00-002522 Marina Suites Association, Inc. vs. Sarasota Bay Hotel, Inc., And Department Of Environmental Protection Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, February 12, 2001.

Summary: Applicant has provided requisite reasonable assurances that proposed project is not contradictory to public interest and should be approved.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARINA SUITES ASSOCIATION, INC., )

)

Petitioners, )

vs. )

) Case No. 00-2522

SARASOTA BAY HOTEL, INC. and )

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

PROTECTION, )

)

Respondents. )

___________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A hearing was held in this case in Sarasota, Florida,

on November 21 and 22, and December 15, 2000, before

Arnold H. Pollock, an Administrative Law Judge with the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Mark A. Hanson, Esquire

Law offices of Lobeck and Hanson, P.A.

2033 Main Street

Suite 403

Sarasota, Florida 34237

For Sarasota Bay Hotel:

Barbara B. Levin, Esquire

Ronald L. Collier, Esquire

Scott A. Haas, Esquire

Abel, Band, Russell, Collier,

Pitchford and Gordon

240 South Pineapple Avenue

Sarasota, Florida 34236

For the Department:

Craig D. Varn, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue for consideration in this case is whether the

Department of Environmental Protection should issue a permit

to Sarasota Bay Hotel, Inc., to modify and expand an existing

marina facility associated with an existing adjacent hotel,

based on reasonable assurances from the applicant that the

proposed project satisfies the applicable statutory and rule

criteria.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

On March 2, 2000, Bob Stetler, the Department of

Environmental Protection's (DEP) Southwest District

Environmental Administrator, published the Department's Intent

to Issue relating to an environmental resource permit for the

modification and expansion of an existing marina facility

located adjacent to Sarasota Bay Hotel, Inc.'s (SBH) Hyatt

Hotel in Sarasota, Florida. On May 25, 2000, after two

extensions of time to file matters in opposition, the

Petitioners (Marina Suites) property owners whose residential

properties are located adjacent to the proposed project, filed

a Petition for Administrative Hearing in which they opposed

the proposed permit. This hearing ensued.

At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of

Rose H. Poyner, an environmental specialist for the

Department's Southwest District office, and Randal Reed

Cooper, a professional engineer II (storm water) at the

Department's Tampa office. The Department also introduced

Department's Exhibits 1 through 4. SBH presented the

testimony of Stephen G. Mehas, general manager of the Hyatt

Hotel located adjacent to the marina in question; Kristina V.

Tignor, an engineer and vice-president of the Tignor Group, an

engineering and permitting consulting firm; Charles E.

Githler, President of SBH, the general partner of Hotel

Associates and owner of the property in question; and by

depositions, Mary Duncan, an environmental specialist III with

the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and an

expert in permit review for impacts to manatees and their

habitat, and Patricia Thompson, a staff biologist with Save

the Manatee Club. SBH also introduced SBH Exhibits 1 through

16. Petitioner presented the testimony of Gary Stephen Comp,

general manager of natural resources for Sarasota County;

Joseph F. Hyland, Jack L. Neely, Philip M. Dasher,

Granville H. Crabtree, Jr., and Hannelor Rimlinger, all

residents of Marina Suites, Petitioners herein; and Steven C.

Sauers, an environmental management consultant in private

practice. Petitioner further presented the testimony of

Randall Armstrong, partner in the Phoenix Environmental Group,

consultants on the preparation and filing of dredge and fill

permits. Petitioner also introduced Petitioner's Exhibits A

through J, L though N, and P through X. Petitioner's Exhibits

K and Y were offered but were rejected.

A Transcript of the proceedings was filed on December 11,

2000. Subsequent to receipt of the transcript counsel for

Respondents joined in submitting a Joint Proposed Recommended

Order. Counsel for Petitioner also submitted proposed

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order.

The submittals of all the parties were carefully considered in

the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the

Department of Environmental Protection (Department) was the

state agency in Florida responsible for the review of

environmental resource permit applications and for the

regulation of water pollution in specified waters of the

state. SBH is a Florida corporation and the general partner

of Hotel Associates of Sarasota, Limited (Hotel Associates),

the owner of the property in question. The complex at issue

is composed of the Hyatt Hotel and certain submerged land

underlying the proposed project. SBH is the authorized agency

for Hotel Associates for the purpose of obtaining the permit

in issue. Petitioners are associations of condominium owners

whose properties lie adjacent and to the west of the site in

question. The parties stipulated that all Petitioners had

standing in this proceeding.

2. The site at issue, owned by Hotel Associates,

consists of a portion of the submerged bottoms within a sea-

walled, rectangular-shaped, man-made basin which runs in a

north-south direction west of U.S. Highway 41 in Sarasota. It

is connected by a narrowed channel to Sarasota Bay at its

southern end. Hotel Associates owns approximately the

northern one-third of the basin, and Petitioners own

approximately the western one-half of the southern two-thirds

of the basin. Petitioners' property is not covered in the

proposed permit. The remaining portion of the basin,

comprised of the eastern one-half of the southern two-thirds,

is owned by an entity which is not a party to this action, and

that portion of the bottom also is not covered by the proposed

permit. However, in order for boat traffic to reach the

property in issue, the boats must traverse the southern two-

thirds of the basin. Both Petitioners and the unconnected

third owner maintain existing finger piers within their

respective portions of the basin outside the portion in issue.

3. The basin in which the marina in question is located

is classified as a Class III water body and is connected to

Sarasota Bay, which is a Class III Outstanding Florida Water.

Sarasota Bay is located approximately twelve hundred feet from

the head of the basin and approximately eight hundred feet

from the southern property line of the basin. As of the date

of the hearing, the applicant, SBH, operated a permitted

marina facility within the perimeter of the property in issue.

This permit was issued years ago after the fact; that is,

after the marina had already been constructed.

4. As it currently exists, the marina is made up of

perimeter docks which adjoin the northern and eastern sides of

the basin and includes eight finger piers which provide ten to

fifteen slips. In addition, a perimeter dock extends around

an existing restaurant which sits on pilings over in the

northeast end of the basin.

5. Repairs and modifications were made to the fac ility

under then-existing exemptions in 1995. These included the

replacement of numerous copper, chromium, and arsenic (CCA)

treated pilings and the re-decking of existing walkways and

finger piers with CCA-treated wood.

6. At the present time, seven of the finger-pier slips

are under lease to a commercial charter fleet, Chitwood

Charters, and one slip located along the perimeter dock is

leased to a dive boat operation, Scuba Quest. At least one

other finger-pier slip has a boat docked at it for an extended

period. This boat is owned by Charles Githler, president of

SBH. The remaining finger-pier and perimeter slips are

ordinarily used on a transient basis by guests of the Hyatt

Hotel and the restaurant.

7. The existing facility, including the finger piers

slips and the perimeter slips, contains approximately 6,700

square feet of docking space and is designed to accommodate

between twenty to thirty boats, depending upon the length of

the boats. On occasion, however, as many as 40 to 60 boats

have been docked at the facility. At times, when demand

increases, the larger slips have been subdivided to allow up

to four boats to be stern-moored per slip. Even more boats

have been docked at the facility for boat shows by the use of

stern mooring or "rafting," which calls for boats to be moored

tied together, side by side, out from the docks.

8. By application dated May 18, 1999, and received by

the Department's Tampa District office on June 16, 1999, SBH

sought to obtain from the Department a permit to modify and

expand its existing marina facility. It proposed to expand

the existing approximately 6,700 square feet of dock space to

approximately 7,000 square feet, thereby creating a marina

with 32 designated slips. Conditions to issuance of the

permit, agreed to by the applicant, include a limitation on

the number of boats which may be moored at the facility at any

time and the addition of storm water treatment capability to

the existing storm water drainage system. SBH also agreed to

reduce the terminal end of the middle pier from 900 to 400

square feet.

9. SBH also agreed to accept the imposition of several

other permit conditions required by the Department, and to

offset any impacts on wildlife and water quality as a result

of the operation of the permitted facility. In addition to

requiring that all long-term slip leases incorporate

prohibitions against live- aboards and dockside boat

maintenance, these conditions include the following:

15. Overboard discharges of trash, human

or animal waste, or fuel shall not occur at

the docks.

16. Sewage pump-out service shall be

available at the marina facility.

* * *

18. Fish cleaning stations, boat repair

facilities and refueling facilities are not

allowed.

20. There shall be no fueling or fueling

facilities at the facility.

* * *

28. The shoreline enhancement indicated on

Attachment A shall be implemented within 30

days.

* * *

30. The permittee shall perform water

quality monitoring within the basin at the

locations indicated on Attachment A

semiannually (January and July of each

year) for a period of 5 years.

* * *

33. All piles shall be constructed of

concrete with exception of 18 mooring piles

identified in permit submittals.

34. This permit authorizes the mooring

(temporarily or permanently) of a maximum

of [32] watercraft at the subject facility.

A harbormaster must be designated and

maintained at the subject facility.

35. In order to be in compliance with this

permit, the ”OARS Ultra-Urban" hydrocarbon

adsorbent insert, or Department approved

equal, must be installed within the catch

basin inlets as shown on the approved

drawings.

36. At a minimum, the hydrocarbon

adsorbent material shall be replaced and

maintained in accordance with

manufacturer's instructions. More frequent

inspections and replacement of the

filtration media may be required, depending

on local conditions and results of the

required water quality monitoring.

* * *

39. The permittee/grantee/lessee shall

ensure that:

1. In order to provide protection to

manatees during the operation of this

facility, permanent manatee information

and/or awareness sign(s) will be installed

and maintained to increase boater awareness

of the presence of manatees, and of the

need to minimize the threat of boats to

these animals.

10. SBH has also agreed to replace existing CCA-treated

wood decking with concrete and fiberglass decking and to

replace approximately 80 existing CCA-treated wood pilings

with concrete pilings.

11. Based on its analysis of the permit application and

the supporting documentation submitted therewith, the

Department, on March 2, 2000, entered a Notice of Intent to

issue the permit for this project. Shortly thereafter, on

March 25, 2000, after obtaining a minimal extension of time to

file, the Petitioners filed a Petition for Administrative

Hearing opposing the issuance of the proposed permit.

12. Departmental decisions on water quality permits such

as that in issue here are dependent upon the applicant

satisfying the Department's requirements in several identified

areas. These include the impact of the project on water

quality; impact of the project on the public health, safety,

and welfare; impact of the project on the conservation of fish

and wildlife, including threatened or endangered species;

impact of the project on navigation, the flow of water,

erosion and shoaling; impact of the project on the immediate

fishing, recreational values and marine productivity; impact

of the project on archeological resources; impact of the

project on the current condition and relative value of

functions currently performed by areas to be affected; whether

the project is permanent or temporary; and a balancing of the

criteria, cumulative impacts, and secondary impacts.

13. Addressing each of these in turn, it is clear th at

the current quality of the water within the existing marina is

below established standards. Respondents admit that

Petitioner has shown that the existing marina operation has

diminished water quality conditions and created an environment

that has potential adverse impacts to the fish and wildlife

which frequent the basin as well as some of the neighboring

property owners. This is not to say that these impacts were

envisioned when the basin was constructed. However, other

than as they relate to fish and wildlife and to water quality,

the problems created by the marina do not relate to most

permit criteria.

14. The Respondent's experts calculate that due to its

configuration and location, the basin naturally flushes

approximately every 14.75 days. This is an inadequate time

period to fully disperse any pollutants found in the basis.

As a result of the inadequate flushing and the continuing use

of the basin as a marina, there are resulting impacts to the

water quality surrounding the existing facilities.

15. Mr. Armstrong, Petitioner's water quality expert,

indicated the project as proposed would lengthen even further

the flushing time because of the addition of new boats and, to

a lesser degree, the additional pilings and dock structure.

These additions would, he contends, result in additional

obstructions to water movement and cause a resultant increase

in flushing time. While flushing is not a requirement of the

permit, it has a bearing on water quality which is a

consideration.

16. Petitioners also argue that the mitigation measures

proposed in the permit are inadequate and attack the

qualifications of Mr. Cooper, the Department's storm water

engineer. They point out alleged errors in Cooper's analysis

and cite Mr. Armstrong, an individual with significant

experience in water quality monitoring and analysis, to

support their other witnesses' conclusions that more boats

will increase the risk of hydrocarbon pollution from gasoline

and diesel engines. Petitioners urge that the increased

contamination, when coupled with the slow flushing action,

would tend to settle down to where the pollutants enter the

water - in the basin.

17. Since it is clear these impacts would exist and

continue even were the pending project not constructed, the

issue, then, is whether the proposed project will worsen these

environmental impacts. Respondents' authorities calculate

they would not. In fact, it would appear the proposed changes

called for in the permit, the removal of CCA-treated wood and

its replacement with concrete piling and decking and the

installation of storm water treatment apparatus, would reduce

the adverse impacts to water quality within the basin and, in

fact, improve it. It is so found.

18. An issue is raised in the evidence as to the actual

number of boats which can effectively use the marina at any

one time. SBH contends the present configuration calls for

between twenty to thirty boats. Evidence also shows that at

times, during boat shows for example, many more boats are

accommodated therein through "rafting." Even if the facility

is expanded by the most significant number of slips, there is

no concrete evidence there would be a significantly increased

usage. The current usage is normally well below capacity.

Modifications proposed under the pending permit could add as

many as ten to fifteen additional slips. The Department has

considered it significant that SBH has agreed to limit the

number of boats that can be docked in this marina, even after

modification. Unfortunately, no specific figure has been

given for this limit, and, therefore, it cannot be shown

exactly how much long-term water quality benefit can be

expected. Nonetheless, it is a reasonable conclusion to draw,

as the Department has done, that if the number of boats is

limited to a figure at or even slightly higher that that which

is currently experienced, a long-term benefit can be expected

with the implementation of the other

mitigation conditions. This benefit currently cannot be

quantified, however.

19. What can be established, and all parties agree, is

that the basin currently does not meet water quality standards

for copper and dissolved oxygen. The proposed permit

addresses the issue of dissolved oxygen by requiring SBH to

follow best management practices in the operation of the

marina; to treat storm water discharge which enters the

marina; and to provide a sewage pump-out station at the marina

which would prevent the discharge of sewage into the water.

The issue of the water's copper level is addressed by the

removal of the CCA-treated pilings and decking and their

replacement with concrete and fiberglass; the treatment of the

storm-water discharge before its discharge into the basin; and

the hiring of a harbor master to ensure that the prohibition

against hull scraping at the basin is complied with. A

restriction on the number of boats allowed into the marina at

any one time would also treat the copper problem by reducing

the exposure to anti-fouling paint containing copper. This is

a condition of the permit.

20. It is important to note that under existing

statutory and rule exemptions, SBH could repair or replace the

existing dock structure without the need for a permit.

However, the issuance of a permit which permits modification

and a slight expansion of the facility will prohibit the

replacement of the existing CCA-treated wood with CCA-treated

wood. The concrete and fiberglass pilings and decking will

not leach copper into the water and, in time, should result in

a lower concentration of that substance in the water.

21. Another consideration of the permitting authorities

relates to the impact the project would have on public health,

safety, and welfare. Petitioners expressed concern that an

increase in the number of slips called for in the proposed

project would cause an increase in the number of boats that

utilize the basin. Currently, though there are a limited

number of slips available, there is no limitation on the

number of boats which may use the facility. A reasonable

estimate of capacity, considering the configuration of the

docks and slips and the permit limitations established,

indicates that no more than thirty-two boats will be permitted

to use the basin at any one time. If this limitation is

followed, it is reasonable to expect an improvement in the

water quality.

22. Petitioners also express concern that an increase in

the number of authorized boats using the marina will result in

an increase in the number of boats traveling at excessive

speeds in entering and exiting. No evidence was introduced in

support of this theory, but, in any case, Respondents counter-

hypothesize that the increase in allowed boats will result in

an increase in long term lessors over transients, and suggest

that long term users are more considerate than transients.

Neither side presented any substantial evidence in support of

its positions.

23. The impact on the conservation of fish and wildlife

is a mandated consideration by the agency. No evidence was

presented by either side regarding the existence of fish and

wildlife in the area, much less threatened species, other than

manatees. To be sure, these noble creatures inhabit the

marina at times in appreciable numbers. The threat to them,

however, comes from boat strikes, and no evidence was

presented as to the number of strikes caused by boats in the

marina or its approaches or the seriousness of these strikes.

The agency to which the review of impacts to manatees was

left, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

(FWCC) opined that the permit cap of 32 boats would keep to a

minimum the potential impact to manatees from this project.

Any increase in the number of boats, and the minimal impact

increase thereby, should, it was considered, be offset by

compliance with permit conditions. This opinion was

contradicted by Mr. Thompson, Petitioner's manatee expert, who

argued against any increase of boat traffic in manatee areas.

This position is not the policy of the Department and is not

controlling here. Further, it would appear this expert did

not consider any mitigation factors proposed by SBH, as the

Department is required to do. Taken together, the weight of

the evidence supports a finding that the expected impact of

this project on fish and wildlife, including those threatened

and endangered species, is minimal.

24. Based on the evidence of record, it is found that

the expected impact of this project on navigation, the flow of

water, erosion, and shoaling in the vicinity is virtually non-

existent. The only factor bearing on this issue is the number

of boats which will use the facility and its approach. Permit

conditions call for a limitation on the number of water craft

which will use the facility to be permitted to a number lower

than that which uses it, at times, under current conditions.

The water is a dead-end harbor, with no through traffic.

There is no evidence of either erosion or shoaling now. It

would not likely increase. A reduction in traffic as would

occur under the conditions imposed by the permit can do

nothing but reduce the potential for propeller dredging by

boat traffic and the water turbidity that would accompany such

strikes. This would improve navigation slightly, and there

should be no adverse impact to the flow of water.

25. The evidence presented at hearing did not establish

any negative impact on fishing or marine productivity in the

vicinity of the proposed project, which is permanent in

nature. By the same token, no adverse effect to significant

historical or archaeological resources was shown by the

evidence of record.

26. The facility in issue is currently a commercial

activity consisting of a docking facility and a restaurant.

No evidence was introduced to show that the project proposed

would have an adverse impact on the current condition and

relative value of the current function. In fact, the evidence

indicates that the facility would be improved. Though not

raised by the evidence, it should be noted that Petitioners

presented no evidence that their property values as adjacent

property owners, would be adversely effected by this project.

27. In balancing the criteria, cumulative impacts and

secondary impacts of the proposed project on the immediate and

surrounding area, it appears that the applicant has provided

reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the

public interest. The marina supports the hotel and restaurant

which is on it. Adjoining property owners, the Petitioners,

expressed concern that the modifications to the existing

marina will result in a decrease in water quality in the

basin; will increase the potential for fuel spills with their

related short term discomforts and long term damages; and will

increase the danger to the manatee population which

periodically uses the basin. While they are entitled to the

quiet enjoyment of their property, it is unreasonable for

those who live on the water to expect that the benefits of

living by the water would not carry with it the potential for

some periodic discomfort created by waterfront activity.

29. The weight of the evid ence presented in this case

indicates no significant cumulative adverse impacts from this

project. To the contrary, the state of the evidence suggests

an improvement in water quality and navigation in the basin

and its approaches, and any secondary impacts resulting from

the accomplishment of the project would be minimal.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

30. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

31. The Pe titioner has challenged the Department's

proposed intent to issue a permit to SBH to modify and expand

the existing marina adjacent to its hotel facility on the edge

of Sarasota Bay. The existing marina was constructed without

permit, but the proposed modifications must be permitted

pursuant to Sections 373.413, 373.414, and 373.416, Florida

Statutes, and Chapter 40D-4.301, Florida Administrative Code.

As applicant, SBH carries the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence its entitlement to the permit

sought by providing reasonable assurances that the project

will not cause pollution that would violate applicable

statutes or rules. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C.

Company, Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

32. The evidence of r ecord indicates that the current

water quality at the site of the proposed project is in

violation of standards required for both copper and dissolved

oxygen. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 373.414,

Florida Statutes, the Department cannot issue a permit of the

kind sought here unless the applicant provides reasonable

assurances, through creditable plans, tests, and other

relevant evidence, that the project will result in a net

improvement in water quality.

33. Rule 40D-4.301(1), Florida Admin istrative Code,

provides the standards to be used in reviewing applications

for permits such as here, and requires a showing that the

project, as pertinent here:

(a) will not cause adverse water quality

impacts to receiving waters and adjacent

land;

* * *

(d) will not adversely impact the value of

functions provided to fish and wildlife,

and listed species including aquatic and

wetland dependant species,. . .;

(e) will not adversely affect the quality

of receiving waters, such that the water

quality standards . . . will be violated;

(f) will not cause adverse secondary

impacts to the water resources;

* * *

(j) will be conducted by an entity with

financial, legal and administrative

capability of ensuring that the activity

will be undertaken in accordance with the

terms and condition of the permit, if

issued.

34. Petitioners argue that SBH has not given, by a

preponderance of the evidence, the required reasonable

assurances that the proposed project would result in any net

improvement in the copper and dissolved oxygen levels in the

water of the basin or that the proposed project will not

otherwise cause pollution or adversely affect water quality in

the subject area. The evidence or record, however,

demonstrates that the interventions proposed by SBH will

result in a net improvement both as to copper and dissolved

oxygen levels in the water. The restriction on the number of

boats which will be permitted to dock in the basin, as well as

the implementation of the other proposed items, such as the

use of a harbor-master and the treatment of storm water

discharged into the basin, will tend to reduce pollution of

the basin waters, and taken together, would support the

conclusion that the water quality within the basin, while

still not up to standards, will improve as a result of the

actions required by the permit.

35. Much the same can be said regarding the cumulative

impacts of the project on water quality. It is unlikely the

waters of the basin will ever become pristine again.

Development and commercialization of the surrounding area will

preclude that from happening. However, a strict adherence to

the conditions imposed on the granting of this permit will

result in far less adverse cumulative impact that would be the

case if the pilings and docks were not to be replaced with

materials that do not contribute to an increase in copper and

other pollutants.

36. Under the circumstances as described herein, it

appears clear that SBH has provided the requisite reasonable

assurances that the project is not contrary to the public

interest.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental

Protection enter a Final Order issuing to Sarasota Bay Hotel

the requested permit to modify and expand the existing marina

facility located adjacent to the existing Hyatt Hotel at 1000

Boulevard of the Arts in Sarasota, Florida.

DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2001, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

___________________________________

ARNOLD H. POLLOCK

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone] SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 12th day of February, 2001.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Barbara B. Levin, Esquire

Scott A. Haas, Esquire

Abel, Band, Russell, Collier,

Pitchford & Gordon

240 South Pineapple Avenue

Sarasota, Florida 34236

Graig D. Varn, Esquire

Department of Environmental

Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Mark A. Hanson, Esquire

Law Offices of Lobeck & Hanson, P.A.

2033 Main Street

Suite 403

Sarasota, Florida 34237

Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk

Office of the General Counsel

Department of Environmental

Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel

Department of Environmental

Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any

exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the

agency that will issue the Final Order in this case.