The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has jurisdiction over the activities encompassed by Permit Application BA-475 (Amended) and, if so, whether issuance of the permit complies with the applicable provisions of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Undisputed Facts: The following relevant facts are established by stipulation or admission and are not disputed. The proposed project is landward of the seasonal high waterline within thirty (30) years of December 1996; The project will not interfere with public access; The project will not result in the net excavation of in situ sandy soils seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL); Any sandy soil or material excavated for the proposed project seaward of the control line will remain seaward of the control line or setback and be placed in the immediate area of construction; The proposed project complies with the structural provisions of Rule 62B-33.007(2), Florida Administrative Code; The proposed project complies with Rules 62B-33.007(3)(a) through (d) and (f) through (h), Florida Administrative Code. Additionally at hearing, the Petitioners and Intervenor announced that they would not present any evidence on the issue of adverse impacts on marine turtles. Accordingly, impacts on marine turtles are not at issue in this proceeding. Project Description: RHE has proposed constructing a restaurant, pool, deck and stormwater basin within the Boardwalk Beach Resort on Panama City Beach, in Bay County, Florida. The Boardwalk Beach Resort consists of four (4) multi-story hotels with six hundred (600) rooms all together, several pools, boardwalks extending the length of the property and approximately seventeen hundred (1,700) to eighteen hundred (1,800) feet of beach front property. The project site is between Thomas Drive to the north and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. On July 23, 1996, RHE applied to the Department for a CCCL permit to construct, seaward of the interim line established by the emergency Order of October 16, 1995, the restaurant, swimming pool and deck. Part of the proposed deck was located seaward of the coastal construction setback line. On December 9, 1996, the Department issued a permit to RHE to construct the restaurant building with an attached deck fifteen (15) feet landward of the location originally proposed by RHE, as well as for construction of the swimming pool. On December 16, 1996, the Department issued to RHE an Amended CCCL permit authorizing construction of a restaurant building located five (5) feet landward of the location originally proposed by RHE, as well as a deck re-designed so that it would be structurally independent of the restaurant, a swimming pool and a dune enhancement plan which would restore the sandy dune seaward of the pool and restaurant location to its pre-hurricane Opal condition and elevation. The Amended permit would require re-vegetation of the dunes at the site with native plants to secure the dunes from erosion. Both the original and the Amended permits authorized the removal of the stormwater drainage pipe that carried stormwater onto the beach that had caused erosion of the beach near the project area. On January 9, 1997, the Petitioners timely filed a Petition challenging the Department’s decision to issue the Amended permit. On February 7, 1997, the Department established a new CCCL line for Bay County that was farther landward than either the old coastal construction setback line or the interim line established in the October 1995 emergency order. The project authorized by the Amended permit would thus be located entirely seaward of the newly established CCCL for Bay County. As of February 7, 1997, the date the new line was established, RHE had not begun working on the foundation or continued construction above the foundation for any of the structures authorized by the Amended permit. The Department determined that the project did not meet the requirements of Section 161.053(9), and Rule 62B-33.004(1), Florida Administrative Code, so as to qualify for an exemption from complying with the newly established CCCL for Bay County, as the project was not “under construction” at the time the new CCCL was established. The beach and dunes system is wide and the dune system is a significant one, with elevations of fourteen (14) to sixteen (16) feet NGVD, with a wide dune crest. The dry sandy beach in front of the site, even after hurricane Opal struck, remained approximately one hundred twenty-five (125) feet wide. From 1855 to 1934 the shoreline of the site was mildly accretional. Thereafter, until 1955 accretion was less significant, but from 1955 to 1976 became significant. From February 1992 through April 1995, the project site experienced a period of mild erosion. Accordingly the long-term data shows, in essence, that the shoreline is relatively stable at the site. Hurricane Opal caused the dune to erode or retreat landward by approximately a distance of fifteen (15) feet. Hurricane Opal was a major magnitude storm with one hundred twenty-five (125) mile per hour sustained winds and one hundred forty-four (144) mile per hour measured gusts when it came ashore in the vicinity of the proposed site. The dune portion of the proposed site now essentially mimics the pre-Opal conditions. Following hurricane Opal the applicants spent approximately Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000.00) in dune restoration along the entire shoreline of the resort property, some seventeen hundred (1,700) to eighteen hundred (1,800) feet of shoreline. That dune restoration work was permitted by the Department. There is now little native salt-tolerant vegetation on the site in its natural pre-construction condition. An existing stormwater drainage pipe and catch basin extend onto the beach seaward of the location of the proposed restaurant. The existing pipe and basin have caused erosion of the beach and the sand dune system on the project site. Under the amended permit proposal the stormwater pipe and basin would be removed. All of the proposed structures authorized by the Amended permit would be landward of the pre-Opal coastal construction control line. The proposed pool will be located landward of the dune crest and fifty-five (55) feet landward of the toe of the dune. The proposed restaurant would also be located landward of the dune crest and two hundred five (205) feet landward of the mean high waterline. The original design of the project was for a much larger, three story restaurant. The original pool design called for a one hundred twenty foot pool extending from in front of the Comfort Inn to beneath the proposed restaurant, in effect being located on the first floor of the restaurant. At DEP’s request the size of the pool was reduced by fifty percent (50%) and it was relocated into the shadow of the Comfort Inn next door so that it will no longer serve as an integral part of the restaurant. Pool depths were also reduced to three (3) feet at DEP’s request. The pool, at DEP’s request, will now be constructed of Gunnite concrete material and will be frangible, that is, it will be designed to break up in storm-surge or storm-waves. This will serve to decrease the erosion which could be caused by storm-waves flowing over and around the pool structure. The same is true of the restaurant deck, which at DEP’s request has been re-designed to be separate from the restaurant and also designed to fail in storm conditions. The frangibility of the deck, as now proposed, will retard erosion during storm conditions, as the stormwater or waves will demolish the deck and remove it rather than scouring the sand dune around it. The Department also requested that the existing stormwater drain pipe and catch basin be removed and such a removal has been made a condition of the subject permit. This will require that the applicant design and build a new stormwater system. The applicant has agreed to this condition and the others referenced above. Vegetation: Construction of the proposed project will not result in the removal or destruction of native vegetation. There is no such vegetation on the site where the construction will take place. Thus, construction of the project will not result in removal or destruction of native vegetation which will either cause de-stabilization of a "frontal, primary or significant dune" or cause a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. A special condition of the proposed amended permit requires that the applicant submit a dune enhancement plan for restoration of the dunes seaward of the pool and restaurant to its pre-hurricane Opal condition, including re-vegetation. Such a plan was submitted by the applicant and it includes the planting of sea oats on one (1) foot centers. The planting of sea oats as part of the dune enhancement plan will constitute a significant improvement to the native vegetation situation at the site. Disturbance of Sandy Soils: The project will not result in the removal or disturbance of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dunes system to such a degree as to have an adverse impact on the system. That is, the existing ability of the system to resist erosion during a storm will not be reduced. The proposed project will not result in the removal or disturbance of in situ sandy soils of the beach and dune system to such a degree as to cause adverse impact to those systems by lowering existing levels of storm protection to upland properties and structures. All the sandy material excavated for the pool and the stormwater basin will be placed seaward of these structures on the dune in the immediate area of the construction and seaward of the CCCL. The additional sand to be placed on the dune as part of the dune enhancement plan will, in fact, enhance the ability of the system to resist erosion during the storm. The ability of the dune to resist storm erosion is primarily a function of the quantity of sand within the dune system. The additional sand to be placed on the dune as part of the dune enhancement plan will enhance the protection of upland properties and structures including those of the Petitioners and Intervenor. Excavation of the stormwater basin will not destabilize the dune on the project site. The applicant is moving the stormwater basin landward by twenty (20) feet which will minimize the potential impacts of the basin on the dune system. The preponderant evidence establishes that the structure of the pool and pool deck will not cause an increase in structure-induced scour of such a magnitude as to measurably affect shoreline change rates. Scour caused by the pool will not significantly interfere with the beach-dune system's ability to recover from a coastal storm. The frangible design of the pool decreases the likelihood that it will cause any scour. It will break up in a storm so that any scour caused by the pool would be minimal. Any scour caused by the pool would not disturb the topography or vegetation such that the coastal system would become unstable or suffer catastrophic failure. Scour would have no measurable effect. The proposed restaurant and deck will not cause an increase in structure-induced scouring during a storm of such a magnitude as to have a significant adverse impact. The restaurant and deck will be constructed on piles. Scouring around piles, in a storm situation, is very localized and insignificant. By constructing the restaurant and deck on piles at the design elevation, storm-surge and storm-waves will pass under the deck and restaurant. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune to permit natural shoreline fluctuations. The structures will be built on pilings and will be elevated above the storm-surge; thus they will not interfere with shoreline fluctuations. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune so as to preserve and protect beach and dune system stability, in terms of the lack of interference with such. Other structures in the area are seaward of the proposed restaurant and deck, including Pineapple Willies Restaurant, located eleven hundred feet to the west. Those structures have not caused instability of the beach during hurricane Opal. Typically, existing structures do not cause instability of the dune systems. The restaurant and deck are located a sufficient distance landward of the beach and frontal dune so as to allow for natural recovery to occur following storm-induced erosion. Natural recovery commonly occurs under pile-supported elevated structures which is not the case with “slab-on-grade” structures which are not elevated. The pool and pool deck will permit natural shoreline fluctuations, will preserve and protect beach and dune stability, and will allow recovery after a storm because they are designed as frangible structures that will fail and disintegrate in a storm situation. Thus they will not appreciably affect the beach-dune system. Line of Construction: Most coastal construction in Bay County extends out to the pre-Opal CCCL while some construction extends beyond it. Throughout Bay County the line of construction is the pre-Opal CCCL. The line of construction is determined by the most seaward extent of similar existing structures in the immediate area of the proposed structure under consideration in a CCCL permit application. The proposed pool is landward of the line of construction determined by existing pools within the boardwalk beach resort. There are a number of existing multi-story structures to the east of the proposed restaurant that are located out to the pre-Opal CCCL. That pattern of construction continues to the east of the proposed restaurant. Approximately one thousand (1,000) feet to the east of the proposed restaurant is an existing multi-story major structure that is built out to the pre-Opal CCCL. The beach in the area of the project is highly developed with commercial and condominium buildings. Within eleven hundred to twelve hundred feet to the west of the proposed restaurant there is another major structure built out to the pre-Opal CCCL. Just beyond that structure are a number of additional major structures, including Pineapple Willie's Restaurant, that are constructed out to the pre-Opal CCCL. The multi-story major structures to the east and west of the proposed structure are within the immediate area of the restaurant. The proposed restaurant is located landward of the line of construction established by these major structures within its immediate area. That line of construction is the pre-Opal CCCL. DEP did not consider major structures more than one thousand (1,000) feet from the proposed restaurant when it determined the line of construction for the restaurant. It is DEP’s policy when reviewing CCCL applications not to consider structures more than one thousand (1,000) feet from a proposed structure when determining the line of construction. The one thousand (1,000) foot limit DEP uses to determine the line of construction is not embodied in a rule. There was no preponderant coastal engineering or other scientific evidence which justifies the one thousand (1,000) foot limit DEP imposes when it determines the line of construction. It was appropriate to consider the existing structures referenced above in assessing the line of construction for this amended permit application and considering those lying just beyond the one thousand (1,000) foot distance, because those existing structures dominate the coastal processees in the region and only lie just beyond one thousand (1,000) feet to the east and twelve hundred (1,200) feet to the west. If the Department had considered the above-referenced existing major structures just beyond one thousand (1,000) feet of the proposed restaurant, it would have been shown that the proposed project was landward of the thus established line of construction. No preponderant evidence was offered to explicate why the one thousand (1,000) foot limit was automatically adhered to in this situation. Moreover, the line of construction is not a prohibition in and of itself but rather is only one of several criteria that must be balanced in determining whether or not to approve a CCCL permit application. Projects have been approved seaward of the line of construction in the past. Minimization The location of the swimming pool at the most practicable landward location, the reduced size of the pool, as well as its frangible design and limited depth, has minimized its impact. The placing of the excavated material in the pool’s immediate area and the restoration of the dune in front of the pool and deck have minimized the impacts of the pool and deck. The construction of the restaurant on pilings with its design elevation above storm-surge and storm-wave elevations, together with locating it behind the dune crest and away from the active beach, has minimized the impact of the restaurant. The deck is on pilings as well, elevated above storm-surge and storm-wave levels. It will be physically separate from the restaurant and its design frangibility (so that it will fail in a storm) results in its impact being minimized. The stormwater basin is located as far landward as practicable. Its location and the placing of the materials excavated for the basin on the dune immediately adjacent to the basin has minimized the impact of the proposed stormwater basin on the beach-dune system. The restaurant, pool, deck, and stormwater system will not have a significant adverse impact to the beach-dune system. The restaurant will not adversely affect exiting shoreline change rates, will not significantly interfere with recovery following a storm, and will not disturb topography or vegetation such that the system will become unstable or suffer catastrophic failure. Cumulative Impacts The proposed project will not have an unacceptable cumulative impact. There are no other proposed similar projects to take into account and a cumulative impact assessment has shown there to be no adverse cumulative impact. No evidence was offered to show that an unacceptable adverse cumulative impact in terms of existing or other proposed projects will result. Positive Benefit The proposed project will have a net positive benefit on the beach-dune system. The removal of the slab-on-grade constructed building will have a beneficial impact because it will reduce the chance of storm erosion to the beach-dune system posed by such structures. The existing stormwater pipe and catch basin which cause erosion would be removed, resolving that erosion problem. Stormwater will now be retained in a new stormwater basin designed to serve 1.7 acres and it will not flow onto the beach for any rainfall event up to a one hundred year design storm. The new stormwater system is designed to recover quickly after a storm event and to treat stormwater. The removal of the stormwater pipe and catch basin, and the installation of the new stormwater basin will have a positive benefit to the beach-dune system. The new stormwater system complies with Special Permit Condition 7. Moreover the applicant will restore the dune seaward of the project to its pre-hurricane Opal condition and will plant sea oats, on one foot centers, throughout the restoration area in accordance with Special Permit Condition 1.8. Such restoration of the dune and vegetation will benefit the beach-dune system. The natural recovery process will take several decades without the placement of sand in the dune restoration project. The dune enhancement plan submitted by the applicant, in order to comply with Special Permit Condition 1.8, exceeds the requirements of that condition since it places more sand on the dunes than necessary to achieve pre-Opal conditions. Testimony of expert witness Michael Walhter, which is accepted, establishes that restored beaches and dunes function much like natural ones in storm events even though they can be somewhat inferior in resistance to storm-surge and waves since the sand is not as compacted at first. This dune enhancement plan, however, exceeds the permit requirements by placing more sand than necessary on the dunes to achieve pre-Opal conditions. The Interim CCCL On October 16, 1995, the DEP issued its emergency Order establishing an interim CCCL for Bay County one hundred feet landward of the pre-Opal CCCL. The Department established that interim line in order to regulate coastal development in the wake of Hurricane Opal. In 1978 the Legislature established criteria to be used by DEP in establishing or re-establishing all CCCL’s. They are thus to be established to define that portion of a beach-dune system subject to severe fluctuations from a one hundred year storm event. At the time of Hurricane Opal, DEP had not re-established the Bay County CCCL using a one hundred year storm event criterion. The interim CCCL for Bay County established by the above-referenced emergency Order did not utilize nor was it based on the statutory one hundred year storm event criterion. All twenty-three (23) other CCCL’s that have been established based on the statutory one hundred year storm event criterion were established by rule. As of January 15, 1997, the applicant had received all governmental approvals necessary to begin construction of the proposed project except for that which is the subject of this proceeding. On January 22, 1997, DEP by letter advised the applicant to cease and desist construction of the project. On February 7, 1997, the Department by rule then taking effect established a new CCCL.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, DETERMINED: That the Department of Environmental Protection has jurisdiction over the proposed project and that it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered granting the Respondent, Resort Hospitality’s CCCL application consistent with the terms and conditions espoused by the Final Order of December 17, 1997, Respondent’s Exhibit 2 and the project plans depicted in Respondent’s Exhibits 3 and 4. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 30th day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bram D. Canter, Esquire 103 North Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas G. Tomasello, Esquire 1315 East Lafayette Street, Suite B Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler and Long, P.A. Post Office Box 839 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0839 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, Esquire Office of General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue is whether the Department of Environmental Protection should issue a permit to the Browns authorizing construction on their property, which is seaward of the coastal construction control line.
Findings Of Fact Property Descriptions (1) The Browns’ Property The Browns own Lots 5, 6, 7, 15, and 16 of a platted subdivision known as the First Addition of Anna Maria Beach Subdivision, Block 35 (the Subdivision). The Subdivision is on Anna Maria Island in the City of Anna Maria, which is in Manatee County. All of the Browns’ lots are seaward of the CCCL established by the Department for Manatee County. The parties stipulated that the construction authorized by the permit at issue in this proceeding is landward of the 30- year erosion line. Indeed, according to the analysis of the permit application prepared by the Department’s staff, the 30- year erosion line is approximately 111 feet seaward of the proposed construction. See Browns’ Exhibit 6, at 3. Lot 5 is the most landward lot owned by the Browns. Lot 6 is adjacent to and seaward of Lot 5, and Lot 7 is adjacent to and seaward of Lot 6. Lots 15 and 16 are seaward of Lot 7, and they are separated from Lot 7 by a 10-foot wide “vacated alley.” The Subdivision was platted in 1912. The plat of the Subdivision, Exhibit P6, shows the seaward edge of Lots 15 and 16 bordering on a road named Gulf Boulevard, which appears to be some distance inland from the Gulf of Mexico.2 Gulf Boulevard no longer exists, and all of Lots 7, 15, and 16 are now located on the sandy beach between Lot 6 and the Gulf of Mexico. The seaward edge of Lot 6 is approximately 176 feet landward of the mean high water line (MHWL) of the Gulf of Mexico. See Exhibit P5B. There are no structures or improvements located on Lots 7, 15, or 16. There are also no structures or improvements located on Lots 8, 9, and 10, which are to the north of Lots 7, 6, and 5, respectively. See Exhibit P4. Lot 10 was the subject of a CCCL permit application denied by the Department in 2000 based upon the Recommended Order issued in DOAH Case No. 99-3613, which is referred to by the parties as “the Negele case.” See Exhibit P30. There is an 850-square-foot single-family residence on Lots 5 and 6 that was constructed in the 1920’s and is used by the Browns as a vacation home. The property’s address is 104 Pine Avenue. All of the enclosed living area of the residence is on Lot 5. A wooden deck attached to the residence extends approximately 17 feet onto Lot 6, and at its most seaward point, the deck is 262.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. See Browns’ Exhibit 9. There are no structures on Lot 6 other than the wooden deck. More than half of Lot 5 has been previously disturbed. In addition to the Browns’ residence, there is a small wood “tool shed” located on that lot. The disturbed areas on Lot 5 between the residence and the shed and between the shed and Pine Avenue (see Exhibit P5C, areas marked with a yellow “1” and “2”) are used by the Browns for, among other things, parking and storage of boats. Those areas have very little vegetative cover. The northwest portion of Lot 5 is undisturbed and, as more fully discussed below, that area is densely vegetated with sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants. (2) Schrutt’s Property Schrutt owns Lot 4 of the Subdivision, which is adjacent to and immediately landward of the Browns’ Lot 5. The property’s address is 108 Pine Avenue. There is a two-story single-family residence on Lot 4 that Schrutt uses as a vacation home. Schrutt’s vacation home extends farther to the northwest than does the residence on the Browns’ lot. As a result, Schrutt currently has an unimpeded view of the Gulf of Mexico over the Browns' shed and across the undisturbed portion of the Browns’ lot from her second-floor deck. See Exhibits P2F and P5A. (3) The Youngs’ Property The Youngs own Lot 3 of the Subdivision, which is adjacent to and immediately landward of Schrutt’s lot and approximately 50 feet landward of the Browns’ Lot 5. The property’s address is 110 Pine Avenue. There is a three-story single-family residence on Lot 3 that the Youngs use as a vacation home. The Young’s vacation home is set farther back from Pine Avenue than are the residences on the Browns’ lot and Scrutt’s lot. As a result, the Youngs currently have an unimpeded view of the Gulf of Mexico across Schrutt’s lot and the undisturbed portion of the Browns’ lot (as well as across Lot 10) from their second- and third-floor decks. See Exhibits P2F and P5A. The Proposed Project and its Permitting History On March 30, 2004, the Browns submitted to the Department an application for a CCCL permit to allow them to construct an addition to their existing residence on Lots 5 and 6 (“the Project” or “the proposed construction”). The Project will include the renovation of the existing residence, additional residential space in an elevated structure on a pile foundation that will be connected to the existing residence, an elevated swimming pool and deck on a pile foundation, and a driveway made of pavers. There will be a concrete slab under a portion of the new elevated structure in the vicinity of the existing shed that will be enclosed and used as a two-car garage. See Browns’ Exhibit 14, sheet 9; Transcript, Volume 2, at 163-64. The finished floor elevation of the garage slab will be 7.0 feet above sea level/NGVD,3 which is slightly lower than the 8.4-foot finished floor elevation of the Browns’ existing residence. The elevated portions of the proposed construction will be 19.2 feet above sea level/NGVD, with a finished floor elevation between 20.2 and 20.7 feet. The “footprint” of the proposed construction is predominately on Lot 5, but it does extend 10 to 15 feet onto Lot 6. See Exhibit P5B, blue cross-hatched area. The seaward extent of the Project is in alignment with the existing residence and deck on the Browns’ property. After completion of the Project, the Browns’ vacation home will include approximately 2,500 square feet of enclosed space. The Browns’ permit application did not mention Schrutt, whose lot is adjacent to the lots on which the Project will be located, even though the application form requires the applicant to list “[t]he name and mailing address of the owners of the immediately adjacent properties . . . .” The reason for this omission is not entirely clear. The permit application included a letter from Kevin Donohue, Building Official, on the letterhead of the City of Anna Maria, which states that “[a] review of the proposed activity described in the seventeen-page plan package for an addition and alternation to an existing single family dwelling does not contravene the City of Anna Maria Code of Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan, and the Florida State Building Code.” The “seventeen-page plan package” referenced in Mr. Donohue’s letter is the same set of plans that the Browns submitted to the Department with their application. Those plans were received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 14. The parties stipulated that the City of Anna Maria building and zoning codes require structures to be set back at least 10 feet from the property line. The site plan for the Project shows the new elevated portion of the Browns’ residence exactly 10 feet from Schrutt’s Lot 4, and exactly 10 feet from the “alley” that runs between Lot 5 and Lot 10 to the north.4 Mr. Brown testified that the City prohibits on-street parking on Pine Avenue, which explains (at least in part) why the Project includes driveway pavers and a concrete slab/enclosed garage under a portion of the new elevated structure for parking. There have been no material modifications to the Project since the date of Mr. Donohue’s letter and, as discussed below, no material modifications will be necessary for the Project to satisfy the special permit conditions imposed by the Department. Thus, it is appropriate for the Department to continue to rely on the letter as proof that the Project does not contravene the applicable local codes. The survey submitted with the Browns’ permit application was dated September 4, 2002, which is approximately 18 months before the date of the application. The survey identified a “vegetation line” along the seaward edge of Lot 6 behind an area designated as “rocks,” and its also included the notation “sea oat existing” in the area between the vegetation line/rocks and the Browns' existing home as well as in the area of the Project. Neither the survey, nor any other information provided to the Department with the permit application showed the extent of the vegetation and dune features in the area of the Project with the same level of detail as is shown on Exhibits P5A, P5B and P5C and the Browns’ Exhibits 30A and 30B. By letter dated April 21, 2004, the Department requested additional information about the project, including a “topographic survey drawing of the subject property . . . from field survey work performed not more than six months prior to the date of the application.” By letters dated May 3, 12, and 13, 2004, the Browns provided additional information about the Project pursuant to the Department’s request. They did not provide a more current survey than the September 2002 survey included with the application, although they did provide a signed and sealed copy of the 2002 survey. Notwithstanding the Browns failure to provide a more current survey, the Department apparently considered the Browns’ application to be complete because on July 29, 2004, the Department advised the Browns that their CCCL permit application for the Project was approved. The Browns’ failure to comply with the technical submittal requirements relating to the survey is not material as a result of the more current and more detailed survey information presented at the final hearing. The Department’s approval of the Browns’ permit application was subject to the general permit conditions in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.0155, as well as a number of special permit conditions, including: No work shall be conducted under this permit until the permittee has received a written notice to proceed from the Department. Prior to issuance of the Notice to Proceed, the permittee shall submit two copies of revised site plan depicting the swimming pool and deck extending a maximum distance of 265 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. (Italics in original). * * * All vegetation located seaward of the coastal construction control line shall be preserved except for that disturbance which is necessary for dwelling construction. Prior to completion of construction activities authorized by this permit, the permittee shall plant a mix of a minimum of three native salt-tolerant species within any disturbed areas seaward of the authorized structures. Plantings shall consist of salt-tolerant species indigenous to the native plant communities existing on or near the site or with out native species approved by the Department . . . . As permitted, the various components of the Project are to be located as follows: the new elevated portion of the residence, a maximum of 259.4 feet seaward of the CCCL; the addition to the existing residence, a maximum of 249.4 feet seaward of the CCCL; and the elevated swimming pool and deck, a maximum of 265 feet seaward of the CCCL. On August 16, 2004, the Browns provided a revised site plan to the Department in purported compliance with special permit condition No. 2. The revised site plan was received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 9. The revised site plan does not comply with special permit condition No. 2. It continues to show the pool and deck extending 268.41 feet seaward of the CCCL and it also shows a “pool security fence” extending 272.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. By letter dated August 25, 2004, the Department advised the Browns that the distances shown on the revised site plan were not consistent with the special permit conditions, and directed the Browns to “fulfill the conditions as per the approved [permit].” The location of the Project shown on the revised site plan (Browns’ Exhibit 9) is identical to the location of the Project on the original site plan (Browns’ Exhibit 14, sheet 3). The only difference between the two site plans is that the revised site plan includes two measurements not included on the original site plan showing the seaward corners of the new elevated deck 258.41 feet and 268.41 feet seaward of the CCCL. In order to comply with special permit condition No. 2, the plans will have to be revised to eliminate those portions of the Project that extend more than 265 feet seaward of the CCCL. The Project cannot be shifted farther landward because it already abuts the 10-foot setback line. The necessary revisions to the plans can be done without shifting the Project landward by eliminating a relatively small area of the deck and portions of the pool security fence. The Browns’ ability to satisfy the Department's special permit conditions by making minor modifications to the Project and not encroaching into the 10-foot setback distinguishes this case from the Negele case.5 Dunes, Generally A dune is a mound of sand lying upland of the beach that has been deposited by natural or artificial means and that is subject to fluctuations in configuration and location. It is not necessary for a mound of sand to be covered with vegetation to be considered a dune. However, vegetation promotes the growth of dunes and helps to stabilize dunes by trapping wind-blown sand. The expert testimony in this case (e.g., Transcript, Volume 1, at 147-48, and Volume 3, at 26-28) identified three different types of dunes -- significant, primary, and frontal -- and described each type consistent with the statutory and rule definitions quoted below. A “significant dune” is a dune that has “sufficient height and configuration or vegetation to offer protective value.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(a) (emphasis supplied). A “primary dune” is a significant dune that has “sufficient alongnshore continuity to offer protective value to upland property.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(17)(b). A “frontal dune” is the “first [dune] which is located landward of the beach and which has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to offer protective value.” § 161.053(6)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2004) (emphasis supplied).6 Thus, a primary dune need not have vegetation so long as it has sufficient height, configuration, and continuity to offer protective value, but a frontal dune must have vegetation in addition to height, configuration, and continuity that offers protective value. The Browns’ contention to the contrary (e.g., Browns’ PRO, at 18) is rejected based upon the unambiguous statutory and rule language. Dunes in Southwest Florida are generally lower in height than are dunes in other parts of the state. However, the dunes on Anna Maria Island, including the dunes on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property, are substantial for Southwest Florida. The Beach-Dune System on and in the Vicinity of the Browns’ Property The beach on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property has been relatively stable over at least the past several decades. In recent years, the stability of the beach is due in part to several beach nourishment projects undertaken by Manatee County pursuant to a shore protection plan authorized by the federal government in 1975 for Anna Maria Island. The most recent project, completed in 2002, included the beach on the Browns’ property and advanced the MHWL approximately 200 feet seaward. The shore protection plan is scheduled to continue through 2025, which will help to ensure the continued stability of the beach on and in the vicinity of the Browns’ property. It is undisputed that a primary dune runs across the Browns’ property. The parties disagree, however, as to whether that dune is also the frontal dune. The location of the primary dune on the Browns’ property is best shown on Exhibit P5B by the highlighted yellow lines. The seaward toe of the dune is in the vicinity of the six-foot contour line on Lot 6, and the landward toe of the dune is in the vicinity of the six-foot contour line on Lot 5. The dune is several hundred feet in length. It continues to the north of the Browns’ property onto Lot 10, and it continues to the south of the Browns’ property seaward of Pine Avenue. See Exhibit P5C and the Browns’ Exhibit 30B. The dune runs in a more northwesterly direction than does the shoreline. As a result, the portion of the dune that is seaward of Pine Avenue (to the south of the Browns’ property) is further seaward than the portion of the dune on the Browns property, which in turn, is further seaward of that portion of the dune on Lot 10. Id. The width of the dune varies. In the area of the proposed construction on the Browns’ property, the dune is 20 to 45 feet wide. The dune’s highest point on the Browns’ property is 7.8 feet. Its highest point on Lot 10 is 8.3 feet, and its highest point in the area seaward of Pine Avenue is 9.4 feet. The dune is vegetated with sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants, all of which are native salt-tolerant species. The vegetation on that portion of the dune on the Lots 5 and 6 is dense and mature. It is undisputed that the dune, in its current state, offers some protective value to upland properties, including the Petitioners’ properties. The evidence does not quantify the extent of the protection currently provided by the dune or the degree to which that protection will be diminished after the Project is constructed on the dune. Neither Petitioners’ expert coastal geologist nor the Browns’ expert coastal engineer did any modeling regarding the level of storm (e.g., 5-year, 10-year, etc.) that the dune provides protection against. The experts agreed, however, that the dune would likely not provide any significant protection against a 25-year or 50-year storm, which would have storm surges that exceed the height of the dune. There are dune features on the Browns’ property seaward of the primary dune described above. Those features, which were characterized as "incipient dunes" by Petitioners' expert coastal geologist, are delineated with red shading on the Browns’ Exhibit 30B and can be seen in several of the photographs received into evidence (e.g., Exhibits P2C and P2L, and Browns’ Exhibit 17L). Those dune features do not qualify as frontal dunes because they are sparsely vegetated (if at all), small in height (generally six inches or less), lack continuity, and offer no real protective value. Because the primary dune described above is the most seaward dune on the Browns’ property that has sufficient vegetation, height, continuity, and configuration to provide protective value, it is the frontal dune.7 Assessment of the Project’s Impacts An applicant for a CCCL must demonstrate that the impacts of the project have been minimized and that the project will not destabilize a primary or frontal dune or cause a “significant adverse impact,” as that phrase is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.002(31)(b). The proposed construction at issue in this proceeding will be located on the frontal dune and will result in the removal of all of the existing vegetation on that dune within the “footprint” of the new structure. The evidence was not persuasive that the removal of that vegetation, although extensive, will destabilize the dune or result in a “significant adverse impact” to the beach-dune system due to increased erosion by wind or water. Indeed, there will still be dense vegetation seaward of and to the north and south of the new structure, and any vegetation outside of the “footprint” of the Project that is impacted by construction must be mitigated in accordance with the special permit conditions quoted above. The Project, as permitted, will not interfere with the beach-dune system’s recovery from coastal storms or cause the dune to become unstable or suffer a catastrophic failure such that its protective value to upland properties is significantly lowered. Indeed, there was no credible evidence that the Browns’ existing on-grade residence, which has existed since the 1920's on the same dune that the proposed structure will be located, has adversely impacted the recovery of the beach-dune system or the dune’s protective value. It is not necessary to evaluate the cumulative impacts of the Project because there was no evidence of any similar projects in the vicinity of the Browns’ property that have been permitted or for which a permit application is pending. Indeed, the only credible evidence related to this issue involved the Department’s denial of a permit for construction on the adjacent Lot 10, which generates no cumulative impact concerns and does not establish “precedent” in this case because the Department evaluates each CCCL permit application on its own merits. The Project, as permitted, will not result in a net removal of in situ sandy soils from the beach-dune system. The 33 cubic yards of soil that will be excavated for the Project will be spread on the Browns’ seaward lots and, therefore, will remain in the impacted beach-dune system. The Project will be elevated above the projected 100- year storm surge height and will meet applicable building code requirements. As a result, structure-induced scour will be minimized and will not cause any significant adverse impacts to the beach-dune system or the upland properties. The Project will be constructed in accordance with the Florida Building Code, which will minimize the potential for wind and waterborne missiles. The depth of the swimming pool is limited to 4.5 feet and its bottom elevation will be 3.8 feet above sea level/NGVD, which will minimize the amount of excavation necessary for the pool. The permit requires the excavated material to be placed “[i]n and around the proposed swimming pool area,” so there will be no net loss of material from the immediate area of the pool. Even though the proposed construction will be located on the frontal dune (rather than a sufficient distance landward of it), the Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the stability of the beach-dune system or preclude natural shoreline fluctuations. Indeed, the fact that the Browns’ existing residence has apparently not adversely impacted the stability of the beach-dune system or natural shoreline fluctuations over the past 80 years undermines Petitioners’ contentions regarding the potential adverse impacts of the proposed structures. The line of continuous construction identified by the Department during its review of the Browns’ permit application was 244 feet seaward of the CCCL, which is consistent with the findings in the Negele case. See Exhibit P30, at 14. The line of continuous construction is not a line of prohibition, but rather it is only a factor that must be considered in conjunction with all of the other permitting criteria in the statutes and the Department’s rules. There is evidence indicating that the line of continuous construction is more than 244 feet seaward of the CCCL. For example, the aerial photograph received into evidence as the Browns’ Exhibit 18A shows that the existing structures on the adjacent properties (particularly those to the south of Pine Avenue and those to the north of Elm Avenue8) are farther seaward than the Browns’ residence, which itself is more than 244 seaward of the CCCL. Consistent with the aerial photograph, the Browns’ Exhibit 30A depicts what is referred to as the “existing line of construction established by major structures in the area” seaward of the Browns’ deck, which as note above, is approximately 262 feet seaward of the CCCL. The Project, as permitted, extends to a maximum of 265 feet seaward of the CCCL and, as reflected on Exhibit P5B, a majority of the proposed construction is seaward of the 244-foot line. However, the Project (as proposed and as permitted) is landward of the line depicted on the Browns’ Exhibit 30A. The location of the proposed construction is not contrary to the Department’s rules even if the 244-foot line identified by the Department is correct because the Project is in alignment with the Browns’ existing residence and because there was no credible evidence that the existing residence has been unduly affected by erosion. The native salt-tolerant vegetation (e.g., sea oats, sea grapes, and century plants) impacted by the Project are dense and mature, and the degree of disturbance is significant. However, as noted above, there will still be dense vegetation seaward of and to the north and south of the proposed construction that will not be impacted and that will continue to provide protective value for the dune system and upland properties. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(11) requires disturbances to the existing native salt-tolerant plant communities to be “limited.” That rule also requires construction to be located “where possible” in previously disturbed areas. Locating the Project in the previously disturbed areas of Lot 5 rather than on the frontal dune would not increase adverse impact to the beach-dune system and, indeed, may reduce the impact by limiting disturbances to the existing native salt- tolerant plant communities. However, the Project could not be relocated into the disturbed areas because those areas are considerably smaller than the “footprint” of the proposed construction, particularly when the set-backs required by the local code and the on-street parking restrictions are taken into account. In sum, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that despite the its location on a portion of the densely vegetated frontal dune, the Project satisfies the permitting criteria in the Department’s rules and will not result in “significant adverse impacts” to the beach-dune system or upland properties. In making the foregoing findings, the undersigned did not overlook the contrary opinions of Petitioners’ expert coastal geologist. However, the undersigned found his testimony regarding the impact of the Project on the beach-dune system to be less persuasive the testimony of the Browns’ expert coastal engineer on that issue. Other Considerations The Project will not interfere with the public's lateral beach access, nor will it interfere with public access to the beach from Pine Avenue. The parties stipulated that the Project does not raise any concerns relating to sea turtles. The Project will effectively block Schrutt’s view of the Gulf of Mexico from her vacation home, and it will impair the Youngs’ view of the Gulf of Mexico from their vacation home.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order approving the Browns’ permit application subject to the general and special permit conditions referenced in the Department’s July 29, 2004, letter and permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 2005.
Findings Of Fact In 1981, Petitioners Edward S. Coley and his wife, Juanita P. Coley, purchased lot 8, block A, Camp Creek Lake Subdivision, in Walton County, Florida. The lot is located on the beach at the Gulf of Mexico in a platted subdivision. Petitioners purchased the property for the purpose of building a beach house that would eventually be a retirement home. (Testimony of E. Coley Petitioners' Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1) At the time Petitioners purchased the lot, there were a number of existing dwellings to the east of the lot and several to the west. The habitable portions of these dwellings for the most part were located at or near the existing coastal construction setback line that had been established by Respondent in 1975 to provide protection to the dune area of the beach. Although Petitioners planned to locate their two-story dwelling approximately on the then-existing setback line, they had not done so at the time a new coastal construction control line was established in December, 1982, which resulted in moving the setback line further landward for a distance of some sixty two feet. The county coastal construction control lines are established under the authority of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and are intended to define the portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge. Construction seaward of the line is prohibited unless a permit is obtained from Respondent. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, 5, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 20) On September 19, 1983, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to construct a 2000 square foot two-story house on their lot. The dwelling was designed to have upper and lower decks facing the Gulf, with a dune walkover structure seaward, and a three-car garage attached to the main house by a breezeway. As planned, the seaward extent of the habitable portion of the house would be located some eight feet landward of the old setback line and approximately 62 feet seaward of the existing construction control line. After processing the application, Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation advised Petitioners by letter dated January 5, 1984 that a staff recommendation to deny the application would be presented to the head of the Department, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet, on January 17, 1984, and advising Petitioners of their rights to a Chapter 120 hearing. By letter of January 11, 1984, Petitioners did request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., and, on January 17, Mr. Coley appeared before the Governor and Cabinet to support approval of his application. On March 20, 1984, the Governor and Cabinet approved the minutes of its January 17th meeting wherein the apparent basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application was stated as follows: The staff is concerned that the applicant is not effectively utilizing the property landward of the control line and that the proposed encroachment is unnecessary and not justified. Prior to the preparation of the structural plans, the staff recommended a 25 foot landward relocation of the structure in order to more effectively utilize the property landward of the control line and provide an effective, protective setback from the active dune area. Presently, there exists approximately 85 feet between the landwardmost portion of the proposed garage structure and the landward property line. The recommended 25 foot landward location represents a compromise that acknowledges the line of existing construction in the immediate area . . . . * * * Dr. Gissendanner stated that this was the first building permitted in this area. All the other buildings there had been built before a permit was required. Now it was necessary to take into consideration the new coastal construction line and the accumulative effect which the new law imposed. The problem was that the Department did not want to start a precedent to allow the house to be built out there and have other people come in and want to build along the same line. By letter of September 29, 1983, Respondent had advised petitioners that any structure of the size proposed by Petitioners located within the dune region would adversely impact and limit the extent of dune recovery following severe erosion associated with a major storm event. The letter proposed a compromise in location of Petitioners' dwelling to a point approximately 25 feet landward of the desired location, thus placing the seawardmost portion of the habitable structure approximately 35 feet seaward of the construction control line. This was stated to be a viable compromise since there existed sufficient room to locate the entire structure, including garage, landward of the control line. Petitioners however declined to accept such a compromise in the belief that to do so would eliminate any view of the Gulf over the dune line except from the upstairs deck of the proposed structure. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 1-2, 9, Respondent's Exhibits 1-8, 13-16) The height of the dune line on petitioners' lot is approximately 27 feet high, which is the same elevation as the first floor of the proposed dwelling at the desired site. The proposed second floor would be 9 feet above the crest of the dune. However, if placement of the structure was moved landward 25 feet, it would be impossible to see over the dune area from the ground floor of the house. Additionally, the view of the beach area would be obstructed by the homes to the east and west of Petitioners' lot. The proposed dwelling is designed for the maximum allowable height of 30 feet. Under deed covenants and restrictions, a variance would have to be obtained to build a taller structure. The value of Petitioners' property would undoubtedly be diminished to some extent if the house was built substantially behind the adjacent dwellings because of the restricted view of the beach and water area. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 8) Although there would be no adverse impact on adjacent properties if Petitioners were permitted to build in the desired location, such proposed siting could have an adverse impact on the dune system as a result of a major storm event since the dwelling would be located on the seaward edge of existing vegetation at the landward toe of the dune. If the location were to be moved 25 feet further landward, there would be additional vegetation to facilitate recovery of the system after such a storm. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation also believes that the existing structures in that area would be demolished as a result of a major storm, but Petitioners' house, which is designed to withstand a 100-year storm event, would remain, thus impeding full recovery of the dune system. (Testimony of Moore, Flack, Clark, Respondent's Exhibits 9-12, 19, 21) Respondent has permitted several structures in the past which were located seaward of the coastal construction control line, but these were approved because the impact on the dune system was minimized in those locations, and also because the applicants had utilized all of the upland property possible on their lots. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 3-4, 6-7, 9-10) Although conflicting evidence was received as to whether or not the existing structures east of Petitioners lot constitute a "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," it is found that although minor variations exist in the location of individual dwellings, they do meet the quoted statutory standard set forth in Section 161.053(4)(b), Florida Statutes. The existing structures have not been affected by erosion. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Moore, Flack, Clark, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Petitioners' structural design meets Respondent's technical requirements subject to standard conditions of the Department. (Testimony of Moore, Evans, Flack, Petitioners' Exhibit 2) The Departmental rules cited by Respondent as the authority for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application are Rules 16B-33.05(1), (2), (6), 33.06(2), and 33.07(2), Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioners' Exhibit 4.)
The Issue Whether Petitioners' application for a permit to construct a dwelling in Walton County, Florida, should be approved, pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. In January of 1984, Respondent Department of Natural Resources provisionally denied Petitioners' application for a permit pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, to construct a dwelling on their property in Walton County seaward of the existing coastal construction control line. Petitioners requested a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), alleging that the denial of their application was unlawful on constitutional grounds and that it exceeded Respondent's discretionary powers under Chapter 161. The request for hearing was referred by Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 84-0508. Thereafter, Respondent's motion to strike those aspects of the petition alleging the unconstitutionality of the proposed denial was denied on the basis that Petitioners properly may preserve such matters for any appellate review. Thereafter, Petitioners sought to amend their petition to allege the invalidity of certain of Respondent's rules and, although such petition was granted, Petitioners were informed that any administrative determination of the invalidity of rules must be made the subject of a separate petition filed with the Director of the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 11, 1984, Petitioners filed a petition with the Division challenging the validity of certain of Respondent's rules which were cited by Respondent as the basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application for a permit. The petition alleged that said rules were not appropriate to the ends specified in Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, that the effect of the rules was to establish a class of property owners who could be excluded from receiving permits to construct dwellings seaward of the coastal construction control line merely because their lots or parcels of land are larger than their neighbors or other adjacent owners, and that such rules are arbitrary and capricious as they relate to the petitioners because other property owners in Walton County had been permitted by Respondent to construct dwellings similar to hat proposed by the Petitioners beyond the coastal construction control line. DOAH Case No. 84-0508 and the case involving the rule challenge, DOAH Case No. 84-2053R, were consolidated for purposes of hearing. At the hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of Brett Moore, a coastal engineer employed by the DNR Division of Beaches and Shores, Dennis Evans, an architect, and Petitioner Edward S. Coley. Petitioner submitted ten exhibits in evidence Respondent presented the testimony of Brett Moore, Deborah Flack, Director of the Division of Beaches and Shores, and Ralph Clark, Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation. Respondent submitted 21 exhibits in evidence. Posthearing submissions submitted by the parties in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders have been fully considered and those portions thereof not adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.
Findings Of Fact In 1981 Petitioners Edward S. Coley and his wife, Juanita P. Coley, purchased lot 8, block A, Camp Creek Lake Subdivision, in Walton County, Florida. The lot is located on the beach at the Gulf of Mexico in a platted subdivision. Petitioners purchased the property for the purpose of building a beach house that would eventually be a retirement home. (Testimony of E. Coley, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1). At the time Petitioners purchased the lot, there were a number of existing dwellings to the east of the lot and several to the west. The habitable portions of these dwellings for the most part were located at or near the existing coastal construction setback line that had been established by Respondent in 1975 to provide protection to the dune area of the beach. Although Petitioners planned to locate their two-story dwelling approximately on the then-existing setback line, they had not done so at the time a new coastal construction control line was established in December 1982, which resulted in moving the setback line further landward for a distance of some sixty two feet. The county coastal construction control lines are established under the authority of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and are intended to define the portion of the beach-dune system which is subject to severe fluctuations based on a 100-year storm surge. Construction seaward of the line is prohibited unless a permit is obtained from Respondent. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1, 5, Respondent's Exhibit 1, 20). On September 19, 1983, Petitioners filed an application with Respondent to construct a 2000 square foot two-story house on their lot. The dwelling was designed to have upper and lower decks facing the Gulf, with a dune walkover structure seaward, and a three-car garage attached to the main house by a breezeway. As planned, the seaward extent of the habitable portion of the house would be located some eight feet landward of the old setback line and approximately 62 feet seaward of the existing construction control line. After processing the application, Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation advised Petitioners by letter dated January 5, 1984, that a staff recommendation to deny the application would be presented to the head of the Department, consisting of the Governor and Cabinet, on January 17, 1984, and advising Petitioners of their rights to a Chapter 120 hearing. By letter of January 11, 1984, Petitioners did request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, F.S., and, on January 17, Mr. Coley appeared before the Governor and Cabinet to support approval of his application. On March 20, 1984, the Governor and Cabinet approved the minutes of its January 17th meeting wherein the apparent basis for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application was stated as follows: The staff is concerned that the applicant is not effectively utilizing the property landward of the control line and that the proposed encroachment is unnecessary and not justified. Prior to the preparation of the structural plans, the staff recommended a 25 foot landward relocation of the structure in order to more effectively utilize the property landward of the control line and provide an effective, protective setback from the active dune area. Presently, there exists approximately 85 feet between the landwardmost portion of the proposed garage structure and the landward property line. The recommended 25 foot landward location represents a compromise that acknowledges the line of existing construction in the immediate area. . . . * * * Dr. Gissendanner stated that this was the first building permitted in this area. All the other buildings there had been built before a permit was required. Now it was necessary to take into consideration the new coastal construction line and the accumulative effect which the new law imposed. The problem was that the Department did not want to start a precedent to allow the house to be built out there and have other people come in and want to build along the same line. By letter of September 29, 1983, Respondent had advised Petitioners that any structure of the size proposed by Petitioners located within the dune region would adversely impact and limit the extent of dune recovery following severe erosion associated with a major storm event. The letter proposed a compromise in location of Petitioners' dwelling to a point approximately 25 feet landward of the desired location, thus placing the seawardmost portion of the habitable structure approximately 35 feet seaward of the construction control line. This was stated to be a viable compromise since there existed sufficient room to locate the entire structure, including garage, landward of the control line. Petitioners however declined to accept such a compromise in the belief that to do so would eliminate any view of the Gulf over the dune line except from the upstairs deck of the proposed structure. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 1-2, 9, Respondent's Exhibits 1-8, 13-16). The height of the dune line on Petitioners' lot is approximately 27 feet high, which is the same elevation as the first floor of the proposed dwelling at the desired site. The proposed second floor would be 9 feet above the crest of the dune. However, if placement of the structure was moved landward 25 feet, it would be impossible to see over the dune area from the ground floor of the house. Additionally, the view of the beach area would be obstructed by the homes to the east and west of Petitioners' lot. The proposed dwelling is designed for the maximum allowable height of 30 feet. Under dead covenants and restrictions, a variance would have to be obtained to build a taller structure. The value of Petitioners' property would undoubtedly be diminished to come extent if the house was built substantially behind the adjacent dwellings because of the restricted view of the beach and water area. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Petitioners' Exhibits 1, 8). Although there would be no adverse impact on adjacent properties if Petitioners were permitted to build in the desired location, such proposed siting could have an adverse impact on the dune system as a result of a major storm event since the dwelling would be located on the seaward edge of existing vegetation at the landward toe of the dune. If the location were to be moved 25 feet further landward, there would be additional vegetation to facilitate recovery of the system after such a storm. Respondent's Chief of the Bureau of Coastal Engineering and Regulation also believes that the existing structures in that area would be demolished as a result of a major storm, but Petitioners' house, which is designed to withstand a 100-year storm event, would remain, thus impeding full recovery of the dune system. (Testimony of Moore, Flack, Clark, Respondent's Exhibits 9-12, 19, 21). Respondent has permitted several structures in the past which were located seaward of the coastal construction control line, but these were approved because the impact on the dune system was minimized in those locations, and also because the applicants had utilized all of the upland property possible on their lots. (Testimony of E. Coley, Moore, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibits 3-4, 6-7, 9-10). Although conflicting evidence was received as to whether or not the existing structures east of petitioners' lot constitute a "reasonably continuous and uniform construction line," it is found that although minor variations exist in the location of individual dwellings, they do meet the quoted statutory standard set forth in Section 161.053(4)(b), Florida Statutes. The existing structures have not been affected by erosion. (Testimony of E. Coley, Evans, Moore, Flack, Clark, Petitioners' Exhibit 1). Petitioners' structural design meets Respondent's technical requirements subject to standard conditions of the Department. (Testimony of Moore, Evans, Flack, Petitioners' Exhibit 2). The Departmental rules cited by Respondent as the authority for the proposed denial of Petitioners' application are Rules 16B-33.05(1), (2), (6), 33.06(2), and 33.07(2), Florida Administrative Code. (Petitioners' Exhibit 4).
The Issue The issue to be determined in these consolidated cases is whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) and the City of Sarasota (“City”) (sometimes referred to as “the Applicants”) are entitled to the proposed joint coastal permit, public easement, and sovereign submerged lands use authorization (referred to collectively as “the Permit”) from the Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) and the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund to dredge sand from Big Sarasota Pass and its ebb shoal and place the sand on the shoreline of Lido Key.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Siesta Key Association, Inc. is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has approximately 1,425 members and represents the interests of those who use and enjoy Siesta Key’s beach and waters. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach and adjacent waters. Petitioner Michael S. Holderness is a resident and property owner on Siesta Key. Mr. Holderness has substantial interests in the protection of his property and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioner Save Our Siesta Sands 2, Inc. is a Florida Not For Profit Corporation, with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization has over 700 members and was formed in opposition to the current dredging proposal. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Petitioners Peter van Roekens and Diane Erne are residents and property owners on Siesta Key. They have substantial interests in the protection of their properties and the use of the beach at Siesta Key and adjacent waters. Respondent City of Sarasota is an incorporated municipality in Sarasota County. It is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent Corps is the federal agency responsible for the Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project first authorized by Congress in 1970. Under this Project, the Corps has conducted periodic maintenance, inlet dredging, surveys, and bypassing to protect Lido Key’s shoreline. The Corps is a co-applicant for the Permit. Respondent DEP is the Florida agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 161, 373, and 403, Florida Statutes, and rules promulgated thereunder in Titles 62 and 62B of the Florida Administrative Code, which pertain to the permitting of construction activities in the coastal zone and in surface waters of the state. DEP acts as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. Intervenor Lido Key Residents Association is a Florida Not for Profit Corporation incorporated in 1980 and with its principal place of business in Sarasota. The organization represents the interests of regular users of Lido Key Beach. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use of the beach at Lido Key and adjacent waters. The Project Area Lido Key is a 2.6-mile-long, manmade barrier island constructed in the 1920s, located on the Gulf of Mexico and within the City of Sarasota. North of Lido Key is New Pass, a navigation channel that separates Lido Key from Longboat Key. South of Lido Key is Big Sarasota Pass and the ebb shoal of the pass. Further south is Siesta Key, a natural barrier island. Sediment Transport In the project area, sand generally drifts along the various shorelines from north to south. There can be sand drift to the north during some storm events, currents, and tides, but the net sand drift is to the south. It is sometimes called “downdrift.” Whatever downdrift conditions existed 100 years ago, they were substantially modified by the creation of Lido Key. For decades, the shoreline of Lido Key has been eroding. Since 1964, the Corps has periodically dredged New Pass to renourish the shoreline of Lido Key. The City has also used offshore sand to renourish Lido Key. These renourishment projects have not prevented relatively rapid erosion of the shoreline. A 2.4-mile-long segment of the shoreline of Lido Key has been designated by DEP as “critically eroded.” The Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal has been growing and now has a volume of about 23 million cubic yards (“cy”) of sand. The growth of the ebb shoal is attributable to the renourishment projects that have placed over a million cy of sand on Lido Key and Longboat Key. The growth of the ebb shoal has likely been a factor in the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, closer to the northern shoreline of Siesta Key. Most of the west-facing shoreline at Siesta Key has experienced significant accretion. It is unusually wide for a Florida beach. It was named the best (“#1”) beach in the United States by “Dr. Beach,” Dr. Steven Leatherman, for 2011 and 2017. The Project The federally-authorized Lido Key Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction Project includes the use of New Pass as a supplemental sand source for renourishing Lido Key. However, the use of New Pass is the subject of separate DEP permitting. The project at issue in this proceeding only involves the renourishment of Lido Key and is named “Lido Key Beach Renourishment and Groins.” The Applicants conducted a study of the ebb shoal to determine whether it could be used as a permanent sand source to renourish Lido Key. The study consisted of an environmental feasibility study and an inlet management program for Big Sarasota Pass and New Pass with alternative solutions. The application for the Permit was a response to this study. The proposed sand source or borrow areas are three dredge “cuts.” Cuts B and D are within the ebb shoal. Cut C extends through the ebb shoal and partly into Big Sarasota Pass. Cut C generally follows an existing “flood marginal channel.” The sand from the cuts would be placed along the central and southern 1.6 miles of Lido Key to fill a beach “template.” The design width of the renourished beach would be 80 feet. The initial placement would be wider than 80 feet to account for erosion. The Permit would have a duration of 15 years. The Applicants’ intent is to initially place 950,000 cy of sand on Lido Key. After the initial renourishment, sand would be dredged from one or more of the three designated cuts about every five years to replace the sand that eroded away, and would probably be on the scale of about 500,000 cy. The numerical modeling of the proposed project assumed the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand from the three cuts. One of DEP’s witnesses testified that the Permit authorizes the removal of up to 1.732 million cy of sand. The record does not support that testimony. The Applicants did not model the effects of dredging 1.732 million cy of sand from the ebb shoal and pass. There is insufficient evidence in the record to support an authorization to remove more than 1.3 million cy of sand. Although the total volume of sand in the three cuts is 1.732 million cy, it is reasonable for the dimensions of the cuts and the proposed easement that is based on these dimensions to contain more material than is authorized to be removed, so as to provide a margin to account for less-than-perfect dredging operations. Therefore, it is found that the Permit authorizes up to 1.3 million cy of sand to be removed from the designated borrow areas. The findings of fact and conclusions of law in this Recommended Order that address the expected impacts of the proposed project are based on this finding. The Permit also authorizes the construction of two rubble mound groins at the southern end of Lido Key to stabilize the beach and lengthen the time between renourishment events. The groins are designed to be semi-permeable so that they “leak” sand. There are no seagrasses in the renourishment area and mostly scattered and thin patches of seagrass near the dredge cuts. The Permit requires mitigation for the potential direct impacts to 1.68 acres of seagrasses. To offset these impacts, the Applicants propose to create 2.9 acres of seagrass habitat. The seagrass habitat would be established at the Rookery at Perico Seagrass Mitigation Basin in Manatee County, about 16 miles north of Big Sarasota Pass. The Permit incorporates the recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission regarding protections for turtles, nesting shorebirds, and manatees. The Permit requires regular monitoring to assess the effects of the project, and requires appropriate modifications if the project does not meet performance expectations. Project Engineering The Corps’ engineering analysis involved three elements: evaluating the historical context and the human influences on the regional system, developing a sediment budget, and using numerical modeling to analyze erosion and accretion trends near the project site. A principal objective of the engineering design for the borrow areas, sand placement, and groins was to avoid adverse effects on downdrift, especially downdrift to Siesta Key. The Corps developed a sediment budget for the “no action” and post-project scenarios. A sediment budget is a tool used to account for the sediment entering and leaving a geographic study area. The sediment budgets developed by the Corps are based on sound science and they are reliable for the purposes for which they were used. The post-project sediment budget shows there would be minimal or no loss of sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners did not prepare a sediment budget to support their theory of adverse impact to Siesta Key. Petitioners object to the engineering materials in the Permit application because they were not certified by a Florida registered professional engineer. DEP does not require a Florida professional engineer’s certification for engineering work submitted by the Corps. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, Florida cannot impose licensing conditions on federal engineers. Ebb Shoal Equilibrium Petitioners’ witness, Dr. Walton, developed a formula to estimate ebb shoal volume equilibrium, or the size that an ebb shoal will tend to reach and maintain, taking into account bathymetry, wave energy, tides, adjacent shorelines, and related factors. In an article entitled “Use of Outer Bars of Inlets as Sources of Beach Nourishment Material,” Dr. Walton calculated the ebb shoal equilibrium volume for the Big Sarasota Pass ebb shoal as between 6 and 10 million cy of sand. The ebb shoal has been growing and is now about 23 million cy of sand, which is well in excess of its probable equilibrium volume. The volume of sand proposed to be removed from the ebb shoal is only about six percent of the overall ebb shoal volume. Dr. Walton’s study of the use of ebb shoals as sand sources for renourishment projects supports the efficacy of the proposed project. Modeling Morphological Trends The Corps used a combined hydrodynamic and sediment transport computer model called the Coastal Modeling System, Version 4 (“CMS”) to analyze the probable effects of the proposed project. The CMS model was specifically developed to represent tidal inlet processes. It has been used by the Corps to analyze a number of coastal projects. Dr. Walton opined that the CMS model was inappropriate for analyzing this project because it is a two-dimensional model that is incapable of accounting for all types of currents and waves. However, a two-dimensional model is appropriate for a shallow and well-mixed system like Big Sarasota Pass. Dr. Walton’s lack of experience with the CMS model and with any three-dimensional sediment transport model reduced the weight of his testimony on this point. Petitioners contend that the CMS model was not properly calibrated or verified. Calibration involves adjustments to a model so that its predictions are in line with known conditions. Verification is the test of a model’s ability to predict a different set of known conditions. For calibrating the hydrodynamic portion of the model, the Corps used measurements of water levels and currents collected in 2006. The model showed a 90-percent correlation with water surface elevation and 87-percent correlation to velocity. Dr. Walton believes a model should exhibit a 95-percent correlation for calibration. However, that opinion is not generally accepted in the modeling community. Model verification, as described by Dr. Walton, is generally desirable for all types of modeling, but not always practical for some types of modeling. A second set of field data is not always available or practical to produce for a verification step. In this case, there was only one set of sea floor elevations available for verification of the CMS model. It is the practice of DEP in the permitting process to accept and consider sediment transport modeling results that have not been verified in the manner described by Dr. Walton. The Corps described a second calibration of the CMS model, or “test of model skill,” as an evaluation of how well the CMS model’s sediment transport predictions (morphological changes) compared to Light Detection and Ranging (“LIDAR”) data collected in 2004. The CMS model successfully reproduced the patterns of erosion and sediment deposition within the area of focus. Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Luther, testified that, over the model domain, the CMS model predictions differed substantially from LIDAR data and believes the discrepancies between the model’s predictions and the LIDAR data make the model’s predictions unreliable. Modeling sediment transport is a relatively new tool for evaluating the potential impacts of a beach renourishment project. Renourishment projects have been planned, permitted, and carried out for decades without the use of sediment transport models. Now, modeling is being used to add information to the decision-making process. The modeling does not replace other information, such as historical data, surveys, and sediment budgets, which were heretofore used without modeling to make permit decisions. Sediment transport is a complex process involving many highly variable influences. It is difficult to predict where all the grains of sand will go. Sediment transport modeling has not advanced to the point which allows it to predict with precision the topography of the sea floor at thousands of LIDAR points. However, the CMS model is still useful to coastal engineers for describing expected trends of accretion and erosion in areas of interest. This was demonstrated by the model’s accurate replication of known features of the Big Sarasota Pass and ebb shoal, such as the flood marginal channels and the bypassing bars. The CMS model’s ability to predict morphological trends assisted the Applicants and DEP to compare the expected impacts associated with alternative borrow locations on the ebb shoal and pass, wave characteristics, and sediment transport pathways. Together with other data and analyses, the results of the CMS model support a finding that the proposed dredging and renourishment would not cause significant adverse impacts. The Applicants extensively analyzed sediment transport pathways and the effects of alternative borrow areas on sediment transport to Siesta Key. Petitioners’ hypothesis is not supported by engineering studies of equivalent weight. The more persuasive evidence indicates that sediment transport to downdrift beaches would not be reduced and might even be increased because sediment now locked in the ebb shoal would reenter the sediment transport pathways. In addition, the proposed dredging may halt the southward migration of the main ebb channel of Big Sarasota Pass, and thereby reduce erosive forces on the interior shoreline of north Siesta Key. Wave Energy Petitioners assert that the proposed dredging would result in increased wave energy on Siesta Key because the diminished ebb shoal would no longer serve as a natural buffer against wave energy from storms. They conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. Because the proposed dredging would remove a small percentage of the total ebb shoal volume, the ebb shoal would remain a protective barrier for Siesta Key. Wave energy reaching the shorelines along Big Sarasota Pass or within Sarasota Bay would continue to be substantially reduced by the ebb shoal. The predicted increase in wave energy that would occur as a result of the project could increase the choppiness of waters, but would not materially increase the potential for wave-related erosion. Petitioners conducted no studies and made no calculations of their own to support their allegation that the project would significantly increase the potential for damage to property or structures on Siesta Key due to increased wave energy. To the extent that Petitioners’ expert coastal engineer opined otherwise, it was an educated guess and insufficient to rebut the Applicants’ prima facie case on the subject of wave energy. Groins Petitioners contend that the two proposed groins would adversely impact the beaches of Siesta Key because the groins would capture sand that would otherwise drift south and benefit Siesta Key. However, the preponderance of the evidence shows the groins would not extend into or obstruct the sand “stream” waterward of the renourished beach. The historic use of groins to capture downdrift resulted in adverse impacts to adjacent beaches. However, the use of groins in conjunction with beach renourishment to stabilize a renourished beach and without obstructing downdrift is an accepted practice in coastal engineering. The proposed groins would not obstruct longshore sediment transport and, therefore, would not interfere with downdrift to Siesta Key. Public Interest - General Section 373.414(1) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that state water quality standards will not be violated, and reasonable assurance that a proposed activity is not contrary to the public interest. However, if the proposed activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (“OFW”), the applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be clearly in the public interest. Sarasota Bay, including Big Sarasota Pass and portions of Lido Key, have been designated as an OFW. Therefore, the Applicants must demonstrate that the proposed project is clearly in the public interest. In determining whether an activity is clearly in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(a) requires DEP to consider and balance seven factors: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of section 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. DEP determined that the project is clearly in the public interest because it would improve public safety by providing protection to Lido Key upland structures from storm damage and flooding, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and provide beach-related recreational opportunities; and it would create these public benefits without causing adverse impacts. Public Interest - Safety Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect public health, safety, welfare, or the property of others because it would interrupt downdrift and substantially reduce the storm protection provided by the ebb shoal. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence does not support this contention. Public Interest - Conservation of Fish and Wildlife Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species. The Permit application materials provided evidence that the proposed project would have no effects, or only minimal temporary effects, on water quality, temperature, salinity, nutrients, turbidity, habitat, and other environmental factors. That was sufficient as a prima facie showing that the project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife because, if environmental factors are not changed, it logically follows that there should be no adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Therefore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence to show that adverse effects to fish and wildlife would occur. It was not enough for Petitioners to simply contend that certain fish species were not adequately addressed in the application materials. With the exception of Dr. Gilmore’s field investigation related to the spotted seatrout, Petitioners conducted no studies or field work of their own to support their allegations of adverse impacts to fish and wildlife. Dr. Gilmore discovered that spotted seatrout were spawning in Big Sarasota Pass. Such spawning sites are not common, are used repeatedly, and are important to the conservation of the species. Spotted seatrout spawn from April through September. The record does not show that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the National Marine Fisheries Service were aware that Big Sarasota Pass was a spawning area for spotted seatrout, or considered this fact when commenting on the project. The spotted seatrout is not a threatened or endangered species, but DEP is required to consider and prevent adverse impacts to non-listed fish species, as well as recreational fishing and marine productivity. If the proposed project would destroy a spotted seatrout spawning area, that is a strong negative in the balancing of public interest factors. The Applicants do not propose mitigation for adverse impacts to spotted seatrout spawning. Seagrass sites close to the spawning area are used by post-larval spotted seatrout for refuge. The likely seagrass nursery sites for seatrout spawning in Big Sarasota Pass are depicted in SOSS2 Exhibit 77. The proposed seagrass mitigation at the Perico Rookery Seagrass Mitigation Basin, over 16 miles away, would not offset a loss of this refuge function because it is not suitable as a refuge for post-larval spotted seatrout. The spawning season for spotted seatrout occurs during the same months as turtle nesting season, and DEP argued that the turtle protection conditions in the Permit to limit lighting and prohibit nighttime work, would also prevent adverse impacts to the spotted seatrout. However, spotted seatrout spawning is also threatened by turbidity and sedimentation in the spawning area and adjacent seagrasses. The spotted seatrout spawning area is in the area where dredge Cut B is located. If Cut B were dredged during the spawning season, it would likely disrupt or destroy the spawning site. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the spawning site requires that Cut B not be dredged during the spawning season. Seagrasses that are likely to provide refuge to post- larval seatrout are near the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C. Reasonable assurance that the proposed project would not disrupt or destroy the refuge function requires that the most eastern 1,200 feet of cut C not be dredged during the spawning season. In summary, the proposed project would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife unless dredging was restricted during the spotted seatrout spawning season, as described above. Public Interest – Navigation, Flow of Water, and Erosion Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect navigation, the flow of water, and would cause harmful erosion to Siesta Key, but Petitioners conducted no studies or calculations to support this assertion. The preponderance of the evidence shows that no such adverse impacts would occur. Public Interest – Recreational Values Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect fisheries and associated recreation because of harm to spotted seatrout and other fish species. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would adversely affect the spotted seatrout, an important recreational fish species, unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Public Interest - Value of Functions Petitioners contend that the proposed project would adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project because dynamic inlet system would be disrupted. As found above, the preponderance of the evidence shows the project would not adversely affect the coastal system. However, it would adversely affect the spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions provided by Big Sarasota Pass unless dredging was restricted during the spawning season. Mitigation If a balancing of the public interest factors in section 373.414(1)(a) results in a determination that a proposed project is not in the public interest, section 373.414(1)(b) provides that DEP must consider mitigation offered to offset the adverse impacts. Although the Perico Rookery at Seagrass Mitigation Basin is within the OFW and the same drainage basin, it does not fully offset the adverse impacts likely to be caused by the proposed project. The mitigation would not offset the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions. The mitigation for the loss of spotted seatrout spawning and refuge functions is unnecessary if the impacts are avoided by restricting dredging during the spawning season as described above. Design Modifications Petitioners contend that the Applicants did not evaluate the alternative of taking sand from offshore borrow areas for the renourishment. The record shows otherwise. Furthermore, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, the Applicants were not required to address design modifications other than alternative locations for taking sand from the ebb shoal and Big Sarasota Pass. Consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Program Petitioners contend that DEP failed to properly review the Permit for consistency with the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program (“FCZMP”), because DEP failed to obtain an affirmative statement from Sarasota County that the proposed project is consistent with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. The State Clearinghouse is an office within DEP that coordinates the review of coastal permit applications by numerous agencies for consistency with the FCZMP. It is the practice of the State Clearinghouse to treat a lack of comment by an agency as a determination of consistency by the agency. With respect to this particular project, the State Clearinghouse provided a copy of the joint coastal permit application to the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (“SWFRPC”) for comments regarding consistency with local government comprehensive plans. SWFRPC submitted no comments. In a letter dated June 26, 2015, the State Clearinghouse reported to the Corps that “at this stage, the proposed federal action is consistent with the [FCZMP].” In a written “peer review” of the proposed project produced by the Sarasota Environmental Planning Department in October 2015, some concerns were expressed, but no mention was made of inconsistency with the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Sarasota County sent a letter to DEP, dated August 24, 2016, in which it requested that the Corps prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) for the project. Sarasota County did not indicate in its letter to DEP that the proposed project is inconsistent with any policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan. Petitioners assert that the proposed project would be inconsistent with an environmental policy of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan that Petitioners interpret as prohibiting the proposed dredging. The record contains no evidence that Sarasota County believes the proposed project is inconsistent with this particular policy or any other policy of its comprehensive plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP issue a final order approving the proposed agency actions, but only if the joint coastal permit is modified to prohibit dredging operations in Cut B and the most eastern 1,200 feet of Cut C during April through September. If this modification is not made, it is recommended that the proposed agency actions be DENIED; and The joint coastal permit be modified to clarify that it authorizes the removal of up to 1.3 million cy of sand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Florida Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 (eServed) Alexandrea Davis Shaw, Esquire City of Sarasota Room 100A 1565 1st Street Sarasota, Florida 34236 John R. Herin, Jr., Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Suite 1000 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Eric P. Summa U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Post Office Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232 Martha Collins, Esquire Collins Law Group 1110 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33602 (eServed) Thomas W. Reese, Esquire 2951 61st Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33712-4539 (eServed) Richard Green, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Suite 501-S 100 Second Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Christopher Lambert, Esquire United States Army Corps of Engineers 701 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed) Robert A. Williams, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 (eServed)
The Issue The issues for determination at final hearing were (1) whether Petitioner's coastal construction Permit No. 86-155PB, authorizing Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, should be extended under Special Permit Condition 10 of the Permit and (2) whether the experimental reef structure should be removed pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12 of the Permit.
Findings Of Fact On April 6, 1987, American Coastal Engineering, on behalf of Willis H. DuPont (Petitioner) and Florida Atlantic University's Department of Ocean Engineering, was granted coastal construction Permit NO. 86-155PB 3/ (Permit) by the Department of Natural Resources (Respondent). 4/ The Permit authorized Petitioner to construct and temporarily maintain an experimental reef structure seaward of the DuPont residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The experimental reef structure, referred to as a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef), is a 550 foot submerged breakwater which was constructed using prefabricated concrete segments, placed end-to-end underwater in the nearshore area. The purpose of the PEP reef is to reduce erosion of the beach landward of the structure. The PEP reef was installed on May 5, 1988. Special conditions were placed on the Permit, to which Petitioner agreed. The special conditions in pertinent part provide: The permittee shall adjust, alter or remove any structure or other physical evidence of the work or activity permitted, as directed by the Executive Director, if in the opinion of the Executive Director, the structure, work or activity in question results in damage to surrounding property or otherwise proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary. Adjustment, alteration, or removal required under this provision, shall be accomplished by the permittee at no cost to the State of Florida. * * * 10. The proposed submerged breakwater shall be removed within two years following installation of the experimental structure unless determined by the staff to remain in place for an extended period of time. This determination shall be based on a staff evaluation of the monitoring data, existing statutory regulations, and the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan at that time. The experimental structure shall only remain in place after two years upon written approval from the Executive Director indicating an extension has been granted. * * * 12. The Executive Director may order removal of the experimental structure as soon as the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished under Special Permit Condition 6 erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location within the area to be monitored. Petitioner requested an extension of the Permit. On July 10, 1991, Respondent issued a final order denying an extension of the Permit, pursuant to Special Permit Condition 10, and directing the Petitioner to remove the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. An extension of the Permit beyond the two years following installation of the PEP reef, according to Special Permit Condition 10, is based upon three factors: (1) an evaluation by Respondent's staff of monitoring data gathered by Petitioner, (2) statutory regulations existing at the time of the extension request, and (3) the feasibility of the project in concurrence with the beach management plan existing at the time of the extension request. Although Petitioner's monitoring data addressed the question whether the PEP reef was performing its function, it did not address existing statutory regulations or the project's feasibility in concurrence with the current beach management plan. 5/ Petitioner's monitoring data was collected over a two-year period with surveys being performed through March 1990: March 1988 (preconstruction), May 1988 (post-construction), August 1988, December 1988, February 1989, April 1989, July 1989, November 1989, and March 1990. The data was collected along 17 profile stations: seven stations were located within or immediately adjacent to the boundaries of the PEP reef, and five to the north and five to the south of the PEP reef. The data indicated that the PEP reef was an experiment and approved by Respondent as an experiment. As a conclusion, Petitioner indicates that the PEP reef is functioning for the purpose it was designed in that it is providing a benefit to the beach. Respondent disagreed with Petitioner's conclusion. For one, Respondent disagreed with the method of analysis used by Petitioner to analyze the data because Petitioner's analysis failed to filter out seasonal effects. This procedure brought into play the first of the three factors in Special Permit Condition 10 which was used for denial of the Permit extension. Petitioner's monitoring data was utilized and analyzed by Respondent. Using the data gathered, Respondent created profile plots which are cross sectional depictions of the shoreline profiles and which displayed changes to the shoreline occurring during the survey period. Respondent used a shoreline change analysis in determining the PEP reef's effect on the shoreline in its vicinity. The analysis focused on the net change in the shoreline, i.e., the net change in the location of the mean high water line, factoring out the seasonal variations which occur along the coast by comparing profile plots from the same time of year taken during the two-year monitoring period. The shoreline change analysis indicated that in the vicinity of the PEP reef the shoreline showed irregular periods of both accretion and erosion. However, the shoreline did not reflect the typical pattern that was expected with a functioning breakwater. To the contrary, the irregular periods of accretion and erosion and the irregular configuration of the shoreline indicated that factors other than the PEP reef were affecting the shoreline. One such intervening factor was attributed to the large number of existing shoreline structures called groins which are scattered throughout the area. Groins are structures intended to stabilize the shoreline by blocking the down drift movement of sand, thereby altering the natural coastal processes. The monitoring data shows that, in terms of accretion or erosion, the PEP reef produced no recognizable influence on the shoreline in its vicinity. As to the second factor in Special Permit Condition 10, at the time the Permit was granted in 1988, no regulations specifically applicable to experimental structures existed. However, in 1989 a provision specifically addressing the permitting of experimental structures became law. /6 The provision provides that the "intent" of the Florida Legislature is to "encourage the development of new and innovative methods for dealing with the coastal shoreline erosion problem," and that, in authorizing the "construction of pilot projects using alternative coastal shoreline erosion control methods," the Respondent must determine, among other things, that "the proposed project site is properly suited for analysis of the results of the proposed activity." Groins in the PEP reef area alter the natural coastal processes and, therefore, play a significant role in the analysis of the shoreline processes. The effect of the groins affected the Respondent's ability to determine the effectiveness of the experimental structure. As a result, the Respondent was unable to make a determination in accordance with the legislative mandate. As to the third factor in Special Permit Condition 10, Petitioner presented no evidence addressing this factor. Petitioner has failed to show that the experimental structure, the PEP reef, has satisfied Special Permit Condition 10. It has failed to show that the intended purpose of the PEP reef has been accomplished, i.e., that the PEP reef is effective or beneficial. In denying Petitioner's request for an extension of the Permit, Respondent directed removal of the PEP reef pursuant to Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Special Permit Condition 3 provides for removal, alteration or adjustment of the PEP reef if it "proves to be undersirable or becomes unnecessary." The construction of the PEP reef consisted of, among other things, the placing of individual reef units end-to-end. To alert boaters to the location of the PEP reef, a buoy was placed at each end of the structure. The stability of the PEP reef is questionable. In 1989 a storm dislodged the individual units. In an effort to prevent sliding, Petitioner attempted to realign the units to their original position and added more weight to the units. Despite Petitioner's efforts to stabilize the structure, the PEP reef has experienced continued movement. Furthermore, because of the continued movement, boaters' safety would be compromised in that the buoys would be ineffective in warning them of the location of any units which may be dislodged. Also, the additional weight to the units could cause the individual units to settle, potentially affecting the performance of the PEP reef, and could induce erosional scour around the structure itself. Special Permit Condition 12 provides for removal when "the shoreline along any portion of the area required to be nourished . . . erodes up to or landward of the pre-nourished beach profile indicating a complete loss of the nourished beach material from that location and accretion at another location." The shoreline analysis showed that the shoreline in many portions of the nourished area eroded landward of the pre-nourished beach profile. The mean high water line had positioned landward of its pre-project location. Petitioner has failed to show that the PEP reef does not fall within the conditions of Special Permit Conditions 3 and 12. Federally protected and endangered marine species have attached themselves to and/or now reside in the PEP reef, complicating the removal of the PEP reef. In order not to disturb or disrupt this marine life, Respondent has expressed a desire in relocating the structure to a position further offshore.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Natural Resources 7/ enter a final order DENYING an extension of Permit No. 86-155PB. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of April 1994. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April 1994.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) should approve a permit for the applicant, Indian River County (County), to install a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef) off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving permits such as the one at issue. The County is a governmental entity and is the applicant which has requested a permit for an experimental project to be located in Vero Beach, Florida. The Petitioners oppose the proposed project. The project at issue is the installation of a PEP reef system to be located between approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-80 to approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-83, in Indian River County, Florida. Because of the uncertainty as to the performance of the proposed project and the potential that it may cause adverse impacts to the coastal system, the Department classified the project as experimental pursuant to Chapter 89-175, Section 27, Laws of Florida. In making its preliminary approval for the permit, the Department required special permit conditions to safeguard the coastal system and marine turtles. Additionally, the Department specified both preconstruction and post installation monitoring and testing. The term of the permit is limited to five years, including three years to monitor the project's impacts. A PEP reef is a prefabricated erosion prevention product installed as a breakwater off the shore. In this case, the product measures approximately twelve feet long and six feet high. The base of the product (which is conically shaped) is approximately 15 feet tapering to a one foot crest at the top. The PEP unit is a proprietary product of a company called American Coastal Engineering (ACE). The County proposes to contract with ACE for the manufacture and installation of the units. It is proposed that the PEP units would be installed in an alignment parallel to the beach for a total, though not continuous, length of 3000 feet. The proposed location for the PEP reef in Vero Beach is in an erosion area as identified by the Department's Beach Restoration Management Plan. Historically, the subject beach has experienced a steady and continuous erosion which has been exacerbated during storm conditions. The proposed site is suitable for the experimental nature of this project. At least one past storm event caused substantial damage to the beach front at the project site. Walkways, utilities, and other public improvements were substantially damaged. Past efforts to curb the erosion have proved unsuccessful. Such efforts included beach renourishment, and the installation of seawalls or bulkheads. Future beach renourishment is undesirable for the project site due to the lack of compatible sand, and its high cost. More important, however, are concerns over the negative environmental impacts to nearshore reefs which could result from a large scale renourishment project. For over ten years the County has sought a solution to the erosion that has plagued the project site. To that end, the County established a special committee, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, to review options available and to recommend long-term solutions to the County. In June, 1993, the County contracted with Petitioner Walther to prepare a map of the nearshore hardbottom reef and to evaluate alternatives for beach restoration at the project site. Such work was completed, and recommendations from Mr. Walther were not incompatible with the installation of the proposed reef. The proposed installation should not adversely affect the hardbottom reefs which are in the vicinity of the PEP units. Such hardbottom is considered environmentally sensitive; however, no PEP unit will be placed on the hardbottom or so close to it that it will disturb the organisms located within the hardbottom community. In December, 1993, the County submitted an application for an experimental coastal construction permit to install the PEP reef which is at issue. The PEP units are to be placed in seven to ten feet of water. The PEP reef is designed to reduce wave heights, particularly during a storm event, which should reduce the wave energy and currents in the lee of the structure. While it is hoped the units will deter erosion, they may also cause some accretion to the beach. Whether such accretion would be temporary or long- term is uncertain. As a result of studies performed by the University of Florida under the direction of Dr. Dean, and supported by the County's coastal engineer Mr. Donaldson, it was determined that the PEP units should be installed in shorter lengths (than originally designed) with gaps between each segment. Consequently, the installation proposed by the County is not continuous but is staggered and gapped. The installation proposed by the County is unique in that the coastal characteristics of the area and the proposed design should produce results different from past installations of reef structures in Palm Beach County, Florida. As a result, studies performed by Dr. Dean in connection with a reef installed in Palm Beach County have been discounted as dissimilar to the one proposed in this case. In reviewing the subject permit application, the Department requested additional data which the County retained Dr. Zarillo to gather. Dr. Zarillo performed numerical modeling for the proposed reef system. Based upon Dr. Zarillo's work it is expected that the PEP reef system will have a positive benefit in that wave height and energy is likely to be reduced by the installation of the units. The site for the installation is suited for the proposal and is not within an area that is considered environmentally sensitive. Moreover, the PEP reef itself will add to the development of species since it should develop into a nursery habitat for young fish and other marine organisms. The installation of PEP reefs at other locations have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful. Having considered the studies performed by Dr. Bruno, an expert in coastal engineering and in measuring/modeling coastal processes, it is likely that the proposed project will be similar enough in design to installations reviewed by Dr. Bruno to allow the proposed project to be compared. Dr. Bruno has monitored three installations at three different sites in New Jersey. Each site had different results based upon conditions of each location. One site, expected to be most like the proposed site in Vero Beach, has experienced a reduced rate of erosion. Based upon Dr. Bruno's "real life" experience it is expected that the proposed installation will result in a reduction of wave height on the order of 10 percent to 20 percent. Consequently, the proposed installation should provide a benefit to the control of erosion. The reduction of wave height leads to a reduction in the erosive power of the wave field. Therefore, it is expected to result in a reduced erosion rate behind the PEP reefs. Additionally, Dr. Bruno's assessment of Dr. Zarillo's modeling work suggests that "in theory" the proposed site should experience a reduction in wave height as a result of the proposed installation. As a result, both scientific methods support the proposed project. No scientific study can, however, assure the success of this project. In fact, success may be derived from the value of the data which will be gathered during the monitoring period. Such data may assist in the future design of structures to reduce wave energy. The County's proposed monitoring plan contains detailed and adequate performance criteria to assure that the PEP reef system will be fully evaluated. The County has provided adequate assurance that it will comply with the permit conditions, including the modification or removal of the reef system if directed by the Department. All installation and monitoring as well as removal is to be performed at the County's expense. The PEP reef system will have no appreciable adverse impact on marine turtles. Construction is prohibited during nesting season under the terms of the permit. The PEP reef system will have no adverse impact on swimmers or boaters. The units are to be clearly marked and identified under the terms of the permit. No adverse impacts to Petitioners Walther and Clemens should be incurred as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the permit requested by the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4045 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Walther: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 29, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, and 60 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation is hearsay as it relates to the record cited; however, although not stipulated, the record most likely supports the paragraph in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the factual conclusion that because another permit holder has failed to remove a reef that the County will similarly default on its obligation to do should the agency order the PEP reef removal. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant if it purports to suggest the contracting was improper; this proceeding does not consider the propriety of the contracting process. With the deletion of any emphasis and the last sentence which are rejected as argument, paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted that Mrs. Clemens opposed the permit and requested a hearing. Paragraph 27 is rejected as an incomplete statement and therefore not supported by the total weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 30 through 33 are rejected as law not statements of fact. Paragraph 34 is accepted in general terms but not as to the specific measurements cited. Paragraphs 35 through 38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. It is determined that the site is suitable for a non-biased, comprehensive analysis of the project. Paragraphs 39 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 45, it is accepted the reefs may settle but such is expected to be unlikely to impair the overall performance of the structure; therefore, the paragraph, as drafted, must be rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as unclear or incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 58 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 61, it is accepted that Dr. Dean envisioned a current being created that would run parallel to the shoreline as a result of the reef installation but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 62, such statement is generally true; however, Dr. Dean did not conduct any sediment transportation test to verify that the structure in an open setting (as opposed to the experimental tank) would transport sediment as inferred. Paragraphs 63 through 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is accepted as accurate but the agency did not express, and the record does not establish, that there is a concern that the County may not honor its agreement to remove the PEP reef if directed to do so. Paragraph 69 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Clemens: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent Department: All proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department as listed are accepted. See comments below as to rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the County. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent County: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 through 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that an extensive renourishment program might damage the sensitive nearshore hardbottom community; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 16, with the deletion of the word "significantly" in the second sentence and the last sentence which are rejected as irrelevant, editorial comment, argument or not supported by the total weight of credible evidence, it is accepted. With regard to paragraph 18, the first sentence is accepted. As to the balance of the paragraph, with the deletion of the word "significantly" and the substitution of "might" for "could", the paragraph is accepted. Otherwise rejected as an inaccurate characterization of the weight of the record. With regard to paragraph 19, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as a compound statement of proposed fact some of which are accurate but which taken in whole constitute argument, unnecessary, irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 31, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence three, the paragraph is accepted. With regard to paragraph 32, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence two, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 35, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 36 through 38 are rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. The proposed PEP reef should not adversely impact the Vero Beach shoreline. Paragraph 44 is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraphs 47 through 53, it is accepted that the Petitioners did not establish that they will be substantially affected by the proposed project; however, their conduct does not rise to the level to establish participation in the administrative process was for an improper purpose. Consequently, the paragraphs are rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Lewis, Esquire John W. Forehand, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Michael P. Walther 1725 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Adele Clemens 3747 Ocean Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Dana M. Wiehle Assistants General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherall Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
