The Issue Whether the Sherry Petitioners have standing to initiate the proceeding in Case No. 10-0515? Whether the Oceania Petitioners have standing to initiate the proceeding in Case No. 10-0516? Whether the MACLA Intervenors have standing to intervene? Whether the Department should enter a final order that issues the JCP, the Variance and the SSL Authorization?
Findings Of Fact Setting and Preliminary Identification of the Parties These consolidated cases are set in Okaloosa County. They concern the Consolidated NOI issued by the Department to the County that indicate the Department's intent to issue state authorizations to allow the restoration of a stretch of beach known as the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project (the "Western Destin Project" or the "Project"). In addition to the Western Destin Project, there are other beach restoration efforts (the "Other Beach Restorations") which concern the Gulf of Mexico coastal system along the shores of the Florida Panhandle and about which the parties presented evidence in this proceeding. The applicants for the authorizations in the Other Beach Restorations efforts are either Okaloosa County or Walton County, the coastal county immediately to the County's east, and concern Okaloosa and Walton County property or are on federal property used by Eglin Air Force Base (the "Eglin Projects" or "A-3" or "A-13"). The Eglin Projects have been completed. The source of the sand use in the Eglin Projects is a borrow area designated by the County and its agent, Taylor Engineering, as "OK-A" ("OK-A" or the "OK-A Borrow Area"). The County intends that the OK-A Borrow Area be the source of sand for the Western Destin Project. West of East Pass, a passage of water which connects Choctawhatchee Bay and the Gulf of Mexico, the OK-A Borrow Area is between 4,000 and 5,000 feet off the shores of Okaloosa Island. Okaloosa Island is not an island. It is an area of the incorporated municipality of Fort Walton Beach that sits on a coastal barrier island, Santa Rosa Island. Except for the part of the final hearing conducted in Tallahassee, the final hearing in this case took place in Okaloosa Island. As Mr. Clark put it (when he testified in that part of the hearing not in Tallahassee), "I am in Okaloosa Island. [At the same time], I am on Santa Rosa Island." Tr. 521 (emphasis added). Petitioners in Case No. 10-0515, David and Rebecca Sherry and John Donovan (the "Sherry Petitioners") live along a stretch of beach that is in Okaloosa Island. They do not live along the stretch of beach that is within the area subject to the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners' stretch of beach is the subject of another beach restoration effort by the County (the "Okaloosa Island Beach Restoration Project"). The Okaloosa Island Beach Restoration Project, in turn, is the subject of another case at DOAH, Case No. 10-2468. The OK-A Borrow Area is much closer to the Sherry Petitioners' property than to the beach to be restored by the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners recognize the need for the restoration of at least some of the beaches in the Western Destin Project. The Sherry Petitioners initiated Case No. 10-0515, not to prevent the Western Destin Project from restoring those beaches, but because they are concerned that the beaches subject to the Okaloosa Island Project (including "their" beach) will suffer impacts from the dredging of the OK-A Borrow Area whether the dredging is done to serve the Western Destin Project or the other Projects the OK-A Borrow Area has served or is intended to serve. In contrast to the Sherry Petitioners, the Petitioners in Case No. 10-0516 (the "Oceania Petitioners") do, in fact, live on beaches in a section of the Western Destin Project that was slated for restoration when the Consolidated NOI was issued. The Oceania Petitioners are opposed to the restoration of the beaches subject to the Western Destin Project. They initiated Case No. 10-0516, therefore, because of that opposition. Walton County applied authorizations from the state for the Walton County/East Destin Project (referred-to elsewhere in this order as the "Walton Project"). The Walton Project, like the Eglin Projects, is completed. Unlike the Eglin Projects, and the intent with regard to the Western Destin Project and the Okaloosa Island Project, the Walton Project did not use the OK-A Borrow Area as its source of sand. The Walton Project used a Borrow Area to the east of OK-A (the "Walton Borrow Area"). The Walton Borrow Area is in an area influenced by the ebb tidal shoal formed by the interaction between East Pass and the Gulf of Mexico. The MACLA Intervenors (all of whom own property deeded to the MHWL of the Gulf in the stretch of beach subject to the Western Destin Project) together with the Sherry Petitioners and the Oceania Petitioners, seek findings in this proceeding concerning the impacts of the Walton Borrow Area to the beaches of Okaloosa County. They hope that findings with regard to Walton Borrow Area beach impacts will undermine the assurances the County and the Department offer for a finding that the Western Destin Project will not cause significant adverse impacts to the beaches of Okaloosa County. The Holiday Isle Intervenors support the Project. They are condominium associations or businesses whose properties are within the Project. Like the Eglin Projects, the Walton Project is complete. The Walton Project was the subject of a challenge at DOAH in Case Nos. 04-2960 and 04-3261. The challenge culminated at the administrative level in a Final Order issued by the Department that issued the state authorizations necessary to restore the Walton Project beaches. The Walton Project Final Order was appealed to the First District Court of Appeal where it was reversed. But it was reinstated in a decision by the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court decision was upheld when the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous 9-0 decision less than two months before the commencement of the final hearing in these consolidates cases: Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Envtl Prot., 130 S. Ct. 2592 (2010). The Court held in Stop the Beach Renourishment that the Walton County Project was not a regulatory taking of property that demanded compensation to affected property owners under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Stop the Beach Renourishment was argued before the United States Supreme Court in December of 2009, shortly before filing of the petitions that initiated these consolidated cases. The final hearing in these cases was not set initially until July 2010 in the hope that the Stop the Beach Renourishment case would be decided, a hope that was realized. In the meantime, another event threatened to affect these consolidated cases: the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (the "Oil Spill") in the Gulf of Mexico. The spill began with the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oil platform in April of 2010 and continued until August of 2010 when the Oil Spill was stopped while these cases were in the midst of final hearing. The Joint Coastal Permit issued by the Department was revised to address impacts of the Oil Spill. No impacts, however, were proven in this proceeding by any of the parties. The Parties The Sherry Petitioners and Their Property David and Rebecca Sherry, husband and wife, are the leaseholders of "Apartment No. 511 [ a condominium unit] of Surf Dweller Condominium, a condominium with such apartment's fractional share of common and limited elements as per Declaration thereof recorded in Official Records . . . of Okaloosa County, Florida."2/ Their address is 554 Coral Court, #511, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548. The Sherrys entered the lease for their condominium unit in May of 2002 in anticipation of it being their retirement home. After retirement, "towards the end of 2005," tr. 840, the unit became their permanent residence. They chose their home after an extensive search for the best beach in America on which to reside. The couple toured the Gulf Coast of Florida, the Keys and the Atlantic seaboard from South Florida into the Carolinas. Both explained at hearing why they picked the Panhandle of Florida in general and selected the Surf Dweller Condominium in particular as the place that they would live during retirement. Mr. Sherry testified: Tr. 841. This particular area we chose because of the beach quality. Quite frankly, . . . I was surprised when I first saw the place . . . the really stunning quality of it. The sand is absolutely beautiful. The water has that clear green hue. You can walk off shore and it just looks great. There isn't any other place like it in the Continental US that I've ever seen. Mrs. Sherry elaborated about the reasons for their choice to reside on the beach adjacent to the Surf Dweller and their enjoyment of the beach in the Okaloosa Island area of Santa Rosa Island. "We moved here for the quality of the beach, the sugar white sand." Tr. 936 (emphasis added). She explained that both she and her husband walk or run the beach daily. Mr. Sherry always runs; Mrs. Sherry's routine is to walk and run alternately. There are other distinctions in their daily traverses over the sugar white sand of Okaloosa Island. Mr. Sherry sometimes runs in shoes. As for Mrs. Sherry, however, she professed, I always run barefoot. I always walk barefoot and I take longer walks than he does. He runs the whole Island. I walk the whole Island and I run 3 miles at a time of the Island. So, that's the difference in the way we use [the beach.] Id. Mrs. Sherry described her activities on the beach more fully and how she enjoys it: I . . . swim. I surf on the skim board, float out in the water . . . I help Dave fish, we crab, . . . all sorts of things like that for recreation. Pretty much a beach person. I sit down on the beach under an umbrella with a lot of sunscreen. * * * I've always run barefoot. That's the reason [we chose the beach next to the Surf Dweller], it's not only the quality of the sand, [it's also] the fact that it's so soft because as I've aged, my husband and I have both been running for 30 years. He's in much better shape. I can still run barefoot and I can do a good pace, but if I've got shoes on, it's not nearly as much fun and I don't do nearly as much of it. So, to me, being able to have the squeak [of the sand underfoot], which you don't have with the restored sand is a big deal and having to wear shoes is a big deal. I really like to . . . [cross the beach] barefoot. Tr. 939. I actually think the project will impact me, at least, as much as my husband, David . . . my husband is . . . involved with . . . being board president of the Surf Dweller[.] I spend at least as much time as he does on the beach. And the way our furniture is arranged in the unit, it's so that when I'm in the kitchen, I bake the cookies, I see the beach, when I'm at the computer I can see the beach. I've got all the best views. So, I think I'm . . . extremely involved with it. It's the first thing I see in the morning; it's the last thing I see at night and I'm down there every morning. In fact, I was on the beach this morning before we came in . . . I don't miss my morning walk. Tr. 950. The Surf Dweller Condominium is located in Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island,3/ Okaloosa County, on real property that was deeded to the County by the federal government and then subsequently leased out by the County under long-term leases. The legal description of the Surf Dweller Condominium,4/ is: LOTS 257 TO 261, INCLUSIVE, LOTS 279, 280, 281, BLOCK 5, SANTA ROSA ISLAND, PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 84, OKALOOSA COUNTY. Ex. P-8, PET7158. Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island is subject to Protective Covenants and Restrictions adopted by the Okaloosa Island Authority and recorded in the Official Records of the County at Book 121, Pages 233-250. See County Ex. 13. The Protective Covenants and Restrictions set up four classifications of areas denominated as Zones B-1 through B-4.5/ Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island is in Zone B-2, "Apartment, Hotel Court and Hotel Areas."6/ Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions, provides, in part, Beach Protection * * * The beaches, for 300 feet inland from mean water level (or to the dune crest line, whichever is the greater distance), are under strict control of the Authority . . . One hundred fifty feet inland from the mean water line, in front of all B1 and B2 Areas, will be public beaches. The next 150 ft. inland will be private beaches as set out on subdivision plats . . . County Ex. 13, at page marked "BOOK 121 PAGE 242." The Surf Dweller Condominium property, lying between reference monuments R-6 and R-7, does not extend as far south as the mean high water line ("MHWL") of the Gulf of Mexico. From testimony provided by Mr. Sherry, see below, it appears that the Surf Dweller condominium property is deeded to the border with the beaches governed by Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. John Donovan is the leaseholder of "APARTMENT NO. 131 AND APARTMENT NO. 132, OF EL MATADOR, A CONDOMINIUM AS PER DECLARATION THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN . . . THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA."7/ The address of the El Matador is 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, FL 32548. Petitioner Donovan is not a resident of the State of Florida. His primary residence is in the State of Georgia. Mr. Donovan described in testimony his use and the use of his family of the beach seaward of El Matador and other parts of the Okaloosa Island area of Santa Rosa Island: I've . . . got to walk [for reasons of health] and I do walking every day I'm down here[.] I get all the way down to East Pass. I don't get down there every day, but I get down there a lot. My sons and my one grandchild take great pleasure in fishing off there, right at the end where the East Pass is right from the surf. * * * I swim. I don't swim probably as much as my co-petitioners [the Sherrys], but I'm sure I go out further. And I don't surf like David [Sherry] does but my grandchild would never tell me that I don't. I run as much as I can. Not as much as I used to. We also take long walks. Tr. 973-4. In a plat of El Matador Condominium introduced into evidence as part of Exhibit P-7, El Matador is described as: A CONDOMINIUM OF LOTS 557 THROUGH 590 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 9 AND THE INCLUDED PORTION OF PORPOISE DRIVE THEREOF SANTA ROSA ISLAND A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 9 A RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 8 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 190, PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA Exhibit P-7, last page (un-numbered). Block 8 of Santa Rosa Island (like Block 5 in which the Surf Dweller Condominium is located) is also in Zone B-2 set up by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. Block 8, just as Block 5, is governed by Part F, Beach Protection, of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions that places the beaches, for at least 300 feet inland, of the segment of Santa Rosa Island to which Block 8 is adjacent under the strict control of the County and makes the first 150 feet inland from the MHWL "public beaches." County Ex. 13, at page marked "BOOK 121 PAGE 242." El Matador Condominium lies between reference monuments R-1 and R-2. It is not deeded to the MHWL of the Gulf. The plat that is the last page of County Exhibit 13 shows the southern edge of the El Matador condominium property to be adjacent to the "FREEHOLDERS BEACH," Exhibit P-7, last page (un-numbered), landward of the Gulf of Mexico, that is, to the edge of the area of the private beach designated under the "Beach Protection" provision of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions, landward of the public beach designated by the same provision. Neither the Surf Dweller Condominium Property in which the Sherrys reside, nor the El Matador Condominium Property inhabited by Mr. Donovan abuts or is a part of the area subject to the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project. The two properties in Okaloosa Island are to the west of the Project. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan did not initiate Case No. 10-0515 because they oppose the restoration of the beach subject to the Project. They initiated the proceeding because of concerns that the borrow area that will serve the Project is so close to Okaloosa Island and situated in such a way that once dredged it will cause adverse impacts to the Okaloosa Island beaches to the detriment of their use and enjoyment of the beaches. The Beach, Post-Hurricane Opal and Other Tropical Storms Beginning with Hurricane Opal in 1995, the beaches and shores adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador Condominium Properties were seriously damaged. Nonetheless, there is a significant stretch of dry beach between the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium properties and the MHWL of the Gulf. In the case of the Surf Dweller Property, Mr. Sherry estimated the width of the beach between the condominium property and the MHWL to be 300 feet. See his testimony quoted, below. The MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico is a dynamic line, subject to constant change from the natural influences of the coastal system. Whatever effect its ever-changing nature might have on the width of the beaches declared public and private8/ between the MHWL and the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium properties, however, there can be no doubt on the state of the record in this proceeding that at the time of hearing there existed a 150 foot-wide stretch of beach water-ward of the two condominiums that the public has the legal right to occupy and use. Indeed, Petitioner David Sherry, when asked about the private beach and public beach governed by the Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions in cross-examination conducted by Mr. Hall on behalf of the County, confirmed as much when he related the actual practice by the public in using it and the response that public use generated from him and his wife: Q If someone . . . crosses Santa Rosa Boulevard and utilizes this access[-]way that's marked on the map that you identified earlier, do they have the right to utilize any of the portion of [the private beach] of that 150-foot portion in front of your condominium? A . . . [N]o, they wouldn't have the right to do that. Q . . . [D]o they have the ability to set up an umbrella or place their towel within that 150-foot area [of private beach] in front of your condominium? A In that area, no. In the area south of that [the public beach] , which is where everyone actually sets up and wants to set up, in that area south, people set up and we don't have any problem with that. We let people do it -- Q On [the] public beach[.] A On the public beach they're perfectly free to do that. * * * Q I believe your testimony today, based on your GPS calculations, was that you have 300 feet of dry sand beach . . . running from the boundary of the condominium to the edge of the Gulf of Mexico; is that correct? A Essentially, from the building to the Gulf of Mexico. * * * Q So, 300 feet, roughly, from the boundary of the Surf Dweller Condominium common area down to the waterline? A Correct. Q So, there would be enough room today, based on the language of the restrictive covenants to have . . . 150 feet of public beach and then the 150 feet of Freeholders Beach as designated on the plat [in County Exhibit 13] now? A Much like it was in 1955 [when the Protective Covenants and Restrictions were adopted and recorded], yes. Tr. 891-3, (emphasis added). Since the first 150 feet of beach landward of the MHWL under the Protective Covenants and Restrictions is "public beach," there is no doubt that there is a stretch of beach between the Surf Dweller Condominium and the MHWL that is public beach and its width is at least 150 feet.9/ From aerial photographs introduced into evidence, the same finding is made with regard to beach that is public between El Matador and the MHWL of the Gulf. Mr. Donovan testified that his leasehold interest in his units at El Matador along with the interests of the other El Matador condominium unit leaseholders included 150 feet of private beach landward of the 150 feet of public beach adjacent to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. His lawyer, moreover, advised him not to convert his leasehold interest into a fee simple ownership in order to protect his interest in access to the private beach designated by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. See Tr. 986-87. Mr. Donovan is concerned about the erosion and turbidity impacts the borrow site could have on the Gulf and the beach. Erosion would change his view of the beach from the window of his condominium unit and aggravate a scalloping of the shore. The unevenness of the scalloped surface would cause him difficulties in his walks. Turbidity could attract sharks which would make it unsafe for him to swim. Most importantly to him, a change in the beach and shoreline along the El Matador Condominium property as drastic, in Mr. Donovan's view, as that contemplated by the Draft JCP could deter his family members (his grandchild included) from visiting him and vacationing at his unit in the El Matador Condominium. The Guidry Petitioners and Their Property Roland Guidry, a retired Colonel in the United States Air Force, is co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust and the President of the Oceania Owners' Association, a condominium association governed by chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The Guidry Living Trust is the owner of Condominium Unit 605 in the Oceania Condominium, a condominium established under chapter 718, Florida Statutes. The address of the unit is 720 Gulf Shore Drive, Unit 605, Destin, Florida, 32541. In his capacity as co-trustee, Mr. Guidry has the independent power to protect, conserve, sell, lease or encumber, or otherwise to manage and dispose of trust assets, which include Unit 605 in the Oceania Condominium. The Oceania Owners' Association is mandated by the Oceania Declaration of Condominium to "maintain, manage and operate the condominium property." Ex. P-6 at 4. The declaration also declares, "[a]ll unit owners shall automatically become members of the association after completion of closing of the purchase of a unit in Oceania, A Condominium." Id. The Guidry Living Trust, therefore, is a member of Oceania Condominium Association. The powers of the officers and directors of the Oceania Owners' Association are set forth in the Declaration of Condominium that governs Oceania: The officers and directors of the association shall have the powers set forth in this declaration and the association bylaws, and shall, at all times, have a fiduciary relationship to the members of the association and shall operate and manage the association in the best interest of its members. Id. Oceania's Declaration of Condominium, furthermore, prescribes that "[t]he association shall have all powers granted by Chapter[s] 718 and 617, Florida Statutes." Id. at 5. Every member of the Oceania Owners' Association Board of Directors approved the initiation of Case No. 10-0516, according to the testimony of Colonel Guidry, but there was no documentary evidence offered that a vote had been taken of the Board of Directors at a board meeting on the issue of whether to file the petition that initiated Case No. 10-0516 or the outcome of any such vote. As an owner of a unit in Oceania, The Guidry Living Trust owns an undivided share of the Oceania Condominium's common property10/ which "comprise[s] all the real property improvements and facilities to Oceania, A Condominium, including all parts of the building other than the units . . . and . . . [certain] easements . . . ." P-6 at 1, 2. The Oceania Condominium real estate is deeded to the "APPROXIMATE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE GULF OF MEXICO". P-6, Exhibit "B." The Surveyor's Certificate on the survey of Oceania, A Condominium, attached to the Oceania Declaration of Condominium is dated January 16, 1996. The date is more than two months after Hurricane Opal made landfall and damaged the Okaloosa County coastline in October of 1995. Standing of the Oceania Petitioners Colonel Guidry did not appear at hearing in a personal capacity. He appeared in his capacities as co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust and President of the Oceania Owners' Association. In contrast to the Sherry Petitioners, therefore, Colonel Guidry did not allege his personal use and enjoyment of the beach as a basis for standing. As to injury and standing of both the Guidry Living Trust and the Oceania Owners' Association, Colonel Guidry asserted a number of interests that he believed will be substantially affected by the Project. They fall into four categories of concern. The first concern is with regard to the action of the sand along the shoreline of the Oceania property after the two reaches of beach to the east and west will have been restored under the revisions to the Draft JCP. After construction activities, sand along the shoreline will equilibrate, that is, the sand will move or be transported so as to stabilize the shoreline. This stabilization or achievement of shoreline equilibrium will tend to move the shoreline along the Oceania property waterward. Colonel Guidry expressed his concern as follows: [The Oceania property] would be sandwiched . . . between two public beaches . . . mother nature will fill in what I call the Oceania Gap. Right now the only line we have on our beach is our southern property line [the MHWL of the Gulf][11] . . . . That's the only line I know of that's on our beach or will be placed on our beach. But if sand fills in, then that creates a cloud of confusion, if the State lays claim to this sand that accumulates in the Oceania Gap, as a result of the construction on both sides of us. Tr. 764, (emphasis added). The second category of concern relates to the location of the property post-construction between "two public beaches." Such a location, in Colonel Guidry's view, would make individual units at the Oceania Condominium less valuable. The third category is that the public would be more likely to trespass on private Oceania property. The fourth concern of Colonel Guidry is that the Project will have undesirable impacts to Oceania property owners' littoral rights to accretion and to touch the water. The first three concerns all stem from a decision made by the Board of County Commissioners after this proceeding was commenced to remove the Oceania property from the Project. Oceania Removed The beach and shore in the southern part of the Oceania condominium property,12/ (the "Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline" or the "Oceania Gap") were originally subject to the Consolidated NOI for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project. But on the eve of the date scheduled for the commencement of the final hearing in these cases, the Board of County Commissioners for Okaloosa County voted to remove the Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline from the application for the Project. Taylor Engineering (the County's Agent) submitted a request to the Department that reads: On behalf of Okaloosa County, Taylor Engineering submits its request to modify the project area and Draft Joint Coastal Permit for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project . . . The applicant has decided to remove the Oceania Condominium Property from the beach fill placement area. The revised project, as described in the enclosed permit drawings, includes two reaches: Reach 1 extends from the east jetty of East Pass to approximately 600 ft east of FDEP reference monument R-22 (R-22.6) and Reach 2 extends from approximately 200 feet east of R-023 (R- 23.2) to R-25.5. The Oceania Property defines the gap between Reach 1 and Reach 1. Additionally, we request the FDEP modify Specific Condition 1 of the Draft Joint Coastal Permit to reflect the modified project area. More specifically, we request that the Mean High Water Line Survey requirement of Specific Condition 1 exclude the Oceania Condominium property. Notice of Filing Request for Modification and Revised, Draft Joint Coastal Permit, Exhibit A. Revisions to the Original Draft JCP In light of the vote and based on the County's request, DEP filed a Revised Notice of Intent on July 26, 2010, which included revision of the Draft JCP (the "First Revised Draft JCP"). The First Revised Draft JCP eliminated the Oceania Beach Segment of Shoreline from the Project and took other action such as requiring the applicant to check for oil in the OK-A Borrow Area prior to construction by both visual inspection and analysis of sand samples because of the ongoing Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in the Gulf. The revision also included changes to Specific Condition 5 of the Draft JCP.13/ On August 18, 2010, the Department gave notice of another revision of the JCP (the "Second Revised Draft JCP"). The Second Revised Draft JCP changed Specific Condition 1 of the JCP by eliminating the requirement that the County establish a pre-project MHWL prior to undertaking construction activities and instead requires the County to conduct a survey in order to locate an erosion control line ("ECL"). The revisions to the Draft JCP stirred interest in participating in this proceeding among a group of property owners who do not want the beaches along their properties restored: the MACLA Intervenors. The MACLA Intervenors and Their Properties On September 8, 2010, a petition to intervene (the "MACLA Petition to Intervene") was filed by nine putative intervenors: MACLA LTD II, a Limited Partnership ("MACLA"); H. Joseph Hughes as Trustee of the Betty Price Hughes Qualified Vacation Residence Trust ("Hughes Trust"); Kershaw Manufacturing Company, Inc. ("Kershaw"); Kayser Properties LLC ("Kayser"); Destin, LLC ("Destin"); Paul Blake Sherrod, Jr., and Cindy M. Sherrod ("Sherrods"); Blossfolly, LLC ("Blossfolly"); 639 Gulfshore, LLC ("639 Gulfshore"); and Laura Dipuma-Nord ("Nord"), (collectively, the "MACLA Intervenors.") All nine of the MACLA Intervenors own real property in the City of Destin within the Project area that fronts the Gulf of Mexico. All nine properties have the MHWL of the Gulf as their southern boundary. MACLA is a Texas Limited Partnership. Louise Brooker is its president. The address of its property is 620 Gulf Shore Drive. The Hughes Trust owns a one-third interest in real property at the address of 612 Gulf Shore Drive. H. Joseph Hughes is a trustee of the Hughes Trust. Kershaw is an Alabama corporation. The address of its property is 634 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Kayser property is 606 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Destin property is 624 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Sherrods' property is 610 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the 639 Gulfshore property is 6346 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of the Blossfolly property is 626 Gulf Shore Drive. The address of Ms. Dipuma-Nord is 600 Gulf Shore Drive. The properties owned by the MACLA Intervenors are among 18-single family lots located between a rough mid-point of reference markers R-020 and R-021 and a rough mid-point of reference markers R-022 and R-023. See Ex. P-238. These 18 single-family lots are in the approximate middle of the Project. The Oceania property, eliminated from the Project at the time of the filing of MACLA Petition to Intervene, is just to the east of the 18 single family lots in which the properties of the MACLA Intervernors are located. (Reference marker R-023 is set along the shoreline adjacent to the Oceania property.) The MACLA Intevenors' properties and the Oceania property are within the area from R-020.3 to R-023.3 (the "Middle Segment", see discussion of Critically Eroded Shoreline, below). According to an evaluation conducted by the Department on January 7, 2009, the Middle Segment of the beach is one in which "[u]pland development is not currently threatened." Ex. P-238. Timeliness of the MACLA Petition to Intervene The MACLA Petition to Intervene was filed well after the commencement of the hearing. Under rule 28-106.205, because it was filed later than 20 days before the commencement of the hearing, it could only be accepted upon "good cause shown" or if the time for filing were "otherwise provided by law." The MACLA Petition to Intervene was also filed after the Department had entered an order dismissing petitions for administrative hearings filed by three of the MACLA Intervenors14/ to contest the Second Revised JCP. The order of dismissal with prejudice by the Department dated September 7, 2010, was entered on the following bases: First, the Petitioners had a clear point of entry to challenge the proposed permit after it was publicly noticed on January 9, 2010. The Petitioners failed to timely challenge the proposed permit when given the opportunity to do so. Second, it is well settled that any proposed modifications to a proposed permit made during the course of a de novo proceeding to formulate final agency action do not create a new point of entry. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed without prejudice to amend. Petition to Intervene, filed September 8, 2010, Ex. A, at 2 of 8. The Department was aware that the Western Destin Project "because of its size, potential effect on the environment, potential effect on the public, controversial nature or location, is likely to have a heightened public concern or is likely to result in a request for administrative proceedings." Consolidated NOI, at 13 of 17. The Department therefore took pains to ensure that parties affected by the Western Destin Project would be provided notice of the Project and have an opportunity to timely assert their rights to challenge the permitting and authorization of the Project. The Consolidated NOI required publication within 30 days in the legal ad section of a newspaper of general circulation in the area a public notice of the Consolidated NOI. It also required proof of publication. The County complied on both counts. A notice was published on January 9, 2010, in the Destin Log, in Okaloosa County. The public notice specifically identified the project location as between reference monuments R-16.6 and R-25.5 in Okaloosa County, which includes the segment of the shoreline adjacent to the MACLA Intervenors Property. The Department also provided a detailed statement of the "Rights of Affected Parties," including their right to petition for an administrative hearing pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57 within 14 days of receipt of written notice of the Consolidated NOI. The point of entry into the administrative proceedings to challenge the Consolidated NOI, therefore, in the case of affected parties with notice by virtue of the publication on January 9, 2010, expired on January 23, 2010. The section of the Consolidated NOI that governed the rights of affected parties also warned: Because the administrative hearing process is designed to redetermine final agency action on the application, the filing of a petition for an administrative hearing may result in a modification of the permit or even a denial of the application. * * * The failure of any person to file a petition within the appropriate time period shall constitute a waiver of that person's right to request an administrative determination (hearing) under Sections 120.569 and 120.57, F.S. Consolidated NOI, at 14 of 17. The MACLA Intervenors read the Destin Log at least on occasion and communicated with counsel for the Oceania Petitioners. Some believed they were represented by counsel for the Oceania Petitioners and had contributed to legal fees incurred by the Oceania Petitioners. Despite the foregoing, the MACLA Petition to Intervene was granted (subject to proof of standing) on the basis that the MACLA Intervenors had shown good cause for the filing after the deadline imposed by rule 28-106.205. At the time a point of entry into administrative proceedings was provided by the combination of the Consolidated NOI in December of 2009 and publication in the Destin Log of the notice on January 9, 2010, the Draft JCP called for the applicant to provide a survey of a Pre-project MHWL rather than the establishment of an ECL. Neither notice of the Second Revised Draft JCP, filed on July 26, 2010, nor the Second Revised Draft JCP, itself provided a point of entry into formal administrative proceedings to parties whose substantial interest were at stake. A new substantial interest, however, had been injected into the proceedings by the Second Revised JCP. The Second Draft JCP requires the establishment of an ECL as a condition of the permit in lieu of provision of a survey of Pre-project MHWL. The MACLA Intervenors promptly sought a point of entry to contest what is plainly a drastic change in circumstances with significant consequences to the boundary of their properties toward the shoreline with the Gulf of Mexico. The effect of this change and the difficulty of keeping up with beach restoration activities in Okaloosa County, particularly for affected persons whose permanent residence is elsewhere, was demonstrated by the testimony of Louise Brooker, who lives in Amarillo, Texas. When asked "[w]hy did you wait until September of this year [2010] to file the intervention?," she testified: [O]ur group thought that we were being represented by the Oceania group . . . when I did find out [the JCP had been issued], it was after the 30-day period . . . I hadn't been reading the Destin Log every day because it's very difficult to do, and then it changed. * * * Then it made a huge difference between using the mean high water line * * * And then the ECL being established, which was the ECL that I do not agree with, then that was being put in the permit. So that changed things a great deal. (emphasis added). Tr. 1526-7. Once their petitions for formal administrative proceedings had been dismissed with prejudice by the Department (or in the case of the MACLA parties whose petitions for an administrative had not been dismissed yet but appeared likely to meet the same fate), the MACLA Intervenors promptly sought relief through filing the MACLA Petition to Intervene. When the petition to intervene of the MACLA Intervernors was opposed by the County and the Department, the placement of the substantial interest at stake in the proceeding of a fixed ECL as the southern boundary of their property by the Second Revised JCP and the quick action of the MACLA Intervenors in contesting in contesting it was viewed as good cause for the filing of their petition later than required by rule. The Other Parties Okaloosa County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and the applicant for the JCP, the Variances and the SSL Authorization. The Department is the state agency responsible for administration of the state's regulatory authority as found in Part I of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and in particular, for the issuance of permits required by section 161.041 and the concurrent processing of "joint coastal permits" as allowed by section 161.055. It also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and in that capacity handles the processing and issuance of SSL Authorizations. The Holiday Isle Intervenors are businesses and condominium associations, all of whose members own real property or conduct businesses along the segment of the beach to be restored by the Project. Their properties (unlike the Oceania property and the MACLA Intervenors' properties in the Project "gap" between R-22.6 and R-23.2) are along shoreline that has been designated by the state as critically eroded.15/ Critically Eroded Shoreline Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62B-36 governs the Beach Management Funding Assistance Program. It contains the following definition of "Critically Eroded Shoreline": "Critically Eroded Shoreline" is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activities have caused, or contributed to, erosion and recession of the beach and dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded shoreline may also include adjacent segments or gaps between identified critical erosion areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-36.002(4), (the "Critically Eroded Shoreline Rule"). The Department determines whether upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or cultural resources are threatened or lost based on a 25-year storm event. Consideration of the Project on this basis leads to the Project being broken into three segments: a segment from R-17 at the west end of the Project to roughly R-20.3 (the "Western Segment"); a segment roughly between R-20.3 and R-23.2 (the "Middle Segment"); and a segment roughly between R-23.2 and R-25.5 (the "Eastern Segment"). Mr. Clark described the impact of a 25-year storm event on the Western and Eastern Segments: [T]hose two areas, based on the evaluation and the projection of the impact of a 25-year storm event, which is a high frequency storm event, showed that there would be erosion through deflation of the beach profile and recession of the shoreline to such an extent that upland development and infrastructure would be threatened. Tr. 499. As for the Middle Segment, "the same evaluation did not show that the 25-year storm event would provide that same level of threat." Id. The Middle Segment, however, for the purposes of continuity of the management and design integrity, was also designated as Critically Eroded Shoreline and the entire stretch of shoreline, including all three segments, Western, Middle, and Eastern, was originally included in the Project.16/ The Project With the elimination of the Oceania Gap, the Project calls for the placement of 831,000 cubic yards or so17/ of beach- quality sand along 1.7 miles (less the 600 feet of the Oceania Gap) of shoreline within the City of Destin between reference monuments R-16.6 and R-22.6 and between R-23.2 and R-25.5. The Project is designed to restore the shoreline to conditions that existed before Hurricane Opal in 1995. The useful life of the Project is estimated to be eight years. The Project will restore beach along 32 separate parcels of property, 31 of which are privately owned. The exception is a small area of publicly owned beach at the extreme west end of the Project. The Project's Construction is intended to be facilitated by hopper dredge. The dredge excavates at a borrow site. A ship brings the excavated material to the beach fill site where it is discharged by pipe onto the beach. The pipeline runs perpendicular to the shore and extends about a quarter of a mile offshore. The contractor normally fences off a work zone that is about 500 feet wide. The work zone moves along the beach as construction progresses. "[I]n that work zone, there is a lot of heavy equipment that moves the sand around . . . looking at the Project . . . [from] an aerial view, roughly half the sand will be placed seaward and half the sand . . . landward of . . . [the] Mean High Water Line." Tr. 139. The Project's construction template or "the shape of the beach when it[']s constructed," id., consists of a dune, a back berm and a wide variable berm. The dune has an elevation of 8.5 feet and a crest width of 30 feet. The berm has an elevation of 5.5 feet. The width of the construction varies but averages about 200 feet. Over the first several months following the Project's construction, a calibration process takes place. About half of the berm erodes and deposits offshore in a near shore sand bar. "That near shore bar acts as a wave break . . . and dissipates wave energy during storms. So having a good healthy bar out there can definitely provide storm protection." Tr. 140. "Using "two to 250 feet a day,"18/ as a "good approximation for the progress . . . [in] constructing the"19/ Project, construction on any particular individual property should take between one or two days "depending on how . . . wide the property is and how fast the construction progresses." Tr. 141. A property along a lengthier segment of the beach, like the 600 feet at the seaward boundary of the Oceania Property had it remained a part of the Project, therefore, would take "two to three days." Tr. 142. Storm erosion models on the construction berm showed that the Project will provide protection from a fifty-year storm. Selection of the Sand Source: Borrow Area OK-A The engineers of the Project, ("Taylor Engineering," the "Project's Engineers" or the "Engineers") examined the Gulf's underwater expanse from Santa Rosa County to Walton County seaward to Federal waters. The search for a sand source included a reconnaissance phase and a detail phase investigation of geophysical and geotechnical data. After exhaustive study, two potential borrow areas were identified: a "far-shore" site and a "near-shore" site. The far-shore site is eight miles offshore and about a mile east of East Pass and is designated "OK-B." The near-shore site, three miles west of East Pass and centered about a mile and a quarter from the shores of the Okaloosa Island part of Santa Rosa Island, is designated "OK-A." With its edge within the designated Outstanding Florida Water boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore Park, it is within a relic ebb tidal delta in water depths of -36 to -51 feet, NGVD. Approximately 1.7 miles wide from east to west and approximately 0.9 miles wide north to south, it covers approximately 700 acres. At its landward-most side, it will be dredged to 10 feet into the existing bottom. Reference in documents of Taylor Engineering and the County to OK-A as the "near-shore site" does not mean it is located in the "nearshore" as that term is used in coastal geology. The coastal geologic term "nearshore" refers to the zone from the shoreline out to just beyond the wave breaking zone.20/ Borrow Area OK-A is well beyond the nearshore. It is clearly located "offshore," in "the relatively flat zone that is located from the surf breakers seaward out to the outer limits of the continental shelf."21/ Tr. 513. It is referred as the near- shore site by Taylor and the County to distinguish it from OK-B which is farther offshore and therefore was referred to as the "farshore site." The two sites, OK-A and OK-B, were selected for comparative review on three bases: sand quality; financial impact; and dredging impacts. Sand quality is "the number one criteri[on]." Tr. 143. It involves grain size, soil and shell content, and sand color. Financial impact is determined mainly by distance; the farther from the construction site, the more expensive to transport the sand. If the borrow area is close enough to shore, a Borrow Area Impact Analysis is conducted. An impact analysis was not conducted for OK-B. The Engineers assumed on the basis of its 8 miles distance from shore that it would not impact the shoreline in any way. The assumption was a reasonable one. Impacts to the shoreline or beach from the dredging of OK-B are unlikely.22/ A Borrow Area Impact Analysis was conducted of OK-A. The quality of the sand in OK-B was similar to that of OK-A but OK-A's "was slightly better." Tr. 144. The slight difference was not a significant factor in the determination that OK-A should be selected. The main factor in favor of OK-A was distance. Because it is so much closer to the Project than OK-B, use of OK-A "substantially reduces the cost of construction" id., compared to OK-B. Taylor Engineering (and ultimately the County) selected OK-A as the sand source. The selection process included a sand source investigation by Taylor. Taylor Engineers' final report on sand source was released in October of 2009. The report shows that in OK-A, the southeast corner of the area "seemed to contain a lesser quality sand than the borrow area as a whole and in terms of color." Tr. 145. Sand from the southeast corner of OK-A, nonetheless, was used in two beach restoration projects, both on Eglin Air Force Base property. Those projects were denominated A-3 and A-13.23/ The selection of OK-A was not upset by Taylor Engineering's OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis. Borrow Area Impact Analysis An Okaloosa County Sand Search Borrow Area Impact Analysis was prepared by Taylor Engineering for the Joint Coastal Permit Application and released in July of 2008. Aware that dredging the borrow site could affect both wave climate and current (the swift flow of water within a larger body of water), Taylor examined the impact of dredging the OK-A Borrow Area for those effects in the borrow area vicinity. The ultimate purpose of the Borrow Area Impact Analysis, however, was larger. It was to determine the changes to wave and current climate for impact to the beach, such as erosion. An increase in wave height, for example, would increase erosion. Two numerical modeling efforts were conducted. The first, called STWAVE, documents the impacts to wave climate. The second, ADCIRC, analyzes the effects of the dredging on currents. The STWAVE model requires wave characteristics as input. Taylor Engineering used "a 20-year hindcast of wave data from a WIS station located directly offshore in deep water. Under STWAVE modeling, impacts were examined for normal conditions and then 'under a 100-year storm condition.'" Tr. 149. The basis was the 100-year storm data from Hurricane Opal. The impacts of bottom friction were ignored, a common practice in applications like the County's JCP application that involves work on the open coast with a uniform sandy bottom. As Mr. Trudnak put it: Tr. 150. When you use . . . wave monitoring devices, you're trying to calibrate a model for the effects of bottom friction. And when the borrow area is this close to shore [as in the case of OK-A], . . . the propagation of distance of the waves is relatively short. And when you have a uniform sandy bottom you don't expect the impacts of bottom friction to be significant. So . . . in applications like [Okaloosa County's for the Western Destin Project], you ignore the effects of bottom friction. The analysis assumed that all of the sand in the borrow area would be removed when, in contrast, "the borrow site usually contains 50 percent more sand than what the Project requires on the beach." Tr. 152. In the case of OK-A, it is intended to serve the Eglin Air Force Base Project, the Okaloosa Island Project and the Western Destin Project. These projects require 4.7 million cubic yards of sand of the nearly 7 million cubic yards of sand available in OK-A. The impact analysis, therefore, was conservative in that it predicted more impact than would actually occur because significantly less sand would be removed from the site than was factored into the STWAVE modeling. With regard to normal conditions, the STWAVE modeling led to the conclusion that impacts from the permitted activities associated with the borrow area would be negligible. Under storm wave conditions, the STWAVE modeling showed "a certain wave angle or direction that increased the wave height." Tr. 151. The increase in wave height, however, was far enough offshore so as to never affect the "actual breaking wave height on the beach." Id. The modeling results enabled Taylor Engineering to conclude "that the borrow area did not have a potential to cause any impacts whatsoever." Tr. 152. ADCIRC is a state-of-the art hydrodynamic model that simulates tidal currents. Taylor Engineering conducted the ADCIRC modeling to analyze effects on the tidal currents and circulation in and around East Pass that would be caused by dredging the borrow area. Just as in the case of STWAVE, ADCIRC modeling showed that the impact of dredging the borrow area would be negligible whether in normal or "storm" conditions. The Application Coastal Construction Permits and CCCL Permits The Application was processed as one for a joint coastal permit (a "coastal construction" permit under section 161.041). It was not processed as an application for a coastal construction control line ("CCCL") permit. Section 161.041 (the "Shore Protection Statute") and chapter 62B-41 apply to JCPs. Section 161.053 (the "CCCL Statute") and chapter 62B-33 govern CCCL permits. The Department treats its JCP and CCCL permitting programs as independent from each other and as mutually exclusive permitting programs. A project that involves "beaches and shores" construction is permitted under one permitting program or the other but not under both permitting programs. See Tr. 424-5. Indeed, when it comes to beach restoration projects (or "shore protection" projects) such as the Western Destin Project, section 161.053 of the CCCL Statute provides as follows in subsection (9): "The provisions of this section do not apply to structures intended for shore protection purposes which are regulated by s. 161.041 [the Shore Protection Statute] " The Department interprets section 161.053(9) to exempt the Project from CCCL statutory requirements and the rules that implement the CCCL Statutes so that the only permit the Project requires, in the Department's view, is a JCP. b. The "Written Authorization" Provision Chapter 62B-14 is entitled "Rules and Procedures for Applications for Coastal Construction Permits." The Shore Protection Statutes serves as rule-making authority for every rule in 62B-41. Every rule in the chapter, moreover, implements, among other provisions, one provision or another of the Shore Protection Statute. Rule 62B-41.008 derives its rule-making authority from the Shore Protection Statute and section 161.055(1) and (2). Among the statutory provisions it implements are four subsections of the statute: (1), (2), (3) and (4). Section (1) of rule 62B-41.008 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A Joint Coastal Permit is required in order to conduct any coastal construction activities in Florida. A person required to obtain a joint coastal permit shall submit an application to the Department . . . The permit application form, entitled "Joint Application for Joint Coastal Permit, Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, Federal Dredge and Fill Permit" . . . is hereby incorporated by reference . . . . The application shall contain the following specific information: * * * (c) Written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project, or authorization for such use from the property owner which is upland of mean high-water, or below mean high water but not sovereign land of the State of Florida. * * * (n) Written authorization for any duly- authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any property to be used in carrying out the project, for the purpose of evaluating site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application. (emphasis added). Rule 62B-41.008(2) (the "Waiver Provision") lists requirements of rule 62B-41.008(1) which are to be waived by the Department under circumstances described in the Waiver Provision: "Any of the requirements contained in paragraph 62B-41.008(1)(f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), or (m), F.A.C., will be waived if the Department determined that the information is unnecessary for a proper evaluation of the proposed work." In its list of requirements that will be waived under certain circumstance, the Waiver Provision does not include paragraphs (c) or (n). The Application did not contain the "specific information" detailed in paragraphs (c) and (n) of rule 62B- 41.008(1). It did not contain written proof of ownership of any property that will be used in carrying out the Project nor did it contain authorization for such use from the property owner upland of mean high-water, information required by paragraph (c). It did not contain written authorization for any duly-authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any private property to be used in carrying out the Project for the purpose of evaluating the site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application, information detailed in paragraph (n). As of the dates of final hearing, the County had not provided the Department with any written authorizations from the owners of the 31 privately-owned properties within the Project area, including the MACLA intervenors. As part of the Application, however, the County requested a waiver of the requirements related to authorizations. A waiver was requested under number 14 of the Application. It provides: Satisfactory evidence demonstrating that the applicant has sufficient control and interest in the riparian upland property, as described in Section 18-21.004(3)(b), Florida Administrative Code. Governmental entities that qualify for the waiver of deferral outlined in this rule must provide supporting documentation in order to be eligible. If the applicant is not the property owner, then authorization from property owner for such use must be provided. Joint Ex. 1, at 3 of 9. The County, through its agent, Taylor Engineering, responded to number 14 of the Application as follows: Response: The applicants request a waiver of the requested information under Rule 18- 21.004(3)(b), which grants an exception to the upland interest requirement for restoration and enhancement (e.g. nourishment) activities conducted by a government agency. According to Rule 18- 21.004(3)(b), satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is not required for the proposed activity, because the proposed offshore borrow area is not riparian to uplands and the beach fill activities will not unreasonably infringe on riparian rights. Joint Ex. 1, Attachment A, at 3rd un-numbered page. Rule chapter 18-21 governs Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management. Rule 18-21.004(3)(b) ("the Upland Interest and Riparian Rights Rule") provides as follows: (3) Riparian rights. * * * (b) Satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is required for activities on sovereign submerged land riparian to uplands, unless otherwise specified in this chapter. * * * Satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest is not required . . . when a governmental entity conducts restoration and enhancement activities, provided that such activities do not unreasonably infringe on riparian rights. (emphasis added). Item number 18 of the Application calls for signatures related to "any proprietary authorizations identified above," such as those identified in item number 14. Consistent with the request for a waiver from providing the requested information with regard to satisfactory evidence demonstrating sufficient control and interest in the riparian upland property, no signatures were provided by the County or its agent. Rule 62B-49.003(3), entitled "Policy" provides: Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter shall not be deemed complete, and the timeframe for approval or denial shall not commence until the Department has received all information required for: a coastal construction permit under Section 161.041, F.S., and Chapter 62B-41, F.A.C.; an environmental resource permit under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and Title 62, F.A.C.; and a proprietary authorization, under Chapter 253, F.S., and Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21, F.A.C. See the material bound and attached to the Request for Official Recognition filed August 2, 2010, Tab "Chapter 69B-49, F.A.C." The Department deemed the Application complete on December 30, 2009. Amendment of the JCP re: Written Authorizations The petition for formal administrative hearing filed in Case No. 10-0516 challenged the Consolidated NOI on the bases, inter alia, that the Application had failed to "provide 'sufficient evidence of ownership' as defined in rule 62B- 33.008(3)(c), F.A.C., to be a proper applicant for the Permit"24/ and that the County had not "provided satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest to be entitled to a letter of consent to use sovereign submerged lands."25/ To support their allegation that the County is not a proper applicant for the JCP, the Oceania Petitioners amended their petition on July 13, 2010, to add the following: The County must provide the Department "[w]ritten evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project, or authorization for such use from the property owner which is upland of mean high-water, or below mean high-water but not sovereign land of the State of Florida", as required by [paragraph (c) of the JCP Application Specific Information Rule]. The Department must receive "[w]ritten authorization for any duly-authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any property to be used in carrying out the project, for the purpose of evaluating site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application", as required by Rule 62B- 41.008)1)(n), F.A.C. The Amendment was made despite the existence in all of the versions of the Draft JCP, the original version and the revised versions, of General Condition Six: This permit does not convey to the Permittee or create in the Permitee any property right, or any interest in real property, nor does it authorize any entrance upon or activities on property which is not owned or controlled by the Permittee. The issuance of this permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Joint Ex. III at Tab 9 at 4 of 26. With the filing of the Oceania Petitioners' Second Amended Complaint in Case No. 10-0516, the issues appeared to be fully joined. Before the case proceeded to hearing, however, the County voted to remove the Oceania Property from the Project (see paragraphs 31 and 32, above). The vote led to a formal request from the County to DEP to revise the Project and a revision by the Department of the Project's drawings and the Draft JCP (the "First Revised Draft JCP"), notice of which was filed on July 23, 2010. The revisions to the Draft JCP necessitated by the elimination of the Oceania property from the Project was not the only revision made to the Draft JCP as noticed on July 23, 2010. The Department also revised the Draft JCP's Specific Condition 5. This latter revision prompted the Sherry Petitioners to file a petition for an administrative determination concerning un- adopted rules. DOAH assigned the petition Case No. 10-6205RU. During the final hearing, the Department revised the Draft JCP a second time (the "Second Revised Draft JCP".) The second revision inspired the MACLA Petitioners' petition to intervene. Just as with the Sherry Petitioners, the revision to Specific Condition 5 prompted the MACLA Petitioners to petition for an administrative determination concerning un-adopted rules. DOAH assigned this second un-adopted rule challenge to Specific Condition 5 Case No. 10-8197RU. Case Nos. 10-6205RU and 10-8197RU In general, the revision to the Draft JCP's Specific Condition 5 advised the County that no beach restoration work can be performed on private upland property unless authorization from the owner of the property has been obtained and submitted to the Department ("the Upland Property Authorization Requirement"). The revision also provided an exception to the Upland Property Authorization Requirement: the County could submit an authorization from a court of competent jurisdiction that such an authorization is not required. Case Nos. 10-06205RU and 10-8197RU were heard at the same time as these consolidated cases.26/ A final order was issued with regard to the two cases on November 4, 2010. The final order dismissed the case because the Sherry Petitioners and the MACLA Petitioners had not demonstrated that they would be "substantially affected" by Specific Condition 5 as required by section 120.56(3) for a party to have standing to challenge an agency statement that constitutes a rule which has not been adopted pursuant to the rule-making procedures found in section 120.54(1)(a). Case Nos. 10-6205RU and 10-8197RU were two of three petitions seeking administrative petitions concerning un-adopted rules that were consolidated and heard with the consolidated cases subject to this Recommended Order. The third was a case that had been filed by the Oceania Petitioners earlier in the proceeding: Case No. 10-5384RU. Case No. 10-5384RU Case No. 10-5384RU was filed by the Oceania Petitioners in order to challenge as an un-adopted rule Specific Condition 1 as it appeared in the Original Draft JCP ("Original Specific Condition 1"). Original Specific Condition 1 contained several requirements. In general, it required the County to record a certificate before the commencement of construction associated with the Western Destin Project. The certificate was required to describe all upland properties along the shoreline of the Project. The certificate was also required to be accompanied by a survey of a pre-project mean high water line (the "Pre-project MHWL) along the entire length of the Project's shoreline. The case claimed that the Department had made another statement that constituted an un-adopted rule which violated the rule-making provisions of chapter 120: "that an Erosion Control Line (the 'ECL') is not required to be established pursuant to Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, for a beach restoration project unless 'state funds' are used for the construction (as opposed to just the design) of a beach restoration project." Case No. 10-5384RU, Petition for an Administrative Determination Concerning Unadopted Rules, at 2. During the course of the final hearing, however, the Department filed a notice of a set of revisions to the First Revised Draft JCP. These revisions (the "Second Revised Draft JCP") included a revision of Specific Condition 1. The Second Revised Draft JCP The notice by the Department that alerted the parties to the Second Revised Draft JCP was filed on August 18, 2010. The August 18, 2010, Notice contains two changes to the First Revised Draft JCP. The first change deletes entirely the existing language in Original Specific Condition 1 (the language challenged in Case No. 10-5384RU). It substitutes the following language: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Board of Trustees will establish an Erosion Control Line along the shoreline of the beach restoration project. The Erosion Control Line shall be established consistent with the provisions of ss. 161.141-161.211, Florida Statutes. An Erosion Control Line shall not be established in conjunction with this joint coastal permit with respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc. members' common elements property. In lieu of conducting a survey, the Board of Trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by Okaloosa County if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. Department of Environmental Protection's and Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund's Notice of Revisions to the Proposed Joint Coastal Construction Permit, page 3 of 4. Thus, the first change noticed by the Department on August 18 deleted the requirement that the County submit a survey of a Pre-project MHWL. It requires, instead, that the county establish an ECL consistent with applicable statutory provisions. The second change was made with respect to Specific Condition 4(c) of the First Revised Draft JCP, which lists items to be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed (with construction) by the Department. The existing language was deleted in its entirety and the following language was substituted: Id. Written documentation that the Erosion Control Line required by Special Condition Number 1 has been filed in the public records of Okaloosa County. Disposition of Case No. 10-5384RU The same Final Order that disposed of Case Nos. 10- 6205RU and 10-8197RU disposed of Case No. 10-5384RU. The Petitioners in Case No. 10-5384RU were found to lack standing to challenge Original Specific Condition 1 and the petition that initiated the case was dismissed. In addition, the Final Order concluded that had the Petitioners had standing to bring the challenge, the case would still have been decided in favor of the Department. This conclusion was based on the remedy called for by section 120.57(1)(e).27/ That remedy was found to have been achieved when the Department changed Specific Condition 1 to require an ECL rather than a Pre-project MHWL. See Final Order, Case No. 10- 5384RU (DOAH November 4, 2010). In addition to the record made with regard to the three rule challenges during the final hearing on the Sherry and Oceania Petitions, most of the rest of the evidence at the final hearing concerned the application of the regulatory authority of the Department and the Board of Trustees found in the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, especially the environmental impacts of the Project as permitted by the Second Revised Draft JCP and as authorized under the Variance and the Sovereign Submerged Lands Use Authorization. Impacts The depth of OK-A should not exceed -49.4 feet, NGVD in an area where the depth of the ocean bottom is roughly -40 feet, NGVD. The excavation of the borrow site is designed in two dredging phases. The first phase, anticipated to provide up to 116 percent of the sand needed by the Project, is designed to a depth of 47.4 feet. "If for some reason, the contractor needs more sand . . ., then he can move into Phase II . . . [at a depth] of minus 47.4 to minus 49.4 feet [NGVD]. . . [,] a two foot deep layer throughout the entire borrow area." Tr. 165. OK-A is relatively wide, at least as compared to an existing borrow area not far away, the borrow area used for beach restoration in western Walton County and eastern Okaloosa County east of the City of Destin (the "Walton Borrow Area"). It is also a shallow borrow area when its depth is measured from the Gulf floor. It is in deeper water than the Walton Borrow Area. These factors make it less likely to cause impacts to the beach than the Walton Borrow Area.28/ Despite the width of OK-A, its relative shallowness measured from the Gulf floor, and its water depth, Dr. Dally, on behalf of the Petitioners, challenged the Taylor Engineering conclusion that there would be no impacts to the beach from the dredging of Borrow Area OK-A. The challenge from Dr. Dally, however, did not detail what the impacts would be or how serious they would be. Instead, Dr. Dally concluded that "not nearly enough study has been conducted of the proposed borrow area to ascertain that there will be no adverse impacts." Tr. 633. Dr. Dally's challenge to the conclusion by Taylor Engineering of no impacts to the beach from an excavated OK-A begins with an explanation in general of wave dynamics, sediment transport, and borrow site impacts. Wave Dynamics, Littoral Sediment Transport, and Borrow Site Impacts, Generally General Wave Dynamics "[W]aves in very deep water will start to turn and become more shore parallel in the case of Okaloosa County." Tr. 636. As they approach shore, a dynamic process of shoaling and refraction occurs. The waves may also become involved with diffraction. Shoaling is a growth in height from interaction with the shallow bottom or a shoal. Refraction is a process of alignment of waves with bottom contours. Diffraction is a spreading of waves or the bending of waves or change in wave direction after interaction with emergent structures or submerged features. As the process of shoaling, refraction and diffraction takes place, waves may be affected by bottom friction, depending on ocean bottom conditions. Dr. Dally offered the following description of wave changes as they close in on the face of the beach and approach interaction with the shoreline. The description includes the potential impacts of an excavated OK-A on the beaches and shores of Okaloosa Island adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium property: As they pass into the very nearshore . . . they, of course, grow in height. They then break . . . [or] [s]ometimes, as they pass over a [sand]bar, they'll stop breaking. And then begin breaking again when they get right up onto the beach face. Any time you put a bathymetric feature [such as a borrow area] into that otherwise natural system, you affect the wave transformation due to processes dependent upon the character of the perturbation . . . * * * Wave reflection from abrupt bathymetric changes. . . in this case, the landward most . . . notch of the borrow area would be a reflective surface . . . when something has perturbed the wave field like that, defraction [sic] becomes an important process. So, as the waves pass over this proposed borrow area and, especially, over the 10-foot or greater vertical face, they will reflect and begin defraction [sic] so that it becomes a . . . complicated wave field . . . . Tr. 636-7. In addition to the perturbation caused by the borrow area there is another factor at work that has the potential to affect the beach along the condominium properties owned by the Sherry Petitioners: sediment transport. Sediment Transport "Sand can move along or away from the beach in two ways." Tr. 1141. It can move along the shoreline or it can move offshore. Littoral transport of sediment, a factor important to erosion and accretion, is the movement of sediment, mostly sand, along or parallel to shore. It is caused by the intersection of waves that come ashore at an angle to the shoreline, rather than those that break straight onto the beach. The average net long-term littoral transport in the area of the Project and Okaloosa Island is east to west. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan Petitioners own property down-drift from the OK-A site, or to the west. Dr. Young described the beaches down-drift of OK-A at hearing: "[t]hose beaches have, over the . . . last decade or so, been generally stable to accreting. There's a pretty nice beach out there right now." Tr. 1143. This area of the Okaloosa County's beaches and shores is the area most likely to be affected by an excavated OK- A if there are, in fact, any impacts to beaches and shores caused by the dredging of the borrow site. Borrow Site Impacts Two processes affecting waves in the Gulf would occur above an excavated OK-A Borrow Area. The first wave process would be "that part of the wave energy will actually reflect and go back out to sea," tr. 640, in essence, a scattering effect of the energy. Diffraction at the same time would cause the waves to radiate outwards from the borrow area rather than the waves going straight back out to sea. The second wave process creates the potential for the waves to become "very, very, complicated." Tr. 640. They could "trip", that is, the notch in the borrow area could break the waves. "[B]rag scattering" (tr. 641) could make the waves deteriorate into shorter period waves. If there are changes in waves, tide level or current, changes will be caused to the beach. As Dr. Dally succinctly put it at hearing, "[the beach] might erode, it might accrete, it might do both," tr. 641, by virtue of the presence of an excavated OK-A Borrow Area. If the impact of the excavation of the borrow area were to create shorter period waves, the result generally would be erosion. If the impact created longer period waves which generate water movement deep into the water column the result generally would be accretion. The borrow area has the potential in Dr. Dally's opinion to create both longer and shorter period waves. Wave angle of the waves breaking on the beach also is a factor in beach impacts. But Dr. Dally was unable to predict the impacts of the excavation of OK-A to Okaloosa Island beaches and shores without more study, data and analysis as to what effects a dredged OK-A would have on wave period and wave angle and the concomitant sediment transport. Just as Mr. Trudnak, Mr. Clark concluded that OK-A is too far offshore to cause adverse impacts to the beach. If, however, the Project were to utilize a borrow area along the same stretch of the beach but much closer to shore as in the case of the Anna Maria Island Project in which the borrow area was only 1000 feet from the shoreline, erosion impacts could occur on part of the beach. Beneficial impacts in such a case would occur to the beach downdrift of the borrow area. In the Anna Maria Island Project, beaches far enough to the south which were downdrift of the borrow area accreted. The impact to the Sherry and Donovan Properties, both being downdrift of a borrow area located along the same stretch of beach but within 1000 feet of shore and closer in than OK-A, would likely be beneficial. The area of shoreline that would be affected by wave impacts from an excavated OK-A is larger than the area in the immediate shadow zone of the borrow site, that is, a shadow zone perpendicular from the borrow site to the shore. The area affected by wave impacts depends on the angle of the waves. In the Destin area and along Okaloosa Island where the Sherry Petitioners reside, the waves come ashore predominately out of the east. If the waves come ashore along Okaloosa Island at a strongly oblique angle (more directly from the east), "the shadow zone now stretches further to the west and the diffraction pattern . . . increases the size of the shadow zone," tr. 680, to a size much larger "than the actual shadow zone of the . . . borrow area." Id. Along these same lines, if there are impacts to the beach caused by a dredged OK-A, the impacts should be greater the closer the beach is to the footprint of a dredged OK-A. Given the predominate tendency of the waves to come from the east along Okaloosa Island, if the beaches alongside both the Surf Dweller Property and the El Matador Property are affected, the beach alongside the Surf Dweller Property will incur the greater impact. Likewise, if beach impacts are incurred by beach alongside only one property or the other, it is much more likely that the beach alongside the Surf Dweller Property will be affected than the beach alongside the El Matador Property. Distance of an offshore borrow area from the shore is critical to the effect of the borrow area on diffraction and wave dynamics. If the borrow area is far off shore, as in the case of the alternative, potential borrow site identified by Taylor Engineering, OK-B, then, as explained by Dr. Dally, diffraction "has a lot of time and a lot of opportunity to smooth the waves out once again and things become uniform when they hit the beach." Tr. 645. A borrow area that is closer to the beach has higher potential for creating impacts. Dr. Dally again: "[I]f you move the borrow area closer to the beach, you have this scattering pattern induced by the reflection and the diffraction and refraction that doesn't have time to smooth itself out. And that's when you can really cause impacts to the beach, both accretive and erosive impacts." Id. (emphasis added). The underscored sentence from Dr. Dally's testimony quoted in the previous paragraph was directly addressed in the County's case through Mr. Trudnak's determination that OK-A, although not as far away as OK-B, is far enough away from the beach that it will not cause adverse impacts to the beach. Again, Dr. Dally's testimony, despite the underscored testimony in the previous paragraph, is not that OK-A will, in fact, cause impacts to the beach. His testimony, rather, is the equivalent of a statement that the closer a borrow area is to the beach the more likely that it will have impacts to the beach and that at some point, a borrow area, will be so close to the beach, that adverse impacts will occur. The fact that OK-A is much closer to the beach than OK-B does not mean that an excavated OK-A will cause impacts to the beach. Impacts of an excavated OK-A depend upon OK-A's actual distance from the beach rather than OK-A's distance relative to OK-B's distance. Thus, while it may be determined that the likelihood of impacts to the beach is greater in the case of OK-A than in the case of OK-B, actual impacts from OK-A to the beach (as far as the effect of distance) is a function of OK-A's actual distance from the beach without regard to OK-B's distance from the beach. In addition to Dr. Dally's certitude that there will be impacts to the beach by virtue of the presence of a dredged OK-A, Dr. Dally also took issue with the method by which Taylor Engineering reached the conclusion of no impacts in the OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. The OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Generally Mr. Trudnak was part of the Taylor Engineering team that prepared the Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. Mr. Trudnak was not the only expert to defend the report's conclusion of no impact to the beach. The report was reviewed by Mr. Clark, the Department's expert, who also opined that there would be no impacts. Mr. Clark relied on more than the report for his opinion. He also relied on his extensive experience with beach restoration projects and monitoring data for those projects and visual observation of those projects post-construction. The only numerical data analysis specific to the excavation of the OK-A Borrow Area, however, that the Department used in determining that excavation of OK-A would not have any adverse impacts to the shoreline and coastal systems of Okaloosa Island was the Taylor Engineering OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. The Report described its evaluative efforts: [T]his report evaluates two potential dredging templates in terms of their impacts on wave and tidal current patterns during normal and extreme conditions. The evaluation requires analysis of the wave climate and tidal currents before and after the borrow area dredging. The analysis required a balance between minimizing impacts to wave climate and current patterns, and providing acceptable nourishment volumes. STWAVE (Steady-State Spectral Wave Model) simulated normal (average) and extreme (100- year (yr) storm) waves propagating over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetries. ADCIRC hydrodynamic modeling simulated tidal flow over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetries for normal (spring) and extreme (100-yr storm) tide conditions. A comparison of the baseline and post dredging model results established the effects of borrow area dredging on the neighboring shorelines (Destin and Eglin AFB) and the inlet. County Ex. 1, Okaloosa County Sand Search Borrow Area Impact Analysis, at 6. Thus, the STWAVE modeling conducted by Taylor as part of the analysis attempted to simulate normal (average) and extreme (100-year storm) waves propagating over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetrics. Taylor Engineering relied on WIS (Wave Information Study) results in performing its STWAVE modeling. WIS data is not measured wave data. Instead, it consists of numerical information generated by specific stations in wind fields in various locations around the Gulf of Mexico. The data is then placed in a model coded to represent the entire Gulf. The WIS station from which data was collected by Taylor Engineering is located approximately 10 miles offshore where the depth is approximately 85 feet. It would have been preferable to have used comprehensive field measurement, that is, data obtained from wave gauges on both sides of the borrow area over enough time to support use of the data, rather than WIS data. Comprehensive field measurement would have produced much more information from which to predict impacts to the beach. As Dr. Dally explained, however, If you don't have [field measurement data], then . . . especially over the long-term . . . a year or more [or] if you're analyzing your beach profile data over a 10 year period, you would like to have . . . wave data to accompany that 10 year period. Generally we don’t and that's when we start relying on models to fill in this missing information. Tr. 645-6 (emphasis added). This testimony was consistent with Mr. Trudnak's testimony: the problem with field measurement is that "the useful data that you [get] from [field measurement] gauges is . . . limited to [the] deployment period." Tr. 1234. It is not practical to take 10 years' worth of field measurement. As Mr. Trudnak explained: Typically, you would install those gauges for . . . a month or a couple of months . . . you want to use representative conditions . . . you try to pick a winter month and a summer month so you can try to capture those extremes and wave conditions. * * * [W]hen you . . . install those gauges in the field, you have no idea what those conditions are going to be during your deployment period. You can install your wave gauge for a month in the winter but that can be an unusually calm month, it could be an unusually severe month. So, it's really hit or miss, whether you . . . capture representative conditions. Id. (emphasis added). The WIS information utilized is hind-casted. Hind- casting is a method for developing deepwater WIS data using historic weather information to drive numerical models. The result is a simulated wave record. The WIS information utilized includes 20 years of hind-cast information. The purpose of using such a lengthy period of information is that it ensures that representative conditions are captured in the data for purpose of the analysis. Such "lengthy period" information overcomes the concern that there is not enough data to capture representative conditions as in the case of typical field measurement data. For its extreme STWAVE modeling, Taylor relied on WIS information generated during Hurricane Opal in 1995. Analysis of the model results showed negligible impacts on wave height under normal conditions and increased wave height during extreme conditions. Increased wave height during extreme conditions, however, was no closer than 300 feet from the shoreline. The increased wave height and wave angle in storm conditions were far enough offshore that they "never impacted the actual breaking wave height on the beach." Tr. 151. The model's prediction of no impacts in wave height on the shoreline due to a dredged OK-A and no change in sediment transport rate by virtue of the presence of a dredged OK-A led Taylor Engineering to conclude that whether in normal or extreme conditions, a dredged OK-A Borrow Area would not cause impacts to the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County. Criticisms of Taylor's STWAVE Modeling Dr. Dally offered four basic criticisms of Taylor Engineering's STWAVE Modeling: a) the model did not account for wave transformation processes caused by bottom friction between the WIS Station (10 miles out in the Gulf) and the OK-A site; b) the model was not calibrated or verified; c) the model did not sufficiently account for wave transformation impacts from the dredging of Site OK-A; and d) Taylor did not plot wave direction results from its STWAVE models or conduct any sediment transport analysis. Mr. Trudnak offered refutations of the criticisms. For example, taking the first of them, wave transformation processes caused by bottom friction between the WIS Station and the OK-A site were not accounted for by Taylor Engineering in its analysis because "most of that distance [between the WIS Station and the OK-A site] is deep water, meaning the waves aren't . . . feeling the bottom so they're not being affected by the bottom friction." Tr. 1236. The refutations were not entirely successful. The second of Petitioners' experts, Dr. Young cast doubt on the validity of all modeling no matter how well any particular modeling activity might meet the criticisms leveled by Dr. Dally against Taylor Engineering's effort. Dr. Young accepted Dr. Dally's testimony about why Taylor Engineering's modeling were not sufficient to support an opinion of "no impacts", but he differed with Dr. Dally as to whether coastal engineering models should be utilized to predict impacts to beaches.29/ See Tr. 1157. Dr. Dally believes in the benefits of modeling as long as the modeling is conducted properly. Dr. Young does not. It is his opinion that no model produces a projection that is precisely accurate but the essence of his criticism is that "we don't know how wrong the models are." Tr. 1159. Models are "incapable of quantifying the uncertainty or how right or wrong that they might be." Id. With regard to the modeling used in Taylor's Borrow Area Impact Analysis, Dr. Young summed up: [W]hen we do this model run, especially with a model that isn't calibrated or verified, we get an answer . . . it's not precisely the right answer, but . . . nobody knows how wrong the answer is. I don't know it, Mr. Trudnak doesn't know and Mr. Clark doesn't know. And that's why being prudent is important and why relying on the monitoring data is critical because the monitoring data is real data. Tr. 1160. In contrast to Dr. Young, Dr. Dally, consistent with his faith in models appropriate for the investigation and conducted properly, took another tack in attacking the modeling used by Taylor Engineering. He criticized Taylor Engineering's failure to use a more comprehensive wave transformation model: the Boussinesq Model. Dr. Dally opined that the Boussinesq Model was superior to STWAVE principally because it takes diffraction into account. But Petitioners did not produce any off-shore Borrow Area Impacts Analyses which used the Boussinesq Model, and Mr. Trudnak testified that he was unaware of any.30/ Taylor Engineering used STWAVE and not Boussinesq as the model for the Borrow Area Impact Analysis because the Boussinesq Model is typically used where diffraction plays the dominant role, that is, within areas like inlets or ports which have structures that will cause wave perturbation. The open coast is not such an area, making the STWAVE Model, if not more appropriate than the Boussinesq Model, certainly an acceptable model under the Project's circumstances. When asked about the Bousinessq modeling's application in the context of his testimony that he could not say what would be the impacts of the dredging of the OK-A Borrow Area, their extent or whether they would be adverse, Dr. Dally testified that based on his experience (rather than actual testing or modeling the impacts of OK-A as done by Taylor), he was "almost certain," tr. 691, that Bousinessq modeling would show impacts to the beach adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador Properties that could be a "type of accretion . . . [that is] momentary . . . due to the propagation of these features as they go up and down the beach." Id. This statement is consistent with Mr. Clark's opinion that if the Project's borrow area were within 1000 feet of shore, the impact of dredging OK-A to the Sherry and Donovan Properties would be beneficial. When asked if the beaches would develop scalloping (sand erosion in some areas and accretion in others), Dr. Dally said, "Right. This [wave transformation process caused by an excavated OK-A borrow area] makes a scalloping." Tr. 692. Perhaps the dredging of Borrow Area OK-A would aggravate scalloping along the shores of Okaloosa County but they would not create scalloping of an "un-scalloped" coastal system. Scalloping features in the Okaloosa Island portion of Santa Rosa Island existed at the time of final hearing. In short, Dr. Dally roundly criticized Taylor Engineering's STWAVE modeling. As to the impacts he was sure would occur, he was unable to state whether they would be adverse, beneficial or both. Most importantly to the weight to be assigned his testimony, he was unable to testify as to how significant the impacts would be; one cannot determine from his testimony whether the impacts will be entirely de minimus, see rule 62B-41.002(19)(c) or whether some could be significant, see rule 62B-41.002(19)(a). Dr. Dally's testimony with regard to the creation by the Project of scalloping did not indicate the significance of that scalloping to the coastal system of Okaloosa County, a system whose ocean bottom, beaches and shores already contain scalloped features. Suppositive impacts that would be caused by the Project to the beaches of Okaloosa County were not the only attack by Petitioners. They also challenged the impact analysis on the basis of the opinion that adverse impacts had been caused to beaches by another beach restoration project and its borrow area not far away: the Walton Project. The Walton Project and Its Borrow Area Completed in the late spring of 2007, the Walton Project placed sand dredged from the Walton Borrow Area on approximately 7 miles of beach in eastern Okaloosa County (East Destin) and western Walton County. Just as in the case of the Western Destin Project, Taylor Engineering performed a borrow site impact analysis for the borrow site used in the Walton Project. Location and Comparison to the OK-A Borrow Area The northwest corner of the Walton Borrow Area is roughly 2.75 miles from the northernmost point of the western boundary of the OK-A Borrow Site. See Ex. P-13. The area between the easternmost point of the OK-A Borrow site and the westernmost point of the Walton Borrow Area, therefore, is roughly half that distance or 1.375 miles. The northwest corner of the Walton Borrow Area is approximately 0.8 miles offshore; its easternmost point is roughly one-half mile off-shore. Comparison of the Walton Borrow Area and OK-A shows that OK-A is larger and will have more sand removed. It is also wider, shallow when measured from the Gulf floor, and in deeper water than the Walton Borrow Area. Nonetheless, Petitioners characterize the two borrow sites as similar,31/ mainly because with less than 1.5 miles separating them, they are relatively close to each other. Despite proximity, there are significant differences, however, between the two. A wider, less deeply dredged borrow area would have less impacts than one deeper and narrower. OK- A's location in deeper water makes it less likely to affect waves and current than the Walton Borrow Area. The footprints of the borrow areas are dissimilar. The Walton Borrow Area has an irregular shape. OK-A is in the shape of a rectangle with a uniform dredging depth although "the depth of sand that is dredged will taper off . . . further offshore . . .[s]o that the seaward most edge does not have significant thickness of sand. The maximum cut is towards the northern boundary." Tr. 306. In addition to distance from shore, the predominately significant difference between the two is the presence on the Gulf floor in the vicinity of the Walton Borrow Area of an ebb shoal: a large deposit of sediment. The ebb shoal exists because of interaction between East Pass and the waves, tides and currents of the Gulf. The Walton Borrow Area is "close to the East Pass ebb shoal . . . and it included the outer flanks of the ebb shoal." Tr. 155. It makes the littoral zone for the Walton Project more active than the littoral zone near which OK-A is located. Located a significant distance to the west of the East Pass ebb shoal, OK-A would not interact with its littoral zone in the way the Walton Borrow Area interacts with its littoral zone. Walton Borrow Area Impact Analysis and Monitoring Taylor Engineering's borrow area impact analysis for the Walton Borrow Area was similar to the impact analysis for OK-A in that both consisted of "wave models and hydrodynamic models." Tr. 156. The Walton impact analysis showed "one potential impact area about 2,000 feet long [on the beach] just west of East Pass," id., an impact area also described as extending from approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet west of the westernmost jetty at East Pass. It anticipated that impact would be caused by wave action due to the perturbation resulting from the presence of the dredged Walton Borrow Area. The potential impact was projected by the analysis to be a reduction in the sediment supply to the beaches west of East Pass by 11,000 cubic yards per year. Because of that reduction, DEP included a mitigation condition in the Walton Project permit: placement of 55,000 cubic yards on the impacted beach. As a condition of the Walton Project, Taylor Engineering conducted monitoring of the impacts to the beach from the project in general and in particular from the Walton Borrow Area. At the time of hearing, reports for 2007, 2008, and 2009 had been completed and the engineering firm was working on the 2010 report. Mr. Trudnak described the results from the monitoring through 2008 at hearing. From the period of pre-construction in 2006 through immediate post-construction, the monitoring revealed "a huge volume of erosion." Tr. 159. Subsequent analysis from 2007 to 2008 revealed "a huge amount of accretion that actually exceeded the amount of erosion from the previous year." Id. The volumes of erosion and accretion "seemed abnormal." Id. The bottom line, however, of the two years of data is that the early erosion was more than countered by the accretion that occurred into 2008. After describing the impacts in the first two years of monitoring, Mr. Trudnak stressed the importance of what was revealed by additional monitoring. "[M]ore important is the long term trend . . . ." Id. From 2006 through 2009, the monitoring area "as a whole, actually accreted, it gained sand." Tr. 160. Determining the impacts to the beach caused by the Walton Project is complicated because of impacts caused by behavior of the beach at the time of construction and earlier. Consistent with the Department's "critically eroded" designations, data from March of 1996 (not long after Hurricane Opal), data from June, 2004 (before Hurricane Ivan) and 2006 pre- construction data showed the shoreline adjacent to the Walton Project Area to have been receding landward at a rapid rate. This "background" erosion is due mainly to the effects of tropical storms. In the wake of the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area it was difficult for Taylor Engineering to determine what impacts were caused by "background" erosion due to tropical storms and what impacts were caused by the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area. In contrast, it is not difficult to determine from monitoring data in the three years after construction of the Walton Project, however, that the beach west of the borrow area has accreted and that this appears to be the long-term trend. Tr. 159. Contrary to conclusions Petitioners would have drawn from the evidence presented by their experts, the more comprehensive data indicates that the Walton Project (including its borrow area) is having a beneficial impact on the beaches to the west of the project and its borrow area. Dr. Young opined on behalf of Petitioners that the problem with the OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis is that it is based on modeling which is far inferior to "real world" data. His opinion that actual data is superior to data generated by modeling, no doubt, is sound. The only "real world" data that will prove any impacts for sure, whether adverse or beneficial, from a dredged OK-A, however, is after-the-fact monitoring data. Such data is usually obtained annually after the construction of a project or after major storm events. It consists of obtaining near-shore and offshore monitoring profiles and involves determining shoreline changes and volumetric beach changes.32/ In the absence of data from monitoring impacts of a dredged OK-A, Dr. Young opined that the data derived from monitoring the Walton Borrow Area which showed erosion early after completion of the Project is superior to the modeling data reviewed by Taylor Engineering in predicting impacts to Santa Rosa Island beaches. There are two problems, however, with Dr. Young's conclusion. First, beach impacts after the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area do not necessarily support similar impacts from a dredged OK-A because the two borrow areas are materially different. Second, the trend revealed by the more comprehensive data gathered in the wake of the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area is that the beach is receiving impacts which are beneficial. Reasonable persons might differ as to the outcome of reasonable assurances with regard to impacts based on the testimony of Mr. Trudnak and Drs. Dally and Young. The balance, however, swings clearly in favor of the applicant in consideration of the testimony of Ralph Clark. Mr. Clark and The Department's Review of Western Destin Project Borrow Site Impacts Ralph Clark is a Registered Professional Engineer in Florida. The recent recipient of the Stan Tate Award from the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, a lifetime achievement award for work over the years in beach preservation, at the time of hearing, Mr. Clark had worked for 37 years for the State of Florida as a coastal engineer. During his long career, Mr. Clark has worked on the State's two separate regulatory programs in the arena of beach management: a "Wet Beach Program, which is working below Mean High Water and includes projects such as beach restoration" tr. 485, and "the more dry beach program which involves construction seaward of Coastal Construction Control Lines and activities landward of Mean High Water . . . ." Id. He has been involved with the Department's Beach Management Program, a grants program for cost-sharing with local governments to develop a long-term comprehensive management plan for the state to solve critical impact problems around Florida which may include erosion. He has conducted or prepared the Critically Eroded Beaches Report every year "going back to the late 1980's" id., and he has "conducted Beach Erosion Studies and Storm Damage Impact Investigations around the State for the past four decades." Tr. 486. Among his specific duties is the review of "scopes of work and project feasibility studies that are provided . . . by the [Department's] Beach Management Section." Id. In this capacity, Mr. Clark conducted the Department's engineering review of the Western Destin permit application and additional information related to the Project. After review, Mr. Clark reached the conclusion that the "Project is a well designed Beach Restoration Project that's critically needed . . . to restore the beaches of Western Destin to provide needed storm protection, recreational benefits and wildlife habitat." Tr. 488. With regard to his overall conclusion as to the Project's physical impacts, Mr. Clark testified: Id. In my opinion, the placement of 831,000 cubic yards of beach compatible sand fill along Western Destin will provide a positive, beneficial impact to the beach and dune system of Western Destin. The excavation of that material from the proposed borrow area [OK-A], along with the excavation of material for four other fill projects proposed for Santa Rosa Island, three of which have been approved, is not expected to have any adverse impact to the beaches of Santa Rosa Island. Mr. Clark's opinions that the Project would be beneficial to the beach and dune system and that the excavation of OK-A is not expected to have adverse impacts have a solid base. His opinions are founded on extensive experience with beach restoration projects over 37 years; extensive experience with coastal processes, coastal morphology, and coastal hydrodynamics; review of the application and supporting information; experience with the Project area and vicinity; extensive experience with coastal storm impacts and beach erosion; and review of roughly three dozen technical documents. Mr. Clark has reviewed 136 beach restoration projects. Of these, 111 were in Florida, six in other states and Puerto Rico, and 19 in countries on every continent in the world other than Asia. But coastal engineering experience in Asia is not missing from Mr. Clark's resume. He has conducted beach erosion control projects and coastal and shore protection projects (as distinguished from beach restoration projects) in that continent as well. Among the "countless number" tr. 490, of such projects he has reviewed are ones in the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, China, and the Bahamas." Id. The reason his experience extended beyond the State of Florida to nations all over the world is because "the Florida Beach Preservation Program is internationally recognized." Id. The State has received many requests for technical assistance from various world governments. Mr. Clark has also in his time away from his employment with the state served as a consultant to the governments of Mexico, the Cayman Islands, and the Island Nation of St. Bartholomew and the French West Indies. Mr. Clark has investigated the impacts of 83 tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico. Most investigations have been in Florida but some have been in other Gulf states and along the coast of the country of Mexico. During some of those investigations and while acting as a coastal engineer for the state, Mr. Clark visited the vicinity of Santa Rosa Island 176 times, excluding academic field trips. In his capacity as a state coastal engineer, Mr. Clark provided the Department with detailed damage assessments for each of the eight tropical storms noted in the Consolidated NOI for the Western Destin Project Over his 37 years, Mr. Clark served on numerous task forces, committees and technical advisory groups relating to erosion control and beach management efforts by states along the Gulf and Mexico. Mr. Clark's early reports were used in the development of the state's Strategic Beach Management Plan and he prepared the first "Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida document" tr. 494, now electronically available to the public on the Department's website. The report prepared by Mr. Clark which led to the designation of the Western Destin Project beach as critically eroded showed that the areas from R-17 to roughly R-20.3 and R- 23.2 to R-25.5 revealed erosion through deflation of the beach profile and recession of the shoreline to such an extent that upland development and infrastructure would be threatened. The report is based on evaluation and projection of the impact of a 25-year storm event. The same report did not conclude that a 25-year storm event would provide the same level of threat to the area between R-20.3 and R-23.2 (the shoreline along the MACLA Intervenors' Property and the Oceania Gap) although that stretch of the beach is "potentially threatened by a 50 to a 100-year storm event." Tr. 499. The "R-20.3 to R-23.2" segment was included in the critically eroded designation for design and integrity of the Project and continuity of management of the coastal system. The designation of the Project area as critically eroded was made in 2006 and was updated by the Department at the request of the County in 2008. The 2008 update indicated no need to change the designation. Although not as threatened as the rest of the shoreline in the Project, the shoreline along the Middle Segment, (including the MACLA Intervernors' Property and the Oceania Gap) is erosional. Data obtained as late as October 19, 2009, indicate that there had been more erosion since a Mean High Water Survey located the MHWL in 2008. The data does not show volumetric change, only that "there is a continued trend of erosion" of the shoreline in the Oceania Gap. Tr. 506. With the Oceania Gap eliminated from the Project, elimination of the rest of the property in the Project's Middle Segment (between R-20.3 and R-23.2) would make the remainder of the Project unstable. It would "isolate a 2,000-foot segment between R-23.2 and R-25.5 [the Eastern Segment] . . . and a 2,000-foot fill segment is not long enough to be a stable fill segment." Tr. 507. Although the elimination of all of the Middle Segment would not hurt "the very far west end" of the Project "very much," tr. 508, the elimination of the entire Middle Segment from the Project would also make the very east end of the Western Segment "relatively unstable." Tr. 508. The Middle Segment, therefore, while not critically eroded, would benefit from beach restoration. Restoration will provide protection from the erosion it is experiencing and from 50-year and 100-year storm events should they occur during the life of the restoration. Restoration will include dune work that will provide protection from storm surge and dissipate the wave energy seaward of any structures in the Middle Segment. Recent storm events have been 50-year and 100-year events. In the area of the Project, "Hurricane Opal was comparable to a 100-year storm event." Tr. 509. In Pensacola Beach, Ivan was a 200-year event. In the Destin area, Ivan "probably dropped to just below a 100-year storm event in terms of its magnitude. Hurricane Dennis was probably comparable to a 50-year storm event." Id. The best defense against 25-year, 50-year, and 100- year storm events is beach restoration. The OK-A Borrow Area is an offshore borrow area. Mr. Clark gave a few examples of other borrow areas that are offshore borrow areas and that are as large as OK-A. These were borrow areas used in the restoration of beaches in Panama City, Delray Beach, Canaveral Shoals, and Anna Maria Island. In addition to Taylor's Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report, Mr. Clark based his opinion on review of monitoring data for the many restoration projects with which he has been involved. Mr. Clark has reviewed borrow area impacts on beach restoration projects that have had adverse impacts. But these projects, typically, were "in inlet ebb tidal deltas of tidal inlets." Tr. 518. Located about three miles east of the ebb shoal of East Pass, OK-A is not an inlet-related borrow area. Of the 111 beach restoration projects that Mr. Clark reviewed, there was one that had an off-shore borrow area that adversely impacted the adjacent beach: the Anna Maria Island Project. The Anna Maria Island Borrow Area was located "roughly 1,000 feet off the [adjacent] beach . . . ." Tr. 519. In comparison, OK-A "is four to five times further offshore than the Anna Maria Island borrow area." Tr. 520. If instead of OK-A, the Project were to use a borrow area as close to the shore as the Anna Maria Island Borrow Area, its impacts to the shoreline would be both adverse and beneficial. The impact to adjacent beach would be erosion, but to the beach to the west of the borrow area the impact would be accretion. Mr. Clark's opinion of no impacts to the beach from dredging OK-A would be entirely different if OK-A had been located in the near-shore zone where "it's a whole different ball game." Tr. 532. The location of OK-A, between 4,000 and 5,000 feet offshore is in a zone that is "no problem," that is, it is not in the near-shore and far enough off shore that it will not cause impacts, adverse or beneficial, to the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County. For all his experience and coastal engineering prowess, Mr. Clark is not an expert in modeling. He relies on others within the Department to evaluate the sufficiency of a model or its methodologies. Mr. Clark did not ask anyone in the Department to evaluate the models used by Taylor Engineering. Dr. Young disagreed with the opinions of Mr. Trudnak and Mr. Clark that there would be no adverse impacts to the beach. He was sure that the dredging of OK-A would cause an adverse impact that would be either erosion or a decrease in the accretion that occurred in recent years along the beaches of Okaloosa Island. Dr. Young also cast doubt on Mr. Clark's experience as support for the opinion that dredging of OK-A would cause no adverse impacts. "Nobody believes there's ever been an adverse impact from a borrow area . . . ." Tr. 1206. Dr. Young used the "real world" experience with the Walton Borrow Area to back up that doubt. "[T]he problem is that we're not doing a good job of monitoring this project [the Walton Project] and the problem is convenient interpretation of the monitoring results." Id. Dr. Young's doubt about the value of Mr. Clark's experience was tempered by the reality of beach restoration in contrast to other types of projects whose failure was sudden, dramatic and easily discernible. Dr. Young: [W]hen a bridge collapses, civil engineers converge on that failed project and they learn more from that failure than they could ever learn from a bridge that lasted 30 years. And . . . one of the problems with coastal project design is that never happens. We never have a beach nourishment project that disappears in six months or a borrow area that causes erosion and coastal engineers converge from around the country and say, wow, here's a project that went wrong. And I think that is one of the hurdles that we need to cross in order to do a better job of project design. * * * We have no clear definition of what a failed project is. So, that way you can never have one that fails. And to me, a failed project is one that does not meet the promises made in the design of that project. And a failed project is also one where there are impacts that occur as a result of the project that are not adequately mitigated or anticipated. Tr. 1150-1. When asked the question of whether there is a definition of a failed beach restoration project in the literature or that is generally accepted by the coastal engineering community, see tr. 1152, Dr. Young testified, "I have not seen one." Tr. 1152. He added, " I would assume they might offer a similar definition [to mine], if the project doesn't work the way we said it would, then we would consider that a failure. But there is certainly not large scale discussion of projects that did not perform as designed." Tr. 1152-3. Dr. Young, like Dr. Dally, did not perform any analysis to quantify any degree of erosion or decreased accretion. Nor has he ever performed modeling to analyze borrow area impacts in keeping with his view of the inutility of modeling for accurate prediction of beach impacts. Variance The "Variance" referenced in the Consolidated NOI concerns two related variances: one from rule 62- 4.242(2)(a)2.b., and the other from rule 62-4.244(5)(c). The northern boundary of the proposed borrow area is within Outstanding Florida Waters ("OFW"). That location led the County to seek a variance from the limitation in rule 62- 4.242(2)(a)2.b. that turbidity can exceed background conditions in OFW during permitted construction activity for no more than 30 days. Section (2) of rule 62-4.242 sets "standards applying to Outstanding Florida Waters." Subsection (a)2.b of section (2) of the rule reads as follows: (a) no Department permit . . . shall be issued for any proposed activity . . . within an [OFW] or which degrades an [OFW], unless the applicant affirmatively demonstrates that: * * * 2. The proposed activity . . . is clearly in the public interest, and . . . * * * b. the existing ambient water quality within [the OFW] will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity . . . , except on a temporary basis during construction for a period not to exceed thirty days . . . . The County also sought a variance from rule 62- 4.244(5)(c) which governs mixing zones in surface waters and reads: In no case shall the boundary of a dredge and fill mixing zone be more than . . . 150 meters in radius in . . . bodies of water [other than flowing streams], where these distances are measured from the cutterhead, return flow, discharge or other points of generation of turbidity or other pollutants. Section 120.54(2) authorizes an agency to grant a variance as follows: Variances . . . shall be granted when the person subject to the rule demonstrates that the purpose of the underlying statute will be or has been achieved by other means by the person and when application of a rule would create a substantial hardship or violate principles of fairness. Nephelometric turbidity units ("NTUs") in OFWs cannot exceed zero at the edge of the 150 meter radius referenced in rule 62-4.244(5)(c). To keep NTUs at zero outside the 150 meter radius, the County "would have had to almost continually be shutting down . . . .[its hopper] dredge," tr. 415, because the turbidity plume created by the hopper dredge's activity would have regularly extended beyond the 150 meter radius. Use of a different type of dredge (such as a cutterhead) would not alleviate the need for the variances for the construction of the Project. A cutterhead dredge is substantially more expensive with regard to both mobilization costs and actual dredging: $15-$20 per cubic yard versus $8 per cubic yard for a hopper dredge. Cutterhead dredges, moreover, do not operate in waves as effectively as hopper dredges. In rough water, "a cutterhead would see much more down time and conditions [could cause] a cutterhead . . . to stop dredging and go into safe harbor into East Pass." Tr. 173. The variance from rule 62-4.244(5)(c), therefore, was needed because the standard size mixing zone would have created a substantial hardship for the County. In addition to outlining the substantial hardship, the County provided two additional bases in its application to justify the variances: (a) no resources in the area, such as hard bottom or sea-grass beds, would be affected by a turbidity plume and an expanded mixing zone; and (b) citation to the Pensacola Naval Air Station ("NAS") project claimed to be similar in that it involved OFW and had received a variance. Upon receipt of the application for the variances, the Department requested additional information to establish whether OK-A, in fact, would be within OFW and more analysis of the comparability with the Pensacola NAS project. The Department's engineering section determined that the comparability of the Pensacola NAS project was not adequately demonstrated because of a lack of detail about the hydrodynamics and mixing zone sizes of the two sites. Nonetheless, the staff responsible for making the final decision on the variances (and ultimately the Department) determined the County's information justifying the variances to be sufficient. In granting the variances, the Department did not rely on the County's comparison of the Project to the Pensacola NAS project. As explained by Dr. Edwards at hearing, "[H]aving the data . . . from an actual project to back up and . . . calibrate a mixing zone is an added bonus, but we just didn't have it in this particular case." Tr. 420. The Department based its decision, in part, however, on background knowledge from permitting of borrow areas and beach projects "all over the Panhandle," tr. 421, and the data gathered from them including "data from side scan sonar from seismic information all along this area." Id. Included in this background is knowledge of a similar mixing zone of 1,500 meters established for one of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects which excavated OK-A with a hopper dredge and in which the 1500- meter mixing zone was determined to be appropriate. Independent of the information provided by the County, the decision, therefore, was founded on the Department's own knowledge that no resources would be impacted by an expanded mixing zone and that there was a comparable project in the area (not the Pensacola NAS project) that had been allowed a 1500- meter mixing zone. In applying the standard from section 120.54(2) related to the underlying intent of the rules at issue and the statutes, the Department determined that "[t]he Project in the OFW was clearly in the public interests, according to [section] 373.414 and the minimum Water Quality Standards, even within the mixing zone[,] would still be met." Tr. 421-2. There were at least two other mitigating factors that the Department entertained as support for its decision. First, because of the difficulty in controlling turbidity in open waters in the Gulf, the 1,500-meter mixing zone established by the Consolidated NOI actually "is on the small side," tr. 422, of a mixing zone for the dredging of a borrow area to serve a beach restoration project. Second, 29 NTUs is the maximum turbidity allowed in waters that are not OFW. An extended mixing zone to allow the County to exceed 29 NTUs outside OFW was not granted as part of the variances under the Consolidated NOI. Petitioners presented no evidence to rebut the testimony elicited by the Department and the County that the purpose of the statute underlying the rules from which the variances are sought will be met by other means and that the application of the rules will create a substantial hardship. Changed Site Conditions 267. Rule 62B-49.005(16) provides: If site conditions change during the processing of an application to such an extent that the data already provided can no longer be used to determine consistency as provided in this chapter, then the application shall be denied unless the applicant agrees to waive the 9-day time requirements of Chapter 120.60, Florida Statutes, and provides the additional information required to reanalyze the application. After the filing of the County's application, malfunction of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to the Oil Spill, a discharge of a massive amount of oil and natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico. No evidence was presented that showed the Oil Spill had caused impacts to the OK-A Borrow Area. The permit was revised, nonetheless, to add language in the wake of the Oil Spill that requires the County to visually inspect the borrow area prior to construction activity and to analyze sand samples from the borrow area. The County, therefore, plans to send a diver to collect samples to be analyzed for contamination. See tr. 175. Western Destin Erosion Control Line The requirement for an Erosion Control Line is in section 161.161: Once a project is determined to be undertaken, a survey of all or part of the shoreline within the jurisdiction of the local government in which the beach is located shall be conducted in order to . . . locate an erosion control line. * * * In lieu of conducting a survey, the board of trustees may accept and approve a survey as initiated, conducted, and submitted by the appropriate local government if said survey is made in conformity with the appropriate principles set forth in ss. 161.141-161.211. § 161.161(3), Fla. Stat. The Draft JCP as originally issued did not require the establishment of an ECL. It required the establishment of a Pre- project Mean High Water Line instead. The Second Revised Draft JCP dispensed with the requirement of a Pre-project MHWL. It requires that an ECL be established for all properties within the 1.7 miles stretch of beach in the Project area subject to beach restoration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order issuing the Joint Coastal Permit, Variance, and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization as revised during the course of these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners' Motions for Attorney's Fees should be granted, and if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the stipulation of counsel, the papers filed herein, and the underlying record made a part of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this attorney's fees dispute, Petitioners, Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. (Anderson Columbia) (Case No. 00-0754F), Panhandle Land & Timber Company, Inc. (Panhandle Land) (Case No. 00-0755F), Support Terminals Operating Partnership, L.P. (Support Terminals) (Case No. 00-0756F), Commodores Point Terminal Corporation (Commodores Point) (Case No. 00-0757F), and Olan B. Ward, Sr., Martha P. Ward, Anthony Taranto, Antoinette Taranto, J.V. Gander Distributors, Inc., J.V. Gander, Jr., and Three Rivers Properties, Inc. (the Ward group) (Case No. 00-0828F), have requested the award of attorney's fees and costs incurred in successfully challenging proposed Rule 18-21.019(1), Florida Administrative Code, a rule administered by Respondent, Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board). In general terms, the proposed rule essentially authorized the Board, through the use of a qualified disclaimer, to reclaim sovereign submerged lands which had previously been conveyed to the upland owners by virtue of their having filled in, bulkheaded, or permanently improved the submerged lands. The underlying actions were assigned Case Nos. 98- 1764RP, 98-1866RP, 98-2045RP, and 98-2046RP, and an evidentiary hearing on the rule challenge was held on May 21, 1998. That proceeding culminated in the issuance of a Final Order in Support Terminals Operating Partnership, L.P. et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 21 F.A.L.R. 3844 (Div. Admin. Hrngs., Aug. 8, 1998), which determined that, except for one challenged provision, the proposed rule was valid. Thereafter, in the case of Anderson Columbia Company, Inc. et al. v. Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, 748 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), the court reversed the order below and determined that the rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Petitioners then filed their motions. Fees and Costs There are eleven Petitioners seeking reimbursement of fees and costs. In its motion, Anderson Columbia seeks reimbursement of attorney's fees "up to the $15,000 cap allowed by statute" while Panhandle Land seeks identical relief. In their similarly worded motions, Support Terminals and Commodores Point each seek fees "up to the $15,000 cap allowed by statute." Finally, the Ward group collectively seeks $9,117.00 in attorney's fees and $139.77 in costs. In the Joint Stipulations of Fact filed by the parties, the Board has agreed that the rate and hours for all Petitioners "were reasonable." As to all Petitioners except the Ward group, the Board has further agreed that each of their costs to challenge the rule exceeded $15,000.00. It has also agreed that even though they were not contained in the motions, requests for costs by Support Terminals, Commodores Point, Anderson Columbia, and Panhandle Land in the amounts of $1,143.22, $1,143.22, $1,933.07, and $1,933.07, respectively, were "reasonable." Finally, the Board has agreed that the request for costs by the Ward group in the amount of $139.77 is "reasonable." Despite the stipulation, and in the event it does not prevail on the merits of these cases, the Board contends that the four claimants in Case Nos. 00-754F, 00-755F, 00-0756F, and 00- 757F should be reimbursed only on a per case basis, and not per client, or $7,500.00 apiece, on the theory that they were sharing counsel, and the discrepancy between the amount of fees requested by the Ward group (made up of seven Petitioners) and the higher fees requested by the other Petitioners "is difficult to understand and justify." If this theory is accepted, it would mean that Support Terminals and Commodores Point would share a single $15,000.00 fee, while Anderson Columbia and Panhandle Land would do the same. Support Terminals and Commodores Point were unrelated clients who happened to choose the same counsel; they were not a "shared venture." Each brought a different perspective to the case since Commodores Point had already received a disclaimer with no reversionary interest while Support Terminals received one with a reversionary interest on June 26, 1997. The latter event ultimately precipitated this matter and led to the proposed rulemaking. Likewise, in the case of Anderson Columbia and Panhandle Land, one was a landowner while the other was a tenant, and they also happened to choose the same attorney to represent them. For the sake of convenience and economy, the underlying cases were consolidated and the matters joined for hearing. Substantial Justification From a factual basis, the Board contends several factors should be taken into account in determining whether it was substantially justified in proposing the challenged rule. First, the Board points out that its members are mainly lay persons, and they relied in good faith on the legal advice of the Board's staff and remarks made by the Attorney General during the course of the meeting at which the Board issued a disclaimer to Support Terminals. Therefore, the Board argues that it should be insulated from liability since it was relying on the advice of counsel. If this were true, though, an agency that relied on legal advice could never be held responsible for a decision which lacked substantial justification. The Board also relies upon the fact that it has a constitutional duty to protect the sovereign lands held in the public trust for the use and benefit of the public. Because lands may be disclaimed under the Butler Act only if they fully meet the requirements of the grant, and these questions involve complex policy considerations, the Board argues that the complexity and difficulty of this task militate against an award of fees. While its mission is indisputably important, however, the Board is no different than other state agencies who likewise are charged with the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens. The Board further relies on the fact that the rule was never intended to affect title to Petitioners' lands, and all Petitioners had legal recourse to file a suit to quiet title in circuit court. As the appellate court noted, however, the effect of the rule was direct and immediate, and through the issuance of a disclaimer with the objectionable language, it created a reversionary interest in the State and made private lands subject to public use. During the final hearing in the underlying proceedings, the then Director of State Lands vigorously supported the proposed rule as being in the best interests of the State and consistent with the "inalienable" Public Trust. However, he was unaware of any Florida court decision which supported the Board's views, and he could cite no specific statutory guidance for the Board's actions. The Director also acknowledged that the statutory authority for the rule (Section 253.129, Florida Statutes) simply directed the Board to issue disclaimers, and it made no mention of the right of the Board to reclaim submerged lands through the issuance of a qualified disclaimer. In short, while the Board could articulate a theory for its rule, it had very little, if any, basis in Florida statutory or common law or judicial precedent to support that theory. Although Board counsel has ably argued that the law on the Butler Act was archaic, confusing, and conflicting in many respects, the rule challenge case ultimately turned on a single issue, that is, whether the Riparian Rights Act of 1856 and the Butler Act of 1921 granted to upland or riparian owners fee simple title to the adjacent submerged lands which were filled in, bulkheaded, or permanently improved. In other words, the ultimate issue was whether the Board's position was "inconsistent with the . . . the concept of fee simple title." Anderson Columbia at 1066. On this issue, the court held that the State could not through rulemaking "seek to reserve ownership interests by issuing less than an unqualified or unconditional disclaimer to riparian lands which meet the statutory requirements." Id. at 1067. Thus, with no supporting case law or precedent to support its view on that point, there was little room for confusion or doubt on the part of the Board. E. Special Circumstances In terms of special circumstances that would make an award of fees unjust, the Board first contends that the proposed rule was never intended to "harm anyone," and that none of Petitioners were actually harmed. But the substantial interests of each Petitioner were clearly affected by the proposed rules, and the appellate court concluded that the rule would result in an unconstitutional forfeiture of property. The Board also contends that because it must make proprietary decisions affecting the public trust, it should be given wide latitude in rulemaking. It further points out that the Board must engage in the difficult task of balancing the interests of the public with private rights, and that when it infringes on the private rights of others, as it did here, it should not be penalized for erring on the side of the public. As previously noted, however, all state agencies have worthy governmental responsibilities, but this in itself does not insulate an agency from sanctions. As an additional special circumstance, the Board points out that many of the provisions within the proposed rule were not challenged and were therefore valid. In this case, several subsections were admittedly unchallenged, but the offending provisions which form the crux of the rule were invalidated. Finally, the Board reasons that any moneys paid in fees and costs will diminish the amount of money to be spent on public lands. It is unlikely, however, that any state agency has funds set aside for the payment of attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes (1999).
The Issue The issues to be determined are whether Dawn Jenkins (“Jenkins”) failed to meet the Deferred Retirement Option Program (“DROP”) termination requirements set forth in chapter 121, Florida Statutes; and, if so, whether Petitioner, Town of Miami Lakes (“Miami Lakes,” the “Town,” or “Petitioner”), is required to reimburse Respondent, Department of Management Services (“DMS”), Division of Retirement (“DOR” or “Respondent”), for the overpayment of retirement benefits paid to Jenkins.
Findings Of Fact DMS is the state agency delegated to administer FRS. The Florida Legislature created DOR to manage the retirement plans and programs under FRS within DMS. FRS is a retirement program for state and local government employees administered pursuant to chapter 121. All state agencies participate in FRS. Local governments have the option of joining the plan if they meet certain requirements set out in statute and rule. Participating employers agree to follow chapter 121 and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 60S when they join FRS. Petitioner is the Town, a State of Florida municipal government located within Miami-Dade County and duly charted on December 5, 2000. In January 2004, the Town joined FRS as a participating employer. Jenkins was a member of FRS through her employment with Miami- Dade County Public Schools. Jenkins entered DROP and received two one- year extensions (totaling seven years) until her retirement, effective June 8, 2018. Before entering DROP, Jenkins signed a DP-Term form on May 7, 2018. The DROP termination notification form specified that Jenkins had to “terminate all employment relationships with all participating FRS employers for the first 6 calendar months after [her] DROP termination date.” Clary Garcia Ramos (“Clary”) is a Town employee. In her regularly established position, Clary teaches yoga part time at a community center for the Town and is paid $25.00 per hour per class. She has worked for Miami Lakes for approximately 15 years and is covered under the FRS. In the fall of 2018, Clary was having bilateral knee replacement surgery and asked her longtime friend Jenkins to help her out and cover her yoga classes with the Town while she was out after her surgery. Clary and Jenkins have known each other for approximately 15 years and obtained their yoga education together. Jenkins, a certified yoga instructor, agreed to help Clary out with her classes for September and October 2018. Miami Lakes did not post a position opening nor conduct interviews for a back-up, part-time yoga instructor. Before Jenkins started filling in for Clary, Jenkins was instructed to fill out paperwork to start the position. She first filled out an employment application dated August 22, 2015, and then a second one with the corrected date of August 22, 2018, for the position of yoga instructor. On the completed application, Jenkins informed the Town that she had retired from Miami-Dade County Public Schools with “40 years of service” on June 8, 2018. The last detachable page of the application allowed the Town to perform Jenkins’ required background screening since she would be teaching yoga with seniors, a vulnerable population. Only the last page of the application pertains to a background check. On or about August 31, 2018, Jenkins received an offer of employment letter signed by Town Manager Alex Rey (“Rey”) regarding the position she was filling in for Clary. The letter stated: SUBJECT: EMPLOYMENT LETTER Dear Ms. Jenkins: On behalf of the Town of Miami Lakes, I would like to offer you the position of Back up-Part-Time Instructor, Yoga. Instructors work under the supervision of the Leisure Services Manager and are required to select, plan, and teach cultural classes for youth and adults. Your supervisor will determine your schedule for yoga classes. This position start date is September [12], 2018 and the rate of pay will be $26.00 per hour. Each time you are scheduled to work, you will be required to submit a time sheet to your supervisor. This position qualifies for participation under the Florida Retirement System (FRS), and 3% employee contribution is mandatory. This employment offer is contingent upon satisfactory results of the following pre-employment requirements: Criminal Background check and Drug Screening Proof of required education, certifications and/or licenses This is an exciting step for the Town of Miami Lakes, and we look forward to you joining our team. Should this offer be considered acceptable, please sign below and return [i]t to the attention of Cynthia Alejo, Human Resources Specialist, to complete your pre-employment process. Jenkins signed the employment offer letter and accepted the FRS position from Miami Lakes on September 4, 2018. Rey was the town manager for Miami Lakes during all times material to this case. He was the chief executive of the Town and oversaw human resources. Cynthia Alejo (“Alejo”) was the Town’s part-time human resources specialist, who served as the assistant to Rey in the Human Resources Department. Alejo used Clary’s offer letter as a template when she drafted the employment offer letter that Jenkins signed. Ismael Diaz (“Diaz”), the Town’s comptroller and chief financial officer, was off work during October 2018 on vacation. While Clary was out recuperating, Jenkins performed yoga instruction to the seniors for the Town in her place. Jenkins was paid a rate of pay of $26.00 per hour per class. However, while in Clary’s position, Jenkins did not receive the benefits available for employees or receive orientation or training for new employees. Jenkins taught 16 one-hour yoga classes to senior citizens from September 13, 2018, until October 11, 2018. Jenkins was paid and received, as agreed in the terms of her employment offer letter, a total of $442.00 for the yoga classes she taught for the Town. The Town erroneously reported Jenkins to FRS. The Town’s monthly reports specifically included Jenkins under a preretirement code, which alerted DOR internally that a person who had retired was being reported within the first 12 months after retirement. Each month that Jenkins worked, the Town reported her wages to DOR and made retirement contributions to DOR with the payroll reports. During the period when the Town reported Jenkins to DOR as an employee for three consecutive months on its retirement reports, the wrong codes registered errors. DOR notified the Town that Jenkins should not be reported in that way. The Town could have corrected the errors. However, the Town never provided a correction report to change Jenkins’ status. Instead, by the Town continuously reporting Jenkins as an employee, a DOR review of Jenkins’ retirement status was triggered. Eventually, Jenkins found out that she was being reported as an employee to DOR by the Town and her DROP retirement funds were in jeopardy. On or about December 3, 2018, Jenkins complained to DMS, Office of Inspector General, regarding her potential violation of FRS rules. Jenkins was informed in writing that her complaint was being referred to DOR for review. Jenkins also telephoned DMS several times, including December 3, 10, and 11, 2018, and February 8, 2019, requesting a review of her reemployment status and possible voiding of DROP. Jenkins requested to speak with an FRS specialist regarding her FRS retirement issue by email on December 10, 2018. At one point, Jenkins spoke to Kathy Gould, DOR bureau chief of calculations, and informed her that the reporting of her as an employee was a mistake and she was just covering for a friend who was out after having surgery. Because of the variety of Jenkins’ requests to review her retirement issue, which included the inspector general complaint and the multiple payroll report errors reported for Jenkins, DOR investigated Jenkins’ retirement status. June Moore (“Moore”), from the retirement calculations section at DOR, handled Jenkins’ review for DOR. On or about December 13, 2018, Moore started looking into the Jenkins’ retirement issue and contacted the Town’s comptroller, Diaz, by email requesting Jenkins’ personnel action form when she was hired and informing the Town that Jenkins was reemployed with Miami Lakes and “in violation of [her] termination date.” That same day, Diaz emailed Alejo, copying Moore, to update Alejo that he had spoken with Moore and told her the Town had also issued Jenkins an offer letter. In the email, Diaz asked Alejo to provide Moore’s requested information and suggested that the situation be mitigated so that Jenkins did not suffer any financial loss. Diaz also suggested that Jenkins could perhaps return the $400.00 earned. Moore responded 30 minutes later by email, “We are still reviewing this account. Once we receive the documents from your agency we will let you know what the outcome is.” The next day, Alejo sent Moore Jenkins’ two personnel action forms dated September 25, 2018, and October 12, 2018, and the August 31, 2018, offer letter that had been executed by Jenkins. Alejo stated in the email that: [Jenkins] was also under the impression that as a temporary employee, this would not affect her retirement. As Mr. Diaz mentions, Ms. Jenkins is willing to return all funds back to the Town and instead be considered a volunteer. While we don’t know if that’s a possibility, we are willing to help in any way so that Ms. Jenkins does not suffer a financial loss. Both personnel action forms dated September 25, 2018, and October 12, 2018, listed Jenkins as a temporary part-time, hourly wage, non- exempt employee. Each form had FRS checked under the benefits section. Additionally, the September form had “temporary coverage for Clary” written on it and the October form had checked resigned with notice and “temp position” written on it. Jenkins also received an Internal Revenue Service W-2 wage and tax statement from Miami Lakes for her services of working as a yoga instructor at the Town in Clary’s place. On or about February 12, 2019, Alejo sent a memorandum to Diaz that was contrary to all the previous employment records the Town had regarding Jenkins’ employment. The memorandum changed Jenkins’ status to a volunteer and referenced her $26 per hour payments as a stipend. The memorandum stated: After a review of our records, it has come to my attention that Ms. Dawn Jenkins, who assisted the Town of Miami Lakes (the “Town”) as a senior fitness class volunteer during September 19, 2018 thru October 11, 2018 and was inadvertently classified as a Town of Miami Lakes employee. Additionally, a review of our records reveals that Ms. Jenkins did not receive a salary for her services. The only monetary contribution from the Town was in the form of a $26.00 daily stipend. Ms. Jenkins became a volunteer following her friend’s knee incident which required surgery. The Town required Ms. Jenkins to complete an application and consent to a criminal background search, which is standard policy for any volunteer that engages with vulnerable children or adults. Upon receipt of Ms. Jenkins application, the Town in error, reported Ms. Jenkins wages to the Florida Retirement System (“FRS”). The error was discovered within a month or so, and by that time, Ms. Jenkins had already stopped volunteering and was thereby removed from our payroll system. As a follow-up, the Town will need the assistance of the FRS administration to correct the error reported. FRS is under the impression that Ms. Jenkins abused the system by seeking re- employment after retirement. As detailed in this memorandum, this is not the case. Ms. Jenkins, at no time during the period of September 19 thru October 11, 2018 served the Town as a salaried employee. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. On February 19, 2019, DOR issued a final agency action letter, notifying Jenkins that she was “subject to the termination requirement found in [section] 121.021(39)(b), Florida Statutes,” and that she was required to “repay all retirement benefits previously paid to [her], as provided in Rule 60S-4.012, Florida Administrative Code,” in the amount of $445,013.04. Jenkins petitioned for, and received, a section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing in response to the notice of intended agency action that would have required her to repay her DROP payout and the retirement benefits she had received. The DOAH case number assigned to that proceeding is 19-1692. Case No. 19-1692 was litigated through the final hearing. At that final hearing, the parties presented evidence and testimony of the same witnesses in this proceeding. After the administrative hearing on December 20, 2019, DMS and Jenkins entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve the issues related to her termination of DROP and retirement benefits. As part of the Settlement Agreement, Jenkins’ benefit amount was recalculated based on the additional service credit she earned for the years she participated in DROP. The Settlement Agreement also deducted $464.86 monthly from Jenkins’ retirement benefits for a lifetime to repay $445,013.04, the overpayment amount in DROP benefits. In addition, a part of the Settlement Agreement obligated DMS to seek reimbursement for the entire debt, $445,013.04, from Miami Lakes. After settling the case with DMS, Jenkins voluntarily dismissed Case No. 19-1692 with prejudice. On October 2, 2020, DMS then issued its Notice of Intended Agency Action against the Town, informing Miami Lakes that due to hiring Jenkins on September 12, 2018, her FRS termination requirement of ceasing all employment with an FRS employer for six calendar months was never satisfied and, as a result, whenever a participating employer employs a retired FRS member in violation of the termination requirements, both the employee and the participating employer are liable for repayment of the money to the FRS Trust Fund in accordance with section 121.091(9)(c)3. The notice included an invoice demanding payment from the Town of the full amount of the “overpayment of benefits” to Jenkins. The Town timely filed a Petition for Formal Hearing contesting the agency action letter. Ultimate Findings of Fact Upon careful consideration of the entire record, it is determined that DMS has demonstrated by the preponderance of the evidence that Jenkins was an employee of Miami Lakes instructing yoga from September 2018 to October 2018, while Clary was out recuperating. It is interesting to note that, even though Jenkins testified at hearing, she did not believe providing services to the Town to help a friend who was having knee surgery was violating the DROP agreement, and she did not realize that Miami Lakes was a participating employer with FRS when she substituted for Clary while she was out recuperating. Jenkins did admit that she understood the DP-Term form she signed, which specified that she could not work for any FRS entities. Jenkins was also honest and forthright and admitted at hearing that she did not read the September 4, 2018, employment offer letter that she signed when she accepted the FRS position. Had she read the employment letter, she would have been put on notice that the position she was taking was “under the Florida Retirement System, and 3% employee contribution is mandatory.” At hearing, Alejo testified that it was her first time processing an employee covering for another employee. Notwithstanding her lack of experience, the evidence establishes Jenkins was employed with Miami Lakes. In this matter, Miami Lakes was notified of Jenkins’ retirement on June 8, 2018, from Miami-Dade County Public Schools on her employment application before she started the position. Also, the Town offered Jenkins employment through Rey, the Town’s human resources chief executive. The employment offer letter informed Jenkins who her supervisor was and specified participation in FRS, which both Rey and Jenkins signed. Additionally, the Town checked FRS twice under Jenkins’ benefit sections on both her personnel action forms. Likewise, the September personnel action form had “temporary coverage for Clary” written on it and the other form had “temp position” written on it. The evidence also demonstrates that the Town reported Jenkins’ wages as an employee three months in a row and made retirement contributions to DOR on three consecutive payroll reports. At hearing, Dr. Joyce Morgan credibly testified that even after DOR notified Miami Lakes that there was an error in reporting Jenkins, they continued to report her in November and December 2018, and the Town never attempted to correct the error or contact DOR to get help in correcting any errors.1 In addition, the Town properly issued Jenkins a W-2 tax statement as an employee for instructing yoga for Miami Lakes not a 1099 statement. At hearing, the record not only shows Miami Lakes hired Jenkins as an employee, but was fully aware of her employee status with the Town. The evidence demonstrates that Diaz, the comptroller, confirmed by his December 13, 2018, email that Jenkins’ status was a Town employee when he informed Moore that Jenkins had executed an employment offer letter and Diaz attempted to assist mitigate Jenkins’ financial loss with DOR by suggesting her pay be returned to the Town. Additionally, Alejo further established Miami Lakes’ full knowledge of Jenkins’ status as an employee with the Town in her email of December 14, 2018, when she admitted she did not know if it were possible, but offered to help Jenkins not suffer a financial loss by suggesting to Moore to change Jenkins’ title so Jenkins could be considered a volunteer and return the money paid. The record also demonstrates that it was not until almost two months later in February 2019, that the Town’s Human Resource Department actually reclassified Jenkins’ title to a senior fitness volunteer and renamed her “rate of pay” that had formally been $26.00 per hour in the employment offer letter to a “$26.00 daily stipend” in an internal memorandum2 that Alejo sent to Diaz. 1 The undersigned is not persuaded that the Town’s reporting error was caused because Comptroller Diaz was out on vacation during October 2018, because the errors were not corrected after Diaz returned and have not been corrected as of the date of the hearing. Additionally, the Town’s errors are not determinative of Jenkins’ employment status. Any contention that correcting the error in the payroll report would have an impact on changing Jenkins’ employee status is misplaced. To that end, the payroll report does not determine Jenkins’ employment status. 2 The undersigned rejects the memorandum as reliable evidence to help determine Jenkins’ employment status since the record demonstrates that Alejo had been working on Jenkins’ behalf to help her from receiving a financial loss for approximately two months. An internal title change by the Town did not change Jenkins’ status as a temporary yoga employee for Miami Lakes. Additionally, the record shows that the Town did not process Jenkins as it did for other volunteers. At hearing, Rey testified that there were categories of volunteers: resident volunteers that served on different committees and volunteers through agreements. Rey explained that volunteers with the Town are non- paid persons and the Town only reimburses volunteers for supplies by providing the funds or obtaining a receipt for reimbursement, neither of which occurred with Jenkins. Rey also testified that upon learning there was an issue with Jenkins’ employment, he explained to Jenkins that she had been hired by Miami Lakes as a “temporary employee to cover for a limited period of time.” Rey also testified that Jenkins was never considered a volunteer for the Town. Therefore, the greater weight of the evidence in this cause establishes that Miami Lakes employed Jenkins as a temporary yoga instructor. Hence, Jenkins was reemployed by an FRS employer, Miami Lakes.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Onier Llopiz, Esquire Joan Carlos Wizel, Esquire Lydecker Diaz 1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 For Respondent: Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Gayla Grant, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order that: Finds that Jenkins’ reemployment with Miami Lakes, an FRS municipality, failed to meet the DROP termination requirements; Upholds DMS’s October 2, 2020, notice of intended agency action that the Town of Miami Lakes is jointly and severally liable for repayment; Requires the Town of Miami Lakes to pay back the total overpayment of Jenkins’ benefits in the amount of $445.013.04; and Allows the Town of Miami Lakes to repay the overpayment in installments over a three- to five-year period. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2021. Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Gayla Grant, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 Onier Llopiz, Esquire Lydecker LLP 1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Joan Carlos Wizel, Esquire Lydecker LLP 1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor Miami, Florida 33131 Kristen Larson, Interim General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Trey D. Evans, Esquire Lydecker LLP 1221 Brickell Avenue, 19th Floor Miami, Florida 33131
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to participate in the Florida Retirement System (FRS), within the meaning of Subsection 121.021(17)(a), Florida Statutes (2009),1 as a substitute teacher for the Lee County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been an employee of the Lee County School Board (the School Board) from February 28, 2001, through the date of the final hearing. The School Board is a participating member in the FRS. Petitioner has never been a full-time employee of the School Board and has never been eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS. From February 28, 2001, until some time in May 2004, the School Board employed Petitioner in a temporary, part-time position. From some time in May 2004 through the date of the final hearing, the School Board has employed Petitioner as a substitute teacher. From February 28, 2001, through some time in May 2004, the School Board required part-time employees such as Petitioner to participate in a plan identified in the record as the Bencor FICA Alternative Plan (the Bencor Plan). The Bencor Plan provided retirement benefits for temporary teachers, who were not eligible for FRS retirement benefits. On May 25, 2004, Petitioner submitted a Distribution Request Form to withdraw her accumulated savings from the Bencor Plan. Petitioner was eligible to withdraw her retirement benefits from the Bencor Plan, because she changed her employment status from a temporary teacher to a substitute teacher. Some time in May 2004, Petitioner began teaching as a substitute teacher for the School Board. Petitioner has continued as a substitute teacher for the School Board through the date of the final hearing. As a substitute teacher, Petitioner is not a full-time employee, who is eligible for service credits for purposes of the FRS.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying Petitioner's request for FRS benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 11th day of August, 2010.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is eligible for vested deferred retirement pension benefits payable by the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund ("Fund").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, on the stipulation of the parties, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Fund is a vested defined benefit pension plan created by Special Act of the Florida Legislature pursuant to Chapter 185, Florida Statutes. See Ch. 24981, Laws of Fla. (1947), as amended by Ch. 88-105, Laws of Fla. ("Fund documents").1 It is funded by contributions from its members; the City of West Palm Beach, Florida; and the State of Florida. Mr. DeLong was employed by the Police Department of the City of West Palm Beach ("Police Department") on November 26, 1979. Mr. DeLong was injured in the line of duty in or about 1987. He submitted an Application for Retirement dated May 26, 1988, under the category of "Duty Disability." Mr. DeLong retired from the Police Department effective November 17, 1988, after the Board approved his application for disability retirement benefits. At the time of his disability retirement, Mr. DeLong had service credit under the Fund of eight years, 11 months, and 21 days. Mr. DeLong received a monthly disability retirement benefit of $1,725.59. In a letter dated April 19, 1989, Mr. DeLong applied for a specialized assignment with the Police Department. He enclosed with the letter an Application for Specialized Assignment, indicating that his "requested assignment" was "helicopter flight officer," and he stated that he believed he could "perform flight operations."2 The opening for specialized assignment for helicopter patrol was advertised in the April 7, 1989, Police Department Bulletin, and the assignment was described in pertinent part as follows: "The position will be considered a Part-time Position that will utilize selected officers both during their On-Duty and Off-Duty hours. Overtime will be afforded those who work while Off-Duty." At its meeting on June 14, 1989, the Board was advised of Mr. DeLong's application for specialized assignment as a helicopter pilot. Questions arose as to whether Mr. DeLong continued to be disabled, as defined in the Fund documents, and entitled to continue receiving disability retirement benefits. In order to determine if Mr. DeLong was still disabled, the Board directed that Mr. DeLong be examined by a physician chosen by the Board "for the purpose of securing a medical opinion as to whether Mr. DeLong is physically able to perform the duties of the position being sought."3 In a letter dated June 20, 1989, Michael F. McClure, the Assistant Chief of the Police Department's Uniform Services Division, advised Mr. DeLong that he could not be considered for the helicopter patrol assignment because he was "not a full-time employee with the police department."4 Chief McClure further stated that "[i]f, at some later date, you are determined by a physician to be capable of returning to full duty, you [sic] application will be considered."5 As reflected in the minutes of the Board's meetings on August 22, 1989; November 8, 1989; and December 7, 1989; the Board was unable to conclude, on the basis of the information provided to it, that Mr. DeLong was physically capable of performing the duties of a police officer. The minutes of the December 7, 1989, meeting reflect that Mr. DeLong's attorney at the time, Scott Richardson, represented to the Board that "Dr. Stone [the physician chosen by the Board to examine Mr. DeLong] stated that while Mr. DeLong is not totally disabled that he would be limited in terms of being prevented from performing the normal duties of a Police Officer."6 The minutes also reflect that Mr. Richardson stated that "the Police Department states that due to these limitations that Mr. DeLong would not be rehired."7 The Board's attorney framed the question before the Board at the December 7, 1989, meeting as follows: "[T]he question is whether Dr. Stone's re-evaluation would warrant the Trustees determining that Mr. DeLong was no longer eligible to receive Disability Benefits." At the conclusion of its discussion of Mr. DeLong's situation, the Board voted unanimously "to accept Dr. Stone's report and to recognize that Mr. DeLong is still eligible to receive Disability Benefits." Mr. DeLong continued receiving disability retirement benefits until the Board decided to discontinue the benefits at its meeting on October 30, 1990. In or about early October 1990, the Board learned that that Mr. DeLong was employed as "a sworn Law Enforcement Officer" with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office.8 Mr. DeLong was advised in a letter from the Board's attorney dated October 12, 1990, that “disability retirement is payable only as long as you are totally incapacitated from performing the functions of a police officer." Mr. DeLong was asked to appear at the Board's October 30, 1990, meeting to "show cause why your disability pension should not be terminated."9 In a letter dated October 23, 1990, Mr. DeLong's attorney advised the Board's attorney as follows: "Please be advised that Mr. DeLong, effective immediately, resigns his position with the West Palm Beach Police Department and relinquishes any right that he presently has to the disability pension previously granted. This letter will obviate the need for us to appear at the [Board's] October 30, 1990, meeting."10 In a letter dated October 29, 1990, Mr. DeLong returned his disability retirement benefit check to the Fund and confirmed that he "resigned his job as a police officer and terminated my duty disability pension."11 Because Mr. DeLong began his employment with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office effective May 1, 1990, the Board requested that he refund the amount of $10,553.54, which represented the total amount of disability retirement benefits he received between May 1, 1990, and October 1990.12 Mr. DeLong repaid the Fund in full. Mr. DeLong was not entitled to a return of his contributions to the Fund because the amount of disability retirement benefits he received exceeded his contribution. He did, however, receive payment of $5,497.90, which was the balance in his share account as of October 1, 1989.13 Mr. DeLong submitted to the Florida Retirement System Pension Plan a form dated June 24, 2005, requesting that it verify his retirement system service credit. He noted on the form that he had been employed by the West Palm Beach Police Department from November 1979 to April 1990. Mr. DeLong sent a letter to the Fund administrator, which was received on September 29, 2008, inquiring about his eligibility for a pension, the years of service that were credited to him, and any refunds due to him. Although the record is incomplete, it appears that, between July 2009 and February 2010, the Fund's representatives were trying to determine if Mr. DeLong was entitled to vested deferred retirement benefits either upon early retirement or upon normal retirement at age 55 years. Mr. DeLong was notified that his request for vested deferred retirement benefits would be discussed at the March 12, 2010, meeting of the Fund's Board. The minutes of the Board's March 12, 2010, meeting reflect that Mr. DeLong was not present. The issue of Mr. DeLong's eligibility to receive vested deferred retirement benefits was presented to the Board, and the minutes indicate that the Board decided not to "apply any credited service to Mr. DeLong during his time of disability."14 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of the parties thereto pursuant to the contract between the Fund and the Division of Administrative Hearings and Sections 120.565 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2010). Mr. DeLong is seeking to establish his eligibility for vested deferred retirement benefits from the Fund and, therefore, has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. See Haines v. Department of Children & Families, 983 So. 2d 602, 605 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)(citing Department of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996))(general rule is that party asserting affirmative of issue has burden of presenting evidence as to issue, as well as ultimate burden of persuasion); Florida Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. ("Findings of fact shall be based upon a preponderance of the evidence, except in penal or licensure disciplinary proceedings or except as otherwise provided by statute "). The preponderance of the evidence standard requires proof by "the greater weight of the evidence," Black's Law Dictionary 1201 (7th ed. 1999), or evidence that "more likely than not" tends to prove a certain proposition. See Gross v. Lyons, 763 So. 2d 276, 289 n.1 (Fla. 2000)(relying on American Tobacco Co. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1249, 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) quoting Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 175 (1987)). At the times pertinent to this proceeding, the Fund documents defined the terms under which the Fund operated. Section (2) of the Fund documents included the following definitions, pertinent to this proceeding: "Member" or "participant" means any person who is included in the membership of the fund. * * * (k) "Police officer" means any person who is elected, appointed, or employed full-time by the city . . . . * * * "Retirant" means any member who retires with a pension from the fund. "Retirement" means a member's withdrawal from city employment with a pension payable from the fund. * * * (q) "Service," "credited service," or "service credit" means the total number of years, and fractional parts of years, of service of any police officer omitting intervening years and fractional parts of years, when such police officer was not employed by the city. . . . Section (8) of the Fund documents described the age and service requirements for retirement and provided for normal retirement, vested deferred retirement, and early retirement. Pertinent to this proceeding, "vested deferred retirement" applied to members of the Fund "with 10 or more years of credited service" who "leave the employment of the department for any reason except retirement or death." § (8)(b) of the Fund documents. If a police officer is eligible for vested deferred retirement, the police officer shall be entitled to a pension on early retirement or at the normal retirement age. Id. Mr. DeLong claims that he is entitled to a vested deferred retirement benefit because his years of active employment as a police officer with the Police Department, plus the one year, five months, and 13 days during which he received disability retirement benefits, total slightly more than 10 years. Duty disability retirement pensions are governed by the provisions of Section (11) of the Fund documents, which provided in pertinent part: (a) Retirement.--Any member who becomes physically or mentally, totally and permanently disabled to perform the duties of a police officer, by reason of a personal injury or disease arising out of and in the course of the performance of his or her duties as a police officer, in the employ of the city, shall be retired with a pension provided for in this subsection; provided, that after a medical examination of the member made by or under the direction of the medical committee, the medical committee reports to the board, in writing whether: The member is wholly prevented from rendering useful and efficient service as a police officer; and The member is likely to remain so disabled continuously and permanently. . . * * * (c) Duty disability pension benefits; disability occurs before age and service eligibility.--A member whose retirement on account of disability, as provided in paragraph (a) of this subsection, occurs prior to the date he or she would become eligible to retire under paragraph (8) hereof [normal, vested deferred, or early retirement], shall receive a disability pension The disability pension . . . shall be subject to subsection (12) hereof. Subsection (12) of the Fund documents sets forth "[c]onditions applicable to all disability retirants," and provided in pertinent part: (c) Payment of disability pensions.-- Monthly disability retirement benefits shall be payable as of the date the board determines that the member was entitled to a disability pension; . . . The last payment shall be, if the police officer recovers from the disability prior to his or her normal retirement date, the payment due next preceding the date of recovery, . . . . * * * Reexaminations of disability retirants.--At least once each year during the first 5 years following a member's retirement on account of disability, and at least once in each 3-year period thereafter, the board shall require any disability retirant who has not attained age 50 to undergo a medical examination to be made by a physician designated by the board. . . . If, upon such medical examination of such retirant, the said physician reports to the board that the retirant is physically able and capable of performing the duties of a police officer in the rank held by him or her at the time of his or her retirement, the member shall be returned to employment in the department at a salary not less than the rank held by him or her and his or her disability pension shall terminate. Credited service for disability retirant.-- In the event a disability retirant is returned to employment in the department, as provided in paragraph (e), he or she shall again become a member of the fund and the credited service in force at the time of the member's retirement shall be restored to his or her credit. If he or she retired under a duty disability as provided in paragraph (11)(a) hereof, he or she shall be given service credit for the period he or she was in receipt of a disability pension. . . . Pursuant to Section (12)(e) and (f) of the Fund documents, Mr. DeLong would have been eligible to receive service credit for the period during which he received disability retirement benefits only if it was determined that he was physically capable of performing the duties of a police officer and if he returned to employment with the Police Department. Based on the minutes of the relevant Board meetings, there was no determination by the Board that Mr. DeLong was physically capable of returning to duty as a police officer prior to its learning, in October 1990, that Mr. DeLong had been employed by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department since May 1, 1990. In fact, Mr. DeLong's attorney conceded at the Board's December 7, 1989, meeting that Mr. DeLong continued to have limitations on his ability to perform the normal duties of a police officer. The Board voted at that time to continue Mr. DeLong's disability retirement benefits, an implicit finding by the Board that Mr. DeLong remained totally and permanently disabled as defined in Section (11)(a) of the Fund documents. Based on the findings of fact herein, even had the Board concluded that Mr. DeLong was no longer permanently and totally disabled, the Police Department did not refuse to return him to employment. The only application for employment submitted to the Police Department by Mr. DeLong was an Application for Specialized Assignment as a helicopter pilot, which he submitted in April 1989. Mr. DeLong could not be given this "specialized assignment" because he was no longer employed as a full-time police officer by the Police Department, which employment was a prerequisite for consideration for a specialized assignment. Consequently, the Police Department could not hire Mr. DeLong for this position. Mr. DeLong contends in his proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law that his employment with the Police Department actually ended when the Police Department terminated his employment effective May 1, 1990, the day he began his employment with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department. To the contrary, in accordance with the definition of "retirement" in Section (2)(o) of the Fund documents, Mr. DeLong withdrew from his employment with the Police Department on November 17, 1988, the effective date of his retirement and his entitlement to disability benefits from the Fund. His purported "resignation” of his position with the Police Department on October 23, 1990, was ineffective and did not alter his termination date under the Fund documents. Based on the pertinent provisions of the Fund documents, as applied to the facts found herein, Mr. DeLong is not entitled to service credit for the period of time he received disability retirement benefits from the Fund. His service credit at the time of his retirement and withdrawal from employment with the Police Department was, pursuant to Section (2)(q) of the Fund documents, eight years, 11 months, and 21 days. Mr. DeLong has fewer than 10 years of service credit with the Police Department, and he has, therefore, failed to meet his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he is eligible for vested deferred retirement benefits from the Fund.15
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund enter a final order finding that Michael L. DeLong did not accrue service credit during the time he received disability retirement benefits and is, therefore, not eligible for vested deferred retirement benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S PATRICIA M. HART 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 12th day of October, 2010.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Judith Richards, is eligible for the health insurance subsidy offered to Florida Retirement System retirees.
Findings Of Fact In November 2011, Petitioner was hired by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office to work as a crossing guard. The Osceola County Sheriff’s Office is an FRS-participating employer, and the position held by Petitioner was in the 2 It is well established that issues related to subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time during the pendency of a proceeding. 84 Lumber Co. v. Cooper, 656 So. 2d 1297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). “Regular Class” of FRS membership. In 2011, newly hired eligible employees (members) of the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office were required to participate in either the FRS pension plan or the investment plan. Petitioner elected to participate in the investment plan. Generally, the pension plan offers eligible employees a formulaic fixed monthly retirement benefit, whereas an employee’s investment plan benefits are “provided through member-directed investments.” Pursuant to section 112.363, Florida Statutes, retired members of any state-administered retirement system will receive an HIS benefit if certain eligibility requirements are satisfied. Section 112.363(1) provides that a monthly subsidy payment will be provided “to retired members of any state- administered retirement system in order to assist such retired members in paying the costs of health insurance.” Section 112.363(3)(e)2. provides that beginning July 1, 2002, each eligible member of the investment plan shall receive “a monthly retiree health insurance subsidy payment equal to the number of years of creditable service, as provided in this subparagraph, completed at the time of retirement, multiplied by $5; … [and] an eligible retiree or beneficiary may not receive a subsidy payment of more than $150 or less than $30.” On July 18, 2019, Petitioner’s employment with the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office ended, and at that time she had 7.77 years of FRS creditable service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a final order denying the application for retiree health insurance subsidy submitted by Mrs. Richards. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of March, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Gayla Grant, Esquire Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David DiSalvo, Director Division of Retirement Department of Management Services Post Office Box 9000 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-9000 Judith Richards 2337 Louise Street Kissimmee, Florida 34741 William Chorba, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether the certificate of Charles L. Dale should be revoked for failure to maintain good moral character under Section 943.1395(5), Florida Statutes (1985) and Section 943.13(7), Florida Statues (1985).
Findings Of Fact Charles L. Dale is certified as a correctional officer in the State of Florida under a certificate issued March 14, 1984 (Tr. 35) 1/ Charles L. Dale married Cynthia Dale and together they had two children. Mr. and Mrs. Dale separated and Mr. Dale was required by court order to make child support payments to Mrs. Dale (Tr. 10). After he fell behind in those payments he had been ordered to bring them current and a date was set by which he was to produce evidence of having made the payments.(Tr. 12). In July of 1985, the day before the date on which Mr. Dale was to produce receipts for having made the past due payments he met Cynthia Dale and drove her to the courthouse. While they were in the car he asked her to sign a receipt for the child support, but she would not sign because it has not been paid (Tr. 12). When she refused to sign the receipt, Mr. Dale put a gun to Cynthia Dale's head to get her to sign the receipts, because he did not want to be jailed for failure to make the child support payments (Tr. 13). Cynthia Dale was in fear that she would be shot if she did not sign the receipt (Tr. 13-14). Mr. Dale ultimately gave up his threats in frustration when Cynthia Dale would not sign the receipt (Tr. 14). Shortly after the incident, Mrs. Dale reported the matter to Officer Kathy Kilpatrick of the West Palm Beach Police Department (Tr.18). The report in this matter resulted in a communication from the police department to the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office where Mr. Dale was employed (Tr.19). The matter was investigated by William Martin of the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office for violation of departmental rules on improper use of firearms by Mr. Dale (Tr. 22-23). During the investigation by Deputy Martin, Mr. Dale denied that he had pulled his gun, pointed his gun or even touched his gun while with Cynthia Dale, and denied attempting to force her to sign a receipt for child support, although he did admit there had been a dispute regarding back child support payments. (Tr. 26). Detective Martin performed a polygraph examination upon Mr. Dale and during the post-test interview discrepancies in Mr. Dale's statement he believed the examination had disclosed (Tr.28). In that post-test interview, Mr. Dale admitted that he had pointed his gun at Cynthia Dale for about three minutes, after which time he opened the cylinder on the gun thus removing the bullets from the chamber where they could be fired (Tr. 30). The next day Mr. Dale resigned from the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Department (Tr. 31).
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the certification of Charles L. Dale be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 1986.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, is entitled to relocate its employee, Perry Kirkland, from an assignment in Jacksonville, Florida, to an assignment in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Perry Kirkland, the Respondent, is employed as a beverage sergeant with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. He has been employed with that division for sixteen years. Within that employment period, he has worked for one year in Orlando, two years in Miami, a period of time in Daytona Beach and then was assigned to Jacksonville, Florida, where he has remained as an employee with the exception of a period of time of 28 days beginning on September 19, 1977, when he was working for the same division in West Palm Beach, Florida. His service in the present type of classification began in 1968 when he was made an enforcement supervisor. His category was later changed to beverage sergeant in 1975. He is a permanent status employee. The underlying nature of the dispute between the Petitioner and Respondent concerns the Petitioner's effort to have the Respondent moved from Jacksonville, Florida, to West Palm Beach, Florida, on a permanent basis, as a condition of the Respondent's employment. The propriety or impropriety of such a requirement may be best understood by discussing the background facts which led to his proposed relocation. In the late fall or early winter of 1976, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Charles A. Nuzum, in conjunction with his subordinates, determined that it was necessary to transfer certain personnel from the Marianna office to the Panama City office. The purpose of such transfer was to promote more comprehensive enforcement in the Panama City area which was thought to be necessary, and had as its correlative purpose the removal of employees from the Marianna office, where the workload was not as substantial as that in Panama City. In essence, it has been decided that a full-fledged office would he opened in Panama City, in contrast to a sort of impromptu office that was in existence at the time. To make this change in personnel, it was necessary for the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to get the approval of the Department of Administration, Division of Budget. Mr. Nuzum and his chief of law enforcement met with representatives of the Department of Administration, Division of Budget, to include Elton Revell, a senior budget analyst. The purpose of this meeting was to present the request for changes in the Marianna and Panama City Offices. Revell advised the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco that the Division of Budget could not go along with the "piecemeal" resolution of the problem of a disparity in the efforts of fulfilling the mission of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. It was Revell's position that it would be necessary to consider the entire state in evaluating such realignment, before any approval could be granted. As an example of his position, Revell specifically mentioned that he thought that Live Oak and Jacksonville were offices that were overstaffed. At the insistence of the Division of Budget, and in keeping with his own analysis of the needs of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Mr. Nuzum undertook the task of analyzing the assignment status of the manpower of the division statewide, in an effort to achieve the mandate of his division's function more uniformly. The director had the benefit of certain weekly and monthly reports filed by the field agents in the categories of the division's overall mission. He also had the benefit of an overview of the conditions in the district offices, having made personal visits to the offices around the state. However, it was determined that a more specific study was necessary to get a true picture of the conditions in the district and sub-district offices for purposes of presenting the proposed realignment of personnel to the Department of Administration, Division of Budget. The principal task of doing the study was assigned to John Berry, an auditor with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. Berry performed a workload study for a period in 1976, which was designed to determine the time that the agents within the district offices were spending in the primary agency functions, which are licensing and enforcement. The result of this study may he found in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, admitted into evidence. Berry in compiling his study, examined the various functions being performed in the Jacksonville District Office and the West Palm Peach District Office, which are Districts III and X respectively. It was determined, per his workload study, that although Jacksonville and West Palm Beach had a comparable number of licenses in their district, the number of manhours being spent in the performance of the licensing and enforcement functions of the division were significantly disproportionate. This is borne out by an examination of the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which shows 2,067 licenses in Jacksonville and 2,015 licenses in West Palm Beach, for the various counties in the districts. Although this number is relatively close, manhours in the licensing function in Jacksonville was some 9,907 hours and the licensing manhours in West Palm Beach were 6,683. Likewise, the enforcement manhours in Jacksonville were 10,250, an even greater gap existed for enforcement in West Palm Beach in comparison to Jacksonville, in that the total manhours spent for that function in West Palm Beach was 3,355. These statistics were derived from an examination of the weekly and monthly reports from the personnel within the Jacksonville and Palm Beach offices. The statistics were also borne out by the testimony of the lieutenant in charge of the West Palm Beach office, who indicated that due to a shortage of manpower, the enforcement function in the West Palm Beach area was woefully inadequate. This discussion of the Jacksonville and West Palm Beach district offices leads to further consideration of the efforts made by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco to have their personnel realigned. After Director Nuzum had received the workload study, he had a further discussion of the authenticity of that study, with members of the staff, to include the district supervisors. His communication with the district supervisors had been by sending them a copy of the workload study to solicit their remarks. This study was forwarded to the district supervisors some time in March, 1977. After this discussion, the study was accepted. On June 7, 1977, the director forwarded the reorganization proposal to Mr. J. Jackson Walter, the Executive Director of the Department of Business Regulation, of which the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco is a part. This reorganization proposal was forwarded in conjunction with a request made by Mr. Walter. Again, the contents of this proposal are found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, which includes the workload study and a specific indication of how many persons would be reassigned to the various offices. It also includes a copy of the then present manning chart and a copy of the proposed manning chart after the changes. At that point in time, the exact persons who would be moved had not been determined. Moreover, the criteria for moving individuals from one location to another was still under discussion. Finally, it was determined that the basis for movement would be on the grounds of seniority, should there be two possible candidates for relocation and a decision become necessary for selecting one of those two persons. Sergeant Kirkland was in that category, because within the Jacksonville district there were two beverage sergeants and the other beverage sergeant was a more senior member of the division. Therefore, Kirkland was chosen to be relocated from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach. The purpose of this relocation was primarily to promote a more consistent enforcement pattern in terms of hours spent in that function statewide and between Jacksonville and West Palm Beach. A related reason was to allow some assistance to the lieutenant in charge of the West Palm Beach office, in terms of supervision of the field beverage officers of basic rank. A letter was forwarded to the district supervisors and district auditors from Mr. Nuzum, indicating that the realignment of personnel assignments would be on the basis of seniority. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 submitted into evidence is a copy of that notification. After determining that seniority would be the criterion for the relocation of personnel involved, the Division Director submitted his proposals through the Department of Business Regulation for transmittal to the Department of Administration for their approval. The Department of Administration approved the reorganization and J. Revell of the Department of Administration informed Floyd L. Dorn of the Department of Business Regulation's personnel office, that this approval had been granted. This approval came about in August, 1977. After receiving the notification of approval, Director Nuzum then began to advise the personnel who were affected by the reorganization in terms of any relocation. As stated before, Sergeant Kirkland was a person involved in the relocation question. Assistant Chief of Enforcement, Ken Ball, on the basis of the seniority standard, determined that Sergeant Kirkland should be transferred from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach. This was approved by Director Nuzum and this particular change was indicated on the reorganization position chart, which was Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 submitted into evidence. His position number is 00092. The Respondent had filled the 00092 position while working in Jacksonville. His primary function was as supervisor of the enforcement section of the district, with the exception of the period of time in which he was acting in the dual capacity of enforcement supervisor and acting district supervisor. His duties during that latter period are described in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. This duty description was made by Sergeant Kirkland. When the present district supervisor, Captain Oganowski, took over the permanent job of district supervisor in Jacksonville, Sergeant Kirkland went back to filling the duties of enforcement supervisor. This function entailed the supervision of the enforcement division, as opposed to enforcement and licensing or licensing. Sergeant Kirkland continued to hold this position except for a short period of time in 1975 when he changed positions with the licensing supervisor. This is reflected in Respondent's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 shows the reassignment of Kirkland back to the job 00092, (enforcement supervisor) in Jacksonville. During his tenure with the division, Sergeant Kirkland has maintained a high standard of performance in his various assignments. The current description of duties and responsibilities which the Respondent is expected to assume in the West Palm Beach office may be found as a part of Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence. This function includes the supervision of both enforcement and licensing personnel. When it was determined that Sergeant Kirkland would be sent to West Palm Beach, the Director of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco telephonically communicated the notice of this transfer. It was followed by a letter indicating the transfer, a copy of which is Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. The date of the written notification is August 25, 1977. The official report of personnel action setting the effective date of the relocation was dated September 15, 1977, and made the effective date September 19, 1977. A copy of this report of personnel action is Respondent's Exhibit No. 3 admitted into evidence. The type of action indicated on this form is original appointment, with the additional statement entered as "Continued." In fact, the relocation of Sergeant Kirkland is a reassignment within the meaning of Rule 22A-7.08, F.A.C. It is a reassignment because the appointment involved a move from one position in one class to a different position in the same class. The position move, is a move from the 00092 position in Jacksonville, which involves the supervision of enforcement personnel in Jacksonville, to the 00092 position in West Palm Beach, which involves the supervision of both enforcement and licensing personnel. Under the terms of Rule 22A-7.08, F.A.C., Kirkland may not appeal that reassignment. However, since it involves a geographic transfer of more than fifty miles the Respondent is entitled to appeal this decision to the Career Service Commission, in keeping with the authority of Rule 22A-7.09, F.A.C. The Respondent has challenged this relocation by his Career Service Appeal. That appeal has two principal contentions. The first contention concerns the assertion that the transfer does not fall within any of the types of enumerated appointments found in Rule 22A-7, F.A.C. As already shown, this position has been rejected, because the appointment has been determined to be a reassignment appointment. The second contention of the appeal is that any transfer from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach would cause irreparable financial harm and hardship on the Respondent and his wife. In connection with this assertion, Sergeant Kirkland produced evidence that the housing in the West Palm Beach area is more expensive than that in Jacksonville, and that, not withstanding the amount of equity which he might realize from the sale of his Jacksonville property, he still would incur approximately $15,000 additional cost for housing. This housing would not be comparable to his Jacksonville housing, due to the difference in the available amount of property and size of the home itself being smaller in West Palm Beach. The house that he is purchasing in Jacksonville is a four-bedroom, two-bath, two-carport home. The house being contemplated for purchase in West Palm Beach is a three-bedroom, two-bath home. Furthermore, the cost of the mortgage in Jacksonville is $165 and this cost would be exceeded in West Palm Beach even if the equity realized in the sale of Jacksonville home were put toward the down payment. It was also established that the restaurant cost in the West Palm Beach area is greater than that cost in Jacksonville. Sergeant Kirkland's wife testified that she is a hospital operating room nurse who has established a certain amount of seniority in her present employment. She is also only one year away from being able to retire with retirement benefits. If she is required to move, she would lose those benefits and also have to start at the bottom of the seniority list in any new employment in a hospital operating room in West Palm Beach. Finally, the Respondent demonstrated that to move from the Jacksonville community to West Palm Beach would cause him to lose church membership and other community activities in which he is involved. In spite of the degree of hardship which has been demonstrated by the Respondent in his presentation, a review of all the facts and circumstances would justify the Petitioner's action in its reassignment transfer of the Respondent. The action was not a punishment, it was a circumstance where the needs of the Petitioner in this instance, are more compelling than the hardship which will be caused Sergeant Kirkland and his family.
Recommendation It is recommended that the proposed reassignment appointment transfer of the Respondent from Jacksonville to West Palm Beach in the position 00092 he approved and that the appeal by the Respondent challenging this action by the Petitioner be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 30 day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Glickstein, Jr., Esquire 1205 Universal Marion Building Post Office Box 1086 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Francis Bailey, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32201 Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Division of Personnel and Retirement 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
