palm Beach Island by segments instead of as a single resource, allowing the installation of extensive armoring along Reach 8 (in one case at the south end of Reach 8, well seaward of what the coastal system can tolerate) and extensive groins north of Reach 8, and placing excessive fines on the beaches in the form of dredge spoil and unsuitable borrow area fill without monitoring project-related turbidity and its impacts on the water resources of the district. In terms of the project as the construction of a surface water management system, it would not cause adverse water quantity impacts, adverse flooding, adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities or adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that it would cause a violation of any water quality standards (including turbidity). The project generally meets the other requirements, except that the project would adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by surface waters. Most of the BOR provisions are addressed above. In terms of project design alterations to eliminate and reduce impacts, Palm Beach has reduced (and enlarged) the project, as described above. Some of the alterations reflect the ability to pick up dropped segments in later projects for adjacent reaches. However, the broad exception for public safety enables Palm Beach to show compliance with this requirement. Public safety would be enhanced, however marginally, by placing, on the beach and dunes of Reach 8, as much excessive fines as they could hold; the public safety exception to the requirement to eliminate and reduce impacts does not require consideration of the impact on the water resources of the district. The project obviously involves significant secondary impacts on surface water functions as the fill erodes into the nearshore and generates turbidity in the water column and burial of resources on the submerged bottom. Proprietary Authorization Criteria As detailed above, Palm Beach has failed to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Given the projected performance of the project in terms of damaging turbidity for one year, the relatively quick loss of the excessive fines from where they would be placed on the beach, the impact on the Lake Worth Municipal Beach and Lake Worth Pier, and the need for nourishment programs in quick succession to replace the lost sediments, the social, economic, and environmental costs in this case outweigh the social, economic, and environmental benefits. There are reasonable alternatives, even to allowing the natural coastal system to continue to build beach along most of Reach 8, such as maintaining the sand transfer plant with greater vigilance and possibly installing groins to capture sand of more appropriate mean grain size. And, as noted above, Palm Beach has failed to mitigate important impacts to the natural resources. Additionally, Palm Beach has failed to prove that its use of excessive fines in the fill and the consequent turbidity with its impact on the water resources would not unreasonably deprive Lake Worth of its riparian rights, as described below. Variance Criteria If the project were otherwise permittable, it would meet the criteria for a variance. Dune-Only Project Several of the witnesses who otherwise opposed the project testified that they would not oppose a dune-only project. Based on the evidence, especially the vastly lower volumes of fill required, Palm Beach has provided the required assurances so that it would be entitled to a JCP, letter of consent, and variance for such a limited project, even without any mitigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying the request for a JCP, letter of consent, and variance (as it is now moot); provided, however, due to the vastly lower volumes of fill involved, the final order may authorize the nourishment of the Reach 8 dunes, apart from those in the Lake Worth Gap (unless Lake Worth joins in the request), in accordance with the dune template approved in the Permit, without any mitigation. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of March, 2009.
