The Issue The issues to be determined is whether the City of Destin (“City”) has demonstrated its entitlement to place dredged material from the maintenance dredging of the East Pass (“East Pass” or “inlet”) entrance channel conducted pursuant to the Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit Number: 0288799-003-JC (“Permit”), in the swash zone east of East Pass in accordance with the Notice to Proceed (“NTP”); and whether the Inlet Management Plan referenced in the NTP is an unadopted rule as described in section 120.57(1)(e), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, the stipulations of the parties, and the evidentiary record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Petitioners, David H. Sherry and Rebecca R. Sherry, own Unit 511 at the Surf Dweller Condominium, 554 Coral Court, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The Surf Dweller Condominium, which is on Santa Rosa Island in the unincorporated community of Okaloosa Island,1/ fronts the Gulf of Mexico, and straddles DEP Reference Monument R-7, which is between three and four miles west of DEP Virtual Monument V-611, and is between five and six miles west of the west side of East Pass. The Sherrys use the beach at their condominium on a daily basis for fishing, crabbing, swimming, walking, running, and general recreation. They also walk or run from Monument R-7 along the beaches to East Pass, and occasionally drive to and use the beaches on the east side of East Pass. Petitioner, John S. Donovan, owns Units 131 and 132 at the El Matador Condominium, 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. The El Matador Condominium is on Okaloosa Island, fronts the Gulf of Mexico, and is approximately five miles west of Monument V-611, and is more than six miles west of the west side of East Pass. Mr. Donovan generally walks the beaches west of his condominium, but does occasionally walk along the beach to Monument V-607, which is the location of a seawall constructed by the Air Force on sovereign submerged lands to protect an Air Force tracking facility. Intervenor, Thomas Wilson, resides at 856 Edgewood Drive, Charleston, West Virginia, and owns a secondary residence at 1530 Miracle Strip Parkway, No. 101-B, Fort Walton Beach, Florida, in the vicinity of Monument R-14. Mr. Wilson uses and enjoys the gulf-front beaches between his property on Okaloosa Island and East Pass. Petitioners’ stated injuries are related to the allegation that the lateral movement of sand from the East Pass areas of influence is from east to west. Placing dredged material in the eastern disposal site would allegedly deprive the beaches in front of their property -- beaches that are miles from the nearest area of influence or spoil disposal site -- of their natural sand supply by cutting off what they allege to be the natural sand flow, causing the beaches in front of their properties to eventually erode. Petitioners alleged no immediate environmental injuries associated with the NTP. Petitioners’ stated objective in this case is to have any sand dredged from East Past to be placed on the western disposal areas at all times. The City is the applicant for the Permit and the NTP, and abuts the east side of East Pass. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.255, Florida Statutes. DEP is the permitting authority in this proceeding and issued the NTP at issue in this proceeding to the City. The NTP was issued on February 2, 2018, without notice of rights language regarding the right to request a hearing or time limits for doing so. Petitioners received a copy of the NTP on October 1, 2018, and filed a challenge more than 14 days later, on November 30, 2018. East Pass Prior to 1928, the connection from Choctawhatchee Bay to the Gulf of Mexico flowed through what is now Old Pass Lagoon. After a storm in 1928, a high-tide breach of the shoreline near the current location of East Pass was formed. In 1929, a record rain event caused waters to rise in Choctawhatchee Bay. Residents of the area dug a relief channel at roughly the present location of East Pass. The waters releasing through the more hydraulically efficient flow path from Choctawhatchee Bay established a channel, which quickly enlarged to become the prominent inlet to the Gulf of Mexico. The permanent channel, now known as East Pass, is the only navigable passage from Choctawhatchee Bay and the Intercoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico between Panama City, Florida, and Pensacola, Florida. East Pass separates the gulf-fronting beaches of the City to its east from the beaches owned by the United States as part of Eglin Air Force Base to the west. The entrance to East Pass is protected by two boulder-mount jetties: a 3,860 foot- long jetty on the west side of the inlet and a 1,210 foot-long jetty on the east side of the inlet. East Pass is an ebb tide dominated inlet, with a sizable amount of sediment moving in and out. When outgoing tidal flow moves though the constriction formed by the jetties, flow velocities are accelerated. When the water, and any entrained sediment, passes the jetties, flow tends to spread out to the east, west, and south, and naturally loses velocity. When the outgoing tidal waters reach a critical velocity where they can no longer carry the sand, the sand drops out of suspension, which forms the ebb shoal. Essentially, the ebb shoal is a large, semi-circular sandbar extending from the mouth of East Pass that was created by the ebb tide carrying sediments south. East Pass is a highly dynamic inlet system. There are processes spurred by the configuration and location of East Pass, tides, waves, and storms that have resulted in currents running to the east and west that change on a frequent basis. The Physical Monitoring Plan (“PMP”), which is part of the Permit, and thus, not subject to challenge in this case, established, for the period of 1996 through 2007, “a trend of west to east longshore transport, resulting in net gain immediately west of [East Pass] and a significant loss of sand along Holiday Isle east of [East Pass].” The PMP further established that a “drift nodal point” existed at East Pass. Longshore transport at uniform coastal locations is generally in one direction. However, when there are wave events coming from varying angles, and where beach contours are not parallel and uniform, or even linear, it is common for transport reversals to occur. The point at which those reversals occur is referred to as a nodal point. That point can be where east and west transport converges, or where it diverges. The shoreline in the vicinity of East Pass has exhibited “quite a few” nodal points over the past decade, resulting in frequent drift reversals and sand transport to the east and the west. The evidence as to the existence and effect of the East Pass drift nodal point, and its affect on the lateral transport of sand in the area, including the East Pass areas of influence, was substantiated by testimony and other evidence introduced at the final hearing. The testimony and evidence that there is no consistent direction of lateral sand transport in the vicinity of East Pass, and no predominant lateral current transporting sand in a westerly direction, is accepted. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. East Pass includes a federal navigation channel. The federal navigation channel requires routine maintenance to prevent it from shoaling. On an average, East Pass is dredged in two-year intervals. The last time that East Pass was dredged was in December of 2013. It has now shoaled with sand and become very hazardous for marine traffic. In December of 2018, the City declared a state of emergency relating to the navigational hazards caused by the accumulation of sand in the navigation channel. The Permit On February 26, 2015, DEP issued the Permit, which authorized the City to perform “periodic maintenance dredging of the federally authorized East Pass and Destin Harbor and navigation channels.” The Permit will expire on February 26, 2030. Notice of the issuance of this Permit was published in the Destin Log, a newspaper of general circulation, on December 24, 2014. No challenge to the issuance of the Permit was filed. As it pertains to the issues in this proceeding, the Permit provides that “Dredged material from . . . maintenance dredging activities will be placed in the swash zones of the beaches east and west of East Pass, as specified in the East Pass Inlet Management Plan.” The specific beach spoil placement sites are, as relevant to this proceeding, located “west of East Pass . . . between [DEP] reference monuments V-611 and V-622; and on 2 beach sites situated east of East Pass . . . from R-17 to R-20.5 and from R-23.5 to R-25.5.” Those areas correspond to what have been identified as the “areas of influence,” which are the beach areas east and west of East Pass that are affected by tidal forces generated by the inlet. The specified beach spoil placement sites, being conditions of the unchallenged Permit, are not subject to challenge in this case. The Permit establishes the criteria by which specific work is to be authorized. Specific Condition 5 provides, in pertinent part, that: 5. No work shall be conducted under this permit until the Permittee has received a written notice to proceed from the Department for each event. At least 30 days prior to the requested date of issuance of the notice to proceed, the Permittee shall submit a written request for a Notice to Proceed along with the following items for review and approval by the Department: * * * Prior to the second dredging event authorized under this permit, and each subsequent event, the Physical Monitoring Data, as specified in Specific Condition 9, shall be submitted to select the appropriate placement locations. Specific Condition 9 provides that: Following the initial placement of material on Norriego Point, fill site selection shall be supported by the latest physical monitoring data over a minimum of five years in accordance with the adopted East Pass Inlet Management Implementation Plan (July 24, 2013). All physical monitoring shall be conducted in accordance to the Approved physical monitoring plan dated August, 2014. A notice to proceed for specific projects shall be withheld pending concurrence by the Department that the data support the proposed placement location. The purpose of Specific Condition 9 is to identify, using supporting monitoring data from the eastern and western areas of influence, the “adjacent eroding beach” most in need of sand from the inlet. The requirement that physical monitoring data be used to determine which of the beach spoil placement sites identified in the Permit’s Project Description will receive the spoil from any particular periodic dredging event was to implement section 161.142, Florida Statutes. That section mandates that “maintenance dredgings of beach-quality sand are placed on the adjacent eroding beaches,” and establishes the overriding policy of the state regarding disposition of sand from navigational channel maintenance dredging. East Pass Inlet Management Implementation Plan The East Pass Inlet Management Implementation Plan (“East Pass IMP”) was adopted by Final Order of DEP on July 30, 2013.2/ The East Pass IMP was not adopted through the rulemaking procedures proscribed by chapter 120, Florida Statutes, or DEP rules. Despite a comprehensive Notice of Rights advising persons whose substantial interests could be affected of the means by which the East Pass IMP could be challenged, it was not. There are 44 maintained inlets in Florida. About half have individual inlet management plans. The East Pass IMP is not applicable to any inlet other than East Pass. The East Pass IMP does not require that any quantity of dredged material from the dredging of East Pass be placed at any particular location other than as established in the Permit. Rather, the disposal site is to be determined on a case-by-case basis based on the best monitoring data available for the beaches in the area of influence of East Pass. The critical element of the IMP, and that in keeping with the statutory requirement that sand be placed on “adjacent eroding beaches” is the “strategy” that “the recent erosion of adjacent beaches observed over a minimum of five years shall define the placement need in terms of location and volume.” The East Pass IMP, being applicable only to East Pass, is not of “general applicability.” Furthermore, the East Pass IMP does not implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy. The Notice to Proceed On January 30, 2018, the City filed its Request for Notice to Proceed (“Request”). The Request addressed the criteria in Specific Conditions 5 and 9 of the Permit. Upon review, DEP determined the conditions of the Permit were satisfied and issued the NTP on February 2, 2018. The analysis of data submitted as part of the Request was designed to show areas of erosion and accretion within the eastern and western areas of influence in order to identify “critically eroded beaches.” The shoreline of Santa Rosa Island to the west of East Pass has historically been stable. To be sure, as is the case with any shoreline, there will be some areas of erosion and some areas of accretion. After Hurricanes Ivan and Opal, areas of Santa Rosa Island experienced erosion. DEP declared the shoreline to be critically eroded after the 2004-2005 hurricane seasons, which prompted Okaloosa County to commission a study to monitor the health of the Monuments R-1 through R-16 beach segment, a segment that includes Petitioners’ residences. Despite the fact that no post-storm beach restoration occurred in the area, the beach recovered naturally and gained sand following the post-storm recovery. In addition, Santa Rosa Island is known for “beach cusps,” which are crenulate3/ shapes along the shoreline. Depending on the season and storm conditions, those beach cusps can have a localized erosive effect on the beach, but those tend to be seasonal. They do not negate what the evidence shows to be the overall stable to accretional conditions of the beaches west of East Pass from Monument V-622 to Petitioners’ residences. Mr. Trammell offered testimony, including a discussion of photographic evidence, demonstrating the beaches west of East Pass have large dunes; multiple dune lines; tall, and thick vegetated dunes indicating established dune growth; pioneering vegetation indicating active, healthy dune growth and accretion; partially buried signs indicating dune advance; and broad and expansive beaches. Those features are indicative of a stable and accretional shoreline. Mr. Trammell’s testimony as to the western spoil disposal site was convincing and is accepted. At present, the Santa Rosa Island shoreline is not deemed by DEP to be “critically eroded.” The photographic evidence supports the data collected over time for the beaches west of East Pass, and the testimony offered at the final hearing, which collectively establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beaches to the west of East Pass are stable and accretional, are not subject to erosion caused by East Pass, and are not “adjacent eroding beaches” as that term is used in section 161.142. The shoreline east of East Pass, including the eastern area of influence and the proposed dredge material disposal sites at Monuments R-17 to R-20.5 and R-23.5 to R-25, except for the area immediately abutting the eastern jetty, is highly erosional. Mr. Trammell offered testimony, including a discussion of photographic evidence, demonstrating the beaches east of East Pass exhibit the following signs of significant and ongoing erosion: extensive dune erosion; exposed sea oat roots; reduced beach elevation; reduced beach width; crenulate bays; newly built dune walkovers that replaced old walkovers claimed by erosion; dune walkovers in close proximity to the shoreline indicating that the shoreline had receded to the walkover; and beach scarping at the shoreline indicating active erosion. Mr. Trammell’s testimony as to the eastern spoil disposal sites was convincing and is accepted. The eastern areas of influence are currently designated to be “critically eroded” by DEP, a designation maintained for more than 10 years. The photographic evidence supports the data collected over time for the beaches east of East Pass, and the testimony offered at the final hearing, which collectively establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the beaches to the east of East Pass are critically eroded, a condition that is influenced by East Pass and or its navigational channel, and are “adjacent eroding beaches” as that term is used in section 161.142. Data in Support of the NTP The data submitted by the City to DEP in support of the Request included monitoring data for the eastern beach placement areas from the West Destin Four-Year Post-construction Monitoring Report and earlier annual post-construction reports covering the period from October 2012 to July 2017, and additional data from the Holiday Isle Emergency Beach Fill Two-Year Post-construction Report. DEP was also provided with historical monitoring data for the area west of East Pass, including the Western Beach Monitoring Report, which covered 2006 to 2017, and the Potential Borrow Area Impact Report, which included data from 1996 through 2012. DEP has also received recent profile data from April 2019. These reports, and the data contained within them, cumulatively provide more than 20 years of survey date, and demonstrate convincingly that the shoreline to the west of East Pass has been stable or accreting, and the areas to the east are eroded. The data submitted in support of the Request was sufficient to meet Specific Condition 9 that fill site selection be supported by the latest physical monitoring data over a minimum of five years in accordance with the East Pass IMP. Petitioners argue that the City failed to comply with the PMP, which requires, among other things, that the analysis of the dredged material disposal area include “preconstruction survey data and the most recent survey conducted at least five years prior.” The PMP establishes that “[p]reconstruction surveys shall be conducted no more than 90 days before construction commences. A prior beach monitoring survey of the beach and offshore may be submitted for the pre-construction survey if consistent with the other requirements” of the PMP. The City submitted a prior beach monitoring survey of the beach and offshore that is consistent with the PMP. Petitioners argue that the City violated a temporal limitation which provides that the City “may submit a prior beach restoration monitoring report for the west or east beach areas (Walton-Destin or Western Destin Beach Restoration Project) if the monitoring data is collected within 1 year of the proposed maintenance dredging event and if consistent with the other requirements of this condition.” Petitioners acknowledge in their PRO that the beach restoration monitoring report was timely when the Request for NTP was submitted. The information contained therein was sufficient to support the notice of proposed action on the NTP. The otherwise compliant data is no longer within one year of the proposed dredge. In that regard, the litigation in this case, initiated by Petitioners, has been ongoing for almost one year. Work authorized by the NTP cannot go forward when subject to challenge. If the PMP, which is not a rule, is unreasonably read so as not to account for delay caused by litigation, such delay becomes a tool for use by, and a reward for, a person dissatisfied with DEP’s outcome. In this case, the NTP was lawfully issued pursuant to compliant data, surveys, and analysis. As with any permit or license subject to a third- party challenge, the terms of the NTP are tolled pending Petitioners’ litigation, and do not become a ground for denial of the otherwise compliant Request. See § 120.60(1), Fla. Stat. (“An application for a license must be approved or denied within 90 days after receipt of a completed application unless a shorter period of time for agency action is provided by law. The 90-day time period is tolled by the initiation of a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. Any application for a license which is not approved or denied . . . within 45 days after a recommended order is submitted to the agency and the parties, . . . is considered approved unless the recommended order recommends that the agency deny the license.”).4/ Furthermore, DEP has now received recent profile data from April 2019. The evidence establishes that the data provided to DEP as part of the Request includes the latest physical monitoring data over a period of greater than five years, and that the data collection met the standards for conducting physical monitoring. Fill Site Selection The NTP authorized “placement of dredged material in the swash zone east of East Pass.” In accordance with the Permit, that authorized area extends eastward from R-17 to R-20.5 and from R-23.5 to R-25.5, in Holiday Isle. The evidence is persuasive that placing dredged material on the eastern side of East Pass would not result in erosion on the western side of East Pass. Dredged material placed in the western beach placement area, and in the “shadow” of the western jetty, will tend to remain in that area. It would take a very long time, if at all, for that material to migrate further to the west. However, dredged material placed to the east of East Pass would, if the lateral shoreline drift is east to west as asserted by Petitioners (though not supported by a preponderance of the evidence as set forth in paragraphs 11 through 13), be introduced into the ebb shoal and likely move faster to the west as opposed to it being placed directly at the base of the west jetty. As such, placement of the dredged material on the eastern beach placement areas would, more likely than not, accomplish the beach effect objectives set forth in the Petition. The Eglin AFB Beach Restoration Project Petitioners relied heavily on photographs taken in 2010 and 2019 from roughly the same location in the vicinity of Monuments V-607 to V-608 to demonstrate that the beaches of Santa Rosa Island are eroding. The area depicted is outside of the area of influence of East Pass, and outside of the western beach placement area under the Permit. Those photographs depict a wide expanse of beach in 2010, with a seawall well upland from the shore in 2010. Then, in 2019, a photograph depicting the same stretch was offered that showed the same seawall, now at or below the water line. The photographs were, ostensibly, designed to depict naturally occurring erosion in the area. Mr. Clark testified that the seawall and boulder mound structure depicted in both photographs protect an Air Force mission-critical tracking facility. The seawall was originally constructed in 1979 after Hurricane Frederick, was constructed at that time to extend into the water, and was maintained in that configuration through the 1990s. One could not walk around the original seawall. Rather, for most of its history, passage around the seaward side of the seawall could only be accomplished by swimming or wading. The original seawall was damaged by Hurricane Opal, and destroyed by Hurricanes Ivan and Dennis in 2004 and 2005. The Air Force, needing to reconstruct the wall, applied for and received a joint coastal construction permit, allowing the structure to be constructed on sovereign submerged land below the line of mean high water. The seawall was rebuilt and, as stated by Mr. Clark, “it was in the water.” In 2010, the Air Force performed the small Eglin Air Force Base Beach Restoration Project, which placed artificial fill in front of the seawall, thereby creating a temporary beach. That beach fill project was “a one-shot deal,” did not involve any subsequent maintenance, and is now essentially gone, as was expected. Mr. Clark was neither surprised nor concerned with the fact that the area returned to what he described as its natural state, with the seawall below mean high water. The 2019 photograph was presented as evidence of erosion caused by East Pass. That was not the case. Rather, the 2010 photograph was evidence of an artificial and singular event, and the 2019 photograph depicts the natural state of the shoreline. Rather than depicting erosion, the 2019 photograph depicts a return to the stable shoreline that exists all along Santa Rosa Island to the west of East Pass. The photographs of the site of the 2010 Eglin Air Force Base Beach Restoration Project do not support a finding that the beaches of Santa Rosa Island are anything but stable, if not accretional, nor do they support a finding that the beaches of Santa Rosa Island are eroding. Ultimate Factual Conclusion Specific Condition 9 of the Permit requires the location of the spoil disposal be supported by the latest physical monitoring data over a minimum of five years in accordance with the East Pass IMP and the PMP. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the City submitted physical monitoring data consistent with the requirements of Specific Condition 9. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the eastern areas of influence of East Pass, including the beach disposal areas at R-17 to R-20.5 and R-23.5 to R-25.5, are critically eroded, a condition influenced if not caused by the East Pass, and constitute East Pass’s “adjacent eroding beaches.” Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the western areas of influence of East Pass, including the beach disposal areas at Monuments V-611 to V-622, are stable, if not accreting, and are not East Pass’s “adjacent eroding beaches.” Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. The greater weight of the competent substantial evidence establishes that the City met the standards for the NTP as proposed for issuance by DEP on February 2, 2018. Evidence to the contrary was not persuasive. Thus, the NTP should be issued.
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: Approving the February 2, 2018, Notice to Proceed for the maintenance dredging of East Pass as authorized pursuant to Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization No. 50-0126380-005-EI and State- owned Lease No. 0288799-003-JC, subject to the general and specific conditions set forth therein; and Denying the City of Destin’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, Expenses and Costs pursuant to section 120.595(1). DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 14th day of October, 2019.
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Petitioner Blaha possessed the requisite standing to maintain this action and if so, whether the Applicant Aquarina Developments, Inc., established by a preponderance of the evidence entitlement to a permit from the Coastal Construction Control Line ("CCCL") which would authorize construction of the following: (1) twelve above-ground balconies extending five feet over the CCCL; (2) two roof overhangs extending approximately one foot over the CCCL; (3) two dune walkovers and four decks providing elevated beach access; and (4) a temporary fence extending no more than five feet beyond the CCCL. At the final hearing, the Respondent Aquarina Developments, Inc., (hereafter "Aquarina" or "Applicant") offered Respondent's Exhibits 1-16, which were admitted into evidence. Edward Fleis, Howard J. Teas, Bert Leltz and Ross Witham testified on behalf of the Respondents. Peter Pritchard, Rob Lee and Georges Blaha testified for the Petitioner. Additionally, public comment was taken as provided at Section 120.57(1)(b)(4), Florida Statutes. A Proposed Recommended Order has been submitted by the Respondent Aquarina Developments, Inc. To the extent that the proposed findings submitted by Respondent are not reflected in this Order, they are rejected as unsupported by the weight of credible evidence or as being immaterial to the results reached.
Findings Of Fact By application No. 775-020.61 filed on July 1, 1981, Respondent Aquarina requested a coastal construction permit for construction of portions of twelve cantilevered balconies, two roof overhang sections, a temporary construction fence, four elevated wooden decks, and two dune crossovers, all seaward of an established coastal construction control line ("CCCL") in Brevard County, Florida. The purpose of the proposed structures is to enhance utilization of the beach by residents of Aquarina's PUD located between the Atlantic Ocean and Mullet Creek, a tributary of the Indian River in South Brevard County, while at the same time inhibiting the deleterious effects of unrestrained pedestrian and vehicular access across the beach dune on the property. Respondent Aquarina's project is located on the barrier islands separated from the mainland by the Indian River, thirteen miles south of Melbourne and five miles north of Indian River County. Aquarina proposes to develop a condominium community approved as a PUD by Brevard County, with a projected population of 3,400 persons including 1,600 residential units, a commercial area, and 500 hotel rooms. The project includes at least two condo- mini urn buildings located entirely landward of the CCCL except for the following specific portions: Twelve cantilevered balconies ex- tending approximately five feet beyond the CCCL but not touching the ground; Two roof overhang sections extending approximately one foot beyond the CCCL; Two beach-dune walkover structures to be constructed a maximum of seventy- five feet seaward of the CCCL, which are to provide controlled beach access; Four elevated wooden observation decks constituting integral parts of the walkover structures; A temporary construction fence extending no more than five feet beyond the CCCL. On or about November 20, 1981, the Department indicated its intent to recommend to the Executive Director the issuance of the Applicant's coastal construction permit. After the granting of a requested extension of time, Petitioner Blaha filed objections and a Petition for the Initiation of Formal Proceedings under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The Petition raised three issues: Whether construction of the proposed minor structures seaward of the CCCT would harm sea turtles inhabiting the area at issue; Whether a new CCCL should have been set based on changing conditions in the area; Whether the additional shading caused by the proposed structures would harm the dune vegetation system. At the beginning of the hearing, the Hearing Officer heard argument and received evidence on the issues raised by the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Department and the Applicant. The Respondent's Motions raised three issues: Whether the Petitioner had standing to initiate this cause; Whether the alleged impact that the Applicant's proposed coastal construction would have on sea turtles lies within the jurisdiction of the Department and the Hearing Officer under Chapter 161 of the Florida Statutes; and Whether the exact configuration of the CCCL is a proper subject for consi- deration at a hearing challenging the proposed issuance of a coastal construction permit. Petitioner Blaha admitted that he did not live on the beach at issue and in fact lived on the west side of State Road A1A, three miles to the north of the Applicant's proposed project. The Petitioner stated that he was the Director of the Space Coast Branch of Friends of Animals, an environmental organization concerned about wildlife, although not representing the organization in this proceeding, and that he had a general interest in protecting the beach from erosion, a problem affecting everyone on the barrier island. In response to the argument that Petitioner Blaha had no special interest differing in kind from the interests of the general public, the Petitioner alleged that he runs on the beach and observes the sea turtles, arguing that this evinces a more than average interest in protecting the beach and its wildlife. The Hearing Officer also heard argument on whether the Department has jurisdiction to consider potential impacts on the nesting habitats of sea turtles from proposed coastal construction, under Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. Petitioner Blaha urged that although Section 161.053, Florida Statutes and the rules promulgated thereunder do not address sea turtles and their protection, the statute should be so interpreted. The Department responded that any jurisdiction it may have over sea turtles would be reposited in its Marine Resource Division, not in the permitting procedures for a coastal construction permit. In addition, federal laws protect endangered sea turtles, and the federal government has primary jurisdiction over the regulation of the nesting habitats of such sea turtles. Similarly, the Applicant and the Department pointed out that the Petitioner's criticism of the placement of the present CCCL falls outside the scope of a hearing on the issuance of a coastal construction permit, since Section 120.54, Florida Statutes provides for rulemaking proceedings for those attempting to change a rule established CCCL and Rule 16B-33.10, Florida Administrative Code, contains provisions for CCCL revisions or modifications on application of a riparian owner of property at or on the CCCL. Petitioner Blaha is not a riparian property owner and this was not a proceeding under Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Respondent Aquarina established that it had taken and would continue to take all reasonable actions necessary to ensure the protection of sea turtles that inhabit the site through public relations campaigns and public advertisements to educate the public and especially the residents of the PUD and through architectural design efforts and dareful construction practices that will limit the impact of the proposed development on sea turtles and their nesting habitats. Moreover, to the extent that the development might have an impact on sea turtles, the source of the impact would not primarily be the structures at issue in these proceedings, but the buildings, parking lots, and other human habitation lying landward of the CCCL. The proposed temporary construction fence to be placed five feet beyond the CCCL will help conserve the dunes by limiting the potential impact of construction, and the Respondent Aquarina has agreed to restore that affected area to its natural state upon the completion of construction. Most importantly, the proposed dune crossovers will protect the dunes from the destruction that is occurring in the dunes to the north of the project and on the project site itself because of unrestrained pedestrian and vehicular traffic over and/or through the dunes and the accompanying destruction of dune vegetation in those areas. The dune crossovers are wooden walkways on raised pilings designed to have as little contact with the dunes as possible, with railings to restrain pedestrians from straying away from this direct access from the condominiums to the beach. The crossovers will make it unnecessary and undesirable for residents and visitors to create alternative foot paths through the heavy dune vegetation to the beach. Coupled with the educational program already being implemented by Aquarina, the dune crossovers should help to conserve the dunes. The Respondent Aquarina established that the incremental shading caused by the proposed roof overhangs extending about one foot beyond the CCCL and the cantilevered balconies extending approximately five feet beyond the CCCL would not significantly add to the shading from the buildings themselves, which lie entirely landward of the CCCL. The evidence showed that even the impact of the shading from the landward buildings would have no significant impact on the dune vegetation system or increase the rate of erosion or deterioration of the dune. See Rule 16B-33.02(23)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The additional impact from the minor structures for which the Respondent Aquarina seeks its permit should be minimal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Department of Natural Resources, through its Executive Director, grant the requested construction control permit to the Applicant Aquarina Developments, Inc., subject to the conditions stated in the proposed permit (No. BE-80), the draft of which was attached to the Department's letter of November 20, 1981, notifying Petitioner Blaha of the Department's intent to issue the requested permit. DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 ApA1Achee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Georges Blaha 280 Flamingo Drive Melbourne Beach, Florida 32951 Deborah A. Getzoff, Esquire Assistant Department Attorney Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Clifford A. Schulman, Esquire GREENBERG TRAURIG ASKEW HOFFMAN LIPOFF QUENTEL & WOLFF, P.A. 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Henry Dean, Esquire General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elton Gissendanner, Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Building Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue All Three Cases Whether the Petitioners have standing to bring their respective challenges pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes? Case No. 10-5348RU Whether either or both Original Specific Condition 1 and the Department ECL Position constitute a rule? Case Nos. 10-6205 and 10-8197 Whether Specific Condition 5 constitutes a rule? Attorney's Fees Whether an order should be entered against the Department for costs and attorney's fees under Section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact The Draft Permit The Draft Permit (and its revisions) authorizes the County "to construct the work outlined in the activity description and activity location of this permit and shown on the approved permit drawings, plans and other documents attached hereto." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9, page 3 of 26. The "activity description" and the "activity location" are detailed on the first page of the Draft Permit. See Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 9 (first page of 26). The drawings, plans and other documents attached to the Draft Permit are contained under Tab 10 of Volume III of the Joint Exhibit. The Parties Petitioner Guidry is co-trustee of the Guidry Living Trust (the "Guidry Living Trust"). He has independent authority to protect, conserve, sell, lease, encumber or otherwise dispose of trust assets. Those assets include a condominium unit in the Oceania Condominium. The condominium unit owned by the Guidry Living Trust includes an undivided interest held with all other unit owners in the common property at the Oceania Condominium. The common property includes real property that fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 720 Gulf Shore Drive in the City of Destin, Florida. The real property has the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico as its southern boundary. Petitioner Oceania is a condominium association established pursuant to Florida's Condominium Act, Chapter 718, Florida Statutes. It does not own any real property. Mr. Guidry testified that he is authorized in his capacity as president of the Association to initiate and pursue this administrative proceeding on its behalf. No documents were entered in evidence reflecting that Oceania's Board of Directors approved the filing of the petition. The owners of condominium units at the Oceania Condominium, including the Guidry Trust, comprise the membership of Oceania. The unit owners all own undivided shares in the Oceania Condominium common property including the real estate that extends at its southern boundary to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The owners did not vote on whether to file the petition in Case No. 10-05348RU. Petitioners David and Rebecca Sherry are leaseholders of real property where they reside. Located at 554 Coral Court, Number 511, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, the property is in an area in Okaloosa County on Santa Rosa Island that is known as Okaloosa Island. The property leased by the Sherrys is not within the Western Destin Project. Petitioner John Donovan is a leaseholder of real property located at 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Numbers 131-132, El Matador Condominium, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548, in the same area as the Sherry's residence. Petitioner MACLA II, Ltd., is a Texas Limited Partnership. Louise Brooker is its president. It owns real property which fronts the Gulf of Mexico located at 620 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. The southern boundary of the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The MACLA property is located adjacent to the shoreline that is the subject of the Western Destin Project. The Betty Price Hughes Qualified Vacation Residence Trust (the "Hughes Trust") owns real property at 612 Gulf Shore Drive. Its southern boundary is deeded the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Petitioner H. Joseph Hughes is a trustee of the Hughes Trust. Petitioner Kershaw Manufacturing Company, Inc., an Alabama corporation, is the owner of real property located at 634 Gulf Shore Drive, Destin, Florida. Its southern boundary the property is the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The property is located adjacent to the shoreline subject to the Western Destin Project. Royce Kershaw is the president of the Kershaw Manufacturing Company. He testified that as president of the company, he has the authority to act on behalf of the company and has the power to bind the corporate entity. The Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for the administration of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, Parts I and II, the "Beach and Shore Preservation Act." § 161.011, Fla. Stat. The Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund is responsible for stewardship of its public trust properties under Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. Included among those properties is the sovereignty submerged lands along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The ECL and the MHWL In the context of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, the MHWL and the ECL were discussed by the Florida Supreme Court in Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc., 998 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 2008) (the "Walton County Supreme Court Case"): Pursuant to section 161.141, when a local government applies for funding for beach restoration, a survey of the shoreline is conducted to determine the MHWL for the area. Once established, any additions to the upland property landward of the MHWL that result from the restoration project remain the property of the upland owner subject to all governmental regulations, including a public easement for traditional uses of the beach. § 161.141. After the MHWL is established, section 161.161(3) provides that the Board must determine the area to be protected by the project and locate an ECL. In locating the ECL, the Board "is guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible." § 161.161(5). Pursuant to section 161.191(1), this ECL becomes the new fixed property boundary between public lands and upland property after the ECL is recorded. And, under section 161.191(2), once the ECL has been established, the common law no longer operates "to increase or decrease the proportions of any upland property lying landward of such line, either by accretion or erosion or by any other natural or artificial process." Walton County, at 1108. The Pre-project MHWL in This Case and the ECL The Pre-project MHWL called for by Original Specific Condition 1 was never established. No evidence was introduced as to where the Pre-project MHWL would have been located had it been set and in particular, where it would have been located in relation to an ECL. Rod Maddox is a long-time surveyor with the Department's Division of State Land in the Bureau of Survey & Mapping. See P-244. Mr. Maddox testified about his experience with pre-project MHWLs and where they are located in relation to ECLs. Familiar with the term "pre-project mean high water line," Mr. Maddox defined it as the mean high water line prior to the placement of fill used in a beach restoration project. See id. at 29. He testified that pre-project MHWLs have been required in the many beach restoration cases with which he is familiar. He testified further that when it comes to location, there is no difference between a pre-project MHWL and an ECL. The denominations may be different but Mr. Maddox testified "as to how . . . established, I see them as one and the same." Id. at 30. Original Special Condition 1: the Pre-project MHWL On December 31, 2009, the Department issued the NOI. Attached to it was the Draft Permit. The Draft Permit contained the following paragraph as Special Condition 1: Prior to construction of the beach restoration project, the Permittee must record in the official records of Okaloosa County a Certificate, approved by the Department, which describes all upland properties (including their owners of record) along the entire shoreline of the permitted project, with an attached completed survey of the pre-project Mean High Water Line ("Mean High Water Line Survey") conducted along the entire permitted project shoreline length. The Mean High Water Line Survey must have been completed in a manner complying with Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, as determined by the Department. No construction work pursuant to this joint coastal permit shall commence until the Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line Survey have been approved and archived by the Department's Bureau of Survey and Mapping, and the Department has received proof of recording of such documents (see Specific Condition No. 4.c.). The approved Certificate and attached Mean High Water Line survey shall be attached to, and kept as part of this joint coastal permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands. If in the future the Permittee seeks reimbursement from the State for costs expended to undertake (construct) the permitted project, then, prior to, and as a condition of receipt of any authorized and approved reimbursement, the Board of Trustees will establish an ECL consistent with the provisions of Chapter 161, Florida Statutes. The Permittee shall be required to record such a line in the Okaloosa County official records. Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, No. 9. The Oceania Petitioners, as landowners within the Project area, challenged the issuance of the Draft Permit on January 14, 2010. See Case No. 10-0516. Among the bases for the challenge was that the Department lacked authority to implement Original Special Condition 1 and, in particular, its requirement that the County record a completed survey of the pre-project MHWL in lieu of the establishment of an ECL. On July 26, 2010, the Department revised the Draft Permit to eliminate from the Project the common property owned by the unit owners of the Oceania Condominium. The change was supported by a letter from Michael Trudnak, P.E., of Taylor Engineering, Inc., on behalf of the County which stated: "On behalf of Okaloosa County, Taylor Engineering submits this request to modify the project area and Draft Joint Coastal Permit for the Western Destin Beach Restoration Project [file nos. excluded]. The applicant has decided to remove the Oceania Condominium property from the beach fill placement area." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, Exhibit A. The revised project, as described in permit drawings enclosed with Mr. Trudnak's letter includes two reaches: Reach 1 extends from the east jetty of East Pass to approximately 600 ft east of FDEP reference monument R-22 (R22.6) and Reach 2 extends from approximately 200 ft east of R-23 (R-23.2) to R-25.5. The Oceania Condominium property is in the gap between the two beaches. Additionally, the letter requested that the Department modify Specific Condition 1 of the Draft Permit to reflect the modified project area so that the MHWL Survey requirement of Specific Condition 1 would exclude the Oceania Condominium property. In accord with the request, Special Condition 1 was amended to add the following language: "With respect to the shoreline seaward of the Oceania Owner's [sic] Association, Inc., members' common elements property, neither a pre-project Mean High Water Line survey, nor a Certificate with a description of the pre-project Mean High Water Line shall be recorded in conjunction with this coastal permit." Joint Exhibit, Vol. III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 5 of 26. On August 4, 2010, as the Department neared the end of its case in the third day of the hearing, it announced that the Revised Draft Permit would "be revised [again, this time] to require the establishment of an ECL under the applicable statute." Tr. 621. The draft permit, accordingly, was revised for a second time (the "Second Revised Draft Permit"). The Department carried out the second revision in a notice filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 18, 2010 (the August 18, 2010, Notice). The August 18, 2010, Notice contains two changes to the First Revised Draft Joint Permit. The first change deletes the existing language in Original Specific Condition 1 (the language challenged in Case No. 10-5348RU) in its entirety. 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. The second change is made with respect to Specific Condition No. 4(c) of the First Revised Draft Permit, one of a list of items to be submitted to the Department for approval prior to the commencement of construction and the issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the Department. The existing language is deleted in its entirety and the following language is substituted: Written documentation that the Erosion Control Line required by Special Condition Number 1 has been filed in the public records of Okaloosa County. Id. The Department ECL Position Chapter 161: Beach and Shore Preservation Chapter 161, Florida Statutes, governs "Beach and Shore Preservation." "Parts I and II of this chapter may be known and cited as the 'Beach and Shore Preservation Act.'" § 161.011, Fla. Stat. Part I governs "Regulation of Construction, Reconstruction, and Other Physical Activity." Sections 161.011 through 161.241 comprise Part I. The Department developed its position on ECLs claimed by Petitioners to be an Unadopted Rule by considering Part I, in particular Sections 161.088 (which declares the public policy to properly manage and protect Florida's beaches) through 161.211. At some point in 2009, the Department saw a distinction related to ECLs in Sections 161.088-161.211 between beach restoration projects where state funding was used for construction and projects where no state funds were used. The former seemed to require ECLs, the latter not. Several statutory provisions were viewed as particularly relevant. For example, Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, declares that it is the public policy of the state "to cause to be fixed and determined, pursuant to beach restoration . . . projects, the boundary line between sovereignty lands . . . and the upland properties adjacent thereto " The section that mainly governs ECLs is Section 161.161. It provides the procedure for approval of projects for the restoration and maintenance of critically eroded beaches, subject to a beach management plan which is funded, in part, by the state. With regard to ECLs, the statute provides: Once a project [for the restoration and maintenance of a critically eroded beach] 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 establish the area of beach to be protected by the project and locate an erosion control line. * * * Upon completion of the survey depicting the area of the beach erosion control project and the proposed location of the erosion control line, the board of trustees shall give notice of the survey and the date on which the board of trustees will hold a public hearing for purpose of receiving evidence on the merits of the proposed erosion control line and, if approval is granted, of locating and establishing such requested erosion control line in order that any persons who have an interest in the location of such requested erosion control line can be present at such hearing to submit their views concerning the precise location of the proposed erosion control line. * * * The board of trustees shall approve or disapprove the erosion control line for a beach restoration project. In locating said line, the board of trustees shall be guided by the existing line of mean high water, bearing in mind the requirements of proper engineering in the beach restoration project, the extent to which the erosion or avulsion has occurred, and the need to protect existing ownership of as much upland as is reasonably possible. § 161.161, Fla. Stat. Development of the Department's Position on ECLs Prior to 2009, the Department's established ECLs for beach restoration projects whether the project's construction was supported by state funding or not. There was an exception: when the property landward of the MHWL was owned by the state. In such a case, the Department saw no need to set an ECL since both the sovereignty lands and the adjacent uplands property are owned by the state. This position held at least through January 15, 2009, when the Department held a workshop and hearing pursuant to Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, in Okaloosa County to establish an ECL for the Western Destin Project. The hearing officer who conducted the ECL hearing was West Gregory, Department Assistant General Counsel. While consideration of where the ECL should be established for the Western Destin Project was underway, there were ongoing discussions by e-mail and in briefings of whether the statute required an ECL. The discussion was prompted when Mr. Gregory, as Department Assistant General Counsel, drafted a memorandum (the "Draft Memorandum") to Michael Barnett, Chief of the Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems (the Bureau) to be sent through Paden Woodruff, an Environmental Administrator. The memorandum related to another beach restoration project in Okaloosa County: a project involving Eglin Air Force Base. The Draft Memorandum shows a date of January "XX", 2009, and is stamped "DRAFT." P-119. It presents the question "Should . . . [the Department] require the United States Air Force (USAF) to establish an erosion control line (ECL) for the beach restoration project located on Eglin AFB?" Id. The Draft Memorandum provides a brief answer: "No, . . . because the beach . . . is not critically eroded." Id. The memorandum recognizes the public policy of the state to fix the boundary between public and private lands for beach restoration projects in Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, and a requirement that the Board of Trustees "must establish the line of mean high water prior to the commencement of a beach restoration project," id., leading to the suggestion that each and every beach restoration project must establish an ECL. The Draft Memorandum, however, construes Section 161.141, Florida Statutes, with Section 161.161, Florida Statutes, and draws support from an Attorney General Opinion and the Walton County Florida Supreme Court case to conclude that it is only when a project is undertaken with state funding that an ECL must be established. In the case of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects, the Draft Memorandum concludes: Id. This determination not to establish an ECL on the Eglin AFB beach restoration project would not preclude the USAF from obtaining a JCP permit. Rather, it precludes the USAF from receiving state funding assistance. The Draft Memorandum was not sent to the intended recipients. It was submitted to two other lawyers in the Department. Mr. Gregory did not receive comments from them. Although no comments were made to Mr. Gregory after the draft of the memorandum was sent to other members of the legal staff, the subject remained under discussion in the Department in early 2009. Sometime in early 2009, based on a legal analysis of Department attorneys, the Department took the position that an ECL is required to be set when state funds are used for the construction of a project. The converse of this position, that an ECL is not required to be set when no state funds are involved, is the statement alleged to be an unadopted rule. Two permits were issued that did not require an ECL: one for the Eglin AFB beach restoration project in March of 2009, and another that was an emergency permit for Holiday Isle. As with Specific Condition 1 in the Western Destin Project, the determination to not require an ECL was because of the lack of state funding. As Mr. Barnett testified about the two permits, there "is no State cost share for construction . . . [and] that's the reason [the Department] didn't require establishment of an ECL." Tr. 1279. Mr. Gregory's Draft Memorandum was never finalized. The Department issued three permits or draft permits (including for the Western Destin Project) with specific conditions that required pre-project MHWLs and that did not require ECLs. Otherwise, the Department has not committed the Department ECL Position to writing. Nonetheless, the Department ECL Position was stated in a deposition taken in this case on July 26, 2010. On July 26, 2010, the deposition of Janet Llewellyn, the Director of Water Resources Management was taken by Petitioners. Director Llewellyn is "responsible ultimately for all the projects that are processed and actions taken out of [the] division." P-223 at 10. These include permits issued by the Bureau and in particular, the Draft Permit, First Revised Draft Permit and the Second Draft Permit for the Project. When asked about the Department's statement that an ECL is not required when there is not state funding, Ms. Llewellyn preferred to rephrase the Department position as to when an ECL is required rather than when it is not required. She then testified that an ECL is required when there is "state funding involved through [the Department's] funding program." Id. at 13. Ms. Llewellyn was unable to pinpoint the moment the Department reached such a position other than: [t]he question came up sometime in the last year or two -- I couldn't tell you when -- about what the statute actually required in terms of when it was proper to set an erosion control line or required. And our attorneys did a legal analysis, again, of the statute, and that was their legal opinion of what the statute required. Tr. 14. Whatever the date that such a position was precisely firmed up, Ms. Llewellyn was able to testify on July 26, 2010, "that if state funding is going to a project, than an ECL needs to be set. That's what the statute requires." Id. This statement was based on the opinions of Department attorneys prior to their use in connection with the issuance of beach restoration permits in Okaloosa County. The Department has not initiated rule-making with respect to its ECL Position. Whether rule-making would be initiated was not known by the Bureau Chief on August 24, 2010, during his testimony in the final hearing. Change of Position The Department modified its position on ECLs that it appeared to have at the time of Ms. Llewellyn's deposition on August 4, 2010. As detailed above, it announced that an ECL would be required for the Western Destin Project, after all. The modification was formalized with the filing of the Second Revised Draft Permit on August 18, 2010. Specific Condition 5 Before the challenged language in Specific Condition 5 was added by the First Revised Draft Permit, the Department had relied on General Condition 6 to give notice to permittees that the permit did not allow trespass: This permit does not convey to the Permittee or create in the Permittee 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 the permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. Joint Ex. 9. Based on the petitions in the Permit Challenge Cases, the Department proposed in the First Revised Draft Permit to add to Specific Condition 5 the language that is underscored in the following: The Permittee is advised that no work shall be performed on private upland property until and unless the required authorizations are obtained. Sufficient authorizations shall included: (1) written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project; (2) authorization for such use from the property owner which upland of mean high-water; (3) construction and management easements from upland property owners; or (4) a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction which reflects that such authorization, in whole or in part, is not required. The Permittee is also advised to schedule the pre-construction conference at least a week prior to the intended commencement date. At least seven (7) days in advance of a pre-construction conference, the Permittee shall provide the written authorizations for the portion of the project for which construction is about to commence, as required above, written notification, advising the participants (listed above) of the agreed-upon date, time and location of the meeting, and also provide a meeting agenda and a teleconference number. Joint Exhibit, Volume III, Tab 15, the First Revised Draft Permit, Page 7 of 26. There was no evidence that the language added to Specific Condition 5 by the First Revised Draft Permit had been in any other permits or that the Department intended to use the language in any other beach restoration permits. Other than whatever might be gleaned from the Draft Permit, itself (and its revisions), there was no evidence offered that the property of any of the petitioners, in fact, would be used in the Western Destin Beach Project.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the Town of Indian River Shores is entitled to a coastal construction control line permit to construct a beach access seaward of the coastal construction control line in Indian River Shores, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Town of Indian River Shores (Town) is an incorporated municipality located on a five-mile stretch of the Atlantic Ocean in Indian River County, Florida. The Town has a population of approximately 2,700 residents. The Town's Public Safety Department has the combined functions of law enforcement, fire protection, and life support (lifesaving). All of the Officers of the Public Safety Department are cross-trained and cross-designated as police officers, firefighters, and emergency service specialists who are either paramedics or emergency medical technicians (EMTs). The Officers are on eight-hour shifts; each shift has approximately four to five Officers on duty, i.e., a police officer, a firefighter, a paramedic, and an EMT. When fully staffed, the Public Safety Department consists of 25 Officers. Because of the small number of Officers and their varied duties, restrictions and limitations are placed on their deployment. One of the vehicles used by the Public Safety Department in the performance of duties is an all terrain vehicle (ATV). The Public Safety Department has one ATV which is used on the beach for patrol and rescue purposes and for moving rescue and lifesaving equipment to and from the beach. In order to access the beach, the Public Safety Department must travel across the dune, primarily through private property (Corrigan Beach) located approximately 3.4 miles from the office of the Public Safety Department. The Town determined that this location was unsatisfactory for beach access due to the property being offered for sale, the great distance of the property from the Public Safety Department's office, and the dune being breached each time the ATV is taken onto the beach. The Town determined, however, that Beachcomber Lane, a public street within the Town, was the best choice for beach access and entry by the Public Safety Department. Beachcomber Lane is approximately 1,000 feet in total length and extends from Highway A1A to the bluff of the Atlantic Ocean. The Pubic Safety Department is located approximately 1,500 feet from Beachcomber Lane. The residents of Beachcomber Lane include Peter Broom, Jeremy R. Geffen, and Duane Jackson. At various times, the Public Safety Department has also used Beachcomber Lane as an access to the beach on emergency bases. Currently, a public raised wooden walkway, with steps, leads over the dune and onto the beach at the Atlantic Ocean end of Beachcomber Lane. In order for the Public Safety Department to obtain beach access by way of Beachcomber Lane, an access ramp will have to be constructed seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL). Such construction requires, among other things, a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). To design and present the plan to the DEP for a proposed beach access by way of Beachcomber Lane, the Town obtained the services of Coastal Technology Corporation (Coastal Technology), an engineering firm. On July 24, 1996, Coastal Technology filed an application on behalf of the Town with the DEP for a permit to construct a beach access ramp seaward of the CCCL. The application process included the submission of detailed drawings and other documents required by DEP. In the application, Coastal Technology described the construction, in pertinent part, as follows: 6. The proposed work consists of the removal of Brazilian Pepper . . . and installation of a 100 foot (approximate) long, 10 foot wide stabilized emergency access ramp. To minimize the impact to the existing native vegetation, the proposed emergency access ramp will be located approximately 8 feet from the north Right-of-Way within the area of the existing Brazilian Peppers. . . . A 2-inch layer of washed concrete sand will be placed between the limestone and paver blocks for a proper leveling of the previous paver blocks. The paver blocks will be TURFSTONE . . . which . . . have been permitted by DEP at other locations. . . . The openings in the TURFSTONE will be filled with excavated beach sand from the proposed access ramp footprint. Any remaining sand . . . will be placed at the seaward end of the proposed access ramp. To mitigate for any potential impact to native vegetation, 6 sea grapes will be installed . . . and any sea oats removed during excavation will be kept alive and replanted within those areas void of sea oats. Three 6-inch by 6-inch pressure treated posts will be installed with a chain fence. A locking chain fence will be used to prohibit the general public from accessing the beach through the emergency access ramp. In the application, Coastal Technology presented the justification for the construction, in pertinent part, as follows: 7. The proposed access ramp at Beachcomber Lane is specifically for the use by the Town of Indian River Shores for emergency access to the beach. The access ramp will have a locking chain only accessible by the Public Safety Department and has been designed to accommodate four-wheel drive patrol and EMT vehicles. . . . Beachcomber Land [sic] site was chosen by the Town because of : 1) the relative stability of the shoreline at that location; and, [sic] 2) accessibility from the Indian River Shores Town Hall which is on the west side of A1A across from Beachcomber Lane. The application indicated that the proposed beach access ramp was being constructed for emergency access to the beach. However, prior to the filing of the application, both emergency and routine patrol access by the Public Safety Department were discussed as uses for the access ramp at public meetings by the Town's public officials in which the subject of the access ramp was brought up. Such use for the beach access ramp was contemplated by the Town from the very inception of the plan for the access ramp. Routine patrol is defined by the Public Safety Department to be patrolling approximately every other day for one or two hours. By notice dated August 7, 1996, the DEP requested public comment on the Town's application for the CCCL permit. By letter dated August 21, 1996, residents of Beachcomber Lane, including Mr. Broom, Mr. Geffen, and Mr. Jackson, provided the DEP with their comments on the Town's application. On September 3, 1996, the Town's application for the CCCL permit was considered complete by the DEP. On November 6, 1996, at the request of DEP, the Town conducted a public meeting to obtain public comments regarding the proposed beach access ramp. The residents of Beachcomber Lane were notified of the public meeting, and among the residents attending the meeting were Mr. Broom, Mr. Geffen, and Mr. Jackson. At the public meeting, the Town clearly stated that the proposed beach access ramp would be used by the Public Safety Department for both emergency and routine patrol purposes with the ATV. Also, the Director of the Public Safety Department indicated that, based upon information collected regarding criminal activity and suspected criminal activity along the beach, routine patrol was needed.2 The application process culminated in the issuance of a Final Order by the DEP on November 27, 1996, granting the CCCL permit, with special permitting conditions in addition to the standard conditions. The CCCL permit granted by the DEP was Permit No. IR-507. The proposed beach access ramp to be constructed is approximately 100 feet in length and 10 feet in width. The construction will utilize turf blocks which permit grass and foliage to grow through the blocks on the access-way. A provision of the DEP Final Order requires the removal of exotic plants (Brazilian Pepper), which are not native plants, and the replanting of native vegetation adjacent to the access-way. On December 6, 1996, public notice of DEP's issuance of the CCCL permit to the Town was published in the Town's local newspaper. The Town agrees to abide by the special conditions, as well as the standard conditions, to the issuance of the CCCL permit. The beach access ramp on Beachcomber Lane will be used by the Town's Public Safety Department for public service purposes, including emergency rescue, training, and routine patrol. Beachcomber Lane is the appropriate location for the beach access ramp. The DEP has determined that the construction of the beach access ramp meets all the requirements of the DEP for the issuance of the CCCL permit. The DEP has determined the proposed beach access ramp to be a minor structure. The construction of the proposed beach access ramp will cause no significant adverse impact or cumulative impact on the beach dune system. The design of the proposed beach access, with the conditions added by the DEP, minimizes adverse impact of the access ramp. Native vegetation will be maintained and replenished around the proposed beach access ramp. The proposed construction of the beach access ramp will not result in a significant adverse impact to the beach and dune system. No net excavation in the sandy soils seaward of the control line will result from the construction. No structurally induced scour will result from the construction because the proposed structure is designed to break- away during a storm. The potential for wind and waterborne missiles during a storm is minimized by the construction. Public access to the beach is not interfered with by the beach access ramp. The construction of the beach access ramp will occur in a nesting habitat of the marine turtle, i.e., loggerhead, leatherback and green turtle. The DEP addressed protection of the nesting area through one of its special conditions to the issuance of the CCCL permit. The special condition included "no construction, operation, transportation or storage of equipment or materials seaward of the dune crest during the marine turtle nesting season" which is March 1 through October 31 of each year. With this special condition, the construction, itself, will have no adverse impact on the marine turtle or the turtle nesting. The Town agrees to abide by this special condition.3 The access ramp, itself, will have minimal impact on the marine turtles and will not cause a "take" of the turtles. Furthermore, the use of the ATV by the Public Safety Department will have no adverse impact on the marine turtles or the turtle nesting. At hearing, the DEP made another recommendation for the issuance of the CCCL permit, involving the marine turtle. Prior to the issuance of the Final Order, the DEP was not fully aware that the proposed beach access ramp was to be used for both emergency and routine patrol access. Having considered the circumstance of routine patrol, the DEP further recommends that a survey of turtle nesting be conducted after construction, but prior to routine use, on the Town's entire five-mile stretch along the Atlantic Ocean to mark turtle nesting areas for their protection and to place certain restrictions on the use of the ATV vehicle. This recommendation will not prohibit or hinder the construction of the beach access ramp.
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 granting the Town of Indian River Shores the Coastal Construction Control Line Permit No. IR-507, with the special conditions as may be required by the Department for the protection of marine turtles. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 1997.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice contracting, license number CG C033931, based on the violations of Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence and testimony of the witnesses presented and the entire record in this proceeding, the following facts are found: Reeves is a Florida State certified general contractor, having been issued license number CG C033931 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). Licensure status is "Active Issued." Reeves is registered or certified with the CILB as an individual. The Scope of the Project Sometime prior to October 1998, Beach retired, came to Florida, and needed a place to live, so she decided to ultimately reside in a trailer. Beach has health problems, which require special living accommodations and changes to the trailer she purchased, including ramps and a bathroom to facilitate the needs of a handicapped person. Beach was unfamiliar with trailer life and wanted to ensure that her trailer was "fastened securely to the ground." Based on suggestions made by three (3) different contractors, Beach decided to design a "roof over coming out eight feet on either side of the existing trailer and tying it to the ground securely so that the trailer was then encased in the roofing over." Beach developed the plans for the project, which were approved by the local planning and zoning department. After discussing the matter with Reeves, Beach also decided to have porches on both sides of the trailer, "taking advantage of the overhang that the roofing-over afforded." Beach and Reeves discussed other details, such as the need for a walk- in closet off of the bedroom, a whirlpool tub, replacement of the upper kitchen cupboards, improvement of the duct work in the kitchen and living areas, screening of the front porch and windows on the back porch (a sun room), enlargement of the bathroom and made "handicap-accessible," and replacement of the doors and ramps. The Written Proposal and "Extras" On or about November 2, 1998, Reeves entered into a written contractual agreement, i.e., the "Proposal" dated October 26, 1998, with Beach, to construct addition(s) and other items to her trailer-home located at 2170 Maryland Street, Lanark Village, Florida. The written Proposal states in material part: We will supply all labor and materials to complete the following at your residence: Build a new freestanding roof over existing trailer and extend roofline to cover front and back porches. Build a new front porch with approximately an 8' x 24' screen section and ramp on opposite end. Rebuild back porch to 8' x 24' and install windows. Enlarge bathroom and make a walk-in closet. Inspect and improve existing duct work for better air flow. Enclose gable ends of new roof and tie in to existing trailer. Install new upper cabinets in kitchen (allowance $500.00). WE WILL PERFORM THIS WORK FOR THE SUM OF $20,900.00) (TWENTY THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED DOLLARS). Beach agreed to make payments "as work progresses." The original contract price for the additions to the trailer was $20,900.00. The Proposal contained no language of access to the Construction Industry Licensing Fund. At the time of executing the Proposal, Reeves told Beach that a subcontractor was not necessary for the electrical and plumbing work. Reeves and Beach also discussed several "extras" which were added to the Proposal. Beach and Reeves made a verbal agreement for additions or extras to the original Proposal that included siding ($2,700.00), a fireplace, and an extension of one of the ramps, in exchange for not replacing the cabinets. These changes increased the total contract price to $24,200.00, which was paid by Beach. See Finding of Fact 33. Also in November 1998, and before she signed the Proposal, Beach prepared a list, in her handwriting, of plumbing and kitchen items she saw at Home Depot, which she needed for the job and she gave the list to Reeves. According to Beach, Reeves "followed through and got everything [on the list] except for the shower door." Reeves applied with the Franklin County Building and Zoning Department for permits to perform the work on the Beach trailer and the permits were issued. The Franklin County Building Code requires inspections, but does not state when they are to be performed. It is not unusual to perform more than one inspection at a time, especially where, like Franklin County, there is only one inspector for the entire County. Reeves did not ask for an inspection of the work done on the trailer. Work begins on the trailer and problems arise After the Proposal was signed and the verbal additional items agreed to, on November 4, 1998, Reeves commenced work on the project. At this time, Beach was living in a motor home. The roof line built by Reeves covered the back and front porches. Reeves built a new front porch with an approximately an eight foot by twenty-four foot screen porch and a ramp on the opposite end as required by the Proposal. He also added three other ramps, which are not mentioned in the Proposal. By letter dated April 15, 1999, Beach responded to an invoice submitted to her by Reeves. The record does not contain a copy of the invoice, which seems to have been dated March 31, 1999. However, Beach's letter indicates that Reeves submitted a bill for an additional $4,240.00 (which did not include $2,700.00 for siding), above the original Proposal price of $20,900.00. Beach says that only $975.00 are valid charges for "verbally agreed upon additions to the contract." (Beach says that she paid Reeves $600.00 for the extras which was included in her check of December 16, 1998, for $5,000.00.) Reeves' invoice was the first bill for any extras discussed by Beach and Reeves. According to Beach, they discussed the necessity of having additional ramps, and Reeves did not say there would be an additional charge, and it was discussed "as if it was part of the ongoing project." According to Beach, work progressed through November and slowed during Thanksgiving week. Into December, Beach says that Reeves came to the work site "less and less" and the workmen did not have either the necessary materials or equipment and also came "less and less." She tried to contact Reeves. According to Pendleton, who worked for Reeves on the Beach project, for the first three weeks to a month after commencing the project, Reeves was on-site every day. According to Pendleton, the job took longer than expected because of the many changes requested by Beach. For example, after the trailer was "roofed," Beach "wanted her outside ceiling closed into her trailer." They added "a furnace on the back porch," "put marble sills in her window of her trailer," and "furred out her whole wall to put paneling on the trailer." The original plans called for one ramp, but three were added. As work progressed, Beach expressed objections to Reeves regarding the workmanship on the screened-in porch and floorboards and the need to eliminate bugs from entry. They also discussed the build-up of heat in the roof because the roof was "trapping hot air in." Reeves treated the roof area, an extra, which Beach acknowledges. Beach reported other problems to Reeves, including but not limited to, a leak in the shower and an unsealed drain in the shower, which caused a flood in the bathroom, and "a two-foot hole cut in the floor around the plumbing that was left open to the outside." This was on the punch list she gave to Reeves. She pled with Reeves to finish the job, but he said that "[t]his w[ould] be the last day [he would] be coming" and that "he had other things he had to do." According to Beach, "things deteriorated," and she saw very little of Reeves into January and did not see much of him at all by the end of January. Beach was frightened and did not know what to do but "struggled along with [Reeves'] workmen," i.e., Richard Norman (Norman) and Pendleton, the main workmen, who did the plumbing for the shower. When Reeves was no longer on-site daily or all day, Norman and Pendleton were on-site. Another worker, Bob Lanceford quit because of the changes requested by Beach and her "flip- flopping." At some point in time after the trailer roof-over was completed and other work performed, including work on the back porch, Reeves and Beach discussed the punch lists written by both and that he had given the list to his workmen. Beach recalls the conversation and that Reeves said it was going to be his last day there. Beach recalls Norman staying to finish the skirting and Jody Fechera putting the siding on the inside of the sun porch, but that "the guys really didn't work on [the punch list] that much." Beach felt that she had to supervise Pendleton regarding hooking up the shower during this two-week period. Pendleton says that he and the others were working off of the list Reeves gave him during the last couple of weeks he was on the Beach job. Pendleton could not get the work done on the list because Beach "stood over [them] telling [them] to do other things and [they] never could get to that list." The list included adding hurricane clips and exterior work. None of these tasks were completed. Pendleton recalls Reeves telling him that he and "Rich" would have to leave the Beach site in a couple of days and to make Beach happy because they could not return until Edwards returned. Pendleton understood that they were to return to the Beach site and finish the job after Edwards finished the plumbing and electrical work. There is a dispute whether, during a two-week period after the punch lists were written, Beach was supervising Reeves' workmen including Pendleton. In or around the end of February 1999, Reeves advised Beach of problems he was having with the bathtub and needed Edwards "to do it." Reeves also needed Edwards, licensed to do plumbing and electrical work, to move the electrical panel box, which was accomplished. According to Beach, this was the first time Reeves advised Beach that he could not do plumbing or electrical work. Beach says that Reeves told her on the day they signed the Proposal that he would not have to subcontract for any of the plumbing and electrical work. Reeves admitted to doing plumbing and electrical work on this and other projects, although both of these types of work require specific licenses. Reeves recommended to Beach that Edwards perform these tasks. According to Pendleton, Edwards was "to come over and do all of the plumbing and wiring." It took Edwards quite a while to get to the Beach project. Edwards "pulled the permit for the electrical unit." He "made the old panel hot." He installed the breaker box and connected it to Beach's trailer. Edwards fixed the shower head and the drain plug, which was a major leak. He also fixed the plumbing. Edwards fixed some other problems he noticed, but he did not know whether these problems pre-dated Reeves' tenure on the project. In October 1998 and prior to Reeves' commencing work on the Proposal, Beach had a man drilling a well on her property. In February or March of 1999, Beach "got the idea of moving the tank back . . .." Edwards came to the Beach trailer on March 10, 1999, and installed the electrical panel and moved the tank at the same time. It took Edwards a few weeks to accomplish these tasks from the time Reeves and Beach discussed these items. Beach paid Edwards to move the electrical panel to the end of the house and move the water tank and installing it under the carport and some electrical and plumbing repairs. Beach paid Edwards $1,580.00, of which $700.00 of the bill, according to Beach, was for correcting plumbing and electrical errors made by Reeves or his workmen. In early March 1999, Ron Jackson (Jackson) advised Beach that Reeves had "run up a $9,435[.00] bill" at Ace Hardware in her name which remained unpaid and that a lien would be filed on her house. At this time, Beach filed a complaint with the local building department and hired an attorney to assist her with the lien. Apparently the lien was not timely filed and not successfully pursued. Beach also filed a complaint with the Department. Beach was unaware of any amount still owed on her job to others, which Reeves performed and did not pay. By letter dated March 30, 1999, Reeves apologized to Beach for not paying Jackson timely and told Beach he intended to pay Jackson, whether Beach paid him or not. On March 17, and April 21, 1999, a hearing was held before the Franklin County Construction Industry Licensing Board. This Board issued a verbal warning to Reeves "for operating outside his scope of work in the field of electrical and plumbing." Reeves advised the Board that he would not "do any electrical or plumbing until he is licensed to do the work or he will hire license[d] people." On April 7, 1999, Beach, having been living in a motor home during this time, decided to live in the trailer and discovered the flooding problems in the bathroom; everything in the kitchen leaked; and the commode was unsteady and leaked. Reeves returned to "stabilize it," but apparently Beach had to pay Edwards to repair the leaks in the bathroom. At some time after March, Reeves ceased performing on the project altogether. The project was not complete. Beach pays Reeves By check, Beach paid Reeves $4,000.00 on November 11, 1998, to get started; $10,000.00 on November 12, 1998; $2,500.00 on November 20, 1998; $5,000.00 (which included an estimated cost of $600.00 for extras according to Beach) on December 16, 1998; and $2,700.00 (for siding which was an agreed-upon extra) on January 28, 1999, for a total of $24,200.00. Beach had to estimate how much the extra work performed would cost based on the verbal price given by Reeves. The January check was the price for constructing a new one-sided exterior portion, along with the insulation, of the trailer. Beach paid out-of-pocket expenses on repairs and estimates for work which arguably should have been done pursuant to the Proposal and agreed-upon extras. These total approximately $2,560.29. See (Pet. Exh. 5- $990.29; Pet. Exh. 7- $120.00; Pet. Exh. 8- $750.00; and, Pet. Exh. 13- $700.00). Beach also paid for other estimates and repairs as noted herein which were not proven to be directly connected to work performed or not performed by Reeves. See, e.g., Findings of Fact 37-38. Problems identified with the condition of the trailer During the final hearing, Beach identified several photographs, she took over a period of time-April through June, 1999-of her trailer from the inside and outside and identified various problems with the workmanship performed or not performed by Reeves. According to Beach, the photographs show the trailer "after Mr. Reeves finished the project, or Mr. Reeves worked on the house." These problems included an outside electrical switch installed with wires exposed; exposed receptacle outlet; unfinished bathroom trim, which was minor according to Beach; fan cover left hanging on the kitchen ceiling; exposed hole around light fixture in the closet, which Norman could not repair; a fan hanging down in the bathroom, with hole cut too large; water running out from the shower because of an improper drain installation; unsealed shower drain; shower door leak-not caulked; no cutoff valve on the toilet; unsteady commode; no insulation and unprotected plumbing coming up through a hole where the bath tub is located; marble skirt to whirlpool tub destroyed by Edwards' men who had to cut through the marble in order to access the tub; panel to tub which is open and allows air and bugs to enter; tub motor not plugged into a ground fault receptacle; drywall in the bedroom closet, which was new construction, which had to be torn out to repair; wet carpeting which had to be removed; leak in the shower caused by brass plug in plastic line; support posts under the roof not nailed and without hurricane clips (photographs taken in August 1999 after Summerhill and some of the neighbors told her there were no nails on that side of the house holding the roof down); and exposed rafters which allowed squirrels to run down the chimney. Beach asked Greg Mathis, a licensed (City of Tallahassee) plumber, to determine the extent of repairs which were required on her trailer. On or about November 18, 1999, Mathis examined the plumbing in the Beach trailer and gave Beach an estimate for the repairs and charged $135.00 for the estimate, which included his travel time to the Beach trailer in Carrabelle. Mathis charged Beach $670.00 for the repairs including $445.00 for labor and $225.00 for materials. The repairs included applying putty and installing a Delta repair kit on a new faucet in the kitchen; repair of a "fairly new drain" which was leaking in the lavatory; resetting of the toilet which was wobbling and application of caulk; replacement of the whirlpool stopper; repairing the "whole tub waste"; and connection of a drain to a bar sink, which had hot and cold water to it. Mathis also gave Beach an estimate of $185.29 to repair the shower drain and valve. Mathis was unaware who did the plumbing he saw. Brian Will has a State certified building license. Beach asked him to inspect her trailer and give her an estimate of the costs for repair. Will performed a site visit to Beach's trailer on November 22, 1999, and charged Beach $175.00, after a $175.00 Christmas discount, for the inspection and written report dated December 16, 1999. After inspecting the trailer, Will identified problems with the trailer, including a recommendation that Beach secure an engineering report on the foundation, roof framing and uplift connections; installation of a "properly ducted and vented (range termination kit) range hood" in the kitchen; insulate ceiling; improvement to the fireplace clearance; increase vent attic space; and other items. The fireplace issue and "wind loading connection" could be life safety issues. The estimated cost was $9,375.00, although Will stated he is "seldom the low bid guy." Will did not review the Proposal nor the plans and specifications. Will did not know what Reeves and his workmen did or did not do on the Beach trailer. He made no assumptions as to who did any of the work on the trailer. Beach told him that someone added some additional hurricane clips and installed a gable vent or fan. She did not comment to him whether Reeves finished the job. Will identified portions of the trailer that did not appear to him to be finished and that did not meet the building code. Robert J. Pietras, while not a licensed contractor, is a self-employed laborer and has experience in construction, "everything from footers on up to trim carpentry." In or around September 1999, Beach asked him to inspect the trailer and determine what was necessary to make the trailer stronger for hurricane resistance. He found eleven (11) hurricane clips missing and a support post holding up a carrying beam that was not nailed. Some hurricane clips had been placed and set right on the rafters, but the job was incomplete. There were no uplift straps on any of the exterior beams. However, he felt he needed to remove the paneling on the back porch to add the clips from the inside. Pietras could not say whether there were hurricane clips on the outside soffitt. He made the changes. Pietras was also told, by John Summerhill, there was insufficient ventilation in the attic or roof-over, so he added a commercial louver and also framed up to add a fan to draw excess heat. Pietras agreed that if the new enclosed roof-over, constructed by Reeves, had not been enclosed, there would not have been any ventilation problem. He was paid $30.00 for adding the hurricane clips and the tie-down straps. He was not paid approximately $90.00 for work done. Any additional work he recommended was put on hold. Summerhill has air conditioning and electrical licenses and has been in business in Franklin County since 1991. Beach asked him to inspect her trailer and identify electrical problems in or around September 1999. Summerhill did not see the Beach/Reeves Proposal and was unaware of the scope of Reeves' work, including what Reeves did or did not do regarding any electrical problems perceived by Summerhill. However, Beach told him that Reeves did all of the electrical and plumbing. He noticed the absence of hurricane clips on the outside and that a four-by-four post on the south corner did not have nails in the top. He charged Beach $150.00 to install an exhaust in the attic for ventilation which Beach paid. Summerhill also noticed other problems with, for example, waterproof covers needed for the receptacle and switch on the porch, need for ground fault receptacles, and other items. He quoted $600.00 for labor and materials to make these repairs and replace needed items. Summary of work left undone and repairs needed The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that Beach and Reeves agreed to the terms of the Proposal and several extras; that Beach paid Reeves $24,200.00, which exceeded the amount originally quoted in the Proposal, i.e., $20,900.00, and included payment for extras, including $2,700.00 for siding and $600.00/$5,000.00 for other extras; that the workmanship performed by Reeves, and others on his behalf, was incomplete and in some cases poorly done which required repairs by others; that Beach paid for repairs; that Reeves left the project with work outstanding; that Reeves, and or his workmen, performed electrical and plumbing services while not being licensed; and that Reeves did not refer to the Construction Industry Recovery Fund in the written Proposal. The Department also proved by clear and convincing evidence that the Beach trailer is in need of substantial repairs and further inspections. See, e.g., Findings of Fact 37-38. However, and in particular, Will, who performed a major inspection of the trailer, did not review the Proposal or the plans and specifications and did not know what Reeves and his workmen did nor did not do on the Beach trailer. Therefore, the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Reeves was responsible for the repairs suggested by Will. Mitigation Reeves has built several State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) homes for the SHIP program in Franklin County to the satisfaction of the County's SHIP administrator, Ms. Shirley Walker. Ms. Walker was not aware of any complaints with Reeves' work over the past four (4) years. Probable Cause is found by the CILB On September 27, 2000, a two-member panel of the CILB found probable cause against Reeves. There was no finding of "no probable cause" by the CILB regarding the Reeves and Beach matter which is the subject of this proceeding. Reeves' prior disciplinary history Reeves has a prior disciplinary history with the CILB and the Department regarding his license. On October 8, 1992, in Case No. 91-11103, the CILB imposed an administrative fine of $1,700.00. On October 24, 1996, the CILB, in Case No. 95-07490, imposed an administrative fine of $2,000.00, restitution of $28,501.39 based on an unsatisfied civil judgment, $119.53 in costs, and two (2) years of probation. Both cases were resolved without a final evidentiary hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a Final Order be rendered as follows: Suspending Reeves' licenses to practice contracting for six (6) months, requiring Reeves to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00, and requiring Reeves to complete continuing education, with the subjects and hours to be determined by the CILB. Assessing costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney’s time, in the amount of $1,302.91. Requiring Reeves to pay restitution to Beach in the amount of $2,560.29, representing the amounts paid by Beach for estimates and for work performed or ill-performed by Reeves which, on this record, are attributable to Reeves. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS 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 13th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Danny L. Reeves 267 Carroll Street Eastpoint, Florida 32328 Kathleen O'Dowd, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should grant the application of the City of Destin (City) and Walton County (County) for a Consolidated Joint Coastal Permit (JCP) and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization (Application) to restore a 6.9 stretch of beach in the City and County.
Findings Of Fact The Gulf of Mexico beaches of the County and City were critically eroded by Hurricane Opal in 1995. The erosion problem was identified by DEP, which placed the beaches on its list of critically-eroded beaches, and by the County and City, which initiated a lengthy process of beach restoration through renourishment (also called maintenance nourishment.)1 The process, which included an extensive studies2 and construction design, as well as pre-application conferences with DEP staff, culminated in the filing of the Application on July 30, 2003. The Application proposed to dredge sand from an ebb shoal (i.e., a near-shore) borrow area south of (i.e., offshore from) East Pass in eastern Okaloosa County, using either a cutter head dredge (which disturbs the sand on the bottom of the borrow area and vacuums it into a pipeline which delivers it to the project area) or a hopper dredge (which fills itself and is moved to the project site). On the project site, heavy equipment moves the dredged sand as specified in the design plans. The project is executed in this manner and progresses along the beach, usually at a pace of about 300-500 feet a day. Each day work is in progress, public access to the beach is restricted for a length of about 500-1000 feet in the immediate vicinity of the area of beach being worked. Water Quality Increased turbidity is the primary water quality concern in a project of this nature. Increased turbidity can adversely impact submerged seagrasses and hard-bottom habitat, along with the benthic communities depending on them. When sand in the borrow area is disturbed by dredging, sand and silt become suspended and increase turbidity to some extent and for some duration, depending primarily on the nature of the bottom material and the dredging method. (The cutter head dredge vacuums most if not all of the disturbed sand and silt into the pipeline while, by comparison, the hopper dredge would result in higher turbidity in the water in the borrow area.) Sand delivered to the project site via pipeline must remain suspended in water for transport. When the sand is deposited on the beach, the excess water, with suspended particulate matter, will drain off and return to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if hopper dredges are used, and if material is deposited on the project site other than via pipeline, some of the material will be deposited in the littoral zone, and some material deposited landward of the waterline will be inundated by the tides and wave action and potentially re-suspended in water in the littoral zone. If the water is turbid upon discharge in the littoral zone, the near-shore can become more turbid. Sand Quality The primary determinant of the amount and duration of turbidity generated in the borrow area and in the littoral zone of the project site is the quality of the bottom material in the chosen borrow area. The coarser the material, the less turbidity. The best quality bottom material usually is found in the kind of borrow area proposed for use in the Application. Sand in the borrow area came from some of Florida's finest beaches. It has been cleaned of fine material (silt) not only by wave action but also as the sand moved along shore in the littoral zone and by the currents in the East Pass inlet. Numerous tests of the bottom material in the proposed ebb shoal borrow for the project indicate that it generally has less than one percent silt. Expert witnesses for the City, County, and DEP testified that, with such low silt content, turbidity increases of no more than 5-10 Nephalometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above background levels are expected at the edge of the mixing zone--150 meters down- current from the borrow area, and down-current and offshore from the discharge points on the beach. Moreover, they testified that turbidity levels are expected to return to background levels quickly (i.e., within an hour or so.) SOB and STBR questioned whether the experts could be certain of their testimony based on the test results. But SOB and STBR called no expert to contradict the testimony, and it is found that the expert testimony was persuasive. Standard Mixing Zone Initially, the City and County applied for a variance from the turbidity standards to allow them to exceed 29 NTUs more than 150 but less than 1660 meters down-current from the borrow area, and down-current and offshore from the discharge points, based on Attachment H, the Water Quality Impact analysis in the Application. The analysis was based on an assumption of five percent silt content in the bottom material in the borrow area. SOB and STBR attempted to use the five percent assumption to impeach the expert testimony on water quality. But when the quality of the bottom material was ascertained to be less than one percent, the variance request was withdrawn at DEP's request as being unnecessary and therefore inappropriate. SOB and STBR also argued in their PRO that, if a 1660-meter mixing zone was needed for five percent fines, then a 332-meter mixing zone would be needed for one percent fines. This argument was based entirely on counsel's arithmetic extrapolation. There was no evidence in the record from which to ascertain the validity of the extrapolation. In addition, the evidence was that the bottom material in the borrow area in this case will be less than one percent fines. Shore-Parallel Sand Dike Specific Condition 6 of the Draft Permit requires the permittee to "construct and maintain a shore-parallel sand dike at the beach placement area at all times during hydraulic discharge on the beach to meet turbidity standards prescribed by this permit." The shore-parallel sand dike is essentially a wall of sand built parallel to the shoreline to keep the sand slurry (the mixture of sand and water) being pumped onto the beach from washing back in the water, thereby giving the materials more time to settle out of the water before the water returns to the Gulf of Mexico. Even if this condition were not in the Draft Permit, the City and County would be required to build the dike since it is part of their design for construction of the Project. Turbidity Monitoring The Application included a proposal to monitor turbidity, and the Draft Permit includes the proposed monitoring as a Specific Condition 38. Every six hours during dredging and pumping operations, the City and County are required to sample 150 meters down-current of the borrow area, and down-current and offshore of the discharge point, and report the results to DEP within a week. In addition, Specific Condition 38 requires work to stop if turbidity standards are exceeded, which must be reported immediately. Work may not proceed "until corrective measures have been taken and turbidity has returned to acceptable levels." If more than one exceedence of the turbidity standard is reported, DEP will require the City and County to redesign the project to address and cure the problem. These conditions are part of the reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan Pursuant to Special Condition 4.b. of the Draft Permit, the City and County are required to do a Sediment Quality Control/Quality Assurance Plan, which requires them to measure the quality of the sand as it comes out of the pipeline before it can cause a turbidity problem. If the dredge hits pockets of bad material, which is not expected in this case, work could be stopped before it creates a turbidity problem. Absence of Natural Resources in Project Area DEP performed side-scan sonar tests in the vicinity of both the borrow site and near-shore in the Project area and determined that there were no hard bottoms or seagrasses in either area. Therefore, there are no natural resources within the project area that would be covered or placed in jeopardy by a turbidity plume. Reasonable Assurance Given For all of these reasons, the City and County have provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. Required Riparian Interest Generally, and in the beach nourishment project area, the BOT owns seaward of the mean high water line (MHWL). The City and County own some but not all of the beachfront landward of the MHWL.3 In anticipation of the beach nourishment project, the City and County had the MHWL surveyed as of September 7, 2003.4 The surveys state that the MHWL as of that date shall also be known as the ECL. The surveys also depict the landward and seaward limits of construction and the predicted post-construction MHWL. The surveys indicate that construction is planned to take place both landward and seaward of the ECL. The predicted post-construction MHWL is seaward of the ECL. By resolution, the BOT approved the surveys and established the ECLs for the Project. The City survey was approved, and ECL established, on December 30, 2004; the County survey was approved, and ECL established, on January 25, 2005. The BOT's decisions are being challenged in court. If the decisions are upheld, the BOT intends to file its resolutions and record the surveys. There was no evidence that the City and County have an easement or the consent of all of the other beachfront owners to undertake the proposed beach nourishment project. Some of the other beachfront owners do not consent, including members of SOB and STBR. Standing SOB was incorporated not-for-profit in Florida on January 28, 2004. STBR was incorporated not-for-profit in Florida on February 16, 2004. Both were incorporated to protect and defend the natural resources of the beaches, protect private property rights, and seek redress of past, present, and future unauthorized and/or inappropriate beach restoration activities. No evidence was presented by any party as to whether SOB and STBR have filed their annual reports with the Department of State, and no party filed a Department of State certificate of status as to either SOB or STBR. STBR has six members, all owners of beachfront property in the area of the proposed beach nourishment project.5 SOB has approximately 150 members. These members own approximately 112 properties in the City, approximately 62 of which are beachfront and the rest condominium units of beachfront condominium developments. However, it is not clear from the evidence how many of these beachfront properties are in the area of the proposed beach nourishment project (beyond the four owned by Linda Cherry, who testified). The testimony of Slade Lindsey was sufficient, together with member affidavits, to prove that all six members of STBR use the beaches and waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Project area for swimming, fishing, boating, and/or enjoying beach and Gulf vistas. As a result, the construction of the Project will affect their interests at least during the time construction is taking place near their property. If the Project were to result in violations of water quality standards for turbidity, their interests would be affected as long as the violations lasted and perhaps longer if lasting damage to natural resources were to result. However, as found, there will not be any lasting damage to natural resources, and reasonable assurance was given that no water quality violations will occur and that exceedences of water quality standards in the mixing zone will be of short duration, lasting for no longer than an hour. These effects will not be substantial. The evidence was not sufficient to prove that construction of the Project will affect the interests of a substantial number of the members of SOB. First, it was not clear how many of them own beachfront property or even condominium units in developments adjacent to the Project area. Second, the only witness on the subject, Linda Cherry, does not know all of SOB's members and did not state how many of the 39 SOB members who signed affidavits as to their use of the beaches and waters of the Gulf of Mexico adjacent to the Project area are known to the witness. Even if a substantial number would be affected, their interests would be affected no more than the STBR members' interests.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Draft Permit DEP JCP File No. 0218419-001-JC. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Nannette K. Scoggins is the owner of the real property located at 5622 Gulf Drive, Holmes Beach, Florida in Manatee County. Nannette K. Scoggins' property, the petitioner's property, 5624 Gulf Drive, and the other adjacent property, 5620 Gulf Drive, are zoned as "A-1 Hotel-Motel" under the City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance. On November 13, 1983, Mrs. Scoggins submitted to DNR an application for a permit for construction seaward of the coastal construction control line (control line). The proposed project, known as Jansea Place, would consist of two multifamily dwellings, four units to a building, divided by a swimming pool. A portion of the most seaward building would extend a maximum of 57 feet seaward of the control line. By letter dated July 11, 1984, DNR notified petitioner that the department was considering the permit application. The petitioner responded by letter dated July 18, 1984, objecting to any construction seaward of the control line. On October 1, 1984, petitioner received notification that DNR intended to recommend approval of the permit. The permit was scheduled for a vote by the Governor and Cabinet on October 16, 1984. The staff of DNR recommended approval of the permit. By telegram dated October 15, 1984, the petitioner requested an administrative hearing, and on October 22, 1984, petitioner filed a petition for a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The application for permit No. ME-89 is a complete application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line. On October 5, 1983, the Superintendent of Public Works of the City of Holmes Beach certified that this project does not violate any ordinance of the City of Holmes Beach. The plans for the proposed project are signed and sealed by an architect registered in the State of Florida, and the submitted plans comply with the design standards established in Rule 16B-33.07, Florida Administrative Code to resist adequately the natural forces associated with a 100-year return interval storm event. The plans, specifications, drawings and other information submitted to DNR with the application for permit to construct seaward of the coastal construction control line are complete and accurate, and meet the requirements of DNR for that purpose. Under the provisions of Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, the application was determined to be complete on August 6, 1984. The proposed construction is located landward of an existing vertical concrete bulkhead. The seawall was built jointly by the Scoggins and Mr. McLean, who owns the property immediately to the south of the Scoggins' property. The seawall was built after the hurricane of 1972 because the existing dune system had been destroyed. Since that time, the mean high water line has continued to encroach landward to the point where it is now east of the wall. However, the seawall is not necessary for the protection of the proposed building. Although the seawall would fail under the direct impact of a major hurricane, the proposed building is adequately designed to withstand the impact erosion, the wave loads, the winds, and the water forces associated with a major hurricane. The necessity and justification for the project's location in relation to the control line is stated in the application, and petitioner has not challenged the necessity or justification. The City of Holmes Beach Zoning Ordinance requires that the buildings be separated by a minimum of 30 feet. Since the proposed buildings are separated by 30 feet, the proposed seaward building is located as far landward as possible without violating the zoning ordinance. Erosion and structural damage occurred as a result of Hurricane Agnes in 1972 and the "No Name" storm in 1982 in the area between 1,000 feet south of the Scoggins' property and 500 feet north of the Scoggins' property. Although the beach was fairly stable from 1974 to 1979, the beach began to erode in 1980. When the seawall was built in 1974, the dune line was even with the seawall. However, as can be seen from a comparison of the photographs taken in June of 1979 with those taken in early 1985, the beach has eroded since June of 1979 and the dune line is now several feet landward of the seawall. The DNR recommendation for approval of the Scoggin's permit application was based upon historical erosion data for the period between 1940 and 1974, which was the most recent data available that could be used to review the project. Mr. Clark stated that the application was recommended for approval based on the design of the proposed building and its alignment with existing structures built seaward of the control line. The proposed project is located landward of a line of existing structures. Although the adjacent properties have been affected by erosion, there was no evidence presented to show that the existing structures located seaward of the control line have been unduly affected by erosion. In 1974, when the seawall was being constructed, the worker building the seawall dug up part of the petitioner's property and destroyed the sea oats he had planted. However, the proposed project has a driveway encircling the building which would provide vehicular access to the seawall if necessary. The proposed project will partially obstruct petitioner's view to the southwest. However, there was no evidence presented that petitioner's property or the other adjacent property, would be adversely affected in any other way by the proposed project. There was no evidence presented that the proposed project would be affected by, or have an effect on, beach or coastal erosion. The proposed project would have no effect on the beach dune system.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that DNR issue Permit Number ME-89 to Nannette K. Scoggins. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1985, in Tallahassee Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Because of a 1984 Thanksgiving Day storm which inflicted damage in coastal areas, Barry Manson-Hing, an area engineer employed by the Department, issued emergency coastal construction permits from a temporary office in the Vero Beach Administration Building. On December 3, 1984, Respondent sought an emergency permit to allow him to place sand and sand-filled bags on his coastal property at 3755 Ocean Drive, Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent asked Mr. Manson-Hing if he could use sand from the beach to restore eroded areas. Mr. Manson-Hing said he could not, and told him that sand would have to be obtained from an upland source. Respondent replied that he had an available source of upland sand and would haul it by truck to the beach site. He also mentioned that he would remove an existing pine tree to allow vehicular access. On the next day, December 4, 1984, Mr. Manson-Hing issued an emergency coastal construction permit, #1R-127E, to Respondent. The permit allowed Respondent to place 1,500 cubic yards of sand fill material to restore eroded beach and dune areas at the site, and also permitted him to temporarily place sand-filled bags on filter cloth. In capital letters, the permit warned, "SCRAPING OF THE BEACH IS PROHIBITED." (Dept. Exhibit 4) On December 5, 1984, Lt. Raymond Barker of the Vero Beach Police Department, observed beach scraping activities being conducted on Respondent's coastal property. Respondent was present on the site. Beach sand seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line for Indian River County had been scraped and deposited at the face of the sand dune. The removal of the sand created depressions in the beach area seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line. Lt. Barker ordered Respondent to cease the activity until it could be determined he had the required authorization. Respondent complied with Lt. Barker's order. The scraping of the beach and removal of sand below the coastal construction control line was accomplished without a permit from the Department. On July 17, 1985, the Department entered its "Final Order" assessing Respondent a $500 fine for unauthorized coastal construction activities in violation of Section 161.054, Florida Statutes (1985). Respondent requested a hearing; resulting in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department assess, impose, and collect an administrative fine of $500, to be paid within 30 days of final agency action. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of June, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings the 20th day of June, 1986.
Findings Of Fact On 24 July 1979 the Board of County Commissioners of Palm Beach County adopted Resolution R-79-887 petitioning the TIITF to establish an erosion control line (ECL) extending from South Lake Worth Inlet to the northern city limits of Delray Beach in conjunction with a beach restoration project in the same area. The project as then proposed encompassed extension of the south jetty at the Inlet 170 feet, construction of eight groins at 400-foot intervals commencing just south of the Inlet, and widening the beaches by 500 feet with 150 feet above the mean high water and 350 feet below mean high water, for a distance of approximately 4.8 miles. The restoration project is proposed to be accomplished with sand from a borrow area located approximately one-half mile off shore. The project is designated "Ocean Ridge-Briny Breezes" beach restoration project. SLWID objected to the project and, following conferences between Palm Beach County, SLWID and DNR the County amended its project to exclude property owned by SLWID from the ECL and beach restoration projects with the restoration of the beach to commence 300 feet south of the Inlet and continue for 2.6 miles to the town of Briny Breezes. Extension of the jetty and installation of groins were deleted. Palm Beach County's proposed beach restoration project was authorized by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in House Document 164 (Exhibit 5). The proposed "Ocean Ridge-Briny Breezes" beach restoration project was designed in accordance with the criteria set forth in Exhibit 5. The project is designed to restore the severe beach erosion that has occurred in the 2.6-mile project area and to provide the affected uplands protection against the ten-year design storm event. The ten-year design storm event implies a 3.8-foot storm surge with up to eight-foot waves superimposed thereon. The proposed ECL has been surveyed by Palm Beach County along the mean high water line in the proposed area. Over 60 percent of the ocean front property owners have approved the establishment of the ECL in conjunction with a beach restoration project by executing letters of consent. Following notice by DNR a public hearing was held on February 13, 1980, to receive evidence relative to the necessity and propriety of the proposed beach restoration project and the proposed location of the ECL. The Hearing Officer's report (Exhibit 28) concluded that there is a definite need to restore the proposed area where severe beach erosion has occurred and the establishment of the ECL would accomplish the purpose stated in Section 161.161, Florida Statutes. Approval of the project was recommended. The staff of DNR approved the project and prepared the agenda item for the next meeting of the TIITF in which this project was to be considered for final approval. Prior to this meeting of the TIITF, SLWID filed its initial Request for Formal Proceeding and the item was removed from the TIITF agenda and referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The beach erosion in the project area has been documented by Palm Beach County, DNR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Much of the erosion in the northernmost mile of the project has involved the beach above high water, as well as the offshore beach, while the erosion in the southern 1.6 files of the project has predominantly been offshore. During the period 1955-1981 approximately 1.6 million cubic yards of sand has been lost in the project area. Beach erosion determinations are made by calculating both onshore and offshore changes in the beach profile. Significant offshore erosion will lead to onshore beach recession by storm-generated waves. A gradually sloping beach is a natural absorber of wade energy and the most effective. Since maximum wave height is a function of the depth of the water, waves rapidly dissipate when they reach shoal water. With offshore erosion and the resulting deeper water near the shore, incoming waves can be higher and will impact on the upland area with greater force than would occur with a gradually sloping beach. There is a net annual littoral drift of 200,000 cubic yards of sand southward in the project area. Prior to the construction of the Inlet this drift replaced sand lost during storms, thus creating a dynamic beach which receded and was augmented from time to time. The installation of the jetties disrupted this littoral flow and caused the sand to build up on the beach north of the jetty while starving the beach south of the jetty. This problem was partly corrected by the erection of a sand transfer plant on the north jetty which pumped some of this sand across the Inlet to the beach south of the Inlet. The sand transfer plant was not operated during WWII due to the fuel shortage and severe erosion occurred in the project area. Following WWII the sand transfer plant was replaced in operation, sand was dredged from the Inlet and deposited on the beach south of the Inlet and the beach in the project area was largely restored. In 1967 the north jetty at the Inlet was extended and the sand transfer plant was moved eastward some 130 feet. This plant is a fixed plant consisting of a suction line on a boom which dredges sand to be pumped south of the Inlet only from the area that can be reached by the boom. Although capacity of the plant is adequate to pump the sand needed to replace in the project area that sand intercepted by the jetty, due to the limitation of the plant to reach a larger area there is insufficient sand available for the plant to pump to capacity. As a result, even if the plant operated all the time and there was sand available to pump, there would still be a net loss of sand in the project area (Exhibit 21). During recent winter storms property-threatening beach erosion has occurred to beach property in the project area. Some of the property owners have erected bulkheads and seawalls and others are proceeding with plans to do so. In some places in the north portion of the project area there is no exposed beach at high water. In the southern portion of the project area the offshore erosion will, if left to continue, result in severe damage and loss of upland beach if impacted with seas commensurate with a ten-year design storm event. This erosion, both on and offshore, will, if uncorrected, result in a calculated total of 134 feet of beach recession for the ten-year design storm event. This could result in the inundation of S.R. A1A, which runs near the beach in the northern portion of the project area. S.R. A1A is the primary north-south highway east of the Intracoastal Waterway and the evacuation route to the bridges to the mainland in the event evacuation of the beach is necessary in a hurricane situation. The proposed beach restoration project is designed to replace sand lost offshore and onshore erosion in the the project area and provide a sloping beach to absorb wave impact. It will not accelerate erosion. The proposed restoration of the beach will protect property and structures in the project area against the forces associated with a ten-year design storm event. Addition of the 1.5 million cubic yards of sand in the project area will result in some sand infiltration of the Inlet. This was calculated at 8,000 cubic yards the first year, 6,000 cubic yards the second year and 4,000 cubic yards per year thereafter. This will result in insignificant shoaling in the Inlet but will require infrequent maintenance dredging. It will not adversely impact the tidal prism in the Inlet or materially increase the maintenance of the Inlet. Heavy storms result in immediate loss of sand from the upland beach. Most of this sand is deposited in the offshore beach and is returned to the upland beach by the normal action of waves and tides. Approximately ten percent of the sand so removed from the upland beach is not returned but is lost.
