10-010767
Retreat House, Llc vs.
Pamela C. Damico And Department Of Environmental Protection
Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, October 14, 2011.
Recommended Order on Friday, October 14, 2011.
1STATE OF FLORIDA
4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
8RETREAT HOUSE, LLC, )
12)
13Petitioner, )
15)
16vs. ) Case No. 10 - 10767
23)
24PAMELA C. DAMICO AND DEPARTMENT )
30OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )
34)
35Respondents. )
37)
38RECOMMENDED ORDER
40On July 6 - 8 , 2011 , an administrative hearing was held in
52this case in Islamorada before J. Lawrence Johnston,
60Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings
67(DOAH) .
69APPEARANCES
70For Petitioner: Patricia M. Silver, Esquire
76Michael J. Healy, Esquire
80Silver Law Group
83Post Office Box 710
87Islamorada, Florida 33036 - 0710
92For Respondent Department of Environmental Protecti on:
99Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire
104Department of Environmental Protection
1083900 Commonwealth Boulevard
111Mail Station 35
114Tallahassee, Flor ida 32399 - 3000
120For Respondent Pamela C. Damico :
126Brittany Elizabeth Nugent, Esquire
130Dirk M. Smits, Esquire
134Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys,
141P.A. at Islamorada Professional Center
14681990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor
151Islamorada, Florida 33036 - 3614
156STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
160The issue in this case is whether the Department of
170Environm ental Protection (DEP) should issue a letter of consent
180to use State - owned submerged lands (SL) and an e nvi r onmental
194resource p ermit (ERP) ( which are processed together as a SLERP )
207for the single - family do ck proposed by Pamela C. Damico, which
220would extend 770 feet into the Atlantic Ocean from her property
231on Plantation Key in Monroe County (DEP Permit 44 - 0298211 - 001) .
245PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
247On September 7, 2010, DEP gave notice of intent to issue
258Permit 44 - 0298211 - 001. On October 29, 2010, Petition er filed an
272Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, which was referred
280to DOAH. The case was scheduled for a final hearing and
291continued several times, the last time until July 6 - 8, 2011.
303On June 28, 2011, the parties filed a Revised Prehearing
313Sti pulation. At the final hearing, counsel for Mrs. Damico
323called: Sean Kirwan, P.E., a civil engineer and permitting
332agent; David Barrow, a bathymetric surveyor; Harry DeLashmutt, a
341biologist; and Casey Dooley. She a lso had her Exhibits 1 - 1 0
355admitted in e vi dence. DEP called: Celia Hitchi ns, a DEP
367environmental specialist, who also is licensed as a captain by
377the United States Coast Guard (USCG) ; and Timothy Rach, a DEP
388Environmental Administrator for SL ERPs. DEP had its Exhibits 3,
3985, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 22, 25, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 49, 59,
414and 83 admitted in evidence. Petitioner called: Bruce Franck,
423a DEP Environmental Manager ; Dr. William Carter, PetitionerÓs
431owner and operator; Mark Johnson, a surveyor and mapper; and
441Dr. Paul Lin, P.E., a coa stal engineer. PetitionerÓs Exhibits
4511 - 26 and 28 were received in evidence. The objections to the
464admission of PetitionerÓs Exhibits 27 and 29 are sustained.
473After presentation of evidence, a Transcript of the
481testimony and proposed recommended orders were filed. Counsel
489for Mrs. Damico also filed Final Argument. The post - hearing
500submissions have been considered.
504FINDINGS OF FACT
5071. Pamela C. Damico owns property at 89505 Old Highway on
518Plantation Key in the Upper Florida Keys in Monroe County. Her
529pr operty includes submerged land extending between 212 and 233
539feet into the Atlantic Ocean , which is an Outstanding Florida
549Water (OFW) . She applied to DEP for a permit to build a dock
563and boat mooring at her property. In its final c onfiguration,
574the proposed docking structure would have an access pier from
584the shoreline that would extend across her submerged land, and
594then farther across State - owned submerged lands, for a total
605distance of 770 feet from the shoreline.
6122. A primary goa l of the application was to site the
624mooring area in water with a depth of at least - 4 feet mean low
639water (MLW). Mrs. DamicoÓs consultants believed that this was
648required for a SLERP in Monroe County. In addition, they were
659aware that - 4 feet MLW would be required to get a dock permit
673from Islamorada, Village of Islands .
6793. The beliefs of Mrs. DamicoÓs consultants regarding the
688depth requirement for the mooring site were based in part on
699incorrect interpretations of DEP rules by certain DEP staff made
709bot h during Mrs. DamicoÓs application process and during the
719processing of other applications in the past. Those incorrect
728interpretations were based in part on ambiguous and incorrect
737statements in guidance documents published by DEP over the
746years. (Simil arly, certain DEP staff made incorrect
754interpretations of DEP rules regarding a supposedly absolute
762500 - foot length limit for any dock in Monroe County.) See
774Conclusions of Law for the correct interpretations of DEP rules.
7844. Petitioner owns oceanfront pro perty to the south and
794adjacent to Mrs. DamicoÓs . As expressed by PetitionerÓs owner
804and operator, Dr. William Carter, Petitioner has concerns
812regarding impacts of the proposed docking structure on
820navigation, boating safety, and natural resources, including
827seagrass es, stony corals, tarpon, and bonefish.
8345. Several changes were made to the proposed docking
843structure to address concerns raised by Petitioner. In the
852earlier proposals, the access pier would have been supported by
86210 - inch square concrete piles, which must be installed using a
874construction barge and heavy equipment . In its final form, to
885reduce the direct impacts to the seagrass es and stony corals, it
897was proposed that the first 550 feet of the access pier from the
910point of origin on the shoreline would be installed using pin
921piles, which are made of aluminum and are 4.5 inches square
932inside a vinyl sleeve five inches square , and can be installed
943by hand . Instead of the planks originally proposed for the
954decking of the access pier, a grating material was substituted,
964which would allow greater light penetration to the seagrass es
974below. The orientation and length of the proposed docking
983structure was modifie d several times in an effort to achieve the
995optimal siting of the mooring platform. Handrails were proposed
1004for the access pier , and no tie - up cleats are provided there.
1017I n combination with the elevation of the decking at five feet
1029above mean high water (MHW), the handrails would discourage use
1039of the pier for mooring by making it impractical if not
1050impossible in most cases . Railing also was proposed for the
1061north side of the mooring platform to discourage mooring there,
1071and a sign was proposed to be pla ced on the north side of the
1086platform saying that mooring there is prohibited. These
1094measures were proposed to restrict mooring to the south side of
1105the mooring platform, where a boat lift would be installed ,
1115which would protect the large seagrass beds th at are on the
1127north side of the terminal platform . (Mooring a n additional
1138boat along the end of the 8 - foot long mooring platform, which
1151faces the prevailing oceanic waves, is impractical if not
1160impossible.) To make the docking structure less of a navigation
1170and boating safety hazard, it was proposed that a USCG flashing
1181white light would be installed at the end of the terminal
1192platform.
11936. In its final configuration, the docking structure would
1202preempt approxi mately 2,240 square feet of State - owned submerged
1214land , plus approximately 200 square feet preempted by the
1223proposed boat lift . In addition, it would preempt approximately
1233900 square feet of Mrs. DamicoÓs privately - owned submerged land.
1244Mrs. DamicoÓs pri vate property has approximately 352 linear feet
1254of shoreline.
12567. Dr. Lin testified for Petitioner that the proposed
1265docking structure would preempt a total of 3,760 square feet.
1276This calculation included 520 square feet of preemption by the
1286boat lift , but the proposed boat lift is for a smaller boat that
1299would preempt only approximately 200 square feet .
13078. Intending to demonstrate that the proposed docking
1315structure would wharf out to a consistent depth of - 4 feet MLW ,
1328Mrs. DamicoÓs consultants submitted a bathymetric survey
1335indicating a - 4 MLW contour at the mooring platform. In fact,
1347the line indicated on the survey is not a valid contour line,
1359and the elevations in the vicinity do not provide reasonable
1369assurance that the mooring area of the docking stru cture in its
1381final configuration is in water with a consistent depth of - 4
1393feet MLW, or that there is water of that depth consistently
1404between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel. The
1414evidence does, however, provide reasonable assurance tha t the
1423proposed mooring platform is in water with a consistent depth of
1434at least - 3 feet MLW, and that there is water of that depth
1448consistently between the mooring area and the nearest navigable
1457channel , which would avoid damage to seagrass bed and other
1467b iological communities .
14719. The evidence was not clear whether there is another
1481possible configuration available to Petitioner to wharf out to a
1491mooring area with a consistent depth of at least - 3 feet MLW,
1504not over seagrasses, and with water of that depth co nsistently
1515between the mooring area and the nearest navigable channel, that
1525would not require as long an access pier, or preempt as many
1537square feet of State - owned submerged land.
154510. A noticed general permit (NGP) can be used for a dock
1557of 2,000 square fee t or less , in water with a minimum depth of
1572- 2 feet MLW, and meeting certain other requirements. See Fla.
1583Admin. Code R. 62 - 341.215 and 62 - 341.427. The evidence was not
1597clear whether an NGP can be used in an OFW in Monroe County in
1611water less than - 3 feet FLW , according to DEPÓs interpretation
1622of its rules . Cf. Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 62 - 312.400, Part IV.
163611. Initially, mitigation for impacts to natural resources
1644was proposed. However, DEPÓs staff determined that no
1652mitigation was required because there would not be an y adverse
1663effects from the docking structure , as finally proposed . For
1673the same reason, DEP staff determined that there would be no
1684significant cumulative adverse impacts and that no further
1692analysis of cumulative impacts was necessary.
169812. Actually, t here will be adverse impacts to natural
1708resources . The biologist for Mrs. Damico determined that there
1718are some seagrasses and numerous stony corals in the footprint
1728of the access pier, in addition to other resources less
1738susceptible to impacts (such as macro - algae and loggerhead
1748sponges) . These organisms will be disturbed or destroyed by the
1759installation of the access pier . The biologist quantified the
1769impacts to round starlet corals by assuming the placement of two
1780supporting piles , four fee t apart, every ten feet for the length
1792of the pier , and assuming impacts to the stony corals in a
1804quadrat centered on each pile location and three times the
1814diameter of the pile. Using this method, it was estimated that
1825approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the stony corals would
1835be destroyed by the installation of the docking structure.
184413. The impacts assessed by Mrs. DamicoÓs biologist and
1853DEP assume that construction would Ðstep outÑ from shore and, as
1864construction proceeds, from already - built segments of the pier,
1874until water depths allow for the use of a construction barge
1885without unintended damage to the natural resources in the area.
1895This construction method is not required by the proposed SLERP.
1905It would have to be added as a permit condition.
191514. Petitioner did not prove that t he impacts to a few
1927seagrasses and approximately 1,505 square centimeters of the
1936stony corals would damage the viability of those biological
1945communities in the vicinity of the proposed d ocking structure.
195515. Direct and indirect impacts to other species from the
1965installation and maintenance of the docking structure would not
1974be expected. Impacts to listed species, including manatees and
1983sawfish, would not be anticipated. Manatees sometime s are seen
1993in the vicinity but do not rely on the area for foraging or
2006breeding. Sawfish are more likely to frequent the bay waters
2016than the ocean. Migratory t arpon and bonefish use the area and
2028might swim out around the docking structure to avoid passin g
2039under it. Resident tarpon and some other fish species might
2049congregate under the docking structure.
205416. The proposed docking structure does not block or cross
2064any marked navigation channel and is in a shallow area near the
2076shore where boats are supposed to be operated at reduced speeds.
2087Nonetheless, the proposed structure poses more than a casual
2096navigation hazard, especially due to its length , which is
2105significantly greater than any docking structure in the
2113vicinity .
211517. In conducting its staff analysis of the impacts on
2125navigation and boating safety, DEP understood that the closest
2134marked navigation channel is at least two miles away from the
2145proposed docking structure . Actually, t here also is a marked
2156channel at the Tavernier Creek, which is l ess than half a mile
2169north of the site. It is not uncommon for b oaters to leave the
2183marked Tavernier Creek channel to motor south in the shallow
2193water closer to shore ; they also sometimes cut across the
2203shallow waters near the site to enter the Tavernier Creek
2213channel when heading north . There also are other unmarked or
2224unofficially - marked channels even closer to the proposed docking
2234structure. In good weather and sea conditions, the proposed
2243docking structure would be obvious and easy to avoid . In worse
2255conditions , especially at night , it could be a serious hazard.
226518. To reduce the navigational hazard posed by the dock ,
2275reflective navigation indicators are proposed to be placed every
228430 feet along both sides of the access pier, and the USCG
2296flashing white light is proposed for the end of terminal
2306platform. These measures would help make the proposed docking
2315structure safer but would not eliminate the risk s entirely . T he
2328light helps when it functions properly, it can increase the risk
2339if boaters come to rely on it , and it goes out. Both the light
2353and reflective indicators are less effective in fog and bad
2363weather and seas. The risk increases with boats operated by
2373unskilled and especially intoxicated boaters.
237819. It is common for numerous boaters to congregate on
2388weekends and holidays at Holiday Isle, which is south of the
2399proposed docking structure . A lcoholic beverages are consumed
2408there . Some of these boaters operate their boats in the
2419v icinity of the proposed docking structure, including Ðcutting
2428the cornerÑ to the Tavernier Creek pass channel, instead of
2438running in deeper water to enter the pass at the ocean end of
2451the navigation channel. This increases the risk of collision,
2460especiall y at night or in bad weather and sea conditions.
247120. DEP sought comments from various state and federal
2480agencies with jurisdiction over fisheries and wildlife. None of
2489these agencies expressed any objection to the proposed docking
2498structure . No representative from any of those agencies
2507testified or presented evidence at the hearing.
251421. Area fishing guides and sports fishermen fish for
2523bonefish and tarpon in the flats in the vicinity of the proposed
2535docking structure. If built, the proposed docking structure
2543would spoil this kind of fishing , especially bonefishing, or at
2553least make it more difficult. The more similar docking
2562structures installed in the area, the greater the difficulties
2571in continuing to use the area for this kind of fishing . On the
2585other hand, resident tarpon and some other fish species could be
2596attracted by such docking structures.
260122. Mrs. DamicoÓs application initially offered a money
2609donation to the Florida Keys Environmental Restoration Trust
2617Fund if mitigation was requ ired. The proposed permit includes a
2628requirement to donate $5,000 to the Florida Keys National Marine
2639Sanctuary (FKNMS) , before construction begins, fo r the
2647maintenance of mooring buoys to reduce recreational boater
2655impacts at the coral reef areas . The r eefs are miles from the
2669site of the proposed docking structure, and the donation does
2679not offset project impacts. Rather, as stated in the proposed
2689permit, its purpose is to Ðsatisfy public interest
2697requirements.Ñ
269823. As a federal agency, the FKNMS does n ot accept
2709donations directly . Donations would have to be made to the
2720Sanctuary Fri ends of the Florida Keys (SFFK) for use by the
2732FKNMS for buoy maintenance. A condition would have to be added
2743to the ERP to ensure that the donation would be used for the
2756intended purpose.
275824. In a bid to defeat Mrs. DamicoÓs attempt to satisfy
2769p ublic interest requirements, Petitioner offered to donate
2777$10,000 to SFFK for the buoy maintenance if DEP denied the
2789permit. PetitionerÓs offer should not affect the evaluation of
2798the proposed docking structure under the public interest
2806criteria.
280725. DEP staff evaluated the proposed ERP under the public
2817interest criteria to be essentially n eutral and determined that
2827the $5,000 donation would make it clearly in the public
2838interest. This analysis was flawed.
284326. With or without the $5,000 donation, t he proposed
2854docking structure would hav e an adverse effect on the pu blic
2866health, safety, and we lfare; an adverse effect on navigation; an
2877adverse effect on fishing or recreational values in the
2886vicinity ; and an adverse effect on the current condition and
2896relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by
2906the proposed activity. It woul d not have any positive public
2917interest effects. Its effects would be permanent.
2924CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
292727. The proposed docking structure requires both
2934regulatory and proprietary authorization. Regulatory
2939authorization is governed by chapters 403 and 373, Florida
2948Statutes, and chapter 62 - 312, Florida Administrative Code.
2957Proprietary authorization (the authorization to preempt and use
2965State - owned submerged land) is governed by chapter 253, Florida
2976Statutes, and chapter 18 - 21, Florida Administrative Code.
298528. Under newly - enacted section 120.569(1)(p), Florida
2993Statutes, Mrs. Damico has the burden to present a prima facie
3004case demonstrating entitlement to the regulatory authorization,
3011and Petitioner Ðhas the burden of ultimate persuasion and has
3021the burden of go ing forward to prove the case in opposition
3033. . . .Ñ Mrs. Damico has the burden to prove entitlement to the
3047proprietary authorization. See J.W.C. Co., Inc., v. DepÓt of
3056Transp. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
3065Letter of Consent
306829. Rule 18 - 21.0041 applies to multi - slip docking
3079structures in Monroe County. It does not apply to Mrs. DamicoÓs
3090proposed docking structure. If it did, it would require a
3100minimum water depth of - 4 feet MLW in the boat mooring, turning
3113basin, access channel s , and other such areas to accommodate the
3124proposed boat use. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18 - 21.0041(1)(b)3.a.
3135It also would be necessary for DEP to determine that the
3146proposed dock would not be contrary to the public interest. See
3157Fla. Admin. Code R. 18 - 21 .0041(1)(b)4.a.
316530. The form of authorization proposed to be issued for
3175Mrs. DamicoÓs docking structure is a letter of consent under
3185r ule 18 - 21.005(c). The rule describes several activities that
3196can be authorized by a letter of consent .
320531. Under subsection 1., a letter of consent can be issued
3216for a minimum - sized private residential single - family dock or
3228pier per parcel. Mrs. DamicoÓs proposed docking structure is
3237not minimum - sized. A smaller dock could have been designed that
3249would terminate in water wit h a depth of - 3 feet MLW.
326232. Under subsection 2., a letter of consent can be issued
3273for Ð[p]rivate residential single - family or multi - family docks,
3284piers, boat ramps, and similar existing and proposed activities
3293that cumulatively preempt no more than 10 sq uare feet of
3304sovereignty submerged land for each linear foot of the
3313applicantÓs riparian shoreline, along sovereignty submerged land
3320on the affected waterbody within a single plan of development
3330. . . .Ñ
333433. Petitioner contends that subsection 2. does not a pply
3344to Mrs. DamicoÓs docking structure because she does not have
3354Ðriparian shoreline, along sovereignty submerged land on the
3362affected waterbody.Ñ DEPÓs contrary interpretation of
3368subsection 2. is more reasonable. Mrs. Damico has riparian
3377shoreline alon g the affected waterbody (as opposed to some other
3388waterbody). Her privately - owned submerged land does not
3397preclude her from making use of subsection 2.
340534. Petitioner also contends that, if Mrs. Damico has
3414riparian shoreline so as to make subsection 2. ap plicable, a
3425letter of consent can be used only if no more than 10 square
3438feet of submerged land, whether private or State - owned, is
3449preempted for each linear foot of the applicantÓs riparian
3458shoreline. DEPÓs contrary interpretation of subsection 2. is
3466mor e reasonable. The ruleÓs focus is preemption of State - owned
3478submerged land. (Even if Petitioner were correct, no more than
348810 square feet of submerged land, whether private or State -
3499owned, is preempted for each linear foot of Mrs. Damico Ós
3510riparian shore line.)
351335. Under rule 18 - 21.004(1)(a), all activities on State -
3524owned submerged lands Ðmust be not contrary to the public
3534interest . . . .Ñ Except for sales, the rule does not require
3547an applicant to establish that all proposed activities are
3556clearly in the public interest. It was proven that the proposed
3567docking structure is not contrary to the public interest.
357636. A letter of consent for the proposed docking structure
3586is appropriate.
3588Regulatory Authorization
359037. Entitlement to a regulatory authorization is based on
3599statutory and rule criteria. See Council of the Lower Keys v.
3610Charley Toppino & Sons, Inc. , 429 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
3623Petitioner must prove that reasonable assurance of compliance
3631with those criteria has not been provided. See § 120.569(1)(p),
3641Fla. Stat. Reasonable assurance does not mean an absolute
3650guarantee and does not require the elimination of speculation as
3660to what might occur if a project is developed as proposed.
3671Rather, it means a Ðsubstantial likelihood that the project will
3681be successfully implemented.Ñ M etro. Dade Cnty . v. Coscan Fl a . ,
3694Inc. , 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
370438. Section 373.414(1) applies to the proposed ERP. It
3713requires reasonable assurance that applicab le state water
3721quality standards will be met. It also requires, in the case of
3733OFWs, Ðreasonable assurance that the proposed activity will be
3742clearly in the public interest.Ñ This is determined by
3751considering and balancing the following criteria:
37571. W hether the activity will adversely
3764affect the public health, safety, or welfare
3771or the property of others;
37762. Whether the activity will adversely
3782affect the conservation of fish and
3788wildlife, including endangered or threatened
3793species, or their habitats;
37973. Whether the activity will adversely
3803affect navigation or the flow of water or
3811cause harmful erosion or shoaling;
38164. Whether the activity will adversely
3822affect the fishing or recreational values or
3829marine productivity in the vicinity of the
3836activity;
38375. Whether the activity will be of a
3845temporary or permanent nature;
38496. Whether the activity will adversely
3855affect or will enhance significant
3860historical and archaeological resources
3864under the provisions of s. 267.061; and
38717. The current con dition and relative value
3879of functions being performed by areas
3885affected by the proposed activity.
3890§ 373.414(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
389439. In 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Dep artment of
3903Environmental Regulation , 552 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989),
3913DEPÓs predecessor agency (DER) denied an application for a
3922dredge and fill project to renourish a private beach. There was
3933reasonable assurance that there would be no state water quality
3943violations . U nder the public i nterest criteria , t he court held
3956that the applicant was Ðnot obligated to show a need or
3967necessity for the dredging and filling in the sense of
3977benefiting the public or the environment.Ñ Id. at 957. In
3987other words, the applicant Ðneed not show any partic ular need or
3999net public benefit as a condition of obtaining the permit.Ñ Id.
4010Rather, the applicant was Ðonly required to show that the
4020dredging and filling required by the project would be carried
4030out in a manner that would not materially degrade water q uality
4042and in a manner that was clearly in the public interest.Ñ Id.
4054I t was error for DER to make Ð1800 Atlantic prove the absence of
4068negative impacts from the project and demonstrate the creation
4077of a net environmental or societal benefit to meet the pu blic
4089interest test. Suggestions in the final order that this showing
4099is necessary simply because the project is in Outstanding
4108Florida Water go beyond the statutory provisions and have no
4118basis in the law.Ñ Id.
412340. Regarding DOAHÓs role, t he decision in 1800 Atlantic
4133Developers stated : ÐAs the hearing officer's function was only
4143that of a fact finder, it was the hearing officerÓs function to
4155make findings of fact regarding disputed factual issues
4163underlying the conditions set by DER and the implementatio n of
4174and compliance with the mitigative conditions set by DER. The
4184hearing officer was not vested with power to review DER's
4194discretion in setting acceptable mitigative conditions in the
4202sense of passing on their sufficiency to meet the statutory
4212criteria .Ñ Id. a t 955.
421841. In the course of the application process, Mrs. Damico
4228through her consultants made changes to reduce the adverse
4237effects of her proposal , but the final version still has adverse
4248impacts on public interest criteria. T he proposed ERP is not
4259positive or even neutral under the statutory public interest
4268criteria. It is negative under the first criterion
4276(specifically, adverse effect on the public health, safety, or
4285welfare). It is negative on the third criterion (specifi cally,
4295adverse effect on navigation). It is negative under the fourth
4305criterion (specifically, adverse effect on fishing or
4312recreational values in the vicinity). It is slightly negative
4321on the seventh criterion (current condition and relative value
4330of fu nctions being performed by areas affected by the proposed
4341activity). It is permanent under the fifth criterion. It is
4351neutral on the other criteria.
435642. The changes made to the initial proposal to reduce
4366adverse effects does not qualify as mitigation unde r section
4376373.414(1)(b), which is defined as a measure Ðto mitigate
4385adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity.Ñ
4395Cf. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 312.450 (DEP Ðshall consider
4406mitigation pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(b), F.S., . . . .Ñ).
4416Like wise, the $5,000 donation to maintain buoys at a coral reef
4429miles away does not qualify as mitigation for the adverse
4439effects. Neither the changes to the initial proposal nor the
4449$5,000 donation makes the proposed ERP clearly in the public
4460interest.
446143. DE P has adopted by reference rule 40E - 4.302 (1995) and
4474the 1995 version of the South Florida Water Management District
4484(SFWMD) Basis of Review (BOR) for use in evaluating applications
4494like Mrs. Dam icoÓs. Those criteria prohibit unacceptable
4502cumulative impac ts, which BOR section 4.2.8.1 defines as
4511cumulative impacts that would result in significant adverse
4519impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. BOR
4529section 4.2.8.2 allows mitigation for unacceptable cumulative
4536impacts as provided for in BOR sections 4.3 through 4.3.8.
454644. In this case, DEP did not perform a cumulative impacts
4557analysis because it was assumed that the proposed ERP would have
4568no adverse impacts. Not believing that any cumulative impacts
4577analysis was required, DEP did not evaluat e the possibility that
4588unacceptable cumulative impacts could be mitigated.
459445. Chapter 62 - 312.400, Part IV, adds criteria for
4604dredging and filling in OFWs in Monroe County because the
4614Environmental Regulation Commission has found these waters to be
4623Ðan irre placeable asset which require special protection.Ñ Fla.
4632Admin. Code R. 62 - 312.400(2)(a). ÐFurther, the Florida
4641Legislature in adopting Section 380.0552, F.S., recognized the
4649value of the Florida Keys to the State as a whole by designating
4662the Keys an Are a of Critical State Concern. This rule
4673implements Section 403.061(34), F.S., and is intended to provide
4682the most stringent protection for the applicable waters
4690allowable by law.Ñ Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 312.400(2)(b) .
4701ÐPursuant to Section 380.0552(7), Fl orida Statutes (1986 Supp.),
4710the specific criteria set forth in this section are intended to
4721be consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as set
4731forth in Chapter 28 - 29, Florida Administrative Code (August 23,
47421984), and with the principles set forth in that statute.Ñ Fla.
4753Admin. Code R. 62 - 312.400(3) . Contrary to PetitionerÓs
4763argument, the rule does not make section 380.0552 and chapter
477328 - 29 ERP criteria in addition to chapter 62 - 312.400, Part IV.
478746. Under rule 62 - 312.410(1), the proposed do cking
4797structure may not be issued an ERP if, alone or in combination
4809with other activities, it damages the viability of a living
4819stony coral community, soft coral community, macro marine algae
4828community, sponge bed community, or marine seagrass bed
4836communi ty. While some individual organisms will be impacted and
4846destroyed by the installation of the proposed docking structure,
4855Petitioner did not prove that the viability of existing
4864communities of those organisms will be damaged.
487147. Under rule 62 - 312.420(2)(b), water depths at the
4881mooring site of the proposed docking structure must be at least
4892- 3 feet MLW. The proposed docking structure meets this
4902requirement.
490348. Rule 62 - 312.420(2)(c) requires an affirmative
4911demonstration that adequ ate depths exist for ingress and egress
4921of boats to the mooring site, and in no case less than necessary
4934to avoid damage to a seagrass bed community or other biological
4945communities listed in rule 62 - 312.410(1)(a). At least - 3 feet
4957MLW exists for ingress a nd egress to the mooring site of the
4970proposed docking structure. Reading subsections (b) and (c) in
4979pari materia , this is adequate and enough to avoid damage to
4990existing communities of seagrass beds and the other listed
4999communities of organisms.
500249. For va rious reasons, including rule 62 - 312.420(2)(a),
5012Petitioner contends that - 4 feet MLW at the mooring site and for
5025ingress and egress is required. Rule 62 - 312.420(2)(a) requires
5035- 4 feet MLW but only for piers designed to moor three or more
5049boats. It does n ot apply to Mrs. DamicoÓs proposed docking
5060structure. Islamorada, Village of Islands, requires - 4 feet MLW
5070and has a 100 - foot length limit for dock permits , but its
5083permitting requirements are not DEP ERP criteria.
509050. Rule 62 - 312.420(2)(d) requires that proposed
5098construction techniques protect the viability of a seagrass bed
5107community and the other communities of organisms listed in rule
511762 - 312.410(1)(a). The proposed construction techniques would
5125protect the viabilit y of those communities, assuming a condition
5135is added to require construction to Ðreach outÑ from shore and ,
5146as construction proceeds, from already - built segments of the
5156pier , until water depths allow for the use of a construction
5167barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the
5177area.
517851. Rule 62 - 312.420(2)(e) prohibits the location of
5187mooring sites over a seagrass bed community at depths less than
5198- 5 feet MLW or over a coral reef. The proposed mooring site is
5212not prohibited by this rule.
521752. Rule 62 - 312.420(2)(f) requires that Ð[a]ll portions of
5227the pier facility other than the specific mooring sites shall be
5238designed in a manner which will prevent the mooring of
5248watercraft other than at the specific mooring sites.Ñ The
5257proposed docking struc ture is designed in accordance with this
5267rule.
5268RECOMMENDATION
5269Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions
5278of Law, it is
5282RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order denying a permit
5292for the proposed docking structure ; if granted, there shoul d be
5303a condition requiring construction to Ðreach outÑ from shore
5312and, as construction proceeds, from already - built segments of
5322the pier, until water depths allow for the use of a construction
5334barge without unintended damage to the natural resources in the
5344area.
5345DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of October, 2011, in
5355Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
5359S
5360J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
5363Administrative Law Judge
5366Division of Administrative Hearings
5370The DeSoto Building
53731230 Apalachee Parkway
5376Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060
5381(850) 488 - 9675
5385Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847
5391www.doah.state.fl.us
5392Filed with the Clerk of the
5398Division of Administrative Hearings
5402this 14th day of October, 2011.
5408COPIES FURNISHED :
5411Patricia M. Silver, Esquire
5415Silver Law Group
5418Post Office Box 710
5422Islamorada, Florida 33036 - 0710
5427Brittany Elizabeth Nugent, Esquire
5431Vernis and Bowling of the Florida Keys, P.A.
5439at Islamorada Professional Center
544381990 Overseas Highway, Third Floor
5448Islamorada, Florida 33036 - 3614
5453Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire
5458Department of Environmental Protection
54623900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35
5468Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
5473Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary
5478Department of Environmental Protection
54823900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35
5488Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
5493Tom Beason, General Counsel
5497Department of Environmental Protection
55013900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35
5507Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
5512Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk
5516Department of Environmental Pro tection
55213900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35
5527Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000
5532NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS
5538All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15
5549days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to
5560this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will
5571issue the final order in this case.
- Date
- Proceedings
- PDF:
- Date: 10/31/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's, Exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 10/14/2011
- Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- PDF:
- Date: 09/07/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
- Date: 08/23/2011
- Proceedings: Transcript (volume I-III) (not available for viewing) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 08/17/2011
- Proceedings: Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
- Date: 07/13/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)
- Date: 07/13/2011
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection Hearing Notebook 's Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 07/13/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent's Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing).
- Date: 07/13/2011
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection Hearing Notebook (Rules) (rules not available for viewing).
- Date: 07/06/2011
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 07/06/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing (Original Return of Service of Trial Subpoean directed to Sean Kirwan).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2011
- Proceedings: Reply to Response to Petitioner's Motion to Permit the Use of Tad Burke's Deposition at Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/30/2011
- Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Amended Exhibit List to the Joint Prehearing Stipulation filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/29/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent's Supplement to Response to Petitioner's Motion to Permit the Use of Tad Burke's Deposition at Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2011
- Proceedings: Motion to Stike Designation of Tad Burke as an Expert Witness and Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Tad Burke filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2011
- Proceedings: Order on Objection to Notice of Production by Non-party and on Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2011
- Proceedings: Response to Petitioner's Motion to Permit the Use of Tad Burke's Deposition at Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/28/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Exhibit (exhibit not available for viewing) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/27/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Permit the Use of Tad Burke's Deposition filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/27/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner Retreat House, LLC's Response to Pamela C. Damico's Third Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/23/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent Pamela C. Damico's Response and Reply to Petitioner's Reply and Response in Opposition to Respondent Damico's Notice of Production from Non-Party and Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/22/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Reply and Response in Opposition to Respondent Damico's Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/21/2011
- Proceedings: Response to Petitioner's Objection to Damico's Notice of Production from Non-Party and Motion for Extension of Discovery Deadline filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/20/2011
- Proceedings: Department's Response to Petitioner Retreat House, LLC's Third Request for Production of Documents filed.
- Date: 06/17/2011
- Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/17/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Appearance of Co-Counsel for Department of Environmental Protection (filed by Brynna J. Ross).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/16/2011
- Proceedings: Corrected Objection to Damico's Notice of Production from Non-party filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/15/2011
- Proceedings: Subpoena Duces Tecum without Deposition (Fred Jacobs, Ph.D.) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/15/2011
- Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Deposition of Thor Dunmire Duces Tecum filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/08/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition of Philip A. Frank Duces Tecum filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/07/2011
- Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Deposition of Tad Burke-Duces Tecum (time change only) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/03/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Cross-Notice of Taking Video Deposition (Michael Collins) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/01/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition of Michael Collins Duces Tecum filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 06/01/2011
- Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 6 through 8, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Tavernier, FL; amended as to hearing room location and venue).
- PDF:
- Date: 06/01/2011
- Proceedings: Order on Motion to Compel and/or Exclude Testimony and Motion for Rule to Show Cause and for Sanctions.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/27/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner Retreat House, LLC's Response in Opposition to Respondent's Motion for Rule to Show Cause and for Sanctions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/27/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner Retreat House, LLC's Response to Respondent Damico's Motion to Compel and/or Exclude Testimony of Witnesses filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/26/2011
- Proceedings: Second Re-Notice of Taking Deposition of Dr. William A. Carter Duces Tecum (Williams Carter) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/25/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent Pamela C. Damico's Motion for Rule to Show Cause and for Sanctions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/23/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Filing Response to Pamela C. Damico's Third Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/19/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Third Request for Production to State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/19/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Taking Deposition of Paul Armstrong Duces Tecum filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/19/2011
- Proceedings: Response to Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Protective Order of Dr. William Carter filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/18/2011
- Proceedings: Supplement to Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Protective Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/18/2011
- Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP's Amended Response to Petitioner Retreat House, LLC First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/17/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Service of Supplemental Response to Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/16/2011
- Proceedings: Department's Response to Petitioner Retreat House, LLC's, Second Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/16/2011
- Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP's Response to Petitioner Retreat House, LLC First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/11/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Third Supplemental Response to Petitioners First Request for Production.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/05/2011
- Proceedings: Respondents Notice of Service of Fourth Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Retreat House, LLC filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/03/2011
- Proceedings: Order Compelling Better Discovery Responses, Denying Motion to Dismiss, and Denying Motion to Deem Admissions.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/28/2011
- Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Compel Deposititon, or for Continuance, or to Prohibit Testimony.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/26/2011
- Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Deposition of Dr. William A. Carter Duces Tecum filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/26/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Deposition of Joseph Damico, Continue Trial and/or in the Alternative, to Prohibit Joseph Damico's Presence at the Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Taking Deposition (of S. Kirwan) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2011
- Proceedings: Supplement to Motion to Compel Filed by Respondent, Pamela C. Damico on April 15, 2011 filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's, Notice of Service of Third Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner, Retreat House, LLC filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/20/2011
- Proceedings: Motion to Compel Deposition of Joseph Damico, Continue Trial and/or in the Alternative, to Prohibit Joseph Damico's Presence at the Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/18/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Second Supplement Response to Petitioners First Request for Production.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/15/2011
- Proceedings: Motion to Compel Better Discovery Responses to Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Second Request for Production and Second Set of Interrogatories and/or Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and/or to Deem Respondent's First Request for Admissions Admitted filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/14/2011
- Proceedings: Retreat House, LLC's First Set of Interrogatories to Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/14/2011
- Proceedings: Second Request for Production to State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/13/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Video Conference Deposition Duces Tecum (of T. Rach) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/06/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Reply to Respondents' Responses in Opposition to Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/05/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/05/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 04/04/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Filing Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's, Supplemental Response to Petitioners First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/29/2011
- Proceedings: Appendix in Support of Petitioner's Motion for Summary Final Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/29/2011
- Proceedings: Order Denying Motion to Compel Better Discovery Responses, Motion to Dimsiss, and Motion to Deem Admissions.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/28/2011
- Proceedings: Reply to Petitioner's Response to Respondents' Motion to Compel filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/25/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Motion to Compel Better Responses to Second Request for Production and Second Set of Interrogatories and/or Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and/or to Deem Respondent's First Request for Admissions Admitted filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/23/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Response in Opposition to Motion for Protective Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/23/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Video Deposition Duces Tecum - Lucy Blair filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/22/2011
- Proceedings: Motion to Compel Better Responses to Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Second Request for Production and Second Set of Interrogatories and/or Motion to Dismiss Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing and/or to Deem Respondent's First Request for Admissions Admitted filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/18/2011
- Proceedings: Order Striking and Denying Motion to Compel Production of Documents.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/17/2011
- Proceedings: Plaintiff's Notice of Serving Response to Pamela C. Damico's Second Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/17/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner Retreat House LLC's Response to Pamela C. Damico's Second Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/17/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner Retreat House LLC's Response to Pamela C. Damico's Request for Admissions filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/11/2011
- Proceedings: Retreat House LLC's Response to Damico's Motions to Compel Better Answers to First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/07/2011
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for July 6 through 8, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Islamorada, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 03/04/2011
- Proceedings: Motion to Compel Petitioner, Retreat House, LLC, Better Responsse to Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/04/2011
- Proceedings: Motion to Compel Petitioner, Retreat House, LLC, Better Answers to Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/04/2011
- Proceedings: Response to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Document's and Respondent Pamela Damico's Motion to Strike Petitioner's Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/04/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Continue Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 03/02/2011
- Proceedings: Re-notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum - Michael Dooley filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/18/2011
- Proceedings: Respondetns Notice of Service of Second Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Retreat House, LLC filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/15/2011
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for June 21 through 23, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Islamorada, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/15/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Response to Petitioners Second Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/14/2011
- Proceedings: Plaintiff's Response to Pamela C. Damico's First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/14/2011
- Proceedings: Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Response to Pamela C. Damico's First Set of Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/10/2011
- Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for June 7 through 9, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Islamorada, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 02/09/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Response to Petitioner's Motion for Extension of Final Hearing filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/09/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Depositions (of M. Dooley, S. Kirwan, and P. Damico) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/07/2011
- Proceedings: Department's Response to Petitioner Retreat House, LLC's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/07/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Response to Petitioner's First Request for Production filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/04/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 02/03/2011
- Proceedings: Second Re-Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum - Celia Hitchins filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/25/2011
- Proceedings: Re-Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of C. Hitchins) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/18/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of H. DeLashmutt) filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/12/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Pamela C. Damico filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/12/2011
- Proceedings: First Request for Production to State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 01/05/2011
- Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for March 22 through 24, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Islamorada, FL).
- PDF:
- Date: 12/29/2010
- Proceedings: Respondent Damico's Notice of Adoption and Joinder of Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/29/2010
- Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 12/27/2010
- Proceedings: Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection and Respondent, Pamela C. Damico's Response to Initial Order filed.
Case Information
- Judge:
- J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON
- Date Filed:
- 12/17/2010
- Date Assignment:
- 12/20/2010
- Last Docket Entry:
- 01/13/2012
- Location:
- Tavernier, Florida
- District:
- Southern
- Agency:
- ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
Counsels
-
Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, III, Esquire
Address of Record -
Brittany Elizabeth Nugent, Esquire
Address of Record -
Brynna J. Ross, Esquire
Address of Record -
Patricia M. Silver, Esquire
Address of Record -
Ronald Woodrow Hoenstine, Esquire
Address of Record -
Ronald W. Hoenstine, II, Esquire
Address of Record