02-003149 David Cook vs. Board Of Trustees Of The Internal Improvement Trust Fund Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 1, 2003.

Summary: Pet. did not show adequate proof of riparian title. Did not show accurate survey including precise location boundaries "foot print" of structures of pre-1951. "Butler Act Improvements" offered as basis for trustees to disclaim title to submerged lands.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DAVID COOK, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 02 - 3149

)

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE )

INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT TRUST )

FUND, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDE D ORDER

This cause came on for hearing before P. Michael Ruff,

duly - designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, in Tallahassee, Florida, on

May 19, 2003. The appearances were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petiti oner: David Cook, pro se

Post Office Box 30

Fernandina Beach, Florida 32035 - 0030

For Respondent: Suzanne B. Brantley, Esquire

Christine A. Guard, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail S tation 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns

whether the Board of Trustees should deny David Cook's request

for a Butler Act Disclaimer, in considerati on of Section 18 -

21.019, Florida Administrative Code.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petitioner filed a Petition on July 26, 2002, alleging,

in essence, that the Board of Trustees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) erroneously denied his request

for a Butler Act Disclaimer pursuant to Section 253.129, Florida

Statutes and Rule 18 - 21.019, Florida Administrative Code. The

Petitioner set forth three issues of disputed material facts.

The first concerns whether the lands subject to the application

for the disclaimer were "permanently improved" by the

Petitioner's predecessor in title, so as to convey title to the

submerged land beneath those improvements, as described in the

case of Anderson Columbia v. Board of Trustees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund , 748 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).

Secondly, the Petitioner is concerned with whether his survey is

an accurate depiction of the boundaries of those improvements,

and thirdly, whether the Petitioner has provided the information

required by t he Rules of the Trustees.

The cause came on for hearing as noticed at which the

Petitioner called three witnesses: himself, his son, Daniel A.

Cook, and Dr. Joe Knetsch, an employee of the Department of

Environmental Protection (Department). The Petitio ner also

presented 13 composite exhibits. The Petitioner's Exhibits 3,

4, 5, 6, a part of Exhibit 7, (identified in the record,) and 9,

10 and 11 were admitted into evidence. The Respondent called

witnesses Terry Wilkinson, Kathy Miklus, Jody Miller and Scott

Woolam, all Department employees, as witnesses. The

Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 7 were admitted into evidence.

Upon the conclusion of the proceeding the parties elected

to order a transcript thereof and to reserve the right to submit

Proposed R ecommended Orders. Those Proposed Recommended Orders

were timely submitted on or before June 27, 2003, and have been

considered in the rendition of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Petitioner, David Cook, is in the commercial

fishing busi ness, operating his business in Fernandina Beach on

the Amelia River.

2. The Respondent, Trustees, is an agency of the State of

Florida which holds title to sovereignty submerged lands on

behalf of the people of the state, in accordance with Chapter

253, Florida Statutes. The Trustees is the agency responsible

for issuance of disclaimers to formerly sovereignty submerged

lands under the Butler Act and other similar riparian acts. The

Department serves as staff to the Trustees.

3. In November 1999 the Petitioner submitted an

application to the Department for a disclaimer to certain

submerged lands pursuant to Section 253.129, Florida Statutes

and Rule 18 - 21.019, Florida Administrative Code. The

application was on DEP Form 63 - 031(16) ("Form"). The abov e Rule

adopts and incorporates that Form by reference as part of the

Rule.

4. The Butler Act transferred title to certain sovereignty

submerged lands to the adjacent, upland, riparian owners if and

when they filled, bulkheaded, or permanently improved th e

submerged lands. The Butler Act, enacted in 1921, was

retroactive to 1856. It was repealed by implication in most

Florida counties on May 29, 1951.

5. A riparian upland owner who has acquired submerged

lands under the Butler Act does not have to appl y for disclaimer

under the Trustees' Rule. The Act conveyed the lands, so the

owner is not required to do anything. If an owner needed to

prove up his title, he could also file a quiet title action. In

order to avoid forcing owners to file such actions, the Trustees

provided the Rule as an alternate mechanism to save the

applicant time and expense involved in litigation.

6. Kathy Miklus, a Planning Manager in the Title and Land

Records Section of the Bureau of Survey and Mapping in the

Division of Stat e Lands of the Department, received and began

reviewing the Petitioner's application. Upon reviewing the

application she determined the application was incomplete. On

December 23, 1999, Ms. Miklus wrote a letter to the Petitioner,

advising him that the T rustees had placed a moratorium on

applications for disclaimers involving "permanent improvements,"

but that staff was requesting the Trustees to lift that

moratorium since the decision was handed down in the case of

City of West Palm Beach v. Board of Tru stees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund , 746 So. 2d 1085 (Fla. 1999). Ms. Miklus

also advised the Petitioner in this letter that he had not

submitted a survey or satisfactory evidence of title to the

riparian uplands, required by the Rule referenced above. The

Petitioner did not respond to the letter.

7. On April 6, 2000, Ms. Miklus faxed a copy of the

December 23, 1999, letter to the Petitioner, with a cover sheet

reminding him that his application was still incomplete, and

that she still needed t he items stated in her letter. The

Petitioner called her in July of 2000 about the status of the

application. On July 26, 2000, Ms. Miklus called him back and

advised him for the third time that he needed to submit the

survey and proof of upland ownershi p required by the Rule. On

August 14, 2000, the Petitioner submitted some county tax

information. On October 10, 2000, Ms. Miklus asked him again

for a survey. On December 4, 2000, the Petitioner called and

stated that he had filed a lawsuit a month ear lier, and on

January 18, 2001, the Petitioner called Ms. Miklus again.

Ms. Miklus called him back and left a message to the effect

that she still needed the survey. On January 23, 2001, Ms.

Miklus called the Petitioner and told him that she had loca ted

his "survey" and a map. Ms. Miklus continued to receive calls

from the Petitioner, even after she had turned processing of the

case over to Jody Miller for further processing.

8. Mr. Miller is an Engineer II in the Title and Land

Records Section of the Bureau of Surveying and Mapping. He

prepared drawings and field surveys in the private sector for

two years, and subsequently worked for DEP for two years as an

Engineering Technician IV and for another two years as an

Engineer I. Mr. Miller has two years of study at Tallahassee

Community College in civil engineering technology. He has also

received additional training in minimum technical standards,

surveying law, surveying mathematics, and "AutoCAD." He has

reviewed surveys in his present position for 10 years. He was

qualified and accepted as an expert in survey review. His area

of responsibility is reviewing boundary surveys and mean high

water line surveys for the State. Butler Act surveys generally

involve both.

9. Mr. Miller continued to try to collect the information

required by the Rule from the Petitioner. The Petitioner's

application was different and more complex than the normal

Butler Act application because it was for a "permanent

improvement" that no longer existed, rather than fo r existing

land fill. This makes the area to be disclaimed more difficult

to locate and precisely define as to "footprint" and/or

boundaries.

10. Mr. Miller reviewed the document that the Petitioner

had submitted in January 2001 and determined that it w as not a

survey. Rather, it was a "sketch of description." Further, it

did not give a legal description of the footprint of the

structure that existed prior to May 29, 1951, nor did it show

the mean high water line or the location of any structure built

before 1951. Mr. Miller testified that there were other

problems with the sketch of description as well. The

Petitioner, according to the sketch of description, was

attempting to claim a large area covering nearly all of the

adjacent submerged lands in t he marina, except for the submerged

lands waterward of the railway. He did not merely limit his

claim to the location, size and shape of the permanent

improvements built under the Butler Act. Without the correct

legal description of the area that was per manently improved

under the Butler Act, Mr. Miller was unable to prepare a

disclaimer for the Trustees' execution.

11. Subsequently, Mr. Miller worked with the Petitioner,

and two of the Petitioner's attorneys, Clinch Kavanaugh and Jeff

Brown, and the Pe titioner's surveyor, Mike Manzie, in order to

help the Petitioner comply with the Rule. Mr. Miller also

visited the site in Fernandina Beach. He conferred with the

Petitioner's surveyor Mr. Manzie. Despite all this, the

Petitioner never provided all of the items required by the Rule

in order to issue a disclaimer.

12. Because the Petitioner never provided the information

required by Section 5 of the Form incorporated in the Rule, Mr.

Miller recommended denial of the application to his supervisor,

Scott Woolam.

13. Mr. Woolam is a Professional Land Surveyor Manager

with the Department who supervises the Title and Land Record

Section and the Management Survey Section of the Bureau of

Survey and Mapping. He holds a bachelor of science degree in

land s urveying. He has taken additional courses in legal

principles, wetlands, and title and has instructed seminars in

his field dealing with the statute and rule at issue here, as

well as other sovereignty land issues. Mr. Woolam is published

in his field. He was qualified and accepted as an expert in

surveying and mapping.

14. The Petitioner's application was pending during the

Trustees' moratorium on "permanent improvement" disclaimers.

However, the moratorium was lifted prior to the time the

Petitioner 's application was denied. Meanwhile, the Department

continued to process the application.

15. The Department's counsel advised Mr. Woolam that the

Petitioner had filed lawsuit in the local circuit court during

the pendency of his application and Mr. Wo olam was told not to

communicate directly with the Petitioner without counsel being

present. Meetings were held with counsel present to try to

resolve the remaining issues.

16. Mr. Woolam conferred with Ms. Miklus and Mr. Miller

about the status of the application. They came to a consensus

opinion that the Petitioner had not complied with the

requirements of Section 5 of the Form and Rule. The sketch of

description provided in January 2001 did not identify the mean

high water line, did not locate the p ermanent improvements prior

to 1951, and did not explain the methodology used to support the

applicant's description of the entire pre - empted area. These

items are required by paragraph 5 of the Form. Mr. Woolam

discussed the application with Terry Wilki nson, his supervisor,

and prepared a letter recommending denial for Mr. Wilkinson's

signature.

17. Terry Wilkinson has been with the Department in the

Bureau of Surveying and Mapping for 18 years. He spent the last

16 years as Bureau Chief. He is a pro fessional land surveyor

and before his employment with the Department worked in the

private sector performing coastal surveys, guaging of tides and

mean high water line surveys. He also directed field work for

surveys. In his present position, he oversee s a bureau that

reviews surveys, prepares surveys, administers Chapter 177, Part

II, Florida Statutes, which provides that the Department shall

approve and assist with all mean high water line surveys, and he

determines ordinary high water lines and makes title

determinations on behalf of the Trustees. Additionally, he has

taught seminars on the foregoing subjects and has received

awards in his fields. He was qualified and accepted as an

expert in surveying and mapping and in determining title to

public l ands within the scope of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes.

18. One of Mr. Wilkinson's job duties is to administer the

Rule that governs Butler Act disclaimers. Mr. Wilkinson

conferred with Mr. Woolam about the proposed denial of the

Petitioner's applicatio n and agreed that the application did not

comply with the Rule because it was incomplete. On July 16,

2002, Mr. Wilkinson issued a letter notifying the Petitioner

that his application was denied.

19. The July 16, 2002, denial was based on the fact that

the Petitioner's application did not have a legal description of

the areas for which the disclaimer was requested, nor a survey

showing the pre - 1951 improvements and their relations to the

current facility. The July 16, 2002, denial letter also

indicated that the information lacking from the application had

been requested by written communication dated December 23, 1999

and April 6, 2000, and in verbal conversations with the

Petitioner and his counsel.

20. In March 2003, after receiving instructions from Mr.

Miller, the Petitioner submitted a survey prepared by Mr.

Manzie. Although the Manzie survey was offered by the

Petitioner at the time of hearing, it was not admitted into

evidence. Even had it been admitted into evidence it still did

not comply wit h Section 5, of the Form. Mr. Miller reviewed the

March 2003 survey and found a number of technical errors in it.

It did not have a true mean high water line, as required by the

rule, the disclaimer area was expressed in two legal

descriptions instead of one; one of the survey calls was

reversed and the areas showed incorrect calculations. The new

survey had one substantial error in that it did not show the

"footprint" of the improvement that existed prior to May 29,

1951. It was not tied to any type of lots, blocks or streets,

and it did not show the saw - tooth docking structure that appears

in most of the Petitioner's photographic and other evidence.

Therefore, even if it had been admissible, it would still be

deemed incomplete under the rule.

21. Th e Department acknowledges that the Petitioner may

own some of the submerged lands pursuant to the Butler Act

because permanent improvements existed on them prior to 1951.

However, the Petitioner has not provided sufficient proof of

where the permanent imp rovements lie on the ground in order to

issue a disclaimer.

22. The Petitioner states that he owns uplands in

Fernandina Beach, Nassau County, on the Amelia River in Section

17, Township 3 North, Range 28 East. He presented numerous

deeds which were a ccepted into evidence. The first deed is a

patent from the United States to Florida dated July 9, 1891.

Although part of it is illegible it appears to include

unsurveyed parts of the land claimed by the Petitioner. The

second deed, Trustees Deed No. 14, 536, dated December 31, 1891,

apparently conveys some of the same unsurveyed lands to Samuel

A. Swann. Another Trustees Deed No. 14,537, dated the same day,

deeds more lands in Petitioner's area to Samuel Swann, Trustee.

Trustees Deeds No. 13,490 and 13, 491 dated September 13, 1886,

apparently provide railroad right - of - way from Fernandina to

Cedar Key to the Florida Railroad Company. The Petitioner also

presented four deeds that appear to be from Fernandina Dock and

Realty Co., to Nassau Wharf Company, J .H.P. Merrow, and John R.

Hardee, respectively. The Petitioner submitted a Trustees

Disclaimer No. 23141, dated July 20, 1962, to the City of

Fernandina Beach, which states "[t]he disclaimer is needed by

the city to clear question of title." Neither the disclaimer

nor any of its attachments shows that it was a Butler Act

Disclaimer. The Murphy Act Deed from the Trustees, No. 199, to

the Hardee, Trustees appears to be a portion of one of the

"water lots" that the Petitioner claims to own. The final deed

is from Samuel A. Swann to the Fernandina Dock and Realty

Company, recorded January 18, 1902. None of these deeds appears

to convey title to the Petitioner nor has he established any

chain of title from any of the grantees to himself. In any

event, howev er, this forum may not opine on issues of title to

real property which is a matter reserved for the Circuit Courts

of Florida.

23. The Petitioner also presented seven color photographs,

referred to at hearing as the "modern" photographs which were

admitt ed into evidence. Certain other historic black and white

photographs that were offered by the Petitioner were not

admitted into evidence. The modern photographs all show various

structures and/or pilings located on the submerged lands

adjacent to the upl ands the Petitioner states that he owns.

The photographs are not to scale, and none of them were taken

directly overhead, so measurements cannot ascertain the size of

any structure that was there. Additionally, they had no

verified dates, and the Petiti oner admits that none of them were

taken prior to May 29, 1951. The Petitioner identifies a number

of remnants which may have been pilings. They are of unknown

origin and age and their significance was not shown. Further,

there was no showing that condi tions in the photographs also

prevailed 52 years ago. The Petitioner is not a surveyor and

chose not to have his surveyor testify. There is no testimony

about the size of the structure. The Petitioner's Exhibit 8,

Sanborn maps, was not admitted into evi dence.

24. Two aerial photographs, taken by the Florida

Department of Transportation, dated 1943 and 1953, were admitted

into evidence. The 1953 aerial photograph is not relevant

because it was taken after the Butler Act was repealed. The

1943 photogra phs reveal that there was a long, narrow structure,

perhaps a walkway, extending to a small terminal platform that

bears no resemblance to the "Area for Disclaimer" identified in

the Petition. The photograph merely shows that some structure

was present in 1943.

25. The Petitioner's United States Army, Corps of

Engineers maps show a "Nassau Wharf Co." structure, that he

apparently claims, which is a saw - toothed docking structure that

is not clearly located in relation to the Petitioner's modern -

day facili ty. The saw - toothed docking structure was an

antiquated dock design to allow for the efficient mooring of

sailing ships with lengthy bow sprits which would jut over the

wharf area. Depths shown on the maps are not helpful in

locating the pre - 1951 struct ure. A Petitioner witness, Mr.

Knetsch, testified that the primary purpose of the Army Corps

maps was navigation, not locating structures. The saw - tooth

wharf configuration is not substantiated by the 1943 photograph

which shows a narrow structure with a small terminus, or the

1933 Coast and Geodetic Survey, which shows a structure similar

to the 1943 structure. The saw - toothed dock was evidently

removed before that time.

26. None of the evidence admitted shows that the

Petitioner conformed to the requ irements of the Form in Section

5 of the Rule. Section 5.A.(1) requires a "[p]resent mean high

water line surveyed and approved in accordance with Chapter 177,

Part II, Florida Statutes. . ." The Sketch of Description

provided in January 2001 is not a me an high water line survey

and shows no approval by the Department. It shows "approximate

mean high water line." Section 5.A.(3) requires "[t]raverse of

fill [permanent improvement] showing location of the former mean

high water line, with a land tie to a n established accessible

section, other U.S. Government Land Office Survey Corner, or

other controlling corner[s]." The permanent improvement is not

located, and no tie to any of the requisite corners is shown on

the sketch of description. Section 5.A.(4 ) requires a

"[s]tatement of methodology used to re - establish the pre - fill

mean high water line (photo interpretation, historic surveys

prepared prior to fill, etc.)." In relation to permanent

improvements, this is interpreted to mean the methodology used

to re - establish the footprint of the permanent improvement. No

statement of methodology appears on the Sketch of Description.

Section 5.C. requires a legal description of the filled

[improved] parcel. The legal description in the Sketch of

Description shows a large area of submerged lands, with no

relation to the permanent improvement, which is unsupported by

the evidence. Finally, Section 5.E. requires satisfactory

evidence of title in the applicant to the riparian uplands to

the mean high water line. The Petitioner did not submit any

deed to the riparian uplands that would establish his ownership.

The Department staff testified that the deed they reviewed

showed that the conveyance of the uplands to the Petitioner from

his father reserved a life est ate in the father. While the

Petitioner testified that his father had died in 1999, the

rights of his mother to any remainder in the life estate were

not established. Thus, the Petitioner failed to show that his

application complied with the Rule.

CONCLU SIONS OF LAW

27. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties hereto.

Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes.

28. The Trustees hold title to and manage state - owned

lands, including all sovereig nty submerged lands under Chapter

253, Florida Statutes. See Sections 253.001 and 253.03, Florida

Statutes (2002).

29. The Trustees adopted Section 18 - 21.019, Florida

Administrative Code, to implement Section 253.129, Florida

Statutes. Section 253.129 p rovides that the Trustee shall issue

disclaimers upon request to qualified riparian owners under the

Butler Act. The Butler Act, a 1921 clarification of the 1856

Riparian Act, provides that if an upland riparian owner on

certain navigable water bodies, in cluding rivers, bulkheaded,

filled, or permanently improved the contiguous submerged lands,

that owner would receive title to those submerged lands upon

such improvement. See Chapter 8537, Laws of Florida (1921).

The Butler Act was implicitly repealed by the legislature's

conveyance of tidal sovereignty submerged lands (in counties

other than Dade and Broward) to the Trustees in 1951; it was

explicitly repealed by the Bulkhead Act in 1957. See Board of

Trustees of the Int. Impust Fund v. Key West Con ch Harbor,

Inc. , 683 So. 2d 144, fn.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The applicant's

property abuts tidal lands in Nassau County; therefore, the

May 29, 1951, deadline applies.

30. Rule 18 - 21.019, Florida Administrative Code, adopts

and incorporates the form for applications for disclaimers under

the Rule, DEP Form No. 63 - 031(16). The Form requires, among

other things, in paragraph 5.A.(1), "[t]hree prints of a survey

prepared, signed and sealed. . . clearly showing: [p]resent mean

high water line surveyed and a pproved in accordance with Chapter

177, Part II, Florida Statutes;." The Petitioner failed to

supply a mean high water line survey approved by the Department

under Chapter 177, Florida Statutes, and therefore failed to

comply with the Rule.

31. The Form also requires in paragraph 5.A.(3): "[the]

traverse of the fill [improvement], showing location of the

former mean high water line with a land tie to an established

accessible section corner, other U.S. Government Land Office

Survey Corner, or other contr olling corner(s)." The

Petitioner's Sketch of Description did not supply this

information and it therefore failed to comply with the Rule.

32. The Form further requires in paragraph 5.A.(4): a

"[s]tatement of methodology used to re - establish the pre - fil l

mean high water line. . . ." The methodology was not supplied

by the Petitioner, who did not comply with this section of the

Rule.

33. The Form requires in paragraph 5.C. a "[l]egal

description of the filled [improved] parcel." The Petitioner

did not provide a legal description of the improved parcel and

therefore failed to comply with this section of the Rule.

34. The Form additionally requires in paragraph 5.E.

"[s]atisfactory evidence of title in the applicant to the

riparian uplands to the mean hi gh water line." The Petitioner

apparently presented a deed to the Department (although he did

not present it at hearing) that showed his father had some

interests in the uplands. Although the Petitioner testified

that his father was dead, he did not stat e whether his mother

had an interest in the uplands. The Trustees cannot issue a

disclaimer unless they know to whom it should be issued.

35. The Petitioner raised two other issues, in addition to

his compliance with the Rule. First, "[w]hether the land s

subject to the application to disclaimer were 'permanently

improved' by the Petitioner's predecessor in title so as to

convey title to the submerged lands beneath these improvement .

. . ." The Respondent does not question whether some of the

lands adja cent to the Petitioner's uplands may have been

permanently improved. The Petitioner has simply failed to prove

which lands those were, sufficiently defined for the Trustees to

issue a disclaimer.

36. The Petitioner's second issue is "[w]hether

Petitioner 's survey is an accurate depiction of the boundaries

of those improvements." The Department has shown that the 2001

Sketch of Description provided by the Petitioner did not

accurately depict the boundaries of the improvements, as

discussed above. The sur vey done in March 2003 was not

admissible as evidence. Even if it had been admissible or had

corroborated some other testimony or evidence, the Department

has shown that the 2003 survey also lacked information required

by the Rule. Therefore, no depictio n of boundaries has been

made, and the accuracy of them is not at issue.

37. The Petitioner attempted to raise certain issues

related to title by the presentation of numerous deeds,

specified above. Exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine

title to real property resides in the circuit court in the

county in which the land lies. See Section 26.012(2)(g),

Florida Statutes (2002). The deeds and other documents in

evidence are of little or no assistance in determining, as must

be done here, where the p ermanent improvements were located on

May 29, 1951, or whether the Petitioner has submitted all of the

documents required by the Rule.

38. In summary, the Department's proposed action to deny

the application is in accordance with Rule 18 - 21.019(1), Florid a

Administrative Code, and the Petitioner has failed to present

preponderant evidence to establish that the Petitioner has

complied with the terms and provisions of that Rule.

Consequently, his Petition must fail.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the fore going Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and

demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of

the parties, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal

Improvement Trust Fund, of the State of Florida issue a Final

Order dismissing the Petition of David Cook dated July 26, 2002.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2003, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

___________________________________

P. MICHAEL RUFF

Admi nistrative 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

Fi led with Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1st day of August, 2003.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection

Office of the General Counsel

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Bo ulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Teri L. Donaldson, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

David Cook

Post Office Box 30

Fernandina Beach, Florida 32035 - 0030

Suzanne B. Brantley, Esquire

Christine A. Guard, Esquire

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 writte n 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.