The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified swimming pool contractor, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB) as a certified swimming pool contractor, having been issued license number CP C012912, and at all times material the Respondent was a qualifying agent of Blue Dolphin Fiberglass Installations, Inc. (Blue Dolphin). On May 4, 1990, Blue Dolphin entered into a contract with Mary Gonzalez to install a fiberglass swimming pool at Ms. Gonzalez's home at 351 Southwest Thirtieth Court, Miami, Florida, for the total sum of $14,395. The written contract was a form prepared by Blue Dolphin. Among other provisions, the contract required Blue Dolphin to have its work inspected. The property owners paid the $14,395 contract price as follows: $1,395 on May 4, 1990; $10,000 on May 11, 1990; $2,000 on May 29, 1990, and $1,000 in March 1992. In June of 1990, Blue Dolphin installed a fiberglass swimming pool at the Gonzalez home. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Gonzalez home was located within the City of Miami, where construction, including the installation of swimming pools, was governed by the South Florida Building Code (SFBC). To prevent a fiberglass pool from being moved upward by rises in the groundwater table when the pool was empty, the SFBC required the installation of the subject fiberglass pool to include a 36-inch by 4-inch concrete perimeter walkway strengthened with welded steel wire mesh reinforcement. The SFBC required that Blue Dolphin have the placement of the reinforcing steel wires inspected by the City of Miami building department before it poured the concrete for the perimeter walkway. Respondent knew of this requirement. When the subject pool was originally installed by Blue Dolphin, steel reinforcement for the concrete walkway was properly placed before the concrete was poured. The pool as originally installed was not level. On June 12, 1990, Blue Dolphin performed work in an effort to correct that condition. Gloria Gonzalez, the daughter of Mary Gonzalez, lives at the subject property and observed the original work and the corrective work. She testified that the corrective work included removal of a portion of the deck along the entire south side and parts of the east and west sides of the pool. She estimated that approximately sixty percent of the entire deck was removed and subsequently replaced. When Blue Dolphin replaced the parts of the deck that it had removed, it did not place reinforcing steel in a substantial portion of the replaced deck. Gloria Gonzalez estimated that eighty percent of the deck that was replaced did not have steel reinforcement.1 Blue Dolphin failed to have the steel reinforcement inspected by the City of Miami as required by the SFBC when it originally poured the concrete deck and when it replaced part of the concrete deck when the corrective action was taken. The SFBC required Blue Dolphin to obtain a satisfactory final inspection for the project by the City of Miami. As of the time of the final hearing, the project had not passed final inspection. On May 10, 1990, Blue Dolphin obtained two building permits from the City of Miami for the subject project. Blue Dolphin obtained permits to complete the project on June 25, 1992, and, after the first permit expired, it obtained a second completion permit on August 19, 1997. The second completion permit expired on November 14, 1998. At the final hearing, Respondent acknowledged Blue Dolphin's continuing duty to obtain a satisfactory final inspection of the job and expressed willingness to do whatever was necessary in order to pass the final inspection. Respondent also admitted that he and his company were negligent in the completion of this project. Passing final inspection establishes that the pool was legally built and can be legally used. On February 28, 1998, the City of Miami issued a letter to Mary Gonzalez threatening to impose a fine against her in the amount of $250.00 for failing to obtain mandatory inspections for one of the building permits obtained by Blue Dolphin in 1990. Ms. Gonzalez's daughter, Gloria Gonzalez, was able to get the City of Miami building department to agree to waive the fine by explaining the history of the project to the building officials. The ability of Mary Gonzalez and her family to use the pool was impaired by Blue Dolphin's failure to properly install the pool and to correct defects in the pool so that the project could pass final inspection. Petitioner presented the testimony of a pool contractor2 who estimated that the cost of replacing the entire deck would be $8,975.00. The lack of steel reinforcement could be rectified by the removal of the portions of the deck that do not have the steel reinforcement. Petitioner's expert was not prepared to estimate the cost of replacing only the portions of the deck that had not been reinforced before the concrete was poured. Respondent's testimony established that replacing only the portions of the deck that had not been reinforced would be substantially less than the estimate provided by Petitioner's witness. At the time the subject pool was initially installed, Blue Dolphin was in the height of its busy season and had more jobs going than Respondent could properly supervise. Section 489.1195(1), Florida Statutes, imposed on Respondent, as Blue Dolphin's qualifying agent, the duty to supervise the company's operations, including all field work at all sites. Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution of this proceeding, excluding attorney's fees, totaled $1,436.50 as of April 23, 1998. Respondent has been disciplined by Petitioner on three prior occasions. On December 8, 1994, Petitioner entered a Final Order in Petitioner's case number 92-15716 pursuant to a settlement agreement of alleged violations of Section 489.129(1)(e), (f), and (g), Florida Statutes (1992). By the settlement, Respondent neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations. Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $100 and costs in the amount of $625. On August 13, 1990, Petitioner entered a Final Order in Petitioner's case number 101966 that found Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain a final inspection for a pool installation and for committing negligence, incompetence, misconduct, and/or deceit in the practice of contracting. As a result of the Final Order, Respondent paid an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500 and his license was suspended from August 13, 1990, to September 18, 1990 (the date he paid the administrative fine). On April 1, 1986, Petitioner entered a Final Order in Petitioner's case number 0058699 pursuant to a settlement agreement of alleged violations of Sections 489.1119, 489.129(1)(g), (j), and (m), Florida Statutes. By the settlement, Respondent neither admitted nor denied the alleged violations. Respondent agreed to pay a fine of $1,000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered that dismisses Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint, but finds Respondent guilty of Counts II, III, and IV of the Amended Administrative Complaint. For the violation of Count II, Petitioner should impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000. For the violation of Count III, Petitioner should impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $2,000. For the violation of Count IV, Petitioner should impose an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $2,000. The Final Order should order Respondent to obtain from the City of Miami a satisfactory final inspection of the Gonzalez pool within 90 days of the entry of the Final Order. The Final Order should place Respondent's licensure on probation for two years and should impose reasonable conditions of probation pursuant to Rule 61G4-17.007, Florida Administrative Code. The Final Order should order Respondent to pay within 90 days of the entry of the Final Order Petitioner's costs of investigating and prosecuting this matter, excluding costs associated with attorney's time. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 21st day of April, 1999
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 370.142(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The terms of the settlement agreement between the parties are set forth in the following paragraphs. The parties stipulated to the factual basis alleged in Case No. 97-4209. As set forth in the citation dated August 7, 1997, Respondent Jorge Cabrera (Cabrera) was fishing 130 untagged crawfish traps. This was the second time within a 24-month period that Cabrera was in violation of Section 370.142(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), agrees to abate the notices that form the basis for Case Nos. 97-4416, 97-4485, and 97-5005 on the following terms and conditions: Cabrera shall immediately pay a fine of $5,000 to the Department. Cabrera shall have his Saltwater Products License (SPL-44525) and all endorsements thereto, C-9049, X-1615, V-7859, ML-887 and RS (current RS expiring June 30, 1999), suspended for five years beginning July 1, 1998, and continuing through the end of the 2002/2003 license year. It is specifically recognized by the parties that the SPL and endorsements currently held by Cabrera remain active until and through the close of business hours (5:00 p.m.) June 30, 1998. The parties agree that the license is suspended for five years, but that at the end of the five-year period, Cabrera is otherwise eligible to reapply for an SPL and the endorsements currently held on the 1997/1998 SPL license, which are the Restricted Species (one-year eligibility remaining), Crawfish, Blue Crab, Stone Crab, and Marine Life endorsements. In this case only, as part of the parties' settlement agreement, the Department agrees that the statutory requirements for renewal of the Crawfish and Stone Crab endorsements and specifically the currently mandatory every September 30-renewal-application deadline for the Stone Crab renewal are tolled during the suspension period. The qualifying period for the RS endorsement is tolled only as to the time currently remaining for requalification on the existing license, which would be one year remaining eligibility. Upon renewal of the SPL with endorsements application for the 2002/2003 license year, eligibility and time remaining will resume from what Cabrera had at the time the suspension became effective. The time periods tolled begin to run again on July 1, 2002, whether the SPL holder has applied for reactivation of his SPL with endorsements or not. Specifically, if there is no application for an SPL with RS endorsement within one year of July 1, 2002, the one year's eligibility remaining from the 1997/1998 license expires. Any time that has expired after July 1, 2002, counts, and the time remaining to requalify for the RS will be whatever time remains from the one-year eligibility which begins to run on July 1, 2002, and expires on June 30, 2003. For example, if the application is received by the Department in September 2002, the applicant would have only nine months of RS eligibility remaining. Under current license application procedures, the earliest reapplication that may be submitted will be in April 2002 for the 2002/2003 license year. Cabrera shall have only until the close of the current year transfer-period to transfer his lobster-trap certificates. Any certificates not transferred are subject to forfeiture if they are not maintained pursuant to Section 370.142, Florida Statutes, during the license suspension period. All fines and fees must be paid to the Department before the transfers can be made. The Department will expedite the providing of forms, processing, and record activity, and Cabrera will expedite submittal of completed application(s) to allow reasonable time to accomplish any transfers or other record activity prior to the close of the transfer period. All traps (lobster and stone crab) must be removed from the water by the end of the fishing season. Any of Cabrera's traps that may become subject to disposition under the trap retrieval program (Section 370.143, Florida Statutes) must be handled as appropriate, even if the circumstances occur after the time the license suspension becomes effective. The parties agree to bear their own costs and attorney's fees associated with these proceedings. The parties agree that breach of the settlement agreement between the parties will revive all rights and remedies available to the non-breaching party that the party had against the other prior to entering into the settlement agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which incorporates the provisions of the Settlement Agreement between the parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 M. B. Adelson, IV, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 John A. Jabro, Esquire 90811 Overseas Highway, Suite B Tavernier, Florida 33070
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if a Petition for Relief is referred to the DOAH for formal hearing based on a Notice of Determination: No Jurisdiction issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR resume jurisdiction of the matter and complete the investigation of the Charge of Discrimination, pursuant to Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, or permit Petitioner to make her election of remedies pursuant to Section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 15th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: William R. Amlong, Esquire Amlong & Amlong, P.A. 500 Northeast Fourth Street Second Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301-1154 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Keith C. Tischler, Esquire Powers, Quaschnick, et. al. 1669 Mahan Center Boulevard Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
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.
Conclusions The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (“FWC” or ‘““Commission’) hereby enters the following Final Order. ISSUE AND SUMMARY The Commission issued a permit to Chris Johnson to conduct leatherback turtle research through the Loggerhead Marinelife Center, Inc. (hereinafter “LMC’”) in 2001 and has continuously reissued this permit. However, Chris Johnson’s employment with LMC was recently terminated. On January 22, 2014, the Commission issued Marine Turtle Permit #14-157A to Chris Johnson, Filed October 2, 2014 3:57 PM Division of Administrative Hearings authorizing him to conduct leatherback turtle research on Palm Beach County beaches, effective January 1, 2014. On December 20, 2013, the Commission issued a permit to Sarah Hirsch, Data Manager for LMC, to conduct marine turtle research on Palm Beach County beaches, effective January 1, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the Commission issued Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Charles Manire, who works for LCM, to conduct a subset of the same activities that Chris Johnson’s permit authorizes Chris Johnson to perform with leatherback turtles. On February 12, 2014, LMC filed a Request for Enlargement of Time to File Petition. On February 28, 2014, LMC filed a Petition for a Formal Administrative Hearing, and on April 25, 2014, LMC filed an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (hereinafter “LMC Petition”), challenging the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-157A to Chris Johnson. The LMC Petition states that the activities Chris Johnson proposes to conduct under his permit are not in the public interest as his activities would interfere with the research LMC conducts under contract with Palm Beach County, and would duplicate research that LMC employees have conducted for more than 20 years on the same beaches. The LMC Petition states that Chris Johnson has demonstrated no need for his research. The LMC Petition disputes that Chris Johnson has the necessary permits or concurrence from the appropriate park management units to conduct the research and claims that Chris Johnson submitted materially false information in his application for a permit. The LMC Petition states that following his termination by LMC, Chris Johnson misappropriated LMC’s leatherback sea turtle data set to start his own organization, and that Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes, Chapter 68E-1, and Rule 68-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, require denial of the permit. LMC has filed a separate civil action against Chris Johnson alleging, among other things, the misappropriation of turtle data from LMC. The Commission transferred the case to the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) on April 17, 2014, which was assigned DOAH Case No. 14-001651. The permittee, Chris Johnson, filed a Motion to Intervene in the case on April 29, 2014, and was granted party status on April 30, 2014. On June 3, 2014, Chris Johnson filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (hereinafter “Johnson Petition’’) challenging the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Manire at LMC, The Johnson Petition primarily states that the application for this permit was an attempt to keep Chris Johnson from being able to conduct his research, that Dr. Manire’s permit interferes with Chris Johnson’s permit, that Dr. Manire does not have the requisite knowledge and skill to conduct the permitted activities, that the public’s interest is best served by having Chris Johnson conduct the research and that Section 379.2431, Florida Statutes, and Rules 68E- 1002(2), 68E-1.004(6) and (17), and Rule 68-1.010, Florida Administrative Code, require denial of the permit. On June 12, 2014, the permittees, Dr. Charles Manire and LMC, filed a Petition to Intervene, and were granted party status on June 19, 2014. This case was transferred to DOAH and assigned DOAH Case No. 14-002806. On June 23, 2014, this case was consolidated with LMC v. Chris Johnson and FWC, DOAH Case No. 14-001651, which was pending before DOAH. On July 22, 2014, Christopher Johnson filed a motion seeking sanctions, including attorney’s fees, On September 8, 2014, LMC, stating that the administrative action is negatively impacting LMC’s civil action and the turtle nesting season has passed, voluntarily dismissed its petition without prejudice, thereby withdrawing its challenge to the issuance of the permit to Chris Johnson. On September 8, 2014, Dr. Manire withdrew his application for a permit. As the substantive issues in the case were rendered moot by LMC’s dismissal of its petition and Dr. Manire’s withdrawal of his application, on September 11, 2014, DOAH relinquished jurisdiction over the permitting issues back to the Commission. However, DOAH retained jurisdiction over the issue of attorney’s fees. WHEREFORE, as LMC has voluntarily dismissed its Petition, thereby withdrawing its challenge to the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-157 to Chris Johnson, the permit is hereby GRANTED. As LMC and Dr. Charles Manire have voluntarily withdrawn their application for the permit, the issuance of Marine Turtle Permit #14-211 to Dr. Charles Manire at LMC is hereby DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida this 30 day of September, 2014. t= Eric Sutton Assistant Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Filed with The Agency Clerk MULL, This 2 day of-September, 2014 LIFE Oe Sbtobe 7 enrol ATTEST: yy % ono Agency Clerk Cyriteeesanst CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above FINAL ORDER has been furnished by U.S. Mail to Rachael M. Bruce, 515 N. Flagler Dr Ste 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4327; Alfred Malefatto, Lewis Longman and Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr Ste 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4327; Edwin A. Steinmeyer, Lewis Longman & Walker, 315 S. Calhoun St Ste 830, Tallahassee, FL 32301-1872; Frank Rainer, Broad and Cassel, PO Box 11300, Tallahassee, FL 32302-3300; and David ge Broad and Cassel, 2 S Biscayne Blvd Ste 21, Miami, FL 33131-1800, on this day “ane Copies furnished to: Ryan Smith Osborne (via email) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Legal Office 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399 Michael Yaun (via email) Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Legal Office 620 South Meridian St. Tallahassee, FL. 32399 Florida Bar No. 956953 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (850) 487-1764 NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS The foregoing constitutes final agency action in this matter. Any party adversely affected has the right to seek judicial review of this Final Order pursuant to section 120.68 Florida Statutes, and rule 9.030(b)(1)(c) and 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. To initiate an appeal, a Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Office of the General Counsel, and the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of that this Final Order is filed with the Agency Clerk. The Notice filed with the District Court of Appeal must be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee required by law.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In March of 1980, the petitioner submitted to the Department of Environmental Regulation an application for a permit to dredge and construct a flow-through inland waterway to provide navigational access to a proposed upland development to be known as "Curry Cove" along the east coast of Key Largo in Monroe County. As presently envisioned, the proposed "Curry Cove" is to be a private, residential vacation-type subdivision located on 70 acres of land between Highway No. 1 and the Atlantic Ocean. The subdivision will consist of townhouses and single-family dwellings for a total of 219 residential units. No commercial use of the upland property is planned. At present, the upland site is a dense, tropical hardwood hammock. As subsequently revised, the proposed upland canal is to be 4,400 feet long from north to south, with varying widths of from 70 to 125 feet and an average depth of -4.0 MLW, and will be connected by a north and south channel to the Atlantic Ocean. The southern channel is designed for navigational ingress and egress and has dimensions of 250 feet in length and 50 feet in width. The northern circulation channel will be 150 feet long and 50 feet wide and will be blocked to navigation by unidirectional tidal flap gates, which will force the waters to move from a southerly to a northerly direction. The canal is designed to have a two-day flushing period, with approximately 65 percent of the waters exiting through the northern circulation channel. An upland "catchment beach" is proposed for the entrance to the navigation channel to trap organic debris. A shallow basin will be excavated on the northern end to increase the exchange of water. The total project as proposed entails the removal by dredging of approximately 176,580 cubic yards of material landward of mean high water and 1,780 cubic yards waterward of mean high water. Materials removed are to be hauled away and deposited on an undesignated upland site. The project also involves the removal of approximately one-fourth acre of red and black mangroves, including several mature trees ranging from 20 to 30 feet in height, and approximately .21 acres of seagrasses and algae. The algae/seagrass area to be dredged, 1,115 square meters, is expected to result in the loss of approximately 2,500 pounds of seagrass annually. Petitioners propose to replant or recreate mangroves and seagrass. Mangrove seedlings will be planted over an area the size of the area of mangroves the waterways will remove. Petitioners propose to replant seagrasses in an area about four times the area of seagrass/algae which will be removed by the project. One of the issues in this proceeding is whether any portion of this project, specifically the northern circulation channel, lies within the boundaries of the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. This Park contains one of the finest and most unique coral reefs, located four to five miles offshore, within the Continental United States. The Park area encompasses some 178 nautical square miles, with a 22 mile coastline, a width of seven or eight miles and a 72-acre land base. The area is unique with Caribbean-type vegetation and is the only tropical/subtropical marine community of its kind in the Continental United States. The mangroves, seagrasses and reef areas in the Park function interdependently and each part is needed for the maintenance of the other. Animals which live on the reef come into the grass beds and the mangrove shoreline to feed and use as nursery grounds. In 1981, over 408,000 people from 90 different countries visited the Park, and at least 67,000 boats utilized the Park waters. A 40 percent increase in visitation has been noted this year. A commercial marina is located within the Park and educational programs are provided by Park staff. The shoreline of the project site is a typical Florida Keys shoreline with a calcium carbonate substrate. This soft rock substrate allows for the burrowing of benthic animals and attachment and growth of algae and sponges. Waterward of the upland hardwood hammock, there is a transition zone of buttonwood and other plants and then a mangrove community comprised primarily of blacks and red mangroves, with some whites. Beyond this mangrove area is a rocky intertidal area vegetated largely by algae and, finally, the most waterward zone is mixed with seagrasses, primarily turtle grass, and hard rock with algae growing on it. The seagrass/algae community supports diverse populations of corals, sponges and mollusks. A sample from the offshore bay bottom community in the area of the proposed access channels revealed approximately 1800 macroinvertibrate organisms in about six square inches. Extrapolating those figures to a square meter, the approximate number of organisms would be in the neighborhood of 60,000. These figures far exceed samples taken from nearby existing access channels. The dredging of the algae/seagrass area will disrupt an area found to be exceptionally rich in macroinvertibrates. Because a channel is dredged deeper than the controlling depth of the offshore water, access channel bottoms are characterized by discontinuity and an accumulation of fine-grained silty sediments. High siltation is characteristic of other existing channels in the area of petitioners' proposed project. Such a substrate is not conducive to a productive marine community and supports a very reduced macroinvertibrate population. The destruction of mangroves, algae meadows and seagrasses which provide significant nursery and feeding grounds for a wide diversity of aquatic species will have an adverse impact on the natural and aquatic resources of the area. Increased turbidity around the access channel during construction and afterward will cause silts and sands to be released and this will place stress upon the areas adjacent to the channel. Such a stressful situation will cause a reduction of diversity in the immediate area of the project. As noted above, nearshore areas serve a vital function as a habitat for larval and juvenile development, as well as for feeding. Petitioners do propose to recreate a similar number of mangroves as are removed by the dredging and to replant seagrasses in the proposed channels. If these efforts were successful and algae naturally revegetated in the channel, productive marine habitat may come up into the channel and the waterway could provide a shelter for fish. While some success has been found with respect to the replanting or recreation of mangroves, a similar success rate for the replanting of seagrasses in access channels and artificial waterways in the Florida Keys was not adequately demonstrated. Some of the mangroves to be destroyed are 20 to 30 feet tall. It could take ten years or more for a new mangrove to attain such height. Petitioners' stormwater management plan will retain the first one inch of rainfall and no pollutants are expected to be generated from upland runoff. From a hydrographic standpoint, the proposed project's two-day flushing time is acceptable. The existence or non-existence of benthic communities in an area are important indicators of water quality trends. Monitoring has been conducted by the DER to access the impact of existing access channels on the Florida Keys upon offshore benthic communities and water quality. The benthic community which presently exists at the proposed project site is much more diverse and significant than in existing access channels which were typically found to be unvegetated. The highly organic materials in the sediment of existing access channels have been found to be toxic to many marine organisms and dissolved oxygen violations have been found in the existing basins and access channels. It can be anticipated that the development of anaerobic sediments, loss of vegetation, decomposition and the destabilization of the area will result in lower levels of dissolved oxygen in the proposed waterway. Also, although the proposed two-day flushing time was deemed adequate in this project from a hydrographic standpoint, water in artificial waterways and access channels tends to be stratified with cold, dense water on the bottom and warmer water on the surface. This indicates that clean water is not adequately circulating throughout the water column and oxygen is being depleted. Stratified waters typically violate dissolved oxygen standards. As water from the canal exists from the northern access channel, it will exert an oxygen demand upon the outside water. Numerous access channels presently exist in the Florida Keys. It is estimated that some 52 acres of submerged bottoms have been dredged with a resulting loss in biological productivity. There is a shortage of boat docking space in the Florida Keys. The "Curry Cove" project would provide jobs to the construction industry and would necessitate the procurement of labor, materials and supplies, thus boosting the local economy. The subject property could be developed without a boat basin, though the present applicants are not interested in doing so. The applicants have not yet received the consent of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources for the use of sovereignty lands. The waters within the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park are designated and classified as Outstanding Florida Waters. The respondent's land management specialist determined from a review of maps and documents on file with the Department of Natural Resources that the petitioners' proposed northeastern circulation channel fell within the boundaries of the Park. George M. Cole, a professional land surveyor who had previously performed survey work for the Department of Natural Resources in relation to a determination of the southern boundary of the Park, determined that the location of the north end of the proposed project is 363 feet south of the southerly Park boundary. In 1959, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund dedicated certain submerged lands as the Key Large Coral Reef Preserve, now known as a portion of the Pennekamp Park. The boundaries of the Preserve were created in relation to markers and navigation aids. The description includes a reference to a line running from Black Day Beacon "37," which is described with reference to an "approximate" latitude and longitude. A Presidential Proclamation entered on March 15, 1960, created the Preserve pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, describing the area in a fashion identical to the State dedication, including the location of Day Beacon "37." In 1967, the Trustees expanded its dedication to include Those submerged tidal bottom lands in the Atlantic Ocean lying between the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo including the submerged land in Largo Sound and the various inlets along the easterly coast of Key Largo; . . . Thus, the boundaries of the 1967 dedication is first dependent upon the boundaries in the original dedication, and the phrase "lands. . .lying between the. . .Park and Key Largo" are dependent upon some amount of interpretation. Mr. Cole's original survey concerning the southern boundaries of the Park revealed that the position of Day Beacon "37" stated in the previous dedications' descriptions as its approximate location was not an exact geographical description of its actual physical location. Current National Ocean Survey maps have positioned Day Beacon "37" at a latitude and longitude consistent with Mr. Cole's on-ground measurements. For purposes of locating a boundary, the physical location of a monument controls over written calls of its location. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, it is determined that the project site is not within the Park boundaries, but is located approximately 363 feet south of the Park's southerly boundary.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioners' application for a dredge and fill permit to construct a waterway in Key Large be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire Jane E. Heerema, Esquire and William J. Roberts, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Charles G. Stephens, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Ray Allen, Esquire Sireci, Allen, Kelly & Muldoon, P.A. 605 Duval Street Key West, Florida 33040
The Issue Whether the Notice to Proceed with the work and activities authorized by Amended Permit IR-507 should be issued.
Findings Of Fact On July 24, 1996, Respondent, Town of Indian River Shores (Town), filed an application with Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), for a permit to construct a beach access ramp seaward of the coastal construction control line. By Final Order dated November 27, 1996, the Department granted Permit Number IR-507. Petitioners, Peter Broom and Jeremy R. Geffen, and Duane Jackson, who is not a party to this proceeding, protested the granting of the permit and requested a formal hearing. A formal administrative hearing was held on November 13- 14, 1997, before Administrative Law Judge Errol H. Powell, who issued a Recommended Order on December 8, 1997, recommending that the Department enter a final order granting Permit Number IR-507 with special conditions as may be required by the Department for the protection of marine turtles. Administrative Law Judge Powell concluded the following in Paragraph 49 of the Recommended Order: 49. The evidence demonstrates that the impact of the proposed beach access ramp is minimal; that the construction or use of the beach access ramp will have no adverse effect on the marine turtle or the turtle nesting; and the beach access ramp will not cause significant adverse impacts or cumulative impacts. On January 13, 1998, the Department entered a Final Order, adopting the Recommended Order of Administrative Law Judge Powell and granting Permit Number IR-507 subject to two additional special conditions recommended by the Department staff during the final hearing pertaining to a survey of turtle nesting areas and restrictions on the use of the Town's ATV vehicle as discussed in Findings of Fact 34 and Conclusion of Law 52 of the Recommended Order, which provided: 34. At hearing, the DEP made another recommendation for the issuance of the CCCL permit, involving the marine turtle. Prior to the issuance of the Final Order, the DEP was not fully aware that the proposed beach access ramp was to be used for both emergency and routine patrol access. Having considered the circumstance of routine patrol, the DEP further recommends that a survey of turtle nesting be conducted after construction, but prior to routine use, on the Town's entire five-mile stretch along the Atlantic Ocean to mark turtle nesting areas for their protection and to place certain restrictions on the use of the ATV vehicle. This recommendation will not prohibit or hinder the construction of the beach access ramp. * * * 52. Additionally, the DEP having considered both emergency and routine patrol access, did not deny the CCCL permit. Only another recommendation to protect marine turtles was made by the DEP, regarding the routine patrol. On June 16, 1998, a Final Order was issued by the Department, issuing Amended Permit Number IR-507. Among the special conditions of the amended permit was that the Town would conduct a marine turtle nesting survey prior to the utilization of the access ramp. A notice to proceed with the activities authorized by Amended Permit Number IR-507 was issued on September 17, 1999. Petitioners requested an administrative hearing, challenging the notice to proceed. Petitioners allege that the notice to proceed had been issued without adequate demonstration of marine life/turtle nursery protection and that the proposed construction would adversely affect marine and turtle life on the beach. At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Petitioners conceded that Town had fulfilled all special conditions prerequisite to the issuance of the notice to proceed and that the permit did not require that a survey of turtle nesting be done prior to the issuance of the notice to proceed or to the commencement of construction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That a final order be entered dismissing the Request/Petition for Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Theodore W. Herzog, Esquire 1101 Simonton Street Key West, Florida 33040 Michael R. Dombroski Coastal Technology Corporation 3625 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Chester Clem, Esquire Clem, Polackwich & Vocelle 3333 20th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960-2469
Findings Of Fact It is stipulated that Marine Industries Association of South Florida, Inc. (Petitioner), has standing to bring this rule challenge. It is also stipulated that Save The Manatee Club, Inc. (Intervenor), has standing to intervene in this rule challenge. The Department of Environmental Protection (Respondent) has the responsibility of implementing the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, Section 370.12(2), Florida Statutes, which involves interpreting the terms thereof. Respondent's responsibility includes promulgating rules to regulate motorboat speeds and their operation incident to the protection of manatees, pursuant to the Act. 4. Respondent's Rules 16N-22.001(2), 16N-22.002(20) and (21), Florida Administrative Code, set forth criteria for determining the state waters in which motorboat speed would be regulated for the protection of manatees. Also, Respondent's Rules 16N-22.010(1)(e) and (g), Florida Administrative Code, establish a seasonal slow speed zone on weekends for a certain area in the Intracoastal Waterway within Broward County and a year-round slow speed and buffer zone in a certain area in the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway within Broward County for the protection of manatees. The manatee is an endangered marine mammal residing in the southern United States, principally in Florida, and has been declared by the State of Florida as its state marine mammal. Only 900 manatees are considered to be on the east coast of Florida. Respondent uses all available information on the presence of manatees, which includes actual visual sightings as well as any other method to identify their presence. Respondent refers to this information as "sightings." Respondent's information gathering procedure is consistent with established and accepted procedures for the gathering of information on manatees. Aerial surveys are part of the information relied upon by Respondent for its determinations regarding manatees. It is possible, and not uncommon, that aerial surveys may include sightings of the same mammal on different days. Whether a manatee is sighted frequently involves more than just numbers. It also includes a reasonable expectation that manatees will be seen. Aerial survey data is a minimum count to ascertain where the manatees are, not to determine how many exist or their population. Sixty-one aerial surveys were conducted in the waters of Broward County, excluding the Hillsboro Inlet, by Respondent and Broward County for Respondent. During the aerial surveys from 1988 to 1993, sixty-seven to sixty- nine sightings were made in the northern Intracoastal Waterway (NICW) in Broward County. Also, the aerial survey data showed sightings in seven out of twelve, five out of fifteen, and eleven out of eighteen flights. Manatees occasionally travel in the ocean. The aerial surveys included passes over the Atlantic Ocean. The NICW has lowlight transmission and high turbidity. Manatees travel two to five feet below the surface of the water. Because of water clarity, surface conditions and the fact that manatees must be at or very near the surface to be spotted, manatees are difficult to see in the NICW. The aerial surveys revealed an average of one sighting per flight. Lack of sightings in the aerial surveys reflect survey conditions as much as the absence of manatees. Manatees regularly move in and out of the Hillsboro Inlet zone. Manatees use the NICW in Broward County often and are frequently sighted there. When determining whether manatees inhabit an area, all data bases available should be used. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) is used by manatees for travel through Broward County. Aerial surveys of the NICW are performed at a lesser density than those performed of the power plants which are warm water refuges. Regular travel corridors constitute essential habitat. The NICW is a major travel corridor for manatees. They migrate through the NICW. Migration means purposeful movement from one point to another, as well as seasonal movement of species in mass. Manatees use the waters of the NICW and the power plants when moving back and forth between Port Everglades and Riviera Beach, and this exchange is documented. More than 200 manatees use both the Port Everglades and the Riviera Beach Power Plants (both warm water discharge areas) as warm water refuges, making repeated trips back and forth in single seasons. Thirty-Eight to forty-seven percent of manatees on the east coast use the Port Everglades area. Manatees inhabit areas where they are found. As to the waters of the ICW, they inhabit it on a regular basis. Moreover, manatees inhabit the NICW virtually continuously in winter and regularly or periodically in the off-winter months. Manatees inhabit Broward County year round, continuously in the winter months and regularly in the off-winter months. Although to a lesser degree, Respondent considers radio telemetry data in its determinations regarding manatees. Radio telemetry is a data gathering technique which is not experimental, but is less revealing when used with manatees. Telemetry data is hard to acquire in the NICW because manatees' behavior of resting and traveling deploys the tag being used in a way which is not available to the satellite. As a result, every tagged manatee is not seen on every satellite pass. Data from telemetry studies show that manatees predominantly travel the ICW, and extremely infrequently in the ocean, and have a regular exchange between the Port Everglades and Riviera Beach plants. Tagged manatees, when located visually, are found in association with others. The behavior of radio-tagged manatees is representative of the population of manatees as a whole. Manatees travel in groups in the NICW. A congregation of mammals means more than one mammal together, without assigning a reason for the congregation. Manatees congregate in areas where they are sighted in groups of two to three or more. All of the available information taken together indicates that manatees congregate in the NICW, using it on a regular and frequent basis. Respondent considers the entire NICW, including the Hillsboro Inlet zone, as a single unit when interpreting manatee sightings because of the types of manatee behavior observed and the character of the NICW. Respondent also considers anecdotal data in its determinations regarding manatees. Anecdotal data is useful for confirmation of, but not for providing new insights about manatees and their behavior. Anecdotal sighting data are consistent with and confirm what is known by Respondent from other sources about manatees. Motorboats kill, maim and disturb manatees. Manatees have scars on their bodies, which are caused by collisions with watercraft. Virtually all manatees have propeller scars and approximately 900 are documented in what is known as the Scar Catalogue. Scar patterns on manatees indicate numerous collisions, some nine to ten times. The Scar Catalogue also indicates that manatees move back and forth between the Port Everglades and Riviera Beach plants. Since 1974, when Respondent started compiling manatee mortality data, of the manatees recovered for which the cause of death could be determined, 522 were attributed to watercraft collision. Of the 522 watercraft collision deaths, twenty-seven manatees were recovered in Broward County, which represents over one-half of the total manatee deaths in Broward County for which the cause of death could be determined. However, the recovery data fails, and is unable, to show where within the ICW or NICW the manatees were struck. After a collision, manatees will seek out a quiet area. It is not unusual and is expected that injured manatees in Broward County will seek refuge at the Port Everglades. Boat traffic poses a threat to manatees. Increased or higher boat traffic poses an elevated or even greater risk to manatees. Broward County waters are utilized by large numbers of boaters. In addition to Broward boaters whose boat registrations have increased eighteen percent between 1986 and 1991, boaters from Dade and Palm Beach Counties and in winter from out-of-state use Broward waters. Boating traffic in Broward County and the NICW is heavier on weekends than on weekdays. There is no change in the traffic for Broward County in the winter months from November through March. More boating occurs during the day than at night on the NICW. A survey of boaters in Broward County relied upon by Respondent indicated that over fifty percent of boaters leave between 8:00 a.m. and noon and return between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.; that eighty-four percent of those surveyed were in favor of speed limits to protect manatees; and that fifty-nine percent of those surveyed were in favor of slow speed for the whole county on weekends and holidays from November to March. Comparatively, Respondent's slow speed rule is substantially less stringent than that which was found acceptable by those surveyed and not as stringent as recommended by the federal Fish and Wildlife Service. Several local governments in the NICW adopted resolutions calling for more stringent regulations than Respondent's rule. In an effort to lessen the interference with boaters while also providing an area of protection for manatees in the NICW, the 25 mph speed limit with the fifty-foot buffer zone was adopted. A slow speed zone in the NICW will enhance boating safety. At slow speed, only boats with propeller-on-shaft and a rudder will exhibit an unsafe condition referred to as wobbling. However, virtually no typical recreation boat which is under thirty feet is configured that way.
