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 Petitioner, JOHN C. GROSS, a citizen and resident of Edgewater, Florida, owns approximately 114 acres of submerged and semisubmerged land, which at times extends from 3 to 9 feet above the water and which lies in the near vicinity of Ponce de Leon Inlet, New Smyrna Beach. His property is located due southwest of the inlet and west of the Intracoastal Waterway. The Intervenor, FRANCES TURNER PRICE, is the owner of an oceanfront house and lot located at 2113 Ocean Drive, New Smyrna Beach, Florida, which is directly adjacent to and west of a portion of the proposed spoil disposal area referenced herein. The Ponce de Leon Inlet was first dredged by the COE in 1968, pursuant to a 1965 Act of Congress, and has been dredged periodically since that time. No dredging has taken place there since March, 1978. During the past several years, numerous complaints have been received by the COE from users of the waterway concerning the increased clogging of the inlet channel. These users include operators of relatively large boats, such as commercial fishermen and shrimpers, large yacht owners, and the United States Coast Guard, which maintains and operates a station in the area. Based on these complaints, Mr. Aston, COE Navigation Branch, caused an investigation to be made which revealed an extensive and worsening shoaling which, if not corrected, would further reduce the channel opening. This investigation included several hydrographic surveys using Fathometers (accomplished in November, 1952, and subsequently thereto). The channel, which runs basically east and west from the Intracoastal Waterway to the Atlantic Ocean, is currently navigable (but not safely) by larger draft vessels such as are described above. Because of the prevailing winds from the northeast, larger vessels come in from the northeast; have to come around the jetty, which juts into the ocean north of the channel; and then have to stay close to the jetty to avoid the heavy shoaling in the dredged channel originally in the center of the inlet. 1/ This is dangerous because sport fishermen are frequently anchored in the water just south of the jetty, in the way of the boats going in and out. This danger is compounded by the fact that boats going in and out cannot see each other, because of the jetty to the north and the land to the south, until they both are committed to the channel. Therefore, once in and committed, they are in danger of collision because of the narrowness of the passage and the need to avoid the small fishing boats anchored therein. As a result, the original channel, which provides safer passage, needs to be dredged again immediately to prevent more groundings and collisions with resultant loss of life and property damage such as the 50 which have already occurred there within the past 15 months. In the opinion of Mr. Aston, the situation in the Ponce de Leon Inlet, as it pertains to shoaling, is the worst he has seen in any federal channel in 19 years. It is for these reasons that during the 1982-83 time frame, the COE decided to seek permission to proceed with a dredging project. Initially, three different areas were considered for disposal of the 800,000 or so cubic yards of spoil which would result from the dredging. These were: off the beach north of the north jetty; just south of the weir to which the north jetty is attached; and the beach area approximately one mile south of the inlet. For various reasons, Options (a) and (b) were rejected, and Option (c) was the area then intended for the spoil disposal. The initial application, submitted on November 10, 1982, called for the spoil to be transported by pipe over easements down the beach to the disposal area, where it would then be dumped on the beach to fill in the area of beach eroded and eroding. However, because of public objection to that plan, the COE agreed with the local beach advisory board to move the spoil 1,000 feet offshore to an area approximately 800 feet by one mile long, adjacent to the beach approximately one mile south of the inlet. In any event, both the original application and the amendment thereto (to change the location of the spoil disposal area) called for only one procedure--not multiple dredgings and disposals. This proposed permit, which is objected to by Petitioner and Intervenor, indicated permission for more than one procedure. Intervenor protests this even if permission is to be given for the initial dredging. However, Dr. Collins, from DER, indicated that since a determination was made that the action would have no adverse impact on the environment, there was nothing wrong with giving permission for multiple dumpings. In fact, the Notice of Intent to Issue contains Provisions for monitoring the turbidity caused by the operation and also provides for DER modifications to the conditions or other provisions of the permit as necessary, and recognizes COE's assurances that the immediate and long-term effects of the project will not violate state water quality standards. The spoil, which consists almost exclusively of beach quality sand and which is highly valuable, will be laid down in a berm-shaped deposit the top of which will, at low tide, be no less than 6 feet below the surface of the water. In that configuration, it could not be seen from shore and would in no way impede navigation. The decision to dispose of the spoil in this fashion was made partially on the basis that it would tend to put sand back on the eroded beach in the area. Intervenor theorizes that the spoil (sand and water) will not form this neat berm, but will spread out when it comes out of the dredge pipe below the surface of the water. COE indicates that the contractor on this project will use some sort of a buffer to contain the spread upon discharge. It is anticipated that this project will have to be repeated again and again to keen the channel clear. Though the 800,000 cubic yards anticipated for removal on this occasion is great, so much has never been taken out here at one time before. This is because, as was stated previously, the last dredging was in March 1978, and COE estimated that dredging should take place every 16 months or so. If done on that schedule, succeeding dredgings will be of a far less significant amount. Petitioner, whose profession is as a real estate developer, but whose avocation is as a conservationist of marine life, contends he has been involved in environmental research and protection all his life (he is at least 70). He has, he states, developed several environmental concepts which have, he contends, never been disproved. They are not, however, enjoying widespread acceptance, either, though he contends the Rosenstiel School at the University of Miami has said his environmental concepts are sound. This well may be so; however, Mr. Gross neglected to produce any evidence as to what these concepts are or indications of their soundness. Though he admits to having no formal training in any of the sciences or in engineering, and his research consists of bathing and fishing in the area (he uses a device to gather bait which results in his picking up a part of the sea bottom) he has published. The Petitioner's publication introduced into evidence consists of the reward notice reproduced herein. $2,000 REWARD To make the public aware of hypocritical groups who mislead and misinform the public about environmental protection, I will donate $1,000 to the first organization, agency, student or individual who produces evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that excessive nutrients consisting of mangrove leaves and pods, algae, slime, scum, silt and bacteria, and decaying bodies of all types of insects and creatures emanating from mangrove swamp area DOES NOT cause destruction of shellfish and all forms of marine plant life when infused in excessive amounts into rivers and estuaries by extremely high tides and heavy rainstorms. $1,000 to the first organization, individual, or student who provides evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that recent high tides caused by full moon and heavy rains washing through mangrove swamps DID NOT cause most of the crabs, shrimp, and fish to be destroyed or leave this area when the river became polluted with all types of slime, scum, silt, sludge, and mangreve debris, and droppings of birds and animals and all types of decaying material from the mangrove swamps carried into the river by the tide. John C. Gross PO Box 596 New Smyrna Beach, Fl 32069 Though Petitioner was offered the opportunity by the Hearing Officer to submit additional publications when he indicated he had many and was reminded of this later in the hearing by the Hearing Officer, none were forthcoming. Petitioner professes to be very familiar with the area where the dredging and disposal are to take place, and no doubt he is. He contends the area is in a constant state of change, differing from month to month, and populated by a sea life consisting primarily of shellfish, shrimp, and fish. The beach in the area proposed for disposal, he contends, has already built out some 400 to 500 feet since the jetty was built and has naturally built up dunes which, in his opinion, are due to the COE dredging in the past. This beach buildup is a concern of the Intervenor, as well, who indicated that she can no longer see the ocean from her "oceanfront" house due to the large dunes that have built up between her house and the ocean during the years since the construction of the jetty. She is also fearful that the spoil dumped offshore of her property will come ashore there and add to the already expanded beach. Her concerns and those of her neighbors, including Mrs. Speer, who testified in support of Intervenor's position, include the blocked view already mentioned, the fact that the higher dunes are difficult for older people to climb, the fact that it is further to the water with the new sand, and the concern over who will own the new land built up seaward of the vegetation line. 2/ People are already building closer to the water than she did, blocking her lateral view; and all of this will have, she fears, a negative impact on the value of her property. It is without question that dunes have built up and beach area has accreted since the jetties were put in. This is explained by Dr. Dean as a relatively temporary situation resulting from the movement ashore of a preexisting tidal shoal, formerly located outside the entrance to the Ponce de Leon Inlet, which was destroyed by the interruption of the wave action when the jetty was built. The sand from this shoal came ashore at and around the Intervenor's property, as well as north and south of it, adding to the beach and building the dunes. This accretion has stopped, however, and even reversed, and a beach erosion has begun. In any case, according to Dr. Collins of DER, accretion is not usually a consideration in the decision-making process regarding a permit of this nature. Petitioner indicated his understanding that the spoil was to be deposited 3 feet deep over the bottom in the disposal area and believes this will destroy marine life. As will be seen later, competent expert testimony clearly disproves this one theory. He also does not believe anyone can predict where the spoil will settle, but wherever that is, in his opinion, it will have a devastating effect both on the marine life in the area and on the adjacent beaches. He questions the COE's representation that because of the literal drift's prevailing direction from north to south, the spoil will ultimately settle south of the spoil dumping area. Expert testimony, discussed in detail below, will indicate the correctness of the COE's representations. Petitioner further contends that insufficient surveys have been made of the area. In his opinion, the two or three borings that have been done (in actuality, there were more) are not sufficiently extensive since the area in question is too broad and the bottom is not uniform. Therefore, many more borings are needed, he urges, to accurately determine the makeup of the sea bottom. This bottom makeup has an effect on water quality. Sludge, slime, and silt adversely affect water quality. Clean sand is acceptable. However, Petitioner feels that the dredging proposed may, if the bottom where they dredge is of peer quality, be very bad for the bottom in the deposit area. In that regard, it has been shown that the tests done already indicate that the material to be dredged out of the channel is beach quality sand. Other evidence, in the form of samples of the bottom taken in the disposal area, show it is made up of sand with small shells. In neither location is there any evidence of silt, sludge, or slime. In fact, the expert testimony indicates clearly there would be no damage to water quality in either area. A more comprehensive discussion of this subject will be presented below. Petitioner also fears for the manatees and the sea turtles which sometimes come into the area. The expert testimony to be discussed further below readily shows these fears are groundless. It would appear that there may be some reason for Petitioner's interest in this project other than the stated environmental and ecological concerns stated above. By his own testimony, he revealed he had offered to buy this highly valuable 3/ spoil for $400,000. Mr. Aston, of COE, further testified that as late as one week prior to this hearing, Petitioner called him and indicated the matter could be disposed of quite easily if the COE would put the spoil on his property. The Notice of Intent to Issue and the permit to which it relates are not for a one-time dredge. The permit will be for 5 years, but it 15 subject to extension by letter for an additional 5 years. In the analysis of the application, the environmental concerns and the concerns of the public were not taken lightly. The DNR, by letters dated March 9 and June 28, 1983, expressed its lack of objection to the proposal and granted the authority required under Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. The contract is to begin in September, 1984, and be completed by April, 1985. These months were chosen because (a) they take advantage of the northeast winds prevailing then; and (b) there is no sea turtle nesting during this period. Consequently, there would be no risk of harm to the sea turtles. In addition, the risk of harm to the manatees is minimal. They, as a rule, do not frequent these waters, preferring the quiet backwaters of the rivers and bays to the fast moving waters of the channel or the ocean, and they are generally fast enough to avoid both the dredge and the dump. To be doubly safe, however, the contract calls for a "manatee watch" to be conducted and a log kept of all manatees sighted. Another area covered in the contract is water turbidity. Turbidity will be monitored and actions taken to maintain state water quality standards outside the mixing zone--that area inside of which the water temporarily does not meet state standards and outside of which it must. In this case, this zone would extend not more than 150 meters from each point of interest. COE's application contained reasonable assurances that the state's turbidity standards would not be exceeded more than 150 meters from both the dredge and spoil areas. Tests already run on anticipated turbidity show a rapid (4-minute) settlement out due to the fact that the substance being dredged is heavy sand, not light silt. Continuing with an analysis of the impacts of the project which cannot be avoided, on life in both the dredge and the fill areas, it is seen that: Some nonmobile animal life attached to the sea bottom (worms, etc.) in the spoil area which cannot escape being covered by the spoil will be killed. Some sea life sucked up by the dredge and moved will be killed even though they are dumped back into the water in the spill area. However, wherever some death occurs, it will be individuals, not entire populations, and the dump area will be quickly repopulated by sea life from the surrounding area in addition to the live population brought through the pipeline. Full repopulation can be expected within six months. In a more detailed discussion of the disposal site, it is clear that because of the wave action and the hard bottom, one would expect no grass beds, and there are none, nor are there any natural reefs. A survey of the bottom in the disposal area was done by utilizing loran to accurately locate 12 stations throughout the spoil disposal area with three samples to be taken at each site. At seven of the twelve stations, the scientists found the bottom hard and no sample was produced. At only one of the stations, Station 6, some samples were gathered, and what was acquired was very similar to the surf area near the shore. Dr. Atmar admits that the dumping will create some damage to the bottom life and repeated dumping may have a cumulative effect. However, since, as was stated above, complete repopulation can be expected within six months, the damage caused by dredging and dumping every 16 months, even of large amounts of spoil, will be, in his words, "inconceivably insignificant," and that which does occur will be short-lived. Turning then to the question of the impact of the spoil disposal on the beach property adjacent to the disposal area, Dr. Dean explained the prospective results, as well. In conjunction with other experts in sediment transport and based on at least 20 years of accumulated documentation, he developed a model which, when applied to a given situation with variables, can generally permit accurate predictions of what will happen. Applying this model to the dredging area, it is seen that the primary factor which leads to sediment transport here is the wave action which primarily comes from the northeast. This will transport sediment from the north to the south. When the present channel was dug, it interrupted the normal cycle, which, in an attempt to return to the natural flow, fills up the channel. This necessitates new dredging. Applying the model to the disposal area, again the waves play an important part. Based on all available pertinent information, the spoil deposited would generally transport to the south with a very minor amount, + 5 percent going west and another + 5 percent going north. Both the westward and the northward movement would be very slow. The remaining 90 percent of the spoil would move to the south and would reach the shore a mile or two south of the southern boundary of the proposed disposal area. Of this 90 percent, 50 percent would reach the beach within three to four years--the remainder would take longer. The amount of deposited spoil that would go due west to the adjacent beach would be less than would accrete during the normal seasonal accretien. What is more, the proposed disposal activity would have an imperceptible effect on the elevation of the dunes which already exist. The difference between Dr. Dean's estimate of 10 Percent drift to the north and west and COE's estimate of 20 percent sand drift in those two directions is not significant. Both are estimates, and not specifics. As was stated previously, the spoil in question here is a highly valuable beach quality sand with no evidence of muck, slime or silt. If it were to be deposited further out to sea than is proposed here, where the wave action could not get to it, it would be lost to the littoral transport action and would never come to the beach. This would result in the loss of a high quality resource to the beach in an area to the south where the beach is in need of replenishment, and further beach erosion to the south where the existing dunes are eroding due to the effect of the building of the previously mentioned jetty and because of the worldwide rise in the sea level. Admitting he was hired to testify by the COE after the decision was made as to where to deposit the spoil, Dr. Dean contends that had he been asked where to put it before the decision was made, he would have recommended a site closer to shore, but at the same latitude.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) should approve a permit for the applicant, Indian River County (County), to install a prefabricated erosion prevention reef (PEP reef) off the coast of Vero Beach, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving permits such as the one at issue. The County is a governmental entity and is the applicant which has requested a permit for an experimental project to be located in Vero Beach, Florida. The Petitioners oppose the proposed project. The project at issue is the installation of a PEP reef system to be located between approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-80 to approximately 300 feet south of reference monument R-83, in Indian River County, Florida. Because of the uncertainty as to the performance of the proposed project and the potential that it may cause adverse impacts to the coastal system, the Department classified the project as experimental pursuant to Chapter 89-175, Section 27, Laws of Florida. In making its preliminary approval for the permit, the Department required special permit conditions to safeguard the coastal system and marine turtles. Additionally, the Department specified both preconstruction and post installation monitoring and testing. The term of the permit is limited to five years, including three years to monitor the project's impacts. A PEP reef is a prefabricated erosion prevention product installed as a breakwater off the shore. In this case, the product measures approximately twelve feet long and six feet high. The base of the product (which is conically shaped) is approximately 15 feet tapering to a one foot crest at the top. The PEP unit is a proprietary product of a company called American Coastal Engineering (ACE). The County proposes to contract with ACE for the manufacture and installation of the units. It is proposed that the PEP units would be installed in an alignment parallel to the beach for a total, though not continuous, length of 3000 feet. The proposed location for the PEP reef in Vero Beach is in an erosion area as identified by the Department's Beach Restoration Management Plan. Historically, the subject beach has experienced a steady and continuous erosion which has been exacerbated during storm conditions. The proposed site is suitable for the experimental nature of this project. At least one past storm event caused substantial damage to the beach front at the project site. Walkways, utilities, and other public improvements were substantially damaged. Past efforts to curb the erosion have proved unsuccessful. Such efforts included beach renourishment, and the installation of seawalls or bulkheads. Future beach renourishment is undesirable for the project site due to the lack of compatible sand, and its high cost. More important, however, are concerns over the negative environmental impacts to nearshore reefs which could result from a large scale renourishment project. For over ten years the County has sought a solution to the erosion that has plagued the project site. To that end, the County established a special committee, the Beach and Shore Preservation Advisory Committee, to review options available and to recommend long-term solutions to the County. In June, 1993, the County contracted with Petitioner Walther to prepare a map of the nearshore hardbottom reef and to evaluate alternatives for beach restoration at the project site. Such work was completed, and recommendations from Mr. Walther were not incompatible with the installation of the proposed reef. The proposed installation should not adversely affect the hardbottom reefs which are in the vicinity of the PEP units. Such hardbottom is considered environmentally sensitive; however, no PEP unit will be placed on the hardbottom or so close to it that it will disturb the organisms located within the hardbottom community. In December, 1993, the County submitted an application for an experimental coastal construction permit to install the PEP reef which is at issue. The PEP units are to be placed in seven to ten feet of water. The PEP reef is designed to reduce wave heights, particularly during a storm event, which should reduce the wave energy and currents in the lee of the structure. While it is hoped the units will deter erosion, they may also cause some accretion to the beach. Whether such accretion would be temporary or long- term is uncertain. As a result of studies performed by the University of Florida under the direction of Dr. Dean, and supported by the County's coastal engineer Mr. Donaldson, it was determined that the PEP units should be installed in shorter lengths (than originally designed) with gaps between each segment. Consequently, the installation proposed by the County is not continuous but is staggered and gapped. The installation proposed by the County is unique in that the coastal characteristics of the area and the proposed design should produce results different from past installations of reef structures in Palm Beach County, Florida. As a result, studies performed by Dr. Dean in connection with a reef installed in Palm Beach County have been discounted as dissimilar to the one proposed in this case. In reviewing the subject permit application, the Department requested additional data which the County retained Dr. Zarillo to gather. Dr. Zarillo performed numerical modeling for the proposed reef system. Based upon Dr. Zarillo's work it is expected that the PEP reef system will have a positive benefit in that wave height and energy is likely to be reduced by the installation of the units. The site for the installation is suited for the proposal and is not within an area that is considered environmentally sensitive. Moreover, the PEP reef itself will add to the development of species since it should develop into a nursery habitat for young fish and other marine organisms. The installation of PEP reefs at other locations have proven to be both successful and unsuccessful. Having considered the studies performed by Dr. Bruno, an expert in coastal engineering and in measuring/modeling coastal processes, it is likely that the proposed project will be similar enough in design to installations reviewed by Dr. Bruno to allow the proposed project to be compared. Dr. Bruno has monitored three installations at three different sites in New Jersey. Each site had different results based upon conditions of each location. One site, expected to be most like the proposed site in Vero Beach, has experienced a reduced rate of erosion. Based upon Dr. Bruno's "real life" experience it is expected that the proposed installation will result in a reduction of wave height on the order of 10 percent to 20 percent. Consequently, the proposed installation should provide a benefit to the control of erosion. The reduction of wave height leads to a reduction in the erosive power of the wave field. Therefore, it is expected to result in a reduced erosion rate behind the PEP reefs. Additionally, Dr. Bruno's assessment of Dr. Zarillo's modeling work suggests that "in theory" the proposed site should experience a reduction in wave height as a result of the proposed installation. As a result, both scientific methods support the proposed project. No scientific study can, however, assure the success of this project. In fact, success may be derived from the value of the data which will be gathered during the monitoring period. Such data may assist in the future design of structures to reduce wave energy. The County's proposed monitoring plan contains detailed and adequate performance criteria to assure that the PEP reef system will be fully evaluated. The County has provided adequate assurance that it will comply with the permit conditions, including the modification or removal of the reef system if directed by the Department. All installation and monitoring as well as removal is to be performed at the County's expense. The PEP reef system will have no appreciable adverse impact on marine turtles. Construction is prohibited during nesting season under the terms of the permit. The PEP reef system will have no adverse impact on swimmers or boaters. The units are to be clearly marked and identified under the terms of the permit. No adverse impacts to Petitioners Walther and Clemens should be incurred as a result of the installation of the proposed project.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the permit requested by the County. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-4045 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Walther: 1. Paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 26, 29, 42, 44, 47, 50, 51, 59, and 60 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the allegation is hearsay as it relates to the record cited; however, although not stipulated, the record most likely supports the paragraph in substance. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant. There is no evidence to support the factual conclusion that because another permit holder has failed to remove a reef that the County will similarly default on its obligation to do should the agency order the PEP reef removal. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 14 is rejected as irrelevant if it purports to suggest the contracting was improper; this proceeding does not consider the propriety of the contracting process. With the deletion of any emphasis and the last sentence which are rejected as argument, paragraph 15 is accepted. Paragraphs 18 through 24 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as hearsay; it is accepted that Mrs. Clemens opposed the permit and requested a hearing. Paragraph 27 is rejected as an incomplete statement and therefore not supported by the total weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 28 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraphs 30 through 33 are rejected as law not statements of fact. Paragraph 34 is accepted in general terms but not as to the specific measurements cited. Paragraphs 35 through 38 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. It is determined that the site is suitable for a non-biased, comprehensive analysis of the project. Paragraphs 39 through 41 are rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 43 is rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 45, it is accepted the reefs may settle but such is expected to be unlikely to impair the overall performance of the structure; therefore, the paragraph, as drafted, must be rejected as contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 46 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 48 is rejected as argument or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 49 is rejected as unclear or incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraph 52 is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 53 is rejected as incomplete to stand as a finding of fact or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. Paragraphs 54 through 58 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 61, it is accepted that Dr. Dean envisioned a current being created that would run parallel to the shoreline as a result of the reef installation but otherwise rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of all credible evidence. With regard to paragraph 62, such statement is generally true; however, Dr. Dean did not conduct any sediment transportation test to verify that the structure in an open setting (as opposed to the experimental tank) would transport sediment as inferred. Paragraphs 63 through 67 are rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 68 is accepted as accurate but the agency did not express, and the record does not establish, that there is a concern that the County may not honor its agreement to remove the PEP reef if directed to do so. Paragraph 69 is rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner Clemens: 1. None submitted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent Department: All proposed findings of fact adopted by the Department as listed are accepted. See comments below as to rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the County. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent County: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 5, 7 through 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27 through 30, 34, 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, and 46 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 6, it is accepted that an extensive renourishment program might damage the sensitive nearshore hardbottom community; otherwise rejected as irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 16, with the deletion of the word "significantly" in the second sentence and the last sentence which are rejected as irrelevant, editorial comment, argument or not supported by the total weight of credible evidence, it is accepted. With regard to paragraph 18, the first sentence is accepted. As to the balance of the paragraph, with the deletion of the word "significantly" and the substitution of "might" for "could", the paragraph is accepted. Otherwise rejected as an inaccurate characterization of the weight of the record. With regard to paragraph 19, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 22 is rejected as a compound statement of proposed fact some of which are accurate but which taken in whole constitute argument, unnecessary, irrelevant or not supported by the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 25 is rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 31, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence three, the paragraph is accepted. With regard to paragraph 32, with the deletion of the word "significant" in sentence two, the paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 33 is rejected as repetitive, unnecessary or irrelevant. With regard to paragraph 35, the first sentence is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. Paragraphs 36 through 38 are rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. The proposed PEP reef should not adversely impact the Vero Beach shoreline. Paragraph 44 is rejected as unnecessary, comment, argument, or irrelevant. With regard to paragraphs 47 through 53, it is accepted that the Petitioners did not establish that they will be substantially affected by the proposed project; however, their conduct does not rise to the level to establish participation in the administrative process was for an improper purpose. Consequently, the paragraphs are rejected as argument, irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Lewis, Esquire John W. Forehand, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 702 Post Office Box 10788 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kevin S. Hennessy, Esquire LEWIS, LONGMAN & WALKER, P.A. 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Michael P. Walther 1725 36th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Adele Clemens 3747 Ocean Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Thomas I. Mayton, Jr. Dana M. Wiehle Assistants General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherall Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1988 Harry B. Williams made application to the Department of Natural Resources for permission to construct a single-family dwelling with appurtenant structures at 2831 Ponte Verda Boulevard South, South Ponte Verda Beach, Florida. The permit sought was a coastal construction control line permit which would allow construction seaward of that line in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of that permit application may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 2. Associated with the permit application was a description of the plans related to the dwelling and other structures. This application was received by the Department February 11, 1988. Following a review of the permit application the Department deemed it complete as of February 22, 1988. A site inspection was made of the property and a report was prepared by an employee with the Department, a Mr. Partel. The report may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 4, which includes photographs of the prospective building site, together with the surrounding property to include dwellings to the north and south of the lot where the Williams home would be built. As commented on by Mr. Partel the applicant had intended at that time to construct a single-family dwelling a maximum of 75 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although this evaluator, Mr. Partel, felt that the applicant had requested the right to construct a dwelling which was in line with existing construction, he felt that it could be moved further landward and that it could be limited in deck size and that a cantilevened form of construction was preferable to the concrete called for in the plans set out in the application information. It was also suggested that the sea oats that were in the way of the construction should be relocated seaward on a dune face slope where a denuded area is found. In this connection, the Department is empowered to make suggestions to the applicant concerning the minimization of the adverse impacts on the beach-dune system. Following the site visit of February 26, 1988 the Department wrote the applicant on March 11, 1988 and indicated concerns about the proximity of the dwelling to the crest of the dune. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 5. In the correspondence the Department asked the applicant to move the proposed dwelling 10 feet landward and that the 10 foot wide concrete patio, on the seaward side, be modified to a 10 foot wide wooden deck. The letter told the applicant that the approval would be conditioned on the sea oats and other dune grasses that would be disturbed by the proposed structures being replanted seaward of the project in the denuded areas of the dune. The applicant agreed to these changes. The relocation of the structure 10 feet landward took it away from the beach- dune system. The modified site plan that was brought about by the suggested changes is found Department's Exhibit Number 6, a copy of that amended site plan. With the relocation the construction would be 66 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. An aerial photograph of the site location reference the basic design of the dwelling and the proximity to the relevant or existing coastal construction control line is found as Department's Exhibit Number 3. In responding to the suggestions to the change in location the modified site plan which moved the dwelling 10 feet landward was received by the Department on August 1, 1988. Under this arrangement the applicant had agreed to waive the requirements of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes pertaining to the obligation by the Department to review and decide its action of grant or denial within 90 days of date of receipt of the application. With the changes being made to the location of the proposed dwelling and associated structures and the type of construction materials used in the patio on the seaward side, together with the relocation of the plant life, the impact on the beach-dune system and adjacent property is acceptable. There is no adverse impact on the beach-dune system or on the adjacent properties. The location of the proposed dwelling and its associated structures as it relates to the 30-year erosion projection under the terms of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, in this instance, shows that the dwelling would be approximately 55 feet landward of the 30-year erosion projection and not at risk. Calculations related to this finding may be found within Department's Exhibit Number 7. The existing coastal construction control line dates from January 28, 1988. Although the original application referred to the previous line of 1978 in describing the site plan and survey, the reason for this was that the site plan and survey were prepared prior to the establishment of the January 28, 1988 line, as allowed. In the course of the hearing appropriate reference was made to the January 28, 1988 line as it relates to the anticipated location of the dwelling and other structures as modified at the instigation of the Department. As contemplated by Section 161.053(5)(f), the Department required the applicant to provide mitigation of the- effects of the construction as a condition to a grant of the permit. Those permit conditions may be found in the Department's Exhibit Number 8, a copy of a proposed final order. Included within those would be the requirements for erection of a temporary construction fence on the site to protect existing native dune vegetation from the impacts of that construction, in addition to the requirement of the dune vegetation relocation. This would involve the irrigation and application of fertilizer to those plants with the expectation that a certain percentage would survive over time as described in this special condition. This project will not pose a hazard to the sea turtle and its hatchlings and habitat for the sea turtles and hatchlings. Ms. Butler, Petitioner in this cause, has a beach home which is north of the Williams property separated by a 10 foot easement between those properties. In mid July, 1988 Ms. Butler offered a written statement in opposition to the placement and size of the proposed dwelling together with other remarks and asked that the Department provide her information and documents pertaining to the application under the authority of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. On August 10, 1988 the Department dispatched a letter of inquiry to surrounding property owners to include Ms. Butler and solicited remarks concerning the Williams application to be provided on or about August 20, 1988. Ms. Butler had received certain documents from the Department concerning the application sometime in the middle of August 1988. On August 18, 1988 Butler made known her objection to the project on the grounds that the concerns about the 30-year erosion line and the size and placement of the dwelling. On September 2, 1988 the Department informed Ms. Butler of the intent to grant the permit to Mr. Williams. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5. This led to a timely request for hearing by Ms. Butler stating her opposition to this project. The request was received in accordance with the Department's advice that the request must be filed by September 26, 1988. Based upon the prehearing conference and the discussion of those issues which would be allowed for consideration as stated in the request for hearing and the statement of particulars that attend the request for hearing, commented on by the hearing officer at the commencement of the final hearing, and found within the transcript and further stated in the issues portion to this Recommended Order, this case has been carried forward. The presentation made by the Petitioner, after the Department and applicant had offered their cases, was through her testimony and that of employees of the Department together with exhibits she offered. The testimony of the Department employees concerned the procedural techniques that the agency pursued in reviewing the application at issue. Ms. Butler described her concern for her property, and the area between her property and the Williams property. This is the 10 foot easement area which is sparsely vegetated and low. As a consequence she was concerned that her property might be destroyed with the advent of the Williams construction. She has no expertise in her own right nor did she present expert opinion from other witnesses which would tend to bear out her concern. She also expressed the concern that the Williams home, in its dimensions, was too large and that it should be relocated an additional 10 feet back from the adjusted placement following the Department's criticism of the original application. In effect, she would have the house placed 20 feet away from the sea as compared to the original site plan submitted with the application on February 10, 1988. Again, there is no competent evidence presented which would support her theory that this further relocation was needed. Her expression of concern for the sea turtles and their hatchlings and habitat was not well founded. Turtles are known to nest on the sandy flat beach area and the construction of the Williams property will not interfere with that area adjacent to the ocean.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order which grants a coastal construction control line permit to Harry B. Williams, Jr., based upon his modified plan required by the Department and upon the special permit conditions announced in the proposed final order, a copy of which is found as Department's Exhibit Number 8. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of April, 1989.
The Issue Whether a vessel is owned by Petitioner, Jonathan Selby, and is a “derelict vessel” within the meaning of section 823.11(1)(b)1., Florida Statutes (2020), and City of Riviera Beach Derelict Vessel Policy, No. 4.2., and therefore, subject to the provisions of section 705.103, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of the 1987 Wellcraft marine vessel, Florida Boat Registration Number FL5632FV (HIN: WELC24661687)(the “vessel”), that sunk on the north side of the Riviera Beach Marina. Riviera Beach Marina is in the City of Riviera Beach. The vessel broke free from a mooring in a storm and is now in a wrecked, junked, or substantially dismantled condition. Therefore, the vessel is a “derelict vessel” as defined in section 823.11(1)(b)1., and the City of Riviera Beach Derelict Vessel Policy, No. 4.2. There was no evidence presented that the vessel became derelict because of the negligence of Petitioner.
The Issue Whether the Petitioners have standing to initiate this proceeding? Whether the Intervenors have standing to intervene? Whether the Department should enter a final order that issues the JCP and the Variance?
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Sherry Petitioners and Their Property David and Rebecca Sherry, husband and wife, are the leaseholders of "Apartment No. 511 [a condominium unit] of Surf Dweller Condominium, a condominium with such apartment's fractional share of common and limited elements as per Declaration thereof recorded in Official Records . . . of Okaloosa County, Florida." WD Ex. P-8, Bates stamped PET7157. Their address is 554 Coral Court, #511, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548. The Sherrys leased their condominium unit in May 2002 in anticipation of it being their retirement home. After retirement, "towards the end of 2005," WD tr. 840, the unit became their permanent residence. They chose their home after an extensive search for the best beach in America on which to reside. The couple toured the Gulf Coast of Florida, the Keys and the Atlantic seaboard from South Florida into the Carolinas. Both explained at hearing why they picked the Panhandle of Florida in general and selected the Surf Dweller Condominium in particular as the place that they would live during retirement. Mr. Sherry testified: This particular area we chose because of the beach quality. Quite frankly, . . . I was surprised when I first saw the place . . . the really stunning quality of it. The sand is absolutely beautiful. The water has that clear green hue. You can walk off shore and it just looks great. There isn't any other place like it in the Continental US that I've ever seen. WD Tr. 841. Mrs. Sherry elaborated about the reasons for their choice to reside on the beach adjacent to the Surf Dweller and their enjoyment of the beach in the Okaloosa Island area of Santa Rosa Island. "We moved here for the quality of the beach, the sugar white sand." Tr. 936, Case No. 10-0515 (emphasis added). She explained that both she and her husband walk or run the beach daily. Mr. Sherry always runs; Mrs. Sherry's routine is to walk and run alternately. There are other distinctions in their daily traverses over the sugar white sand of Okaloosa Island. Mr. Sherry sometimes runs in shoes. As for Mrs. Sherry, however, she professed, I always run barefoot. I always walk barefoot and I take longer walks than he does. He runs the whole Island. I walk the whole Island and I run 3 miles at a time of the Island. So, that's the difference in the way we use [the beach.] Id. Mrs. Sherry described her activities on the beach more fully and how she enjoys it: I . . . swim. I surf on the skim board, float out in the water . . . I help Dave fish, we crab, . . . all sorts of things like that for recreation. Pretty much a beach person. I sit down on the beach under an umbrella with a lot of sunscreen. * * * I've always run barefoot. That's the reason [we chose the beach next to the Surf Dweller], it's not only the quality of the sand, [it's also] the fact that it's so soft because as I've aged, my husband and I have both been running for 30 years. He's in much better shape. I can still run barefoot and I can do a good pace, but if I've got shoes on, it's not nearly as much fun and I don't do nearly as much of it. So, to me, being able to have the squeak [of the sand underfoot], which you don't have with the restored sand is a big deal and having to wear shoes is a big deal. I really like to . . . [cross the beach] barefoot. WD Tr. 939. I actually think the project will impact me, at least, as much as my husband, David . . . my husband is . . . involved with . . . being board president of the Surf Dweller[.] I spend at least as much time as he does on the beach. And the way our furniture is arranged in the unit, it's so that when I'm in the kitchen, I bake the cookies, I see the beach, when I'm at the computer I can see the beach. I've got all the best views. So, I think I'm . . . extremely involved with it. It's the first thing I see in the morning; it's the last thing I see at night and I'm down there every morning. In fact, I was on the beach this morning before we came in . . . I don't miss my morning walk. Tr. 950, 10-0515. The Surf Dweller Condominium is located in Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island, Okaloosa County, on real property that was deeded to the County by the federal government and then subsequently leased out by the County under long-term leases. The legal description of the Surf Dweller Condominium is: LOTS 257 TO 261, INCLUSIVE, LOTS 279, 280, 281, BLOCK 5, SANTA ROSA ISLAND, PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 84, OKALOOSA COUNTY. WD Ex. P-8, PET7158. Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island is subject to Protective Covenants and Restrictions adopted by the Okaloosa Island Authority in 1955 and recorded in the Official Records of the County at BOOK 121, PAGES 233-250. See WD County Ex. 13. The Protective Covenants and Restrictions set up four classifications of areas denominated as Zones B-1 through B-4. See id., Part B: Areas of Application, at BOOK 121 Page 235. Block 5 of Santa Rosa Island is in Zone B-2, "Apartment, Hotel Court and Hotel Areas." Id. at BOOK 121 PAGE 236. Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions, provides, in part, Beach Protection * * * The beaches, for 300 feet inland from mean water level (or to the dune crest line, whichever is the greater distance), are under strict control of the Authority . . . One hundred fifty feet inland from the mean water line, in front of all B1 and B2 Areas, will be public beaches. The next 150 ft. inland will be private beaches as set out on subdivision plats . . . WD County Ex. 13, at page marked "BOOK 121 PAGE 242." The Surf Dweller Condominium Property, lying between reference monuments R-6 and R-7, does not extend as far south as the mean high water line ("MHWL") of the Gulf of Mexico. From testimony provided by Mr. Sherry, see below, it appears that the Surf Dweller Condominium Property is deeded to the border with the beaches governed by Part F of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. Mr. Donovan and His Property John Donovan is the leaseholder of "APARTMENT NO. 131 AND APARTMENT NO. 132, OF EL MATADOR, A CONDOMINIUM AS PER DECLARATION THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN . . . THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA." WD Ex. P-7, PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF SUBLEASE, Bates stamped PET7067. The address of the El Matador is 909 Santa Rosa Boulevard, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548. Mr. Donovan is not a resident of the State of Florida. His primary residence is in the State of Georgia. Mr. Donovan described in testimony his use and the use of his family of the beach seaward of El Matador and other parts of the Okaloosa Island area of Santa Rosa Island: I've . . . got to walk [for reasons of health] and I do walking every day I'm down here[.] I get all the way down to East Pass. I don't get down there every day, but I get down there a lot. My sons and my one grandchild take great pleasure in fishing off there, right at the end where the East Pass is right from the surf. * * * I swim. I don't swim probably as much as my co-petitioners [the Sherrys], but I'm sure I go out further. And I don't surf like David [Sherry] does but my grandchild would never tell me that I don't. I run as much as I can. Not as much as I used to. We also take long walks. WD Tr. 973-4. In a plat of El Matador Condominium introduced into evidence as part of Exhibit P-7, El Matador is described as: A CONDOMINIUM OF LOTS 557 THROUGH 590 INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 9 AND THE INCLUDED PORTION OF PORPOISE DRIVE THEREOF SANTA ROSA ISLAND A SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 9 A RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 8 AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 190, PUBLIC RECORDS OF OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA Exhibit P-7, last page (un-numbered). Block 8 of Santa Rosa Island (like Block 5 in which the Surf Dweller Condominium is located) is also in Zone B-2 set up by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. Block 8, just as Block 5, is governed by Part F, Beach Protection, of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions that places the beaches, for at least 300 feet inland, of the segment of Santa Rosa Island to which Block 8 is adjacent under the strict control of the County and makes the first 150 feet inland from the MHWL "public beaches." County WD 13, at page marked "BOOK 121 PAGE 242." El Matador Condominium is between reference monuments R-1 and R-2. It is not deeded to the MHWL of the Gulf. The plat in County Exhibit 13 shows the southern edge of the El Matador condominium property to be adjacent to the "FREEHOLDERS BEACH," see Exhibit P-7, last page (un-numbered), that is, to the edge of the area of the private beach designated under the "Beach Protection" provision of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. The public beach designated by the same provision is seaward of the private beach. Concerns of the Sherrys and Mr. Donovan The Surf Dweller Condominium Property that serves the Sherrys' condominium unit and the El Matador Condominium Property that serves Mr. Donovan's condominium unit are along the segment of the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County that will be restored by the Okaloosa Island Project. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan initiated this proceeding because they are opposed to the Okaloosa Island Project. One of the grounds for their opposition concerns the Project's borrow area to be used as a source of sand. It is offshore but relatively close to the beach immediately landward of the Sherry and Donovan condominium units. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan presented evidence that the borrow area is sited and situated in such a way that once dredged it will cause impacts to the shoreline of Okaloosa Island. The impacts, they believe, in turn will affect their use and enjoyment of the beach. Mr. Donovan is concerned about the erosion and turbidity impacts that dredging the borrow site which serves the Project could have on the Gulf and the beach. Erosion would change his view of the beach from the window of his condominium unit and aggravate a scalloping of the shore. The unevenness of the scalloped surface would cause him difficulties in his walks. He is concerned that turbidity could attract sharks which would make it unsafe for him to swim. Most importantly to him, the change in the beach and shoreline along the El Matador Condominium property contemplated by the Draft JCP could deter his family members (his grandchild included) from visiting him and vacationing at his unit in the El Matador Condominium. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan have other concerns about the Project. For example, they believe that the sand used in the restoration will not be compatible with Okaloosa Island's "sugar white" sand. They also are concerned about the impact that placement of the sand will have on their view, their walks and their runs and the many ways in which they use and enjoy the beach. Furthermore, they presented evidence that the cost of the Project will outweigh its benefit. The Intervenors Intervenors John Dezzutto and Thomas Wilson own condominium units 102-D and 101-B in the Seaspray Condominium located at 1530 Miracle Strip Parkway, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548. At its southern boundary the property that is subject to the declaration of condominium that created the Seaspray Condominium (the "Seaspray Condominium Property") is deeded to the MHWL. Hence, the Seaspray Condominium Property is considered to be "gulf-front." Intervenor David Wallace owns Unit 502 in the Destin West Beach and Bay Resort Condominium located at 1515 Miracle Strip Parkway, Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548. Similar to the Seaspray Condominium, at its southern boundary the property that is subject to the declaration of condominium that created the Destin West Beach and Bay Resort Condominium (the "Destin West Beach and Bay Resort Condominium Property") is deeded to the MHWL. The property, therefore, is considered to be "gulf- front." The Seaspray Condominium Property and the Destin West Beach and Bay Resort Condominium Property overlap the beaches that are to be restored by the Project. If the County is to restore the area of the beach that is on the condominium properties of the two condominiums in which the Intervenors own condominium units, it will need to heed the advice of General Condition Six in the Draft JCP which is interpreted by the Department as a warning against trespass as well as provide authorization for such use from the property owner as required by the Draft JCP. The County and the Department Okaloosa County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and the applicant for the JCP and the Variance. The Department is the state agency responsible for administration of the state's regulatory authority as found in Part I of the Beach and Shore Preservation Act, chapter 161, Florida Statutes, and in particular, for the issuance of permits required by section 161.041 and the concurrent processing of "joint coastal permits" as allowed by section 161.055. It also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund and in that capacity handles the processing and issuance of SSL Authorizations. Okaloosa Island Okaloosa Island is not an island. It is an unincorporated area of Santa Rosa Island. Santa Rosa Island is a barrier island that runs along much of the coast of the Panhandle of Florida. As explained by Mr. Clark at the final hearing, one is "in" Okaloosa Island while being "on" Santa Rosa Island. Okaloosa Island was conveyed to the County by the federal government and then leased by the County under long-term leases. The Surf Dweller and El Matador Condominium Properties (with units that belong to the Sherrys and Mr. Donovan, respectively), are in Okaloosa Island. Some of the other leaseholders in Okaloosa Island opted to have their leases converted to ownership of the leased property in fee simple. The Surf Dweller and El Matador Condominium Properties remain under long-term leases. Dry Beach Adjacent to Surf Dweller and El Matador Beginning with Hurricane Opal in 1995, the beaches and shores adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador Condominium Properties were seriously damaged. Nonetheless, there is a significant stretch of dry beach between the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium properties and the MHWL of the Gulf. In the case of the Surf Dweller Property, Mr. Sherry estimated the width of the beach between the condominium property and the MHWL to be 300 feet. See his testimony quoted, below. The MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico is a dynamic line, subject to constant change from the natural influences of the coastal system. Whatever effect its ever-changing nature might have on the width of the beaches between the MHWL and the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium properties, at the time of hearing, there existed a 150 foot-wide stretch of beach water- ward of the two condominiums that the public has the right to occupy and use. David Sherry confirmed as much when he related the actual practice by the public in using it and the response that public use generated from him and his wife in the following colloquy on cross-examination by Mr. Hall for the County: Q If someone . . . crosses Santa Rosa Boulevard and utilizes this access[-]way that's marked on the map that you identified earlier, do they have the right to utilize any of the portion of [the private beach] of that 150-foot portion in front of your condominium? A . . . [N]o, they wouldn't have the right to do that. Q . . . [D]o they have the ability to set up an umbrella or place their towel within that 150-foot area [of private beach] in front of your condominium? A In that area, no. In the area south of that [the public beach] , which is where everyone actually sets up and wants to set up, in that area south, people set up and we don't have any problem with that. We let people do it -- Q On [the] public beach[.] A On the public beach they're perfectly free to do that. * * * Q I believe your testimony today, based on your GPS calculations, was that you have 300 feet of dry sand beach . . . running from the boundary of the condominium to the edge of the Gulf of Mexico; is that correct? A Essentially, from the building to the Gulf of Mexico. * * * Q So, 300 feet, roughly, from the boundary of the Surf Dweller Condominium common area down to the waterline? A Correct. Q So, there would be enough room today, based on the language of the restrictive covenants to have . . . 150 feet of public beach and then the 150 feet of Freeholders Beach as designated on the plat [in County Exhibit 13] now? A Much like it was in 1955 [when the Protective Covenants and Restrictions were adopted and recorded], yes. WD Tr. 891-3 (emphasis added). Since the first 150 feet of beach landward of the MHWL under the Protective Covenants and Restrictions is "public beach," there is no doubt that there is a stretch of beach between the Surf Dweller Condominium and the MHWL that is public beach, and it has a width of 150 feet. From aerial photographs introduced into evidence, the same finding is made with regard to beach that is public between El Matador and the MHWL of the Gulf. Mr. Donovan testified that his leasehold interest in his units at El Matador along with the interests of the other El Matador condominium unit leaseholders included 150 feet of private beach landward of the 150 feet of public beach adjacent to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. His lawyer, moreover, advised him not to convert his leasehold interest into a fee simple ownership in order to protect his interest in access to the private beach designated by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. See WD Tr. 986-87. Opal and Okaloosa Island Beaches Today Hurricane Opal made landfall near Pensacola in October 1995. Prior to Hurricane Opal, the shoreline in Okaloosa Island had been stable. The width of the vegetated and upper berm and dune systems had been about 175 feet and the un- vegetated beach seaward of the dune system about 100 feet wide. Upland development was protected from storm surge and wave action by a good 285-foot width of dune system and beach. Opal devastated much of the Florida Panhandle. Okaloosa Island was not spared. The shoreline of Okaloosa Island both advanced and retreated. The western half of Okaloosa Island (west of R-8) showed shoreline recession, that is, the shoreline on the western half retreated landward. The shoreline on the eastern half (east of R-8) advanced water-ward. The dune system, however, was destroyed. From the point of protection the beaches and the dune system offer upland development, moreover, the advance of the beaches in the eastern half of Okaloosa Island did not offset the damage done from volumetric reduction of the sand that the eastern half of Okaloosa Island suffered. As for Okaloosa Island as a whole, the area lost considerable sand volume. Opal's damage to Okaloosa Island, in sum, consisted of substantial loss of sand volume, significant deflation of beach profile and erosion of the dune and beach system throughout the area. After Opal, the general trend along Okaloosa Island was recession. Based on an overall average, the recession measured about minus 7 feet per year. See OI Tr. 561. The Okaloosa Island shoreline moved toward upland development. Despite the general retreat of the shoreline, in some areas of Okaloosa Island, the beaches appear to the untrained eye to be healthy because they are usable and quite wide. But even at their widest points, Okaloosa Island beaches are "very low and flat" OI tr. 562. The only dunes (where there are any at all) are "insignificant manmade dunes," id., that do not protect upland development. In short, Okaloosa Island is in need of coastal protection. It is "completely vulnerable to the impact of a storm surge or waves from, not only a hurricane, but lesser storms . . . ." OI Tr. 536. Critically Eroded Shoreline Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62B-36 governs the Beach Management Funding Assistance Program. It contains the following definition of "Critically Eroded Shoreline": "Critically Eroded Shoreline" is a segment of shoreline where natural processes or human activities have caused, or contributed to, erosion and recession of the beach and dune system to such a degree that upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or important cultural resources are threatened or lost. Critically eroded shoreline may also include adjacent segments or gaps between identified critical erosion areas which, although they may be stable or slightly erosional now, their inclusion is necessary for continuity of management of the coastal system or for the design integrity of adjacent beach management projects. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-36.002(4) (the "Critically Eroded Shoreline Definition"). The Department determines whether upland development, recreational interests, wildlife habitat or cultural resources are threatened or lost based on a 25-year storm event. In 2005, the Department designated the area subject to the Okaloosa Island Project as having a "critically eroded shoreline." The designation was in accordance with the Critically Eroded Shoreline Definition and based on post-storm vulnerability after Hurricane Ivan which made landfall in the United States in September of 2004. An investigation was conducted in Fall 2008 to update the designation in response to a request from the County. The investigators concluded that there had been erosion, including deflation and recession of the dune and beach, to such an extent that upland properties and development were threatened between R-1 and R-8.5 and R-12 and R-13. The shoreline in the area between R-8.5 and R-12 (the "Gap Segment") standing alone did not meet the requirements for designation as critically eroded. Nonetheless, the Gap Segment was designated as having a critically eroded shoreline for continuity of management of the coastal system and to facilitate management of the adjacent beached in order to maintain the integrity of the Project's design. The same is true of the segment of the Project east of R-13, that is, from R-13 to R-15. ("Continuity of management and maintenance of a project's design integrity" is a basis for designating a shoreline to be critically eroded under the Department's rule.) Were the Gap Segment to be excluded from the Project, fill placed by the restoration effort in the adjacent, restored areas would collapse into it over time. The restored areas would not remain stable and the restoration effort would be defeated, diminished or endangered. That upland areas in the Gap Segment might not be threatened by a 25-year storm does not mean that restoration is not a useful activity for the segment. To the contrary, the upland areas alongside the Gap Segment will benefit from the Project. While the upland areas adjacent to the Gap Segment's shoreline may not be threatened by less damaging higher- frequency storms, they are "definitely threatened by a 50 or 100-year storm event and are in need of the project from that standpoint." OI Tr. 557. Genesis of the County's Efforts Following the designation by the Department of the shoreline subject to the Project as critically eroded, the County began to consider beach restoration in Okaloosa Island. The efforts gained momentum when the County entered an inter- local agreement with the City of Destin in 2006. The agreement provided that the Tourist Development Council (the "TDC") would be the lead agency in all beach restoration issues. The County chose the shoreline now subject to the Project for restoration because of the Department's designation of it as critically eroded. The Project The Project calls for the placement of 940,000 cubic yards of beach quality sand along a 2.8 mile stretch of shoreline. The shoreline is between the Department's reference markers R-1 and R-15 on Santa Rosa Island in an unincorporated area of the County known as Okaloosa Island, Sections 28 through 30, Township 2 South, Range 23 West, in the Gulf of Mexico, Class III Waters. The Project's entire site is situated within the Gulf Islands National Seashore which extends one mile offshore of Santa Rosa Island, the waters of which have been designated by the state as Outstanding Florida Waters ("OFW"). The placement on the beach of the sand (or fill) will create dunes that have the potential to become stable through vegetation, extend the beach seaward roughly two hundred feet, and elevate the beach an average of roughly five and an half feet. The design includes a 40-foot-wide dune crest at an elevation of 14 feet NAVD, a 60-foot wide backberm at 8.5 feet NAVD, and a variable width berm at 5.5 feet NAVD. The dune will transition into the backberm at a 1:4 (vertical:horizontal) slope; the backberm will transition into the berm at a 1:10 slope; and the berm will transition into the existing sea bottom at a 1:10 slope. In areas where the landward edge of the dune crest does not tie into the existing dune, the landward dune face will merge into the existing topography at a 1:4 slope. The fill for the Project will be dredged from an offshore borrow area. The Project includes the removal of sand placed on Okaloosa Island beaches in 2006. Referred to at hearing as "brown sand," see OI tr. 1668, Case No. 10-2468, the sand had been hauled in from an upland source by truck rather than being from an offshore borrow area as contemplated by the Draft JCP. The brown sand is not the same color as the "sugar white" sand on Okaloosa Island's beaches. It is being removed because it is not compatible on the basis of color with the sand on the beach. The ECL Morgan and Eklund, Inc., Professional Survey Consultants (the "ECL Surveyors"), prepared a document dated October 30, 2008, entitled "MEAN HIGH WATER LINE SURVEY AND PROPOSED OKALOOSA ISLAND EROSION CONTROL LINE FOR FDEP RANGE MONUMENTS R-1 TO R-16 OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA," see WD County Ex. 7. The document was referred to at hearing by Mr. Trudnak as the "Erosion Control Line drawings for the Okaloosa Island Project." WD Tr. 261. (The document, WD County Exhibit 7, will be referred to in this order as the "Proposed ECL Drawings.") The Proposed ECL Drawings show that a survey of the MHWL survey between R-1 and R-16 was conducted on September 16, 2008. As would be expected, the MHWL depicted on the Proposed ECL Drawings is not a straight line. For the most part, it meanders across the drawings with sections where the line comes to "points" that protrude seaward. For example, one prominent point would be at the end of a perpendicular line (that does not appear on the Proposed ECL Drawings) drawn seaward across the dry beach from a point (also not on the Proposed ECL Drawings) on Surf Dweller Condominium Property. See WD County Ex. 7, Case No. 10-2468. The Proposed ECL Drawings depict three other lines, entitled "LANDWARD LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION," "POST CONSTRUCTION MEAN HIGH WATER LINE," and "SEAWARD LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION," all of which are predominately straight lines. On April 21, 2010, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund by resolution (the "Resolution") "approved, adopted and certified for the purposes prescribed by Sections 161.141 through 161.211, Florida Statutes," OI Petitioners' Ex. 22, the Okaloosa Island Project ECL "particularly described in Exhibit A." Id. Exhibit A begins with the legal description of the ECL and ends with drawings entitled "OKALOOSA 001-016 EROSION CONTROL LINE OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA" (the "Approved ECL Drawings"). With a few exceptions (dates and titles) immaterial to this proceeding, the Approved ECL Drawings are identical to the Proposed ECL Drawings. The Seaward Limit of Construction Line is water-ward of the Post Construction MHWL, both of which are well water-ward of the MHWL set in September 2008. Generally, the width from the Seaward Limit of Construction Line to the Landward Limit of Construction Line on the drawings is about 400 feet. The Landward Limit of Construction The Landward Limit of Construction Line in much of the Proposed and Adopted ECL Drawings is over dry beach which, although under the strict control of the County, was declared to be "private" by the County's Protective Covenants and Restrictions. As its name suggests, the Landward Limit of Construction Line was expected by the ECL Surveyors to be the landward edge of the sand fill placed during construction of the Project. As explained by Mr. Trudnak at hearing, the line is "the back of the dune. So, it is the landward most point where sand will be placed." OI Tr. 270. But Mr. Trudnak explained further that the Landward Limit of Construction Line on the Proposed ECL Drawings (and therefore, on the Approved ECL Drawings as well) would not, in fact, be the actual landward- most point of sand placed during the construction phase of the restoration. Rather, the landward-most point where sand would be placed would be significantly waterward of the Landward Limit of Construction Lines on the drawings. Mr. Trudnak offered several reasons for his position. The Landward Limit of Construction Lines on the drawings are straight lines which is not consistent with what will happen when the construction is actually undertaken. Furthermore, a new limit of construction line will be determined when construction plans are submitted prior to the issuance by the Department of a Notice to Proceed, subsequent to the issuance of a JCP. The ECL Surveyors whose Proposed and Approved ECL Drawings contain the straight Landward Limit of Construction Lines that are too landward were not retained to produce drawings for construction plans. The line on the construction plans, when developed, will be much more seaward than the line on the Proposed and Approved ECL Drawings. The County intends, moreover, to construct the Project so that the landward limit of construction falls inside the 150 feet of public beach immediately waterward of the ECL, much further seaward of the Landward Limit of Construction Lines on the Proposed and Approved ECL Drawings. It is reasonable to expect that the County will be able to carry out its intention. See Okaloosa County Exs. 20 and 21, Case No. 10-2468 and Mr. Trudnak's testimony at OI Tr. 181. To the west of a point relatively close to R-12, that is, from R-1 to roughly R-12, the Project can be built on "public" property, that part of the beach declared by the Protective Covenants and Restrictions to be public and controlled by the officials of Okaloosa County or owned by the federal government as part of Eglin Air Force Base. The same is not true of the property to the east of a point just west of R-12. With the exception of the beach adjacent to Newman Brackin Wayside Park (see OI Joint Ex. 2B, sheet 4 of 4 and OI DEP 24), the property east of the federally owned Eglin property is privately owned to the MHWL. If the County does not get authorization from the owners of this private property to conduct restoration activities on the property, the property "would have to be skipped." OI Tr. 188. That would leave two gaps with no restoration landward of the MHWL: the eastern-most end, from roughly R-13.8 to R-15, and a gap from roughly R-11.9 to R-12.9. "Skipping" private properties in the event of a refusal of consent by the owners to use the property during construction would not mean that the Project should be abandoned. The Project could be fully constructed where consents were not required. Where necessary consents were not obtained, the Project could still be constructed below the MHWL. Thus, the project could be constructed over its entire proposed length from R-1 to R-15; east of R-12, however, the Project would not be at its proposed width along the entire length. Some sand from the areas that are restored fully would be transported to the private properties not restored above the MHWL. The Project width in the fully restored segments adjacent to the gaps would be diminished. The beach width in the eastern part of the Project will be narrower than if the private consents had been obtained and the eastern beach fully restored. If the Project's proposed width is narrowed in parts by lack of consents, the Project will not be as effective had the consents been obtained. Nonetheless, the Project will still provide protection over its entire length from surges and damaging wave action produced by tropical storms. Project Construction The Project's Construction is intended to be facilitated by hopper dredge. The dredge excavates at a borrow site. A ship brings the excavated material to the beach fill site where it is discharged by pipe onto the beach. The pipeline runs perpendicular to the shore and extends about a quarter of a mile offshore. The contractor normally fences off a work zone that is about 500 feet wide. The work zone moves along the beach as construction progresses. "[I]n that work zone, there is a lot of heavy equipment that moves the sand around . . . looking at the Project . . . [from] an aerial view, roughly half the sand will be placed seaward and half the sand . . . landward of . . . [the] Mean High Water Line." WD Tr. 139. The Project's construction template or "the shape of the beach when it[']s constructed," id., consists of a dune, a backberm and a wide variable berm. Over the first several months following the Project's construction, a calibration process takes place. About half of the berm erodes and deposits offshore in a near shore sand bar. The near-shore bar acts as a wave break. It dissipates wave energy during storms. A healthy near-shore bar provides significant storm protection. The Project will provide protection from a 50-year storm. Selection of the Sand Source: Borrow Area OK-A The engineers of the Project, ("Taylor Engineering," the "Project's Engineers" or the "Engineers") examined the Gulf's underwater expanse from Santa Rosa County to Walton County seaward to Federal waters. The search for a sand source included a reconnaissance phase and a detail phase investigation of geophysical and geotechnical data. After exhaustive study, two potential borrow areas were identified: a "far-shore" site and a "near-shore" site. The far-shore site is eight miles offshore and about a mile east of East Pass and is designated "OK-B." The near-shore site, three miles west of East Pass and centered about a mile and a quarter from the shores of the Okaloosa Island part of Santa Rosa Island, is designated "OK-A." With its edge within the designated Outstanding Florida Water boundary of the Gulf Islands National Seashore Park, OK-A is within a relic ebb tidal delta in water depths of -36 to -51 feet, NGVD. Approximately 1.7 miles wide from east to west and approximately 0.9 miles wide north to south, it covers approximately 700 acres. At its landward-most side, it will be dredged 10 feet into the existing bottom. Reference in documents of Taylor Engineering and the County to OK-A as the "near-shore site" does not mean it is located in the "nearshore" as that term is used in coastal geology. The coastal geologic term "nearshore" refers to the zone from the shoreline out to just beyond the wave breaking zone. See WD Tr. 513. Borrow Area OK-A is well beyond the nearshore. It is clearly located "offshore," in "the relatively flat zone that is located from the surf breakers seaward out to the outer limits of the continental shelf." OI Tr. 513. It is referred as the near-shore site by Taylor and the County to distinguish it from OK-B which is farther offshore and therefore was referred to as the "farshore site." The two sites, OK-A and OK-B, were selected for comparative review on three bases: sand quality; financial impact; and dredging impacts. Sand quality is "the number one criteri[on]." WD Tr. 143, 10-0515. It involves grain size, soil and shell content, sand color and size of material in the sand, including large shells. See OI Sherry 138. Financial impact is determined mainly by distance; the farther from the construction site, the more expensive to transport the sand. If the borrow area is close enough to shore, a Borrow Area Impact Analysis is conducted. An impact analysis was not conducted for OK-B. The Engineers assumed on the basis of its 8-mile distance from shore that it would not impact the shoreline. The assumption was a reasonable one. Impacts to the shoreline or beach from the dredging of OK-B are unlikely. A Borrow Area Impact Analysis was conducted of OK-A. The quality of the sand in OK-B was similar to that of OK-A but OK-A's "was slightly better." WD Tr. 144. The slight difference was not a significant factor in the determination that OK-A should be selected. The main factor in favor of OK-A was distance. Because it is so much closer to the Project than OK-B, use of OK-A "substantially reduces the cost of construction" id., compared to OK-B. Taylor Engineering (and ultimately the County) selected OK-A as the sand source. The selection process included a sand source investigation by Taylor. Taylor Engineers' final report on sand source was released in October 2009. The report shows that in OK-A, the southeast corner of the area "seemed to contain a lesser quality sand than the borrow area as a whole and in terms of color." WD Tr. 145. Sand from the southeast corner of OK-A, nonetheless, was used in two beach restoration projects, both on Eglin Air Force Base property. Those projects were denominated A-3 and A-13. See further findings, below. The selection of OK-A was supported by Taylor Engineering's OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis. Borrow Area Impact Analysis An Okaloosa County Sand Search Borrow Area Impact Analysis was prepared by Taylor Engineering for the Joint Coastal Permit Application and released in July 2008. Aware that dredging the borrow site could affect both wave climate and current (the swift flow of water within a larger body of water), Taylor examined the impact of dredging the OK-A Borrow Area for those effects in the borrow area vicinity. The ultimate purpose of the Borrow Area Impact Analysis, however, was larger. It was to determine the changes to wave and current climate for impact to the beach, such as erosion. An increase in wave height, for example, would increase erosion. Two numerical modeling efforts were conducted. The first, called STWAVE, documents the impacts to wave climate. The second, ADCIRC, analyzes the effects of the dredging on currents. The STWAVE model requires wave characteristics as input. Taylor Engineering used "a 20-year hindcast of wave data from a WIS station located directly offshore in deep water. Under STWAVE modeling, impacts were examined for normal conditions and then 'under a 100-year storm condition.'" WD Tr. 149. The basis was the 100-year storm data from Hurricane Opal. The impacts of bottom friction were ignored, a common practice in applications like the County's JCP application that involves work on the open coast with a uniform sandy bottom. As Mr. Trudnak put it: When you use . . . wave monitoring devices, you're trying to calibrate a model for the effects of bottom friction. And when the borrow area is this close to shore [as in the case of OK-A], . . . the propagation of distance of the waves is relatively short. And when you have a uniform sandy bottom you don't expect the impacts of bottom friction to be significant. So . . . in applications like [Okaloosa County's for the Western Destin Project], you ignore the effects of bottom friction. WD Tr. 150. The analysis assumed that all of the sand in the borrow area would be removed when, in contrast, "the borrow site usually contains 50 percent more sand than what the Project requires on the beach." WD Tr. 152. Borrow Area OK-A is intended to serve five beach restoration projects in all. Three are completed: the two projects on Eglin Air Force Base and the Emergency Holiday Isle Project. The remaining two are the Western Destin Project and the Okaloosa Island Project. These five projects require 4.7 million cubic yards of sand of the nearly 7 million cubic yards of sand available in OK-A. The impact analysis, therefore, was conservative in that it predicted more impact than would actually occur because significantly less sand would be removed from the site than was factored into the STWAVE modeling. With regard to normal conditions, the STWAVE modeling led to the conclusion that impacts from the permitted activities associated with the borrow area would be negligible. Under storm wave conditions, the STWAVE modeling showed "a certain wave angle or direction that increased the wave height." WD Tr. 151. The increase in wave height, however, was far enough offshore so as to never affect the "actual breaking wave height on the beach." Id. The modeling results enabled Taylor Engineering to conclude "that the borrow area did not have a potential to cause any impacts whatsoever." WD Tr. 152. (emphasis added). ADCIRC is a state-of-the art hydrodynamic model that simulates tidal currents. Taylor Engineering conducted the ADCIRC modeling to analyze effects on the tidal currents and circulation in and around East Pass that would be caused by dredging the borrow area. Just as in the case of STWAVE, ADCIRC modeling showed that the impact of dredging the borrow area would be negligible whether in normal or "storm" conditions. Upland Private Property Of the properties along the 2.8 miles of shoreline to be restored, six are deeded to the MHWL. The six are the properties of Eglin Air Force Base, the Sheraton Hotel, the Gulfarium, the Ramada Hotel, Destin West Beach and Bay Resort Condominium, and Seaspray Condominium. These properties are all located in the eastern part of the Project, from R-11.3 to Beasley Park at the east terminus of the Project. Intervenor Wallace and his wife Sondra S. Wallace were deeded Condominium Unit 502 in the Destin West Beach and Bay Resort-Gulfside by a Special Warranty Deed executed by Tolbert Gulfside Development Company on March 7, 2003. See OI Petitioners' 112. The Condominium Property associated with Destin West Beach and Bay Condominium extends to the MHWL of the Gulf of Mexico. The Parcel ID Number on the Special Warranty Deed is 00-2S-24-2185-0015-0030 (Parent Parcel). Id. A quitclaim deed admitted into evidence as OI County Exhibit 22 bears the same Parcel ID Number but without reference to "(Parent Parcel)." The grantor of the quitclaim deed is Okaloosa County and the grantee is Tolbert Enterprises, Inc. The deed contains the following language: IT IS THE EXPRESS intent of the Grantor that its reversionary estate in that portion of the original leasehold estate from the Okaloosa County and/or Okaloosa Island Authority which the Grantee now owns in the subject premises shall be merged with such present leasehold interest now owned by the Grantee, subject, however to such terms and conditions contained in the 1963 quitclaim deed of record from the United States of America to the Grantor and all Protective Covenants previously imposed of record on the above land by Okaloosa County or its agent, Okaloosa Island Authority, and by acceptance of this deed, Grantor acknowledges the validity of such Protective Covenants and Restrictions (with the term "owner" being substituted for "leaseholder" or "lessee" therein where appropriate), which are hereby reimposed. OI County Ex. 22 (emphasis in original). Whether the Protective Covenants and Restrictions apply to all of the six properties so that the first 150 feet landward of the MHWL is "public beach" under the "strict control of the County" is a question that cannot be decided on the state of this record. But it appears from the quitclaim deed that constitutes OI County Exhibit 22 that the County took pains when it conveyed the Okaloosa Island property subject to the deed to make sure that the grantees under the conveyances were aware of the Protective Covenants and Restrictions and that the County's intention in the conveyances was for the Protective Covenants and Restrictions to survive. For the properties in the Project that are not deeded to the MHWL, the County has control of the beaches through the Protective Covenants and Restrictions. In addition to the documents of record, the County's control is evidenced by seven main public access-ways to the beach along Okaloosa Island, additional smaller access-ways, public use of the access-ways, public parking serving access of the public to the beaches of Okaloosa Island and public use of the dry, sandy portion of the beach in Okaloosa Island. The Application An Application for a Coastal Construction Permit The Application was processed as a joint coastal permit (a "coastal construction" permit under section 161.041). It was not processed as an application for a coastal construction control line ("CCCL") permit. Section 161.041 (the "Shore Protection Statute") and chapter 62B-41 apply to JCPs. Section 161.053 (the "CCCL Statute") and chapter 62B-33 govern CCCL permits. The Department treats its JCP and CCCL permitting programs as independent from each other and as mutually exclusive permitting programs. A project that involves "beaches and shores" construction is permitted under one permitting program or the other but not under both permitting programs. See WD Tr. 424-5. Indeed, when it comes to beach restoration projects (or "shore protection" projects) such as the Western Destin Project, section 161.053(9) of the CCCL Statute provides as follows: "The provisions of this section do not apply to structures intended for shore protection purposes which are regulated by s. 161.041 [the Shore Protection Statute] " The Department interprets section 161.053(9) to exempt the Project from CCCL statutory requirements and the rules that implement the CCCL Statutes so that the only permit the Project requires, in the Department's view, is a JCP. Application Signatures Item 18 of the Application provides a signature line for the County and "the title of the person signing on its behalf." OI Joint Ex. 1, DEP From 73-500 (05/17/07), p. 4 of 9. The Item opens with: "A. By signing this application form, I am applying . . . for the permit and any proprietary authorizations identified above [see findings below related to "written authorizations"], . . . ." Id., (emphasis added). Item 18 also provides "signature lines" for an agent in Section B if the County designates an agent for the processing of the application. Section 18 C of the Application provides a signature line under the following heading: "PERSON AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MUST COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING." There was no signature provided at any point in the application process by any person authorizing access to the property as called for by Item 18C. Joint Ex. 11, Page 4 of 27. The "Written Authorization" Provision Chapter 62B-14 is entitled "Rules and Procedures for Applications for Coastal Construction Permits." The Shore Protection Statutes serves as rule-making authority for every rule in chapter 62B-41. Every rule in the chapter, moreover, implements, among other provisions, one provision or another of the Shore Protection Statute. Rule 62B-41.008 derives its rule-making authority from the Shore Protection Statute and section 161.055(1) and (2). Among the statutory provisions it implements are four subsections of the statute: (1), (2), (3) and (4). Section (1) of rule 62B-41.008 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: A Joint Coastal Permit is required in order to conduct any coastal construction activities in Florida. A person required to obtain a joint coastal permit shall submit an application to the Department . . . The permit application form, entitled "Joint Application for Joint Coastal Permit, Authorization to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands, Federal Dredge and Fill Permit" . . . is hereby incorporated by reference . . . . The application shall contain the following specific information: * * * (c) Written evidence of ownership of any property which will be used in carrying out the project, or authorization for such use from the property owner which is upland of mean high-water, or below mean high water but not sovereign land of the State of Florida. * * * (n) Written authorization for any duly- authorized member of the Department staff to enter upon any property to be used in carrying out the project, for the purpose of evaluating site conditions prior to final processing of the permit application. (emphasis added). Rule 62B-41.008(2) (the "Waiver Provision") lists requirements of rule 62B-41.008(1) which are to be waived by the Department under circumstances described in the Waiver Provision: "Any of the requirements contained in paragraph 62B- 41.008(1)(f), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), or (m), F.A.C., will be waived if the Department determined that the information is unnecessary for a proper evaluation of the proposed work." In its list of requirements that will be waived under certain circumstance, the Waiver Provision does not include paragraphs (c) or (n). The Application did not contain the "specific information" detailed in paragraphs (c) and (n) of rule 62B- 41.008(1). As of the dates of final hearing, the County had not provided the Department with any written authorizations from the owners of the privately-owned properties within the Project area, including Intervenors. Demonstration of Property Ownership The Application demonstrated that the County owned much of the property subject to the Project. At the time of final hearing, it had permission, of course, to use that property. The County has also obtained the permission of the federal government to use Eglin Air Force Base property that is within the Project area. As for the other property, all privately owned, no written authorizations as of the final hearing had been obtained from the owners despite discussions between them and the County. Despite the clear requirement in rule 62B- 41.008(1)(c), the Department does not usually require that an applicant provide in the application written authorization from owners of upland property to be used in coastal construction projects. The Department might require written authorization in an application for certain coastal construction projects like a groin construction project, see OI tr. 476, or a similar project that involved one or two upland property owners. The typical beach restoration project, however, involves the use of many different upland properties, too many, in the Department's view to require the application to contain the written authorizations of all the owners. The Department justifies departure from enforcing the requirement of rule 62B-41.008(1)(c) in applications for beach restoration for a number of reasons. First, compliance is impractical. Aside from the significant number of signatures that must be obtained, the moment the application is submitted is too early in the process to require written authorization. In beach towns, where most restorations take place, many of the owners are absent and difficult to contact. By the time the restoration begins, the property may have changed hands. Second, the Department's practice is to require the authorizations as a permit condition and for written authorization to be submitted prior to construction, that is, sometime between when the JCP is obtained and the Notice to Proceed with construction is issued. An applicant in possession of a JCP for beach restoration cannot begin construction activities until a Notice to Proceed is issued. The aim of the rule is achieved in a timely manner whether all consents are submitted with an application or not. Aside from practical considerations and safeguards to ensure consent from upland property owners prior to the commencement of construction activities, written authorization in the application is not relevant in the Department's view in a permitting proceeding. Permitting proceedings are not designed to prevent trespass by an applicant. They are designed to consider environmental impacts. With regard to trespass considerations, there are other safeguards. These include the warning to the applicant in General Condition Six of the Draft JCP: 6. 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 this permit does not convey any vested rights or any exclusive privileges. The Draft JCP also contains General Condition Eight: 8. The Permittee, by accepting this permit, specifically agrees to allow authorized Department personnel with proper identification and at reasonable times, access to the premises where the permitted activity is located or conducted for the purpose of ascertaining compliance with the terms of the permit and with the rules of the Department and to have access to . . . copy any records that must be kept under conditions of the permit; to inspect the facility, equipment, practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and to sample or monitor any substances or parameters at any location reasonably necessary to assure compliance with this permit or Department rules. Reasonable time may depend on the nature of the concern being investigated. If the applicant conducted construction using upland property without written authorizations from the upland owner, the Department would view the construction to be in violation of the JCP and would bring an enforcement action to halt the construction until written authorization was obtained. There are many opportunities, therefore, to achieve the aim of the rule subsequent to the filing of an application. Lapse in the Application Chapter 62B-49 is entitled, "Joint Coastal Permits and Concurrent Processing of Proprietary Authorizations." Rule 62B-49.005 is entitled, "Application Requirements and Processing Procedures." The following appears in the rule: An application shall be denied if the applicant fails to provide additional information to the Department within six (6) months [the "Six Month Period"] after a written request for such information has been sent to the applicant. However, if the applicant can demonstrate that he or she has been actively working on collecting or developing the requested information, and that additional time will be required to complete their response to the "RAI," the applicant may request up to six (6) additional months to submit their response. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-49.005(4). On November 25, 2008, the Department sent its third Request for Information (the "Third RAI") to the County. The Third RAI asked for more information regarding a risk assessment, the permit fee, a biological opinion (the "Biological Opinion") from "Fish and Wildlife," OI tr. 91, and had a question regarding a lighting ordinance. The County did not respond to the Third RAI within six months which expired on May 25, 2009. Nor did it request an extension within the Six Month Period. Mr. Trefilio and others on behalf of the County were in touch with DEP throughout the Six Month Period about various issues concerning the JCP. See OI tr. 90. Mr. Trudnak, for example, in early May, prior to the expiration of the Six Month Period sent an e-mail to DEP personnel to inquire about the permit fee DEP had required because Taylor Engineering believed it was incorrect. The Department did not respond until early June. Taylor Engineering had been "continuously working on the . . . Economic Analysis that addressed the questions that DEP had about the Risk Assessment [and] . . . had been talking to DEP about that." OI Tr. 169-70. Mr. Trudnak corresponded with the Army Corp of Engineers about the Biological Opinion. His hope was that a draft could be timely submitted with the other responses to the RAI. He contacted Ralph Clark and spoke with Jamie Christoff, a Department employee, about its status. But, the County and its agents "were not able to get that done within the six month time frame." OI Tr. 170. On June 3, 2009, Mrs. Sherry wrote an e-mail to Michael Barnett. She asserted that the Application was dormant and had lapsed. She requested that it be denied on the basis of the rule. The next day, an e-mail from Mr. Barnett, Chief of DEP's Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems, posed the question to Department personnel, ". . . has there been any verbal or written communication from either the Applicant or their Agent as to when the Department might anticipate a response to RAI #3?" OI Petitioners' Ex. 65, Page 2 of 4. E-mail messages in the file and a conversation with her subordinate, Jamie Christoff, led Dr. Edwards, who was in charge of the processing of the Application, to conclude that the County and its agents had been working on the application during the Six Month Period. After the message from Mrs. Sherry to the Department (and after the expiration of the Six Month Period), Mr. Trudnak requested an extension of time under the rule. The extension was not granted in writing. Dr. Edwards concluded "because there was that active back and forth between the Department and the applicant [during the Six Month Period], there was no need for additional time being granted . . . ." OI Tr. 440. Application Deemed Complete Chapter 62B-49 establishes the joint coastal permit program "by combining the regulatory requirements of the coastal construction program (Section 161.041, F.S.) with the environmental resource (or wetland resource) permit program (Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S.) . . . ." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-49.001. The chapter also "provides concurrent review of any activity requiring a joint coastal permit that also requires a proprietary authorization for use of sovereign submerged lands owned by the Board of trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund." Id. Rule 62B-49.003 is entitled "Policy." It provides as follows in pertinent part: Any application submitted pursuant to this chapter shall not be deemed complete . . . until the Department has received all information required for: a coastal construction permit under . . . Chapter 62B- 41, F.A.C.; . . . and Chapters 18-18, 18-20 and 18-21. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-49.003(3). Despite the absence in the Application of written authorizations required by rule 62B-41, the clear directive of rule 62B-49.003(3), and the failure of the County to respond in a timely manner to RAI #3 or obtain in writing an extension of the time to respond, the Department deemed the Application complete on December 30, 2009. If Written Authorizations are not Obtained If written authorizations are not obtained from the owners of the six private properties between R-11.3 and the eastern terminus of the Project, the County would have to decide whether and/or how to proceed. If the eastern-most 600 feet of the Project were deleted, for example, the Project could be modified to mitigate the effects of the deletion without much effect on the remainder of the Project. If more of the Project were deleted, it would present more of a challenge to the effectiveness of the Project. In any event, the Project can be completed along its entire length up to the MHWL. The Project may not be at full width where consents are not obtained but it will still provide some storm protection where narrowed. It would also still provide significant protection westward of R- 11.3 all the way to R-1 albeit the closer to R-11.3 the more diminished would be the effectiveness of the Project if the Project is not at full width east of R-11.3. Legislative Declaration of Public Interest Section 161.088, Florida Statutes, bears the catchline, "Declaration of public policy respecting beach erosion control and beach restoration and nourishment projects." It states: Because beach erosion is a serious menace to the economy and general welfare of the people of this state and has advanced to emergency proportions, it is hereby declared to be a necessary governmental responsibility to properly manage and protect Florida beaches fronting on the . . . Gulf of Mexico . . . from erosion and that the Legislature makes provision for beach restoration and nourishment projects . . . . The Legislature declares that such beach restoration . . . projects, as approved pursuant to s. 161.161, are in the public interest; must be in an area designated as critically eroded shoreline, or benefit an adjacent critically eroded shoreline; . . . (emphasis added). Proprietary Public Interest Test Chapter 18-21 governs Sovereignty Submerged Lands Management. Rule 18-21.004 sets out management policies, standards and criteria. It opens as follows: The following management policies, standards, and criteria shall be used in determining whether to approve, approve with conditions or modifications, or deny all requests for activities on sovereignty submerged lands . . . . General Proprietary. (a) For approval, all activities on sovereignty lands must be not contrary to the public interest . . . "Public interest" is defined as: Demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action . . . Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(51) (the "Proprietary Public Interest Test"). The rule also states that "[i]n determining the public interest in a request for use . . . [of] sovereignty lands . . . , the board shall consider the ultimate project and purpose to be served by said use " Dr. Fishkind, an economist, conducted an economic cost/benefit analysis of the Project and concluded that the economic benefit is between $5.77 and $12.09 million while the cost of the Project is between $16.30 and $21.58 million. The Department did not present an economist to rebut Dr. Fishkind's analysis. The Department takes the position that the Project is in the public interest and meets the Proprietary Public Interest Test because of the declaration by the Legislature in section 161.088. The Department interprets the Legislature's declaration in section 161.088 that beach restoration projects are in the public interest to relieve the County from having to provide evidence that the Project meets the Proprietary Public Interest Test and to relieve the County and the Department from a need to rebut the evidence provided by Petitioners' economist. The Department draws support for its interpretation from language in section 161.091(3). The language makes reference to the declaration in section 161.088 that beach restoration projects are in the public interest. It finds further "that erosion of the beaches of this state is detrimental to tourism, the state's major industry, further exposes the state's highly developed coastline to severe storm damage, and threatens beach-related jobs, which, if not stopped, may significantly reduce state sales tax revenues " § 161.091(3), Fla. Stat. Impacts The depth of OK-A should not exceed -49.4 feet, NGVD, in an area where the depth of the ocean bottom is roughly -40 feet, NGVD. OK-A is relatively wide, at least as compared to an existing borrow area not far away, the borrow area used for beach restoration in western Walton County and eastern Okaloosa County east of the City of Destin (the "Walton Borrow Area"). It is also a shallow borrow area when its depth is measured from the Gulf floor. It is in deeper water than the Walton Borrow Area. These factors make it less likely to cause impacts to the beach than the Walton Borrow Area. Despite the width of OK-A, its relative shallowness measured from the Gulf floor, and its water depth, Dr. Dally, on behalf of the Petitioners, challenged the Taylor Engineering conclusion that there would be no impacts to the beach from the dredging of Borrow Area OK-A. The challenge from Dr. Dally, however, did not detail what the impacts would be or how serious they would be. Instead, Dr. Dally concluded that "not nearly enough study has been conducted of the proposed borrow area to ascertain that there will be no adverse impacts." WD Tr. 633. Dr. Dally's challenge to the conclusion by Taylor Engineering of no impacts to the beach from an excavated OK-A begins with an explanation in general of wave dynamics, sediment transport, and borrow site impacts. Wave Dynamics, Littoral Sediment Transport, and Borrow Site Impacts, Generally General Wave Dynamics "[W]aves in very deep water will start to turn and become more shore parallel in the case of Okaloosa County." WD Tr. 636. As they approach shore, a dynamic process of shoaling and refraction occurs. The waves may also begin to diffract. Shoaling is a growth in height from interaction with the shallow bottom or a shoal. Refraction is a process of alignment of waves with bottom contours. Diffraction is a spreading of waves or the bending of waves or change in wave direction after interaction with emergent structures or submerged features. As the process of shoaling, refraction and diffraction takes place, waves may be affected by bottom friction, depending on ocean bottom conditions. Dr. Dally offered the following description of wave changes as they close in on the face of the beach and interact with the shoreline. The description includes potential impacts of an excavated OK-A on the beaches and shores adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador condominium property: As they pass into the very nearshore . . . they, of course, grow in height. They then break . . . [or] [s]ometimes, as they pass over a [sand]bar, they'll stop breaking. And then begin breaking again when they get right up onto the beach face. Any time you put a bathymetric feature [such as a borrow area] into that otherwise natural system, you affect the wave transformation due to processes dependent upon the character of the perturbation . . . * * * Wave reflection from abrupt bathymetric changes. . . in this case, the landward most . . . notch of the borrow area would be a reflective surface . . . when something has perturbed the wave field like that, defraction [sic] becomes an important process. So, as the waves pass over this proposed borrow area and, especially, over the 10-foot or greater vertical face, they will reflect and begin defraction [sic] so that it becomes a . . . complicated wave field . . . . WD Tr. 636-7. In addition to the perturbation caused by the borrow area there is another factor at work that has the potential to affect the beach along the condominium properties owned by the Sherry Petitioners: sediment transport. Sediment Transport "Sand can move along or away from the beach in two ways." WD Tr. 1141. It can move along the shoreline or it can move offshore. Littoral transport of sediment, a factor important to erosion and accretion, is the movement of sediment, mostly sand, along or parallel to shore. It is caused by the intersection of waves that come ashore at an angle to the shoreline, rather than those that break straight onto the beach. The average net long-term littoral transport in the area of the Project and Okaloosa Island is east to west. The Sherrys and Mr. Donovan own property down-drift from the OK-A site, or to the west. Dr. Young described the beaches down-drift of OK-A at hearing: "Those beaches have, over the . . . last decade or so, been generally stable to accreting. There's a pretty nice beach out there right now." WD Tr. 1143. This area of the Okaloosa County's beaches and shores is the area most likely to be affected by an excavated OK-A if there are, in fact, any impacts to beaches and shores caused by the dredging of the borrow site. Borrow Site Impacts Two processes affecting waves in the Gulf would occur above an excavated OK-A Borrow Area. The first wave process would be "that part of the wave energy will actually reflect and go back out to sea," WD tr. 640, in essence, a scattering effect of the energy. Diffraction at the same time would cause the waves to radiate outwards from the borrow area rather than the waves going straight back out to sea. The second wave process creates the potential for the waves to become "very, very, complicated." WD Tr. 640. They could "trip," that is, the notch in the borrow area could break the waves. "[B]rag scattering" (WD tr. 641) could make the waves deteriorate into shorter period waves. If there are changes in waves, tide level or current, changes will be caused to the beach. As Dr. Dally succinctly put it at hearing, "[the beach] might erode, it might accrete, it might do both," WD tr. 641, by virtue of the presence of an excavated OK-A Borrow Area. If the impact of the excavation of the borrow area were to create shorter period waves, the result generally would be erosion. If the impact created longer period waves which generate water movement deep into the water column the result generally would be accretion. The borrow area has the potential in Dr. Dally's opinion to create both longer and shorter period waves. Wave angle of the waves breaking on the beach also is a factor in beach impacts. But Dr. Dally was unable to predict the impacts of the excavation of OK-A to Okaloosa Island beaches and shores without more study, data and analysis as to what effects a dredged OK-A would have on wave period and wave angle and the concomitant sediment transport. Like Mr. Trudnak, Mr. Clark concluded that OK-A is too far offshore to cause adverse impacts to the beach. If, however, the Project were to utilize a borrow area along the same stretch of the beach but much closer to shore as in the case of the Anna Maria Island Project in which the borrow area was only 1000 feet from the shoreline, erosion impacts could occur on part of the beach. Beneficial impacts in such a case would occur to the beach downdrift of the borrow area. In the Anna Maria Island Project, beaches far enough to the south which were downdrift of the borrow area accreted. The impact to the Sherry and Donovan Properties, both being downdrift of a borrow area located along the same stretch of beach but within 1000 feet of shore and closer in than OK-A, would likely be beneficial. The area of shoreline that would be affected by wave impacts from an excavated OK-A is larger than the area in the immediate shadow zone of the borrow site, that is, a shadow zone perpendicular from the borrow site to the shore. The area affected by wave impacts depends on the angle of the waves. In the Destin area and along Okaloosa Island where the Sherry Petitioners reside, the waves come ashore predominately out of the east. If the waves come ashore along Okaloosa Island at a strongly oblique angle (more directly from the east), "the shadow zone now stretches further to the west and the diffraction pattern . . . increases the size of the shadow zone," WD tr. 680, to a size much larger "than the actual shadow zone of the . . . borrow area." Id. Along these same lines, if there are impacts to the beach caused by a dredged OK-A, the impacts should be greater the closer the beach is to the footprint of a dredged OK-A. Given the predominate tendency of the waves to come from the east along Okaloosa Island, if the beaches alongside both the Surf Dweller Property and the El Matador Property are affected, the beach alongside the Surf Dweller Property will incur the greater impact. Likewise, if beach impacts are incurred by beach alongside only one property or the other, it is much more likely that the beach alongside the Surf Dweller Property will be affected than the beach alongside the El Matador Property. The distance of an offshore borrow area from the shore is critical to the effect of the borrow area on diffraction and wave dynamics. If the borrow area is far off shore, as in the case of the alternative, potential borrow site identified by Taylor Engineering, OK-B, then, as explained by Dr. Dally, diffraction "has a lot of time and a lot of opportunity to smooth the waves out once again and things become uniform when they hit the beach." WD Tr. 645. A borrow area that is closer to the beach has higher potential for creating impacts. Dr. Dally again: "[I]f you move the borrow area closer to the beach, you have this scattering pattern induced by the reflection and the diffraction and refraction that doesn't have time to smooth itself out. And that's when you can really cause impacts to the beach, both accretive and erosive impacts." Id. (emphasis added). The underscored sentence from Dr. Dally's testimony quoted in the previous paragraph was directly addressed in the County's case through Mr. Trudnak's determination that OK-A, although not as far away as OK-B, is far enough away from the beach that it will not cause adverse impacts to the beach. Again, Dr. Dally's testimony, despite the underscored testimony in the previous paragraph, is not that OK-A will, in fact, cause impacts to the beach. His testimony, rather, is the equivalent of a statement that the closer a borrow area is to the beach the more likely that it will have impacts to the beach and that at some point, a borrow area, will be so close to the beach, that adverse impacts will occur. The fact that OK-A is much closer to the beach than OK-B does not mean that an excavated OK-A will cause impacts to the beach. Impacts of an excavated OK-A depend upon OK-A's actual distance from the beach rather than OK-A's distance relative to OK-B's distance. Thus, while it may be determined that the likelihood of impacts to the beach is greater in the case of OK-A than in the case of OK-B, actual impacts from OK-A to the beach (as far as the effect of distance) is a function of OK-A's actual distance from the beach without regard to OK-B's distance from the beach. In addition to Dr. Dally's certitude that there will be impacts to the beach by virtue of the presence of a dredged OK-A, Dr. Dally also took issue with the method by which Taylor Engineering reached the conclusion of no impacts in the OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. The OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Generally Mr. Trudnak was part of the Taylor Engineering team that prepared the Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. Mr. Trudnak was not the only expert to defend the report's conclusion of no impact to the beach. The report was reviewed by Mr. Clark, the Department's expert, who also opined that there would be no impacts. Mr. Clark relied on more than the report for his opinion. He also relied on his extensive experience with beach restoration projects and monitoring data for those projects and visual observation of those projects post-construction. The only numerical data analysis specific to the excavation of the OK-A Borrow Area, however, that the Department used in determining that excavation of OK-A would not have any adverse impacts to the shoreline and coastal systems of Okaloosa Island was the Taylor Engineering OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report. The Report described its evaluative efforts: [T]his report evaluates two potential dredging templates in terms of their impacts on wave and tidal current patterns during normal and extreme conditions. The evaluation requires analysis of the wave climate and tidal currents before and after the borrow area dredging. The analysis required a balance between minimizing impacts to wave climate and current patterns, and providing acceptable nourishment volumes. STWAVE (Steady-State Spectral Wave Model) simulated normal (average) and extreme (100-year (yr) storm) waves propagating over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetries. ADCIRC hydrodynamic modeling simulated tidal flow over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetries for normal (spring) and extreme (100-yr storm) tide conditions. A comparison of the baseline and post dredging model results established the effects of borrow area dredging on the neighboring shorelines (Destin and Eglin AFB) and the inlet. WD County Ex. 1, Okaloosa County Sand Search Borrow Area Impact Analysis, at 6. Thus, the STWAVE modeling conducted by Taylor as part of the analysis attempted to simulate normal (average) and extreme (100-year storm) waves propagating over the baseline and post-dredging bathymetrics. Taylor Engineering relied on WIS (Wave Information Study) results in performing its STWAVE modeling. WIS data are not measured wave data. Instead, they consist of numerical information generated by specific stations in wind fields in various locations around the Gulf of Mexico. The data are then placed in a model coded to represent the entire Gulf. The WIS station from which data were collected by Taylor Engineering is located approximately 10 miles offshore where the depth is approximately 85 feet. It would have been preferable to have used comprehensive field measurements, that is, data obtained from wave gauges on both sides of the borrow area over enough time to support use of the data, rather than WIS data. Comprehensive field measurements would have produced much more information from which to predict impacts to the beach. As Dr. Dally explained, however, If you don't have [field measurement data], then . . . especially over the long-term . . . a year or more [or] if you're analyzing your beach profile data over a 10 year period, you would like to have . . . wave data to accompany that 10 year period. Generally we don’t and that's when we start relying on models to fill in this missing information. WD Tr. 645-6 (emphasis added). This testimony was consistent with Mr. Trudnak's testimony: the problem with field measurement is that "the useful data that you [get] from [field measurement] gauges is . . . limited to [the] deployment period." WD Tr. 1234. It is not practical to take 10 years' worth of field measurements. As Mr. Trudnak explained: Typically, you would install those gauges for . . . a month or a couple of months . . . you want to use representative conditions . . . you try to pick a winter month and a summer month so you can try to capture those extremes and wave conditions. * * * [W]hen you . . . install those gauges in the field, you have no idea what those conditions are going to be during your deployment period. You can install your wave gauge for a month in the winter but that can be an unusually calm month, it could be an unusually severe month. So, it's really hit or miss, whether you . . . capture representative conditions. Id. (emphasis added). The WIS information utilized is hind-casted. Hind- casting is a method for developing deepwater WIS data using historic weather information to drive numerical models. The result is a simulated wave record. The WIS information utilized includes 20 years of hind-cast information. The purpose of using such a lengthy period of information is that it ensures that representative conditions are captured in the data for purpose of the analysis. Such "lengthy period" information overcomes the concern that there is not enough data to capture representative conditions as in the case of typical field measurement data. For its extreme STWAVE modeling, Taylor relied on WIS information generated during Hurricane Opal in 1995. Analysis of the model results showed negligible impacts on wave height under normal conditions and increased wave height during extreme conditions. Increased wave height during extreme conditions, however, was no closer than 300 feet from the shoreline. The increased wave height and wave angle in storm conditions were far enough offshore that they "never impacted the actual breaking wave height on the beach." WD Tr. 151. The model's prediction of no impacts in wave height on the shoreline due to a dredged OK-A and no change in sediment transport rate by virtue of the presence of a dredged OK-A led Taylor Engineering to conclude that whether in normal or extreme conditions, a dredged OK-A Borrow Area would not cause impacts to the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County. Criticisms of Taylor's STWAVE Modeling Dr. Dally offered four basic criticisms of Taylor Engineering's STWAVE Modeling: a) the model did not account for wave transformation processes caused by bottom friction between the WIS Station (10 miles out in the Gulf) and the OK-A site; b) the model was not calibrated or verified; c) the model did not sufficiently account for wave transformation impacts from the dredging of Site OK-A; and d) Taylor did not plot wave direction results from its STWAVE models or conduct any sediment transport analysis. Mr. Trudnak offered refutations of the criticisms. For example, taking the first of them, wave transformation processes caused by bottom friction between the WIS Station and the OK-A site were not accounted for by Taylor Engineering in its analysis because "most of that distance [between the WIS Station and the OK-A site] is deep water, meaning the waves aren't . . . feeling the bottom so they're not being affected by the bottom friction." WD Tr. 1236. The refutations were not entirely successful. The second of Petitioners' experts, Dr. Young cast doubt on the validity of all modeling no matter how well any particular modeling activity might meet the criticisms leveled by Dr. Dally against Taylor Engineering's effort. Dr. Young accepted Dr. Dally's testimony about why Taylor Engineering's modeling was not sufficient to support an opinion of "no impacts," but he differed with Dr. Dally as to whether coastal engineering models should be utilized to predict impacts to beaches. See WD Tr. 1157. Dr. Dally believes in the benefits of modeling as long as the modeling is conducted properly. Dr. Young does not. It is his opinion that no model produces a projection that is precisely accurate but the essence of his criticism is that "we don't know how wrong the models are." WD Tr. 1159. Models are "incapable of quantifying the uncertainty or how right or wrong that they might be." Id. With regard to the modeling used in Taylor's Borrow Area Impact Analysis, Dr. Young summed up: [W]hen we do this model run, especially with a model that isn't calibrated or verified, we get an answer . . . it's not precisely the right answer, but . . . nobody knows how wrong the answer is. I don't know it, Mr. Trudnak doesn't know and Mr. Clark doesn't know. And that's why being prudent is important and why relying on the monitoring data is critical because the monitoring data is real data. WD Tr. 1160. In contrast to Dr. Young, Dr. Dally, consistent with his faith in models appropriate for the investigation and conducted properly, took another tack in attacking the modeling used by Taylor Engineering. He criticized Taylor Engineering's failure to use a more comprehensive wave transformation model: the Boussinesq Model. Dr. Dally opined that the Boussinesq Model was superior to STWAVE principally because it takes diffraction into account. But Petitioners did not produce any off-shore borrow area impacts analyses which used the Boussinesq Model, and Mr. Trudnak testified that he was unaware of any. See tr. 1233 and 1234. The Boussinesq Model is typically used where diffraction plays the dominant role, that is, within areas like inlets or ports which have structures that will cause wave perturbation. The open coast is not such an area. If not more appropriate than the Boussinesq Model, STWAVE is an acceptable model under the Project's circumstances. When asked about the Boussinesq modeling's application in the context of his testimony that he could not say what would be the impacts of the dredging of the OK-A Borrow Area, their extent or whether they would be adverse, Dr. Dally testified that based on his experience, he was "almost certain," WD tr. 691, that Boussinesq modeling would show impacts to the beach adjacent to the Surf Dweller and El Matador Properties that could be a "type of accretion . . . [that is] momentary . . . due to the propagation of these features as they go up and down the beach." Id. This statement is consistent with Mr. Clark's opinion that if the Project's borrow area were within 1000 feet of shore, the impact of dredging OK-A to the Sherry and Donovan Properties would be beneficial. When asked if the beaches would develop scalloping (sand erosion in some areas and accretion in others), Dr. Dally said, "Right. This [wave transformation process caused by an excavated OK-A borrow area] makes a scalloping." WD Tr. 692. Perhaps the dredging of Borrow Area OK-A would aggravate scalloping along the shores of Okaloosa County but they would not create scalloping of an "un-scalloped" coastal system. Scalloping features in the Okaloosa Island portion of Santa Rosa Island existed at the time of final hearing. In short, Dr. Dally criticized Taylor Engineering's STWAVE modeling. As to the impacts he was sure would occur, he was unable to state whether they would be adverse, beneficial or both. Most importantly to the weight to be assigned his testimony, he was unable to testify as to how significant the impacts would be; one cannot determine from his testimony whether the impacts will be entirely de minimus, see rule 62B- 41.002(19)(c) or whether some could be significant, see rule 62B-41.002(19)(a). Dr. Dally's testimony with regard to the creation by the Project of scalloping did not indicate the significance of that scalloping to the coastal system of Okaloosa County, a system whose ocean bottom, beaches and shores already contain scalloped features. Suppositive impacts that would be caused by the Project to the beaches of Okaloosa County were not the only attack by Petitioners. They also challenged the impact analysis on the basis of the opinion that adverse impacts had been caused to beaches by another beach restoration project and its borrow area not far away: the Walton Project. The Walton Project and Its Borrow Area Completed in the late spring of 2007, the Walton Project placed sand dredged from the Walton Borrow Area on approximately 7 miles of beach in eastern Okaloosa County (East Destin) and western Walton County. Just as in the case of the Western Destin Project, Taylor Engineering performed a borrow site impact analysis for the borrow site used in the Walton Project. Location and Comparison to OK-A The northwest corner of the Walton Borrow Area is roughly 2.75 miles from the northernmost point of the western boundary of the OK-A Borrow Site. See WD Ex. P-13. The area between the eastern-most point of the OK-A Borrow site and the western-most point of the Walton Borrow Area, therefore, is roughly half that distance or 1.375 miles. The northwest corner of the Walton Borrow Area is approximately 0.8 miles offshore; its eastern-most point is roughly one-half mile off-shore. OK-A is larger than the Walton Borrow Area and will have more sand removed. It is also wider, shallow when measured from the Gulf floor, and in deeper water. Nonetheless, because of proximity, Petitioners characterize the two sites as similar. Despite proximity, there are significant differences between the two. A wider, less deeply dredged borrow area would have less impacts than one deeper and narrower. OK-A's location in deeper water makes it less likely to affect waves and current than the Walton Borrow Area. The footprints of the borrow areas are dissimilar. The Walton Borrow Area has an irregular shape. OK-A is in the shape of a rectangle with a uniform dredging depth although "the depth of sand that is dredged will taper off . . . further offshore . . .[s]o that the seaward most edge does not have significant thickness of sand. The maximum cut is towards the northern boundary." WD Tr. 306. The predominately significant difference between the two is the presence on the Gulf floor in the vicinity of the Walton Borrow Area of an ebb shoal: a large deposit of sediment. The ebb shoal exists because of interaction between East Pass and the waves, tides and currents of the Gulf. The Walton Borrow Area is "close to the East Pass ebb shoal . . . and it included the outer flanks of the ebb shoal." WD Tr. 155. It makes the littoral zone for the Walton Project more active than the littoral zone near which OK-A is located. Located a significant distance to the west of the East Pass ebb shoal, OK-A would not interact with its littoral zone in the way the Walton Borrow Area interacts with its littoral zone. Walton Borrow Area Impact Analysis and Monitoring Taylor Engineering's borrow area impact analysis for the Walton Borrow Area was similar to the impact analysis for OK-A in that both consisted of "wave models and hydrodynamic models." WD Tr. 156. The Walton impact analysis showed "one potential impact area about 2,000 feet long [on the beach] just west of East Pass," id., an impact area also described as extending from approximately 3,000 to 5,000 feet west of the westernmost jetty at East Pass. It anticipated that impact would be caused by wave action due to the perturbation resulting from the presence of the dredged Walton Borrow Area. The potential impact was projected by the analysis to be a reduction in the sediment supply to the beaches west of East Pass by 11,000 cubic yards per year. Because of that reduction, DEP included a mitigation condition in the Walton Project permit: placement of 55,000 cubic yards on the impacted beach. As a condition of the Walton Project, Taylor Engineering conducted monitoring of the impacts to the beach from the project in general and in particular from the Walton Borrow Area. At the time of hearing, reports for 2007, 2008, and 2009 had been completed and the engineering firm was working on the 2010 report. Mr. Trudnak described the results from the monitoring through 2008 at hearing. From the period of pre-construction in 2006 through immediate post-construction, the monitoring revealed "a huge volume of erosion." WD Tr. 159. Subsequent analysis from 2007 to 2008 revealed "a huge amount of accretion that actually exceeded the amount of erosion from the previous year." Id. The volumes of erosion and accretion "seemed abnormal." Id. The bottom line, however, of the two years of data is that the early erosion was more than countered by the accretion that occurred into 2008. After describing the impacts in the first two years of monitoring, Mr. Trudnak stressed the importance of what was revealed by additional monitoring. "[M]ore important is the long term trend . . . ." Id. From 2006 through 2009, the monitoring area "as a whole, actually accreted, it gained sand." WD Tr. 160. Determining the impacts to the beach caused by the Walton Project is complicated because of impacts caused by behavior of the beach at the time of construction and earlier. Consistent with the Department's "critically eroded" designations, data from March of 1996 (not long after Hurricane Opal), data from June, 2004 (before Hurricane Ivan) and 2006 pre-construction data showed the shoreline adjacent to the Walton Project Area to have been receding landward at a rapid rate. This "background" erosion is due mainly to the effects of tropical storms. In the wake of the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area it was difficult for Taylor Engineering to determine what impacts were caused by "background" erosion due to tropical storms and what impacts were caused by the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area. In contrast, it is not difficult to determine from monitoring data in the three years after construction of the Walton Project, however, that the beach west of the borrow area has accreted and that this appears to be the long-term trend. WD Tr. 159. Contrary to conclusions Petitioners would have drawn from the evidence presented by their experts, the more comprehensive data indicates that the Walton Project (including its borrow area) is having a beneficial impact on the beaches to the west of the project and its borrow area. Dr. Young opined on behalf of Petitioners that the problem with the OK-A Borrow Area Impact Analysis is that it is based on modeling which is far inferior to "real world" data. His opinion that actual data is superior to data generated by modeling, no doubt, is sound. The only "real world" data that will prove any impacts for sure, whether adverse or beneficial, from a dredged OK-A, however, is after-the-fact monitoring data. Such data is usually obtained annually after the construction of a project or after major storm events. It consists of obtaining near-shore and offshore monitoring profiles and involves determining shoreline changes and volumetric beach changes. In the absence of data from monitoring impacts of a dredged OK-A, Dr. Young opined that the data derived from monitoring the Walton Borrow Area, which showed erosion early after completion of the Project, is superior to the modeling data reviewed by Taylor Engineering in predicting impacts to Santa Rosa Island beaches. There are two problems, however, with Dr. Young's conclusion. First, beach impacts after the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area do not necessarily support similar impacts from a dredged OK-A because the two borrow areas are materially different. Second, the trend revealed by the more comprehensive data gathered in the wake of the dredging of the Walton Borrow Area is that the beach is receiving impacts that are beneficial. Reasonable persons might differ as to the outcome of reasonable assurances with regard to impacts based on the testimony of Mr. Trudnak and Drs. Dally and Young. The balance, however, swings clearly in favor of the applicant in consideration of the testimony of Ralph Clark. Mr. Clark's Review of OK-A Impacts Ralph Clark is a Registered Professional Engineer in Florida. The recent recipient of the Stan Tate Award from the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association, a lifetime achievement award for work over the years in beach preservation, and the Murrough P. O'Brien Award from the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, at the time of hearing, Mr. Clark had worked for 37 years for the State of Florida as a coastal engineer. During his long career, Mr. Clark has worked on the State's two separate regulatory programs in the arena of beach management: a "Wet Beach Program, which is working below Mean High Water and includes projects such as beach restoration" WD tr. 485, and "the more dry beach program which involves construction seaward of Coastal Construction Control Lines and activities landward of Mean High Water . . . ." Id. He has been involved with the Department's Beach Management Program, a grants program for cost-sharing with local governments to develop a long-term comprehensive management plan for the state to solve critical impact problems around Florida which may include erosion. He has conducted or prepared the Critically Eroded Beaches Report every year "going back to the late 1980's" id., and he has "conducted Beach Erosion Studies and Storm Damage Impact Investigations around the State for the past four decades." WD Tr. 486. Specific duties of Mr. Clark's include the review of "scopes of work and project feasibility studies that are provided . . . by the [Department's] Beach Management Section." Id. In this capacity, Mr. Clark conducted the Department's engineering review of the Okaloosa Island Application and additional information related to the Project. On the basis of Mr. Clark's review and his testimony, it is found that "the project is a well designed hurricane protection project that is critically needed to restore the beaches of this beach community of Okaloosa Island " OI Tr. 519. The Project will protect recreational benefits and wildlife habitat in addition to providing necessary storm protection. The placement of 940,000 cubic yard of sand fill as called for by the Draft JCP will provide a significant amount of storm protection from the storm surge and waves of hurricanes or lesser storms that had impacts to the beaches and shores in the Project area. See OI tr. 520. The excavation of the sand from OK-A for the Project along with the excavation of sand from OK-A for all of the other projects the borrow area serves is not expected to have any adverse impacts to the beaches of Santa Rosa Island, including the beaches within the Project area. See WD tr. 488. Mr. Clark's opinions that the Project would be beneficial to the beach and dune system in Okaloosa Island and that the excavation of OK-A is not expected to have adverse impacts have a solid base. His opinions are founded on extensive experience with beach restoration projects over 37 years; extensive experience with coastal processes, coastal morphology, and coastal hydrodynamics; review of the application and supporting information; experience with the Project area and vicinity; extensive experience with coastal storm impacts and beach erosion; and review of roughly three dozen technical documents. Mr. Clark has reviewed 136 beach restoration projects. Of these, 111 were in Florida, six in other states and Puerto Rico, and 19 in countries on every continent in the world other than Asia. But coastal engineering experience in Asia is not missing from Mr. Clark's resume. He has conducted beach erosion control projects and coastal and shore protection projects (as distinguished from beach restoration projects) in that continent as well. Among the "countless number," WD tr. 490, of such projects he has reviewed are ones in the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, China, and the Bahamas. Id. The reason his experience extended beyond the State of Florida to nations all over the world is because "the Florida Beach Preservation Program is internationally recognized." Id. The State has received many requests for technical assistance from various world governments. Mr. Clark has also in his time away from his employment with the state served as a consultant to the governments of Mexico, the Cayman Islands, and the Island Nation of St. Bartholomew and the French West Indies. Mr. Clark has investigated the impacts of 83 tropical storms in the Gulf of Mexico. Most investigations have been in Florida but some have been in other Gulf states and along the coast of the country of Mexico. During some of those investigations and while acting as a coastal engineer for the state, Mr. Clark visited the vicinity of Santa Rosa Island 176 times, excluding academic field trips. In his capacity as a state coastal engineer, Mr. Clark provided the Department with detailed damage assessments for each of the eight tropical storms noted in the Consolidated NOI for the Western Destin Project. During his 37 years of service, Mr. Clark has been on numerous task forces, committees and technical advisory groups relating to erosion control and beach management efforts by states along the Gulf and Mexico. Mr. Clark's early reports were used in the development of the state's Strategic Beach Management Plan and he prepared the first "Critically Eroded Beaches in Florida document," WD tr. 494, now electronically available to the public on the Department's website. Mr. Clark performed the "Critically Eroded Shoreline" evaluation for the beaches and shoreline subject to the Project. Storm Protection It is reasonable to expect that hurricanes in the future will have impacts on Okaloosa Island. "Okaloosa Island is completely vulnerable to the impact of a storm surge or waves from, not only a hurricane, but lesser storms and is in need of coastal protection." OI Tr. 536 The best defense against 25-year, 50-year, and 100- year storm events is beach restoration. Comparison to Other Borrow Area Impacts The OK-A Borrow Area is an offshore borrow area. Mr. Clark gave a few examples of other borrow areas that are offshore borrow areas and that are as large as OK-A. These were borrow areas used in the restoration of beaches in Panama City, Delray Beach, Canaveral Shoals, and Anna Maria Island. In addition to Taylor's Borrow Area Impact Analysis Report, Mr. Clark based his opinion on review of monitoring data for the many restoration projects with which he has been involved. Mr. Clark has reviewed borrow area impacts on beach restoration projects that have had adverse impacts. But these projects, typically, were "in inlet ebb tidal deltas of tidal inlets." WD Tr. 518. Located about three miles east of the ebb shoal of East Pass, OK-A is not an inlet-related borrow area. Of the 111 beach restoration projects that Mr. Clark reviewed, there was one that had an off-shore borrow area that adversely impacted the adjacent beach: the Anna Maria Island Project. The Anna Maria Island Borrow Area was located "roughly 1,000 feet off the [adjacent] beach . . . ." WD Tr. 519. In comparison, OK-A "is four to five times further offshore than the Anna Maria Island borrow area." WD Tr. 520. If instead of OK-A, the Project were to use a borrow area as close to the shore as the Anna Maria Island Borrow Area, its impacts to the shoreline would be both adverse and beneficial. The impact to adjacent beach would be erosion, but to the beach to the west of the borrow area the impact would be accretion. Mr. Clark's opinion of no impacts to the beach from dredging OK-A would be entirely different if OK-A had been located in the near-shore zone where "it's a whole different ball game." WD Tr. 532. The location of OK-A, between 4,000 and 5,000 feet offshore is in a zone that is "no problem," that is, it is not in the near-shore and far enough off shore that it will not cause impacts, adverse or beneficial, to the beaches and shores of Okaloosa County. Modeling and Dr. Young's Opinions For all his experience and coastal engineering prowess, Mr. Clark is not an expert in modeling. He relies on others within the Department to evaluate the sufficiency of a model or its methodologies. Mr. Clark did not ask anyone in the Department to evaluate the models used by Taylor Engineering. Dr. Young disagreed with the opinions of Mr. Trudnak and Mr. Clark that there would be no adverse impacts to the beach. He was sure that the dredging of OK-A would cause an adverse impact that would be either erosion or a decrease in the accretion that occurred in recent years along the beaches of Okaloosa Island. Dr. Young also cast doubt on Mr. Clark's experience as support for the opinion that dredging of OK-A would cause no adverse impacts. "Nobody believes there's ever been an adverse impact from a borrow area . . . ." WD Tr. 1206. Dr. Young used the "real world" experience with the Walton Borrow Area to back up that doubt. "[T]he problem is that we're not doing a good job of monitoring this project [the Walton Project] and the problem is convenient interpretation of the monitoring results." Id. Dr. Young's doubt about the value of Mr. Clark's experience was tempered by the reality of beach restoration in contrast to other types of projects whose failure was sudden, dramatic and easily discernible. Dr. Young: [W]hen a bridge collapses, civil engineers converge on that failed project and they learn more from that failure than they could ever learn from a bridge that lasted 30 years. And . . . one of the problems with coastal project design is that never happens. We never have a beach nourishment project that disappears in six months or a borrow area that causes erosion and coastal engineers converge from around the country and say, wow, here's a project that went wrong. And I think that is one of the hurdles that we need to cross in order to do a better job of project design. * * * We have no clear definition of what a failed project is. So, that way you can never have one that fails. And to me, a failed project is one that does not meet the promises made in the design of that project. And a failed project is also one where there are impacts that occur as a result of the project that are not adequately mitigated or anticipated. WD Tr. 1150-1 (emphasis added). When asked the question of whether there is a definition of a failed beach restoration project in the literature or that is generally accepted by the coastal engineering community, see WD tr. 1152, Dr. Young testified, "I have not seen one." Id.. He added, "I would assume they might offer a similar definition [to mine], if the project doesn't work the way we said it would, then we would consider that a failure. But there is certainly not large scale discussion of projects that did not perform as designed." WD Tr. 1152-3. Dr. Young, like Dr. Dally, did not perform any analysis to quantify any degree of erosion or decreased accretion. Nor has he ever performed modeling to analyze borrow area impacts in keeping with his view of the inutility of modeling for accurate prediction of beach impacts. Other Projects Constructed with OK-A Fill The OK-A Borrow Area is the sand source for other projects, several of which have been completed. Of the 7 million cubic yards of sand in OK-A, 1.1 million has been removed for other projects, including two projects on federal property that is part of Eglin Air Force Base, referred to as sites A-3 and A-13 (the "Eglin Projects"), and a small 2600-foot stretch of beach in Destin, referred to as the Holiday Isle Emergency Project. The Eglin Projects The Eglin Projects were completed in May 2010. During the construction phase of the Eglin Projects, hopper loads of OK-A Fill were analyzed on the basis of silt content. "[A] visual shell content analysis and a grain size analysis and color analysis" OI tr. 219, was also conducted on the hopper loads of OK-A Fill. An analysis of carbonate content was not conducted during the construction phase because of expense. Carbonate content analysis was saved for later after "post construction sampling." Id. The Eglin Projects were governed by a Sand Quality Control and Quality Assurance Plan (the "Sand QC/QA Plan") approved by the Department. The Okaloosa Island Project is also governed by a Sand QC/QA Plan. Sand QC/QA Plans The Department requires an application for beach restoration to include a Sand QA/QC Plan by rule: The application shall contain the following specific information: * * * (k) Two complete sets of construction plans and specifications . . . . The plans shall include the following: * * * 4. Permit applications for . . . beach restoration . . . shall include: * * * Quality control/assurance plan that will ensure that the sediment from the borrow sites to be used in the project will meet the standard in paragraph 62B-41.007(2)(j), F.A.C. [the Sand Rule] Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-41.008(1). The purpose of a Sand QC/QA Plan was explained at hearing by Dr. Koch. It provides an outline of a level of observation and testing that has to be done during construction and post-construction. It provides remediation measures if fill is placed on the beach that is not "beach compatible fill" as defined in the Sand Rule. It is not a method by which the Department obtains reasonable assurance of compliance; reasonable assurance is obtained by the Department through "review of the sediment data." See OI tr. 705. The QC/QA Plan is more like "an insurance policy." Id. If something were to happen that was unexpected or not in compliance with the Sand Rule, the QA/QC Plans ensure that the "dredger is not going to be dredging outside the limits that's . . . outlined in the plan." OI Tr. 706. If non-compatible beach fill "were to be placed on the beach, [the QC/QA Plan] outlines triggers for [remediation] so that [remedial] action can be taken immediately." OI Tr. 707. Application of the Sand QC/QA to Eglin Project A-3 A few of the hopper loads used on Eglin A-3 failed. "One or two had a carbonate content greater than 5 percent. A couple had a grain size that was a millimeter or two under the acceptable range." OI Tr. 220. Given that the hopper used in the Eglin A-3 Project holds 2,500 cubic yards of material and that DEP requires compliance over an area of 10,000 square feet, "sand from one hopper load [that failed] could be blended in with sand from other hopper loads." Id. The remedial measure employed in the Eglin A-3 Project of blending non-compliant fill with good fill did not succeed. Mr. Trudnak offered at hearing that the OK-A Fill used at the Eglin A-3 Project had "a higher percentage of dark material," OI tr. 216, than the fill used in the Emergency Holiday Isle Project and therefore, the sand color in the restored Eglin A-3 Project "is inferior to the [sand color of the restored beach in the Emergency] Holiday Isle Project." Id. The darkness of the material used in the Eglin A-3 Project was confirmed by aerial photography conducted by Dr. Young a month after construction was completed. See discussion, below. Mr. Trudnak attributed the inferior quality of the fill used in the Eglin A-3 Project to the area of OK-A from which it was taken: the southeast and south central portions. Fill taken for the Emergency Holiday Isle Project which Mr. Trudnak opined was superior from the standpoint of color was taken from OK-A's southwest corner. Mr. Trudnak's assessment of the inferior color of the sand placed in the Eglin A-3 Project, however, was not revealed by testing of four post-construction samples taken on May 27, 2010 and tested on June 2, 2010. Those four samples all yielded recorded results for Munsell color at the lightest (and predominate) color assigned to the native beach: 5Y 8/1 or as the post construction testing results admitted into evidence show: "5Y Chroma 1 Value 8." See OI County Ex. 13. These tests results call into question the validity of the tests and other test results of the quality of the sand that is OK-A Fill. Sand Quality Quartz and Carbonate; Native Sand Quartz or Silicon Dioxide, a principal constituent of ordinary sand, is a brilliant, crystalline mineral, occurring in abundance in the earth's crust, most often in a colorless, transparent form. Quartz is usually present in beach sands in high percentages. Like quartz, carbonate also occurs in abundance in the earth's crust and is often present in beach sand. The source of carbonate in beach sand is mainly shells of organisms like clams and scallops. But carbonates that are not from shells also occur in marine environments. These non-shell carbonates may also be constituents of beach sand. The sand on the beaches of Okaloosa Island is predominately quartz and contains an extraordinarily low amount of carbonates. The references to Okaloosa Island beaches as being composed of "sugar white sand" and the beauty of their color which drew the Sherrys to Okaloosa Island is due to their general character as predominately "quartz" beaches to an unusual degree rather than as beaches with a significant amount of carbonate content or other content that would make the color other than "sugar white." As Dr. Young put it in the section of his report which analyzed the carbonate content of OK-A Sand used at A-3, the Eglin East Beach Restoration Project: Okaloosa Island sands are renowned for their unique, mature, quartz composition providing a "dramatic landscape of drifted blinding white sand that often puts northern visitors in mind of snow;" to quote the Walton County Chamber of Commerce website. This project [the Eglin East Project] has replaced that pure quartz sand with beach fill [that] would rank the beach as the highest carbonate content beach on the Panhandle. OI Petitioners' Ex. 40, (un-numbered 5th page). The awareness of the quality and color of Okaloosa Island beaches is accepted by all of the parties to this proceeding. Taylor Engineering, the County's agent, wrote the following in section 3.3 of its Sand Source Investigation Report, entitled "Color Analysis": Residents and visitors cherish the beaches of Okaloosa County for their very white clean sand. Thus, renourishment activity must address maintenance of the native beach sand color. * * * The color analysis determined the Munsell color classification of all the native beach sand samples in Okaloosa County. Taylor Engineering described the majority of them as Munsell Color 5Y8/1 (white) and described several other samples as 5Y 7/1. Notably, the native beach, having been exposed to sunlight and weathering over long periods of time, is lighter in color than in situ potential borrow materials identified in previous sand source investigations . . . . OI Petitioners' Ex. 42 at 16, OKC41283 (emphasis added). In order to ensure that the County's restoration efforts in Okaloosa Island would "address maintenance of the native beach sand color" and other characteristics of the sand native to Okaloosa Island, Taylor and the County made significant effort to comply with the Department's Sand Rule. The Sand Rule Rule 62B-41.007 is entitled "Design, Siting and Other Requirements." Section (1) sets out requirements in general for coastal construction. Section (2) provides special guidelines. Subsection (j) of Section (2) (the "Sand Rule") sets out the guidelines for "beach compatible fill" to be used in coastal construction projects including the beach restoration of the Okaloosa Island Project. The Sand Rule reads as follows: 62B-41.007 Design, Siting and Other Requirements. * * * Coastal construction shall be designed in accordance with established engineering and scientific practice, and the following special guidelines: * * * To protect the environmental function of Florida's beaches, only beach compatible fill shall be placed on the beach or in any associated dune system. Beach compatible fill is material that maintains the general character and functionality of the material occurring on the beach and in the adjacent dune and coastal system. Such material shall be predominately of carbonate, quartz or similar material with a particle size distribution ranging between 0.0062mm (4.0F) and 4.76mm (-2.25F)(classified as sand by either the Unified Soils or the Wentworth classification), shall be similar in color and grain size distribution (sand grain frequency, mean and median grain size and sorting coefficient) to the material in the existing coastal system at the disposal site and shall not contain: Greater than 5 percent, by weight, silt, clay or colloids passing the #230 sieve (4.0F); Greater than 5 percent, by weight, fine gravel retained on the #4 sieve (- 2.25F); Coarse gravel, cobbles or material retained on the 3/4 inch sieve in a percentage or size greater than found on the native beach; Construction debris, toxic material or other foreign matter; and, Not result in cementation of the beach. If rocks or other non-specified materials appear on the surface of the filled beach in excess of 50% of background in any 10,000 square foot area, then surface rock should be removed from those areas. These areas shall also be tested for subsurface rock percentage and remediated as required. If the natural beach exceeds any of the limiting parameters listed above, then the fill material shall not exceed the naturally occurring level for that parameter. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-41.007(2)(j) (emphasis added). In compliance with the Sand Rule, the Department seeks to ensure that fill placed on the beach in a restoration project maintains the general character and functionality occurring in the coastal and dune system adjacent to the beach that is the placement site. If a beach is predominately quartz, then the fill should be predominately quartz. The same is true for a beach that is predominately carbonate; the fill to restore that beach should be predominately carbonate. It is the general character and functionality of sand on the beach and the adjacent coastal and dune system where the fill is to be placed that is the baseline against which the Department determines the compatibility of fill. Fill compatible with one beach in Florida is not compatible with all beaches in Florida. Fill that is predominately carbonate, for example, might be compatible with many beaches in the state; it would not be compatible with the predominately quartz coastal and dune systems adjacent to the beaches of Okaloosa Island. OK-A Fill: Not Compatible The environmental functions the Department considered when applying the Sand Rule to this case are nesting habitat for turtles, nesting and foraging habitat for shorebirds and general habitat for beach mice. There may be overlap between the general character of the material at issue and its environmental functionality. Color, a sand characteristic, is a component of the general character of sand. Color can also relate to environmental functionality. It has an effect, for example, on the temperature of the sand which, in turn, determines sex ratios for turtle hatchlings as well as the incubation period for turtle eggs. Sand color, therefore, has an effect on environmental function related to sea turtles. To the extent it affects thermal characteristics of beach sand, color can affect other organisms whose habitat includes beaches. The County and the Department presented evidence that the fill from OK-A ("OK-A Fill") will maintain the environmental functionality on the Project's beaches. The evidence presented by Petitioners to rebut the evidence of the County and Department as to environmental functions or functionality otherwise was insubstantial. The fill from OK-A will maintain the environmental functionality of the Project's placement site. In contrast to environmental functionality, the evidence established that OK-A Fill will not maintain the general character of the native beach subject to the Okaloosa Island Project beach. The finding that the fill will not maintain the general character of the placement site is based on three factors: 1.) carbonate content, 2.) color, and 3.) the presence of 3/4 inch material. Carbonate Content Native Beach Taylor Engineering's Sand Search Investigation Report, see Petitioners' OI 42, Case No. 10-2468, determined the carbonate content of the native beach in Okaloosa Island to be 0.00%. Most beaches in Florida have shell and carbonate content. Carbonate content of "0.00%," therefore, is highly unusual and it underscores the unusual if not unique character of Okaloosa Island beaches. Taylor's determination of "0.00%" carbonate content of the native beach was based on acid digestion tests conducted by Ellis & Associates, a certified laboratory. While there may be other ways of objectively determining carbonate content, acid digestion is the best method. Carbonate content cannot be determined on a percentage basis visually. To arrive at an accurate acceptable percentage, acid digestion is required. See Deposition of Gregory William Stone, Ph.D., at 22. Taylor Engineering conducted tests on 16 sand samples collected by Taylor at four different monuments on the beach and from the adjacent dune system in Okaloosa Island. At R-1 and R- 6, samples were taken at "Mid-Berm," mean high water and mean low water. At R-11 and R-16, samples were taken in areas of dune vegetation, at the dune toe, Mid-Berm, mean high water and mean low water. (Samples were also taken by Taylor in areas of dune vegetation and at the dune toe at R-1 and R-6. These samples were excluded from the analysis by Ellis and Associates because they represented "non-native dune restoration sand trucked in from an upland source." OI Joint Ex. 3G at 2.2). Each of the 16 samples of native beach sand yielded a calcium carbonate content of "0.00%." There was other evidence that indicated that beaches of Okaloosa Island must contain some amount of carbonate, no matter how small, despite Taylor Engineering's testing and analyses that yielded carbonate content at 0.00%. Dr. Stone, the County's witness, testified that in the Okaloosa Island portion of Santa Rosa Island carbonate "is in the swash zone . . . where the waves break, and the water is pushed up and then falls back under gravity." Deposition of Gregory William Stone, Ph.D., at 12. Carbonates from shells are always present in swash zones. Dr. Stone had not conducted carbonate analyses of the native sand and could not testify as to what percentage of Okaloosa Island beach sand is carbonate. During storms, however, large shell fragments are pushed onto the beach. The conflict in the evidence as to the extent to which Okaloosa Island beach sand contains carbonates is resolved by the following. The carbonate content of the native sand is extraordinarily low, at a figure that approaches zero. OK-A Fill Carbonate The persuasive evidence in this case establishes that the carbonate content of OK-A Fill is so much higher than the carbonate content of the sand native to Okaloosa Island beaches that, for this Project, OK-A Fill is not "beach compatible fill," as defined by the Sand Rule. Supportive of the finding is Dr. Young's credible analysis of the OK-A Fill used in the Eglin East Project. The analysis appears in OI Petitioners' Exhibit 40 (marked as "DOAH Case No. 10-2468, Exhibit Sherry 40"), entitled: "Analysis of carbonate content for the Eglin (East) beach nourishment project." Dr. Young acquired 21 random samples of beach sediment in August of 2010 from the Eglin East Project after construction using a sampling grid and ArcGIS. Criticized by the Department because the samples were all taken close to the shoreline and none were taken within the back of the berm to the back of the dune, his methodology for selecting and collecting the samples is found to be reasonable nonetheless. The samples were subjected to standard procedures including "Acid Digestion" for the determination of insoluble residue as an estimate of carbonate content. The data from Dr. Young's "acid digestion/insoluble residue determination," see OI Petitioners' Ex. 40 at 4, show carbonate content to range from as low as 3.89% to as high as 11.81% (using rounded figures). The averaging of the percentage of carbonate content for the 21 samples yields an average carbonate content for OK-A fill of 6.29% (a rounded figure). In addition to Dr. Young's carbonate content results for OK-A fill used in the Eglin East Project, carbonate content acid digestion testing results of OK-A Sand was introduced into evidence as part of the Sand Source Investigation. See OI Petitioners' 42. Table 5.5 of the document, id. at 36, shows that 61 vibracore samples were taken from different locations and different depths at the locations in OK-A. Of the 61 vibracore samples, 24 were subjected to analysis for carbonate content. Several were rejected because they were out of the area to be dredged. The acid digestion tests conducted on Taylor's behalf for the samples selected to be included in the results yielded an average carbonate content of OK-A fill at 3.77%. The carbonate content of OK-A fill, whether measured by Dr. Young or Taylor Engineering, significantly exceeds the carbonate content of seven beaches along the Panhandle of Florida tested for carbonate. These beaches stretch from Perdido Bay in Escambia County to the West to the Walton County 30 A Corridor in the east (with Okaloosa Island being in the middle). The carbonate content in these seven beaches averages 0.6%. The beach with the highest carbonate content of the seven (denominated "Perdido Bay" by Petitioners' Exhibit 3) is located in Escambia County. It is shown to have a carbonate content of 1.4%. Of the seven, the beach with the lowest carbonate content is "Okaloosa Island" at "0." OI Petitioners' 3. The restored beach subject to the Project, therefore, would change from prior to restoration to having either no carbonate content or almost none to being the beach on the panhandle, at least as to its restored portion, with the highest carbonate content by a significant margin. The fill to be used in the Project is not "beach compatible fill" because it will not maintain the general character of the pre-Project sand from the standpoint of carbonate content. 2. Color Unlike the objective testing (acid digestion) that was used to determine the carbonate content of OK-A Fill and sand native to Okaloosa Island, the color of the fill and native sand was determined subjectively. Color determinations were made at various stages in the application process prior to the issuance of the Consolidated NOI. One determination was made when Taylor Engineering conducted an investigation (the "Sand Bleaching Investigation") into how much time it would take for OK-A Fill to lighten up and to what degree it would lighten after it had been excavated and exposed to sunlight and the atmosphere. The investigation led to a report issued in October of 2008 (the "2008 Sand Bleaching Report"). Another determination was made by Ellis and Associates, the laboratory which contracted its work with Taylor. The determinations were reported in a document entitled "Eglin AFB/Okaloosa County/Destin Sand Source Investigation- Okaloosa County, FL" dated October of 2009 (the "2009 Sand Source Report"). Other determinations were made by Department personnel. All of the various color determinations made at the different steps employed the Munsell Color System. The Munsell Color System In Florida, the Munsell System is used to assess the color of beach sand and sand fill used in restoration projects. The Munsell Color System assigns color notations composed of the three dimensions of a color sphere it uses as a model. The three dimensions of the sphere represent hue (five colors of the rainbow and five colors in between each of the five colors), value (lightness), and chroma (saturation or color purity). With regard to hue, Section 3.3 entitled "Color Analysis" of Taylor's Sand Source Investigation Report states, "The hue notation of a color indicates its relation to red, yellow, green, blue and purple." OI Petitioners' Ex. 42 at 16, OKC41283. Hues are identified in Munsell notation by one of ten alphabetical notations that are either a single letter and a number or two letters and a number. The single letter notations indicate the color, "R" for red, "Y" for yellow, "G" for green, "B" for blue and "P" for purple. The double-letter notations are also color notations: "YR" for yellow-red (orange), "GY" for green-yellow, "BG" for blue-green, "PB" for purple-blue, and "RP" for red-purple. The number notation is for one of ten degrees or shades of each hue. The hue that bears a five is not influenced by the adjacent hues. Thus, "5Y" is completely yellow without any influences of "green-yellow" or "yellow-red." The hues that matched the colors of the sand analyzed in this case were either "Y" which stands for "Yellow" or "YR," "yellow-red." The value notation in the Munsell Color System indicates lightness. The Munsell symbols for value span from 0 for absolute black to 10 for absolute white. "Thus, a value of 5 falls visually midway between absolute white and absolute black." Id. The chroma notation "indicates strength or departure from a neutral of the same lightness." Id. The lower the chroma number and the higher the value, the lighter is the color. Munsell color charts used in this case describe a value of 8 and a chroma of 1 to be "white." Thus sand classified as "5Y 8/1" would be a hue of "yellow" that approaches "white" because of value and chroma. Sand classified as "5y 7/1" or 5Y 7/2" as allowed by the permit would not be called "white" but rather, from what appears in Table 1.1 of the Sand Bleaching Investigation Report a grayish shade of "yellow." See OI Joint Ex. 3F at 2. Allowable Color Table 1 of Attachment G to the Application sets out "Sediment Characteristics" as part of the Draft Sand Quality Control and Quality Assurance Plan [the "Draft Sand QC/QA Plan"] for Eglin AFB/Okaloosa Island Beach Restoration Project." OI Joint Ex. 1G. Allowable Moist Munsell Color proposed by the Draft Sand QC/QA Plan for "Native Beach" is "2.5Y 7/1 or lighter." Id., Table 1. For "Borrow Area Acceptable Material Limits," it is "2.5Y 6/2 or lighter." Id. The values of the borrow area were applied for at "6" or lighter because "70 percent of [OK-A] sand has a Munsell value of 7 or lighter and, roughly, 30 percent has value of 6." OI Tr. 362. The moist Munsell colors the Application proposed to be considered as the color of the native beach and acceptable colors for OK-A Fill were not approved by the Department. The Draft JCP set the two, respectively, at "5Y 7/1 - 5Y 8/1" and "5Y 7/2, 2.5Y 7/2, or lighter." OI Joint Ex. 11, last page (un- numbered). A "5Y 7/2" is darker than "5Y 7/1," which in turn is darker than "5Y 8/1," the lightest color assigned by the Draft JCP to the native beach. A "2.5Y 7/2" shares the same value and chroma as a "5Y 7/2" but its hue is not a true yellow; it is of a hue closer to yellow-red (orange) than is the full yellow hue "5Y." Immediately after being dredged, OK-A Fill is darker than the native beach sand. For the time it has been at the bottom of the Gulf, it has not been exposed to natural forces that Taylor hypothesizes to affect the color of the sand on Okaloosa Island's beaches. Native Okaloosa Island beach sand, subject to sun, winds and waves, on the other hand, in Mr. Trudnak's view, has "been in an environment where it's really cleaned up." OI Tr. 212. The Sand Bleaching Investigation conducted by Taylor Engineering concluded that OK-A Fill lightens up once it is dredged and exposed to the elements. Sand Bleaching Investigation Before Taylor prepared its Sand Source Investigation Report that is contained in the Application, it sought to quantify how long it would take to OK-A Fill to lighten and the degree of lightening, if any, after placement on the beach. Taylor's investigation led to a report (the "Sand Bleaching Investigation" and the "Sand Bleaching Report"). See OI Joint Ex. 3F. Forty samples of OK-A fill were kept on the rooftop of a building in Jacksonville and subjected to natural conditions for at least 99 days. The samples were compared to Munsell colors. See the representation of the color of Munsell Hue 5Y in 24 panes on a chart labeled "Table 1.1 Representation of Munsell Colors Used in this Analysis" in the Sand Bleaching Report, OI Joint Ex. 3F, at 2. Values range from 4 to 8 with half steps between each value (4.5 and 5.5, for example) and chromas of 1, 2 and 3. The difference between "5Y 6/1" and "5Y 8/1" is obvious to the human eye. See OI Joint Ex. 3F at 2. The comparison of a sample of sand to Munsell colors and the grading of the sample leading to the assignment of the three Munsell color dimensions do not constitute objective, scientific measurement. Instead, it is merely a visual comparison by the person conducting the test. "[I]t is a subjective test." OI Tr. 237. The grading of the values in Taylor Sand Bleaching Investigation was determined visually by two Taylor employees. As Ms. Naimaster, one of the two Taylor employees testified, "[w]e held the sand up to the book." Naimaster Deposition at 9. Ms. Naimaster did not have any specialized training in use of the Munsell Color System. She was taught how to use the system by the other Taylor employee involved in the grading of the samples, Mr. Hall. Together, the two graded the samples toward the aim of determining the time it took for them to lighten and the degree of lightening. Mr. Hall and Ms. Naimaster reached the conclusion that the majority of the samples taken in the Sand Bleaching Investigation, when exposed to the elements on a Jacksonville rooftop lightened one value, say, "from a Munsell 7 to a Munsell 8 or a Munsell 6 to a Munsell 7." OI Tr. 214. They agreed on most of the comparisons of the samples pre-exposure to the samples post-exposure. When they disagreed, they worked collaboratively: We held the sample up to the book, and he said what he thought, I said what I thought, and we decided together, who was closer. Naimaster Deposition at 11. Mr. Hall, Ms. Naimaster's trainer, was a 27-year old Taylor staff engineer with a Masters of Engineering from Cambridge University in England at the time of his deposition in July 2010. His sole experience with sand bleaching consisted of the work he did that led to the 2008 Sand Bleaching Report. Prior to that work, he had no experience in sand bleaching. Whether quartz sand grains change color when exposed to sun, wind, and water was unknown to Mr. Hall at the time of his deposition. His description of the grading process during the Sand Bleaching Investigation matched Ms. Naimaster's: they agreed on the color selections for the samples "approximately 80 percent of the time; and then on the ones we disagreed, it was fairly quick to come to a consensus." Jonathan Hall DEPO-10- 2468 at 15. The lightening observed by Mr. Hall and Ms. Naimaster did not occur because of a change in the quartz in the samples. It occurred because of changes in the impurities in or on the quartz. Sand Source Grading and Review While anybody can look at a sample of beach sand and compare it to a Munsell color sheet and come up with a subjective determination of the Munsell color dimensions to be assigned, Taylor Engineering relied on a certified laboratory, Ellis and Associates, to conduct the grading of OK-A Fill during the Sand Source Investigation. See OI Tr. 237. The Sand Source Investigation report was also reviewed by Dr. Jennifer Koch, a coastal geologist with the Department, including "the color tests for each of the individual samples." OI Tr. 663. Her review, when it came to color consisted of cross-checking the color data that was provided. Although based on "data" (the samples and the Munsell Color sheets), her review was not conducted using objective standards. It was visual and subjective as she explained: You look at the color information for every individual sample. And then . . . a Vibracore or a portion of borrow area and you kind of look from there. Kind of like creating composites in the same way as you would with sediment data. You look at the overall color and you look at the individual sample color and compare that to what's existing on the beach. OI Tr. 686. Dr. Koch also visited other beach restoration projects to examine OK-A Fill in use. Later, Dr. Koch did her own color testing on samples using the Munsell Color System when she returned to her office. But before she left, Dr. Koch took pictures of the beach restoration in the emergency Holiday Isle project in which OK-A Fill was used. They appear in Department Exhibit 42. The pictures show the fill material to be clearly darker than the native beach sand. Nonetheless, Dr. Koch's assessment of the OK-A Fill used during the Holiday Isle Emergency Project is that "[t]he material was beautiful and it was beach compatible." OI Tr. 703. The Department concluded that the County had provided reasonable assurance that the OK-A Fill material to be used in the Project is beach compatible in every way, including color. The Department's Exhibit 42 establishes that the color of OK-A Fill after placement at Holiday Isle is significantly darker than the native beach. Dr. Young's testimony and other photographs in evidence relate to the color of OK-A Fill more than 100 days after it had been placed on the beach. The testimony and photographs establish that the color of the fill from OK-A is significantly darker than 5Y 8/1, the predominate color of Okaloosa Island native sand, after it has been on the beach for a time long enough to have received the effects of weathering claimed by the Sand Bleaching Investigation Report. The color of the native beach in A-3, one of the Eglin Projects, is rated as 5Y 8/1 or 5Y 7/1, the same as the native beach subject to the Okaloosa Island Project. In Dr. Young's aerials, taken from about 500 feet on June 21, 2010, the line between the restored beach and the native beach is easily seen by their color difference, the fill from OK-A being obviously darker. Sand Source Report Color Conclusions The Sand Source Report states the following: The color analysis determined the Munsell color classification of all the native beach sand samples in Okaloosa County. Taylor Engineering described the majority of them as Munsell Color 5Y 8/1 (white) and described several others samples as 5Y 7/1. Notably, the native beach, having been exposed to sunlight and weathering over long periods of time, is lighter in color than in situ potential borrow materials identified in previous sand source investigations (see Section 2.2). To help establish acceptable borrow material color criteria, the current study evaluated the effects of sun bleaching on sediment color. The color test exposed 40 potential offshore borrow material samples - representing various core borings collected during the detail phase of the investigation (Chapter 5) - to the Florida sun between 12/7/2007 and 3/17/2008 (99 days). Of the 40 samples, 23 began as value 7 and 13 began as value 6. The samples represented various vibracore depths, ranging between 0 ft and 18 ft. The test results, presented in Table 3.5, indicate that all samples with a Munsell value/chroma of 7/1, 7/2, or 7/3 turned white or nearly white (value of 8) due to weathering within 99 days of placement. Approximately 85% of placed sand with a Munsell value/chroma of 6/1, 6/2, or 6/3 lightened in value to at least 7 within that same period. * * * Importantly, the weathering analysis discussed above likely underestimates the level of lightening the beach fill will experience for two reasons. First, the borrow material will undergo a rigorous washing effect through particle abrasion as the sand travels through the dredge pipes during dredge loading and offloading. Second, wind and waves will weather the beach fill. The weathering analysis did not account for such weathering actions. OI Petitioners' Ex. 42, Section 3.3, at 16-17 (emphasis added). The methodology employed in the Sand Source and Sand Bleaching Investigation tests, however, was not scientific. See OI tr. 1424. Explanations The County offered several explanations to minimize the disparity between the quality of sand in OK-A Fill when first placed on the beach and the quality of the sand native to Okaloosa Island. Sand raking is an explanation offered for the low carbonate content of the native sand as determined by Taylor Engineering. "The county has been mechanically cleaning the beaches for close to two decades. Depending upon . . . the season, it's either once every day . . . [or] twice a week . . . [t]hese machines pick up things as small [as] cigarette butts and they've been picking up . . . shells, as well . . . ." OI Tr. 97. The darkness of OK-A Fill used in the Eglin Projects and the darkness of the OK-A Fill in general was attributed by Dr. Stone and Dr. Koch to heavy mineral content. Heavy minerals or iron-bearing minerals occur naturally in Florida Panhandle beach sand and in sand offshore. Dr. Stone's testimony about iron-bearing minerals suggested that OK-A Fill prior to dredging is in an anerobic environment and therefore will lighten when exposed to oxygen in the beach environment was refuted by Dr. Young. As Dr. Young testified, sediments in an anerobic environment are in a reduced form that "tend to look black or gray on the Munsell chart." OI Tr. 1424. Sediments from an anerobic environment are termed "gley," which indicates the presence of reduced iron. The OK-A Fill pumped onto the beach in the Eglin A-3 Project "tend to look more tan or brown, which suggest that the iron in them has . . . been oxidized." OI Tr. 1424-25. Iron imparts much of the color of sediment. If the iron in OK-A Fill has been oxidized prior to excavation, it is not "gleyed." It cannot be expected that it will oxidize and lighten after exposure to air. See tr. 1425 and 1426. As recognized by all parties OK-A Fill at the moment of excavation is darker than the sand native to the beaches of Okaloosa Island. When it is initially placed on the beach, the evidence demonstrates that the rigorous washing effect from particle abrasion as it is piped ashore does not lighten it sufficiently to meet the "whiteness" of the color of the native sand as hoped for by Taylor and the County as the result of their investigations. Aerial photographs of the Eglin A-3 Project taken four weeks after the completion of the project demonstrate "how easily one can . . . delineate the boundaries of the project based entirely on color being assessed at a height of about 400 feet." See OI Petitioners' 8-DDD and 8-GGG. The Eglin A-3 Project was completed at the end of May in 2010. Dr. Young visited the Eglin A-3 site "four or five times," OI tr. 1422, in late June, August and on November 30, 2010. During those visits, including the last visit more than 180 days or six months since completion of the project, he did not observe the OK-A Fill to have "bleached or lightened in color." Id. 3. 3/4 Inch Material Native sand in the beach subject to the Project has little to no material that would be retained on a 3/4 inch sieve. Photographs of OK-A Fill used in the Emergency Holiday Isle Project and at the Eglin A-3 Project were introduced into evidence. They demonstrate the presence in OK-A Fill of an amount of shell material that would not pass through a 3/4 inch sieve much greater than is present on the beach subject to the Project. After the Emergency Holiday Isle Project, an effort was made to remove shells that were in the OK-A Fill deposited on the beach. How much the shell weighed that was removed or how many days of tilling or screening to remove the shells was not established. Mr. Trefilio, the Coastal Management Coordinator acting on behalf of the County "told our contractor to use his professional judgment to basically remove as many shells as possible." OI Tr. 140. Dr. Young' visit to the Eglin A-3 Project and his personal observation establish that the OK-A Fill used at the A-3 site contains a significant amount of shell material that would not be retained on a 3/4 inch sieve. The fill from OK-A already excavated and used in other projects contains material that would be retained on the 3/4 inch sieve in a percentage significantly greater than the percentage of that material on the beach subject to the Project. It is highly likely that any fill taken from OK-A to be used in the Project would contain unacceptably-sized material at significantly greater percentages than on the native beach. Regulatory Public Interest Section 373.414 requires the County to provide reasonable assurance that the activity authorized by the JCP "will be clearly in the public interest" (as opposed to "not contrary to the public interest") since a portion of the OK-A Borrow Area is in an OFW. The statute provides: In determining whether an activity . . . is clearly in the public interest, . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; Whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the activity will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. § 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat. The Department determined the Project to be clearly in the public interest. In doing so, the Department did not consider the Project's "non-environmental" impacts to the property of others under the authority of Miller v. Dep't of Envtl. Reg., 504 So. 2d 1425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Criterion 1 A distinction is to be drawn between effect on the public health, safety and welfare, on the one hand, and the property of others, on the other hand. The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety or welfare of others. To the contrary it will serve the public health, safety and welfare. The restoration will protect upland structures and property vulnerable to extreme storm events and waves and storm surge should they occur during the life of the Project. The Project will affect the property of the Sherrys and Mr. Donovan by placing sand on the beach waterward of their condominium property that is not beach-compatible fill. The effect is likely to be adverse but to what extent is not established by this record. Criterion 2 The draft permit contains minimization measures during construction to protect endangered and threatened species such as turtles, shorebirds, and mice. The restoration of a critically eroded beach increases the habitat for endangered and threatened species. The environmental assessment developed to address potential impacts to threatened or endangered species, supplemented with literature review of the effects of beach restoration on natural habitat, demonstrates that there will be little to no adverse impacts with the exception of to the benthic infauna communities. Any adverse affects to the benthic infauna communities would be temporary. These communities rebound quickly. The temporary impacts are not considered adverse and they are certainly not significantly adverse. Dr. Robbin Trindell, the Biological Administrator for the State of Florida Management Program, reviewed the Project and concluded that OK-Fill is acceptable for turtle nesting. The conclusion was based on the grain size information submitted by Dr. Stone and from working with the Department's biologists. Criterion 3 The Project will not affect navigation. It is far from inlets and a significant distance from East Pass, which connects Choctawhatchee Bay to the Gulf. The Project may cause erosion, but it may also cause beneficial impacts to the shoreline. Harmful shoaling will not be caused by the Project. Criterion 4 Fishing is not expected to be impacted by the Project. The recreational value of the beach should increase. Marine productivity would not be affected adversely with the exception of the temporary impact to benthic infauna, an impact that would not be adverse in the long term. Criterion 5 The activity will be temporary. Criterion 6 There are no significant historical and archaeological resources in the project area. Criterion 7 The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by the areas affected by the Project will remain the same. It will continue to be a recreational beach adjacent to the Gulf. It will continue to provide habitat to endangered species and wildlife and will provide storm protection. Variance and Conditions The northern boundary of OK-A is within Outstanding Florida Waters ("OFW"). In a letter dated October 14, 2009, Taylor Engineering on behalf of the County requested three variances from rule provisions in chapter 62-4, which governs "Permits," as follows: [W]e request a variance from the provisions of Rule 62-4.244(5)[(c)], F.A.C., to establish a temporary mixing zone greater than 150 meters in an Outstanding Florida Water; a variance from the provisions of Rules 62-4.242(2)(a)2.b., 62-302.700(1), and 62-312.080(3), F.A.C., to establish a maximum allowable turbidity level above background levels for work with an Outstanding Florida Water; and a variance from the thirty-day time period, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242(2)(a)2.b. F.A.C., in which elevated turbidity levels may occur within a mixing zone located in an Outstanding Florida Water. OI Joint Ex. Vol. 3, Ex. 12. Rule 62-4.244(5)(c) which governs "Mixing zones: surface waters" provides: In no case shall the boundary of a dredge and fill mixing zone be more than . . . 150 meters in radius in . . . bodies of water [other than flowing streams], where these distances are measured from the cutterhead, return flow, discharge or other points of generation of turbidity or other pollutants. Rule 62-302.700(1) is in the rule chapter that governs "Surface Water Quality Standards." Entitled "Special Protection, Outstanding Florida Waters, Outstanding National Resource Waters," it provides: It shall be the Department policy to afford the highest protection to Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters. No degradation of water quality, other than that allowed in subsections 62.4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., is to be permitted in Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters, respectively, notwithstanding any other Department rules that allow water quality lowering. (emphasis added). Rule 62-312.080(3) is in the rule chapter that governs "Dredge and Fill Activities". It provides: "[n]o permit shall be issued for dredging or filling which . . . is within an outstanding Florida Water unless the applicant complies with Section 403.918(2), F.S. (Supp. 1192), and Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C." (emphasis added). Both rules 62-302.700 (an OFW anti-degradation rule) and 62-312.080(3) (an OFW anti-degradation rule applicable to dredging and filling) allow an exception when the applicant complies with rule 62-4.242. Rule 62-4.242(2) sets "standards applying to Outstanding Florida Waters." Subsection (a)2.b of section (2) of the rule reads as follows: (a) No Department permit . . . shall be issued for any proposed activity . . . within an [OFW] or which degrades an [OFW], unless the applicant affirmatively demonstrates that: * * * 2. The proposed activity . . . is clearly in the public interest, and . . . * * * b. the existing ambient water quality within [the OFW] will not be lowered as a result of the proposed activity . . . , except on a temporary basis during construction for a period not to exceed thirty days . . . . [the "Thirty-Day Requirement]. The Department referred to the three variances in its Consolidated NOI as the "Variance" (in the singular rather than the plural). The Department reviewed the request for the Variance under section 403.201(1): Upon application, the department in its discretion may grant a variance from the provisions of this act or the rules and regulations adopted pursuant hereto. Variances and renewals thereof may be granted for any one of the following reasons. There is not practicable means known or available for the adequate control of the pollution involved. Compliance with the particular requirement or requirements from which a variance is sought will necessitate the taking of measures which, because of their extent or cost, must be spread over a considerable period of time. A variance granted for this reason shall prescribe a timetable for the taking of the measures required. To relieve or prevent hardship of a kind other than those provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b). Variances and renewals thereof granted under authority of this paragraph shall each be limited to a period of 24 months, except that variances granted pursuant to part II may extend for the life of the permit or certification. The Department determined that the Variance could be granted to the County for either of the first two reasons, (a) or (b), listed in section 403.201(1). Petitioners do not attack the Variance, however, for failure to meet the requirements of section 403.201(1). Instead, they attack the Variance for failure to satisfy section 120.54(2) [the "APA Variance Statute]: Variances and waivers shall be granted when the person subject to the rule demonstrates that the purpose of the underlying statute will be or has been achieved by other means by the person and when application of a rule would create a substantial hardship or would violate principles of fairness. The APA Variance Statute requires that two elements be met for a variance to be granted pursuant to it: 1.) the purpose of the underlying statute will be or has been achieved by other means; and 2.) violation of fairness (not at issue) or hardship. Hardship Nephelometric turbidity units ("NTUs") in OFWs cannot exceed zero at the edge of the 150-meter radius referenced in rule 62-4.244(5)(c). To keep NTUs at zero outside the 150-meter radius, the County "would have had to almost continually be shutting down . . . .[its hopper] dredge," WD tr. 415, because the turbidity plume created by the hopper dredge's activity would have regularly extended beyond the 150-meter radius. The Variance "allows an anti-degradation allowance of . . . 3 NTU's above background rather than zero NTU's above background at the edge of that mixing zone." WD Tr. 438. Use of a different type of dredge (such as a cutterhead) would not alleviate the need for the Variance for the construction of the Project. A cutterhead dredge is substantially more expensive with regard to both mobilization costs and actual dredging: $15-$20 per cubic yard versus $8 per cubic yard for a hopper dredge. Cutterhead dredges, moreover, do not operate in waves as effectively as hopper dredges. In rough water, "a cutterhead would see much more down time and conditions [could cause] a cutterhead . . . to stop dredging and go into safe harbor into East Pass." WD Tr. 173. The Variance from rule 62-4.244(5)(c), therefore, was needed because the standard-size mixing zone would have created a substantial hardship for the County. Furthermore, the Department had determined that the Project is clearly in the public interest. While the existing ambient water quality within the OFW is likely to be lowered for more than thirty days by the dredging in OK-A, it will not be lowered for more than ninety days, a "temporary" period. It would be a substantial hardship to require the County to meet the mixing zone standards in rule 62-4.244(5((c) and the 30-day requirement in rule 62- 4.242. b. Underlying Statutes: Achievement of Purpose The statutes implemented by the rules covered by the request for the Variance are provisions in either chapter 403 or 373, which control water pollution or protect water resources. No resources in the area, such as hard bottom or sea- grass beds, will be affected by a turbidity plume and an expanded mixing zone. The Department reached the conclusion that the purposes of the underlying statutes would be achieved. The conclusion was based on background knowledge from permitting of borrow areas and beach projects "all over the Panhandle," WD tr. 421, and the data gathered from them including "data from side scan sonar from seismic information all along this area." Id. Included in this background is knowledge of a similar mixing zone of 1,500 meters established for one of the Eglin AFB beach restoration projects which excavated OK-A with a hopper dredge and in which the 1500-meter mixing zone was determined to be appropriate. Independent of the information provided by the County, the decision was founded on the Department's own knowledge that no resources would be impacted by an expanded mixing zone and that there was a comparable project in the area that had been allowed a 1500-meter mixing zone. There were at least two other mitigating factors that the Department entertained as support for its decision. First, because of the difficulty in controlling turbidity in open waters in the Gulf, the 1,500-meter mixing zone established by the Consolidated NOI actually "is on the small side," WD tr. 422, of a mixing zone for the dredging of a borrow area to serve a beach restoration project. Second, 29 NTUs is the maximum turbidity allowed in waters that are not OFW. An extended mixing zone to allow the County to exceed 29 NTUs outside OFW was not granted as part of the variances under the Consolidated NOI. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill 346. Rule 62B-49.005(16) provides: If site conditions change during the processing of an application to such an extent that the data already provided can no longer be used to determine consistency as provided in this chapter, then the application shall be denied unless the applicant agrees to waive the 90 day time requirements of Chapter 120.60, Florida Statutes, and provides the additional information required to reanalyze the application. After the filing of the Application, malfunction of British Petroleum's Deepwater Horizon offshore oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico led to the Oil Spill, a discharge of a massive amount of oil and natural gas into the Gulf of Mexico. No evidence was presented that showed the Oil Spill had caused impacts to the OK-A Borrow Area. The permit was revised, nonetheless, to add language in the wake of the Oil Spill that requires the County to visually inspect the borrow area prior to construction activity and to analyze sand samples from the borrow area. The County, therefore, plans to send a diver to collect samples to be analyzed for contamination. See WD tr. 175. Prior to the completion of the Emergency Holiday Isle Project, the County hired E-Tech Environmental Consultants to monitor and inspect OK-A. On August 9, 2010, a team of divers investigated the bottom of the borrow area for evidence of oil constituents. "Nothing out of the ordinary was seen on the bottom at the borrow site." OI Tr. 402. The team of divers collected samples at the same time they conducted their visual observation. The samples were sent to Pace Analytical Services in Ormond Beach, Florida, and were received there on August 12, 2010. The results of the analysis showed the presence of no oil constituents. Furthermore, no oil was found in the OK-A Fill pumped onto the beach during the Emergency Holiday Isle Project. A similar inspection, observation, sampling and testing of samples will be conducted prior to the commencement of operation on the Okaloosa Island Project. The QA/QC Plan and the Sand Rule cover foreign material (including oil). The plan and the rule should be sufficient to protect the beaches from oil contamination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a Final Order that denies the application of Okaloosa County for issuance of the Joint Coastal Permit for the Okaloosa Island Beach Restoration Project. Denial of the JCP renders the request for the Variance moot. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DAVID M. MALONEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory T. Stewart, Esquire Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Post Office Box 11008 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Joseph Alexander Brown, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams 119 South Monroe Street, Suite 300 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry F. Chiles, Esquire Nabors, Giblin and Nickerson, P.A. Post Office Box 11008 1500 Mahan Drive, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 D. Kent Safriet, Esquire Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Kelly L. Russell, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Richard S. Brightman, Esquire Hopping, Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 Edward A. Dion, Esquire Nabors, Giblin, & Nickerson, P.A. 208 Southeast Sixth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Walter C. Thompson, Jr. Barkley and Thompson, LC 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 2350 New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Tom Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Problem: A Seawall In Danger of Collapse Applicant is an incorporated condominium association which owns the Gulf front property of Bonita Beach Club, a residential condominium located on the northern portion of a barrier island known as Little Hickory Island. The island is south of Fort Myers and part of Lee County. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney; R-1.) Applicant's Gulf front property is protected by a 600-foot seawall; that seawall, exposed to wave and storm attack, is now in the beginning stages of failure. Applicant seeks a permit to place a revetment along the entire seaward face of the seawall "to help strengthen the seawall and stop the erosion at [its] . . . base . . . ." (R-1.) (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney, Sharma; R-1) The seawall shows evidence of profile lowering; sand has been scoured from its face, exposing 6 to 7 feet of wall above the sand line. Its face shows abrasions from buffeting by sand and sediment; its joints have begun to separate, allowing sand from behind the wall to leak through the cracks. Under high tide conditions, the seaward portions of the seawall are under water; under other tidal conditions there is no more than 6 to 7 feet of wetsand area between the base of the wall and the waterline. (Testimony of Truitt.) The present condition of the seawall is mainly due to two processes: the long-term shoreline migration of Little Hickory Island, and (2) profile steepening, scouring, and accelerated sand loss in the immediate vicinity of Applicant's seawall. There is a south-to-north longshore or littoral sand transport in the area off Little Hickory Island, a northward flowing "river of sand." This phenomenon has caused sand loss to beaches in front of and south of Applicant's property and sand accretion to the undeveloped northern beaches north of the island. The localized profile steepening and accelerating sand loss at Applicant's seawall is caused by waves hitting the vertical seawall, then rebounding-- causing removal of sand at the foot of the wall and steepening of the offshore profile. This localized sand loss and erosion has been aggravated by the original placement and alignment of Applicant's seawall. 7/ The seawall protrudes further seaward than adjacent seawalls or bulkheads. 8/ This protrusion, together with the wall's irregular shape, disrupts the otherwise straight shoreline and acts as a headland: an abutment which concentrates wave energy and longshore currents and causes accelerated erosion and sand loss in the immediate area. The effects of the northerly longshore drift and the localized sand loss have been dramatic: between 1974 and 1980 the sandy beach in front of Applicant's seawall has receded landward 50-60 feet. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney, Sharma; P-1, P-2, P-3, P-4, 1-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, R-6, R-7.) In addition, the shoreline of Little Hickory Island is gradually and inexorably eroding. This is due to long-term backyard erosion, a natural )process by which barrier islands gradually migrate landward. (Testimony of Sharma, Tackney, Truitt.) II. Applicant's Solution: Place a Rock Revetment in Front of the Seawall In October, 1980, Applicant applied for a DNR permit to place a rock revetment along the existing seawall. By January, 1981, DNR's Bureau of Beaches and Shores determined that all of the documentation required by its rules 9/ had been submitted and the application was complete. Subsequently, the Applicant agreed to several design changes suggested by DNR and agreed to a permit condition requiring it to dedicate a travel easement to assure continued public access to beaches north of its property. As so modified, DNR proposes to issue the requested permit. (Testimony of Truitt; R-1, -R-11, R-12.) The proposed permit, with conditions, is contained in Respondent's Exhibits R-1, R-11, and R-12. 10/ The proposed shore protection structure is described as a rock toe-scour revetment to be placed along the seaward face of Applicant's existing seawall. The revetment extends 7 feet in the shore-normal direction and approximately 600 linear feet in the shore-parallel direction. It will consist of lime-rock boulders of various sizes stacked on top of each other. The top layer of rocks will be the largest, 75 percent of them weighing greater than 500 pounds. The rock revetment will rest on a layer of Filter-X mat to help stabilize the underlying sand. The revetment's elevation will range from 0.0 feet (NGVD) 11/ at the toe of the seawall to -0.5 feet (NGVD) at 7 feet seaward. Its slope will be no greater than 3 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit. The mean high waterline will intercept the revetment-seawall interface at a maximum elevation of approximately +1.5 feet (NGVD). (R-1, R-11, R-12.) III. The Effects of the Proposed Revetment The proposed revetment will fulfill its primary purpose: it will protect the Applicant's seawall by reducing the amount of sand that is scoured and removed from its face and it will add significant structural stability to the wall. It will provide these benefits because its sloping surface will intercept and dissipate waves which would otherwise hit and rebound off the vertical seawall. Because wave deflection energy will be lessened, steepening of the offshore profile will be reduced and accelerating longshore currents will be slowed. It will also protect the seawall against storm, but not hurricane, damage. (Testimony of Truitt, Tackney.) However, the proposed rock revetment will not stop the migration of sands from the southern to the northern reaches of Little Hickory Island; the northward flowing longshore currents will continue. Neither will the revetment protect Applicant's property against long-term background erosion; the entire island will continue its steady easterly retreat to the mainland. Scouring at the ends of the existing seawall will be reduced, but not eliminated. Eddy currents at the ends of the revetment will cause some localized scouring to take place. Wave and water action will take its toll on the revetment; it will require periodic repair and rebuilding in the years ahead. (Testimony of Sharma, Tackney, Truitt.) Although the testimony is conflicting, the weight of the evidence is that the proposed revetment will not adversely affect adjacent beaches and the offshore profile. 12/ While localized scouring will not be eliminated, the evidence indicates that the rates will be lessened--that the existing erosion problems will be mitigated, not aggravated. With reduced localized scouring, longshore currents will not accelerate, and the offshore profile will not deepen at increasing rates. The expert witnesses agreed that, at least for the short term, the proposed revetment will protect the existing seawall against at least three-year storm conditions. (Testimony of Tackney, Truitt, Sharma.) While the revetment will not accelerate or contribute to the erosion of adjacent lands, it will impair the public's use of the beaches in front of and to the north of the Applicant's seawall. Because the revetment will protrude 6 to 7 feet seaward from the seawall--intercepting the mean high waterline--the public will be precluded from traversing the beaches in front of Applicant's property. That narrow corridor of wet-sand beach now permits dry passage only during low tide. With placement of the rock revetment on that passageway, it will become impassable to most people who use the Little Hickory Island beaches. 13/ (Testimony of Sharma, Member of the Public.) Generally, rip-rap revetments, such as that proposed by Applicant, do not eliminate erosion or cause sand to accrete. Rather, they tend to increase erosion and escarping beyond that which would occur if a shoreline is left in its natural, unaltered condition. (Testimony of Sharma, Truitt, Tackney.) IV. DNR Coastal Construction Permits: Practice and Policy There may be alternatives to the proposed revetment which will not endanger the Applicant's upland structure or block the public's access to beaches in front of and north of Applicant's property. 14/ DNR does not require the consideration of shore protection alternatives when it processes coastal construction permit applications. Neither, in its view, is public access to adjacent beaches a matter of regulatory concern in this licensing process. 15/ At the staff level of DNR, the sole consideration is engineering design of the proposed structure: At the level of staff of the Bureau of Beaches and Shores there are no other con- siderations other than simply engineering judgments on the appropriateness or other considerations of the design. I have no idea what the governor and cabinet or exec- utive director may consider. (Tr. 170.) This view of the agency's duty helps explain why DNR has never denied an application to construct a shore protection revetment, although it has suggested design modifications, as was done in this case. (Testimony of Truitt.) V. Interests of Objectors to Proposed Revetment Project DNR requires applicants for coastal construction permits to provide a map showing the location of the proposed erosion control structure and the shoreline for at least 1,000 feet on each side. Applicants are also required to provide a list of the names and addresses from the latest county tax role of all riparian property owners within 1,000 feet. It is DNR practice, in accordance with its rule, Section 165-24.07, Florida Administrative Code, to mail notice of a proposed project to those riparian property owners. By rule, such interested persons or objectors to a proposed project have the right to appear and make their positions known to the Governor and Cabinet at the time the agency decision is made. Id. (Testimony of Truitt; R-1.) Petitioners, Casa Bonita I and II Condominium Associations, Inc., and Seascape Condominium I and II Associations, Inc., assert that the proposed revetment will adversely affect their rights as riparian owners, that it will cause erosion of their shorelines; they also allege that it will prejudice their recreational use of sovereignty lands--the public's beaches lying below the line of mean high water. Relative to the site of the proposed revetment, Casa Bonita I Condominium Association, Inc., lies 1,350 to 1,400 feet south; Casa Bonita II Condominium Association, Inc., 670 feet south; Seascape Condominium I and II Associations, Inc., lie immediately adjacent to the site. (Testimony of Tackney; R-1, R-14.) No evidence was presented to establish that intervenor Lee County is a riparian property owner within 1,000 feet of the proposed revetment. The Lee County Board of County Commissioners were, however, notified of the instant application and given an opportunity to object. The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact; to the extent such findings are incorporated in this Recommended order, they are adopted; otherwise they are rejected as irrelevant to the issues presented or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the application of Bonita Beach Club Condominium Association, Inc., for a coastal construction permit be GRANTED, subject to the agreed-upon conditions described above, including the dedication of a travel easement allowing the public to circumvent the 600-foot rock revetment. 21/ DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 16th day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1981.
