07-003757 Ian And Keli Lineburger, Kim And Rob Morey, Bonita And Richard Agan, Virginia Halsey, Candace And Roby O`brien, Ann Sackett, Frank T. And Marilyn Shay, Peter And Yvonne Pav, Kimberley Bender, Emanuel Roux And Elizabeth Schuh vs. Prospect Marathon Coquina And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, March 21, 2008.


View Dockets  
Summary: Applicant for environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged land lease for 60-slip docking facility failed to meet the public interest criteria due to secondary impacts to seagrasses and manatees.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8IAN AND KELI LINEBURGER, KIM )

14AND ROB MOREY, BONITA AND )

20RICHARD AGAN, VIRGINIA HALSEY, )

25CANDACE AND ROBY O'BRIEN, ANN )

31SACKETT, FRANK T. AND MARILYN )

37SHAY, PETER AND YVONNE PAV, )

43KIMBERLEY BENDER, EMANUEL ROUX )

48and ELIZABETH SCHUH, )

52)

53Petitioners, )

55)

56vs. ) Case No. 07-3757

61)

62PROSPECT MARATHON COQUINA and DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

70PROTECTION, )

72)

73)

74Respondents. )

76)

77RECOMMENDED ORDER

79The final hearing in this case was held on January 3 and 4,

922008, in St. Petersburg, Florida, before Administrative Law

100Judge Bram D.E. Canter of the Division of Administrative

109Hearings (DOAH).

111APPEARANCES

112For Petitioners: Daniel B. Schuh, Esquire

118Schuh & Schuh

121248 Mirror Lake Drive, North

126St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

130For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection:

136W. Douglas Beason, Esquire

140Department of Environmental Protection

144The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

1503900 Commonwealth Boulevard

153Tallahassee, Florida 32399

156For Respondent Prospect Marathon Coquina, LLC.:

162Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

166Carlton Fields, P.A.

169Post Office Drawer 190

173Tallahassee, Florida 32302

176STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

180The issues to be determined in this proceeding are whether

190Respondent Prospect Marathon Coquina, LLC (PMC), is entitled to

199an environmental resource permit for the proposed expansion of a

209docking facility, and whether PMC is entitled to a modified

219sovereignty submerged land lease for the proposed project.

227PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

229On July 7, 2007, the Department of Environmental Protection

238(Department) issued notice of its intent to issue a consolidated

248environmental resource permit and modified sovereignty submerged

255land lease (“the proposed authorizations”) to PMC for the

264expansion of an existing multi-family docking facility in St.

273Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. Ian and Keli Lineburger,

281Rob and Kim Morey, Bonita and Richard Agan, Virginia Halsey,

291Candace and Roby O’Brien, Ann Sackett, Frank and Marilyn Shay,

301Kimberley Bender, Emanuel Roux, and Daniel and Elizabeth Schuh,

310filed a timely petition for administrative hearing and the

319matter was referred to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing.

329Subsequently, Daniel Schuh withdrew as a party and continued in

339the proceeding solely as the attorney for the remaining

348Petitioners.

349In response to PMC’s Motion to Strike or, in the

359Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement, paragraph 7 of

368the petition was stricken.

372On December 18, 2007, Petitioners filed a Motion for

381Summary Order, contending that PMC did not qualify for a

391submerged lands lease because it had severed the riparian rights

401from the upland residences. At the final hearing, the

410Administrative Law Judge ruled that the issues raised in the

420motion would be ruled on in this Recommended Order.

429At the final hearing, the parties’ Joint Exhibits 1 through

43934 were admitted into evidence. PMC presented the testimony of

449Craig Ward, a professional land surveyor; Michael Gaylor, a

458professional engineer; Tom Logan, a wildlife biologist; and

466Sandy Nettles, a professional geologist, all of whom were

475accepted as expert witnesses. PMC also presented the fact

484testimony of Doug Speeler. At the request of PMC, official

494recognition was taken of the Southwest Florida Water Management

503District’s Basis for Review for Environmental Resource Permits

511(May 2, 2006). The Department presented the testimony of two

521Department employees, Harry Michaels, Jr., and Allyson Minnick.

529Petitioners presented the fact testimony of Kim Morey, Kimberly

538Bender, Peter Pav, Emanuel Roux, and Bonita Agan. Petitioners

547also presented the expert testimony of David Crewz, a plant

557ecologist; and, through deposition transcripts, the expert

564testimony of John Reynolds, an expert in marine mammals; and

574Brian Winchester, a wildlife ecologist. Petitioners’ Exhibits

5816, 7, 9 through 13, and 54 were admitted into evidence.

592The ALJ allowed public comments from Beth Connor, Francia

601Smith, and Laurie MacDonald.

605The transcript of the final hearing was filed with DOAH and

616all parties filed proposed recommended orders which were

624carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended

632Order.

633FINDINGS OF FACT

636The Parties

6381. With the exception of Elizabeth Schuh, all Petitioners

647live in the Driftwood neighborhood, which is located across Big

657Bayou from the proposed project. All Petitioners use Big Bayou

667for various recreational purposes, including swimming and

674boating. Several Petitioners also use Big Bayou for nature

683observation. Petitioner Peter Pav owns waterfront property on

691Big Bayou. Respondents do not dispute Petitioners’ standing.

6992. The Department is charged with the responsibility to

708regulate construction activities in waters of the state. The

717Department has also been delegated authority from the Trustees

726of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Trustees) to process

735applications for submerged land leases for structures and

743activities that will preempt the use of sovereign submerged

752lands.

7533. PMC is a Florida limited liability corporation that

762owns 2,786 linear feet of upland shoreline contiguous to the

773state-owned submerged lands of Big Bayou. PMC is the developer

783of the multi-family residential condominium development on

790Coquina Key that the proposed project would serve, known as

800Coquina Key North.

803The Affected Waterbody

8064. Big Bayou is near the southern end of the St.

817Petersburg peninsula. The mouth of the bayou opens to Tampa

827Bay. Big Bayou is part of the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve,

838which includes most of the coastal waters of Pinellas County.

848Like all aquatic preserves in Florida, the Pinellas County

857Aquatic Preserve is also designated as an Outstanding Florida

866Water. 1

8685. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.001 states that

876the aquatic preserves in Part II of Chapter 258 (which include

887the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve) “were established for the

896purpose of being preserved in an essentially natural or existing

906condition so that their aesthetic, biological and scientific

914values may endure for the enjoyment of future generations.” The

924term “essentially natural condition” is defined as “those

932functions which support the continued existence or encourage the

941restoration of the diverse population of indigenous life forms

950and habitats to the extent they existed prior to the significant

961development adjacent to and within the preserve.” Fla. Admin.

970Code R. 18-20.003(24).

9736. In the 1960s and 1970s, development activities

981throughout Tampa Bay caused the loss of about 80 percent of its

993seagrasses and significant degradation of water quality. The

1001seagrasses and water quality in Big Bayou were also adversely

1011affected by filling and other development activities, including

1019the filling and bulkheading of Coquina Key where the proposed

1029project would be located. In more recent years, the water

1039quality in Big Bayou has improved. Although trash sometimes

1048washes up on the shoreline and one can sometimes see a sheen on

1061the water surface caused by gasoline or oil, the water quality

1072in Big Bayou is generally good, with high dissolved oxygen and

1083low nutrient concentrations. The seagrasses have also recovered

1091to a large extent.

10957. A variety of seagrasses grow in Big Bayou, including

1105shoal grass, manatee grass, turtle grass, widgeon grass, and a

1115relatively uncommon species, palm grass. Seagrasses are the

1123foundation for the marine food web. They also serve as a

1134nursery for small fish and invertebrates, stabilize sediment,

1142and improve water quality.

11468. Manatees regularly enter and use Big Bayou because it

1156provides good habitat. The manatees in this area are part of

1167the Southwest Florida manatee subpopulation. Based on data

1175collected through 2001, that subpopulation is either stable, or

1184possibly declining.

11869. Pinellas County is not one of the 13 Florida counties

1197that were required to develop and implement manatee protection

1206plans. There are two areas of Pinellas County that the Florida

1217Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) has identified

1225as needing additional manatee protection measures, but Big Bayou

1234is not one of them.

1239The Proposed Project

124210. The proposed authorizations would allow PMC to expand

1251an existing multi-family, residential docking facility on the

1259north end of Coquina Key, along an existing seawall and adjacent

1270to the Coquina Key North condominiums that PMC converted from a

1281former apartment complex.

128411. The proposed project would add 60 boats slips to the

1295existing 30 boat slips at the project site. The new slips could

1307accommodate boats up to 25 feet in length. PMC would restrict

1318use of the boat slips to Coquina Key North condominium owners.

132912. In converting the former apartment complex to

1337condominiums, PMC retained ownership of a strip of land

1346immediately upland of the submerged lands on which the proposed

1356project would be constructed. The ground for Petitioners’

1364Motion for Summary Order is that the ownership retained by PMS,

1375because it does not include ownership of the upland residences,

1385does not entitle PMS to obtain a submerged land lease for the

1397proposed project. That legal argument is addressed in the

1406Conclusions of Law.

1409Direct Impacts

141113. An earlier plan for the proposed project was to place

142230 new boat slips on the north side of the existing docks and 30

1436new slips on the south side. However, to avoid direct impacts

1447to seagrasses, the plan was modified to avoid an area of

1458seagrasses on the south side. The proposed project now would

1468add 38 boat slips on the north side and 22 slips on the south

1482side.

148314. The over-water dock structures would be placed

1491waterward of the seagrasses that currently grow along the

1500seawall. The seagrasses adjacent to the proposed project are

1509not likely to be harmed by wave action or turbulence from

1520boating activity around and in the slips because of the distance

1531between the slips and the seagrasses.

153715. The proposed authorizations include specific

1543conditions that prohibit numerous activities that could cause

1551adverse water quality impacts at the proposed project site, such

1561as the discharge of trash, human or animal waste, or fuel; fish

1573cleaning stations; boat repair facilities; fueling facilities;

1580hull cleaning, painting or other external boat maintenance; and

1589boat maintenance or repair activities requiring removal of a

1598boat from the water, or removal of major portions of the boat

1610for purposes of routine repair or maintenance on site, except

1620where removal is necessitated by emergency conditions. No

1628liveaboards would be allowed at the proposed project.

163616. PMC intends to incorporate these conditions into its

1645agreements with the condominium owners who use the boat slips.

165517. Because Big Bayou is an Outstanding Florida Water, PMC

1665is required to provide reasonable assurances that the project

1674will not result in the lowering of existing ambient water

1684quality. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(2)(c)

1690defines “existing ambient water quality” as the better water

1699quality of either what existed on the date that the water body

1711was designated an Outstanding Florida Water or what existed in

1721the year prior to the permit application. Because the current

1731water quality is better than it was in 1972 when the Pinellas

1743County Aquatic Preserve was created, the current water quality

1752is the standard to apply in this case.

176018. Although some incidental non-compliance with the

1767conditions of the proposed authorizations could occur, such

1775incidental non-compliance would not likely result in significant 2

1784degradation of the existing ambient water quality in Big Bayou.

1794Secondary Impacts – In General

179919. Petitioners’ primary concerns with the proposed

1806project are with the secondary impacts that would be caused by

1817increased boating activity in Big Bayou. Petitioners contend

1825that the additional boats using the 60 new boat slips would

1836adversely affect water quality, seagrasses, manatees, and other

1844natural resources. Petitioners also assert that the additional

1852boating activity would cause erosion of the north shoreline of

1862Big Bayou and impair Petitioners’ recreational uses of the

1871bayou.

187220. It is reasonable to assume that there would be more

1883boat trips on Big Bayou if the proposed project were built than

1895if it were not built. However, it is impossible to say how many

1908more boat trips would be generated by the proposed project. It

1919cannot be assumed that because there would be 60 more boat

1930slips, there would be 60 more boats on Big Bayou each day, each

1943week, or even each month.

194821. Moreover, the number of boats on Big Bayou on any

1959given day fluctuates because it depends not only on the whims of

1971the boat owners who have boat slips in Big Bayou, but also on

1984the whims of the boat owners who anchor their boats in the open

1997waters of Big Bayou, launch their boats from the public boat

2008ramps on Big Bayou, or enter Big Bayou from Tampa Bay or more

2021distant waters.

2023Secondary Impacts - Erosion

202722. Petitioners did not present competent evidence to

2035support their claim that the proposed project would cause

2044erosion of the north shoreline of Big Bayou.

2052Secondary Impacts – Water Quality

205723. The Department has adopted by reference the Southwest

2066Florida Water Management District’s Basis for Review for

2074Environmental Resource Permits (Basis of Review) to apply to

2083applications for environmental resource permits for projects

2090over which the Department retains permitting authority. For

2098docking facilities, Section 3.2.4.3 of the Basis of Review

2107requires the applicant to provide hydrographic information to

2115demonstrate that the “flushing time” (the time required to

2124reduce the concentration of a pollutant) is sufficiently short

2133to prevent the accumulation of any pollutants to the point of

2144violating water quality standards. PMC’s hydrographic analyses

2151indicate that Big Bayou is well-flushed. The water of the bayou

2162moves a half mile to a mile during a normal tide. The fact that

2176the current water quality in Big Bayou is good indicates that

2187contamination associated with the current level of boating

2195activity in the bayou is not accumulating. Incidental

2203discharges of contaminants from boats using the proposed project

2212would likely be rapidly dispersed and diluted.

221924. Petitioners argued that PMC’s hydrographic analyses

2226did not address every part of Big Bayou. The rule requires

2237hydrographic characterization of “the project site and

2244surrounding waters.” As the challengers, Petitioners needed to

2252rebut PMC’s prima facie case regarding the hydrographic

2260characteristics in the bayou with competent evidence showing

2268PMC’s findings were inaccurate, or show that the scope of PMC’s

2279hydrographic analyses did not conform with any reasonable

2287interpretation of the applicable rule. Petitioners presented no

2295such evidence or showing.

229925. Some additional, incidental contamination can be

2306expected to occur as a result of the operation of the boats that

2319would use the proposed project. However, PMC provided

2327reasonable assurance that the addition of these contaminants

2335would not significantly degrade the existing ambient water

2343quality of Big Bayou nor cause any other applicable water

2353quality standard to be violated.

2358Secondary Impacts - Seagrasses

236226. The maximum water depth at which most seagrasses can

2372grow is between five and six feet because of their need for

2384light. When boaters attempt to cross shallow areas where

2393seagrasses are located, they sometimes damage the grasses with

2402the boat propellers, leaving areas of torn grass and “prop

2412scars,” furrows in the bottom. Even when boat propellers do not

2424touch the bottom, but come close, they can disturb the loose

2435sediments and cause turbidity. It can be especially harmful

2444when boats run aground, because the boater will sometimes grind

2454away at the seagrasses in an attempt to move the boat to deeper

2467water, causing holes 10 or 12 feet in diameter. Different

2477seagrasses recover from such damage at different rates. In some

2487cases, it can take years for a prop scar to become re-vegetated.

249927. A 1995 study of prop scars by the Florida Marine

2510Research Institute found that the Tampa Bay area is one of four

2522areas of Florida with the greatest acreage of moderate and

2532severe scarring.

253428. There are prop scars visible in the bottom of Big

2545Bayou and Petitioners testified about seeing boats run aground

2554in Big Bayou.

255729. The main navigation channel on the north side of Big

2568Bayou ranges in depth from slightly less than 8 feet to over 17

2581feet. There are channel markers to help boaters find and stay

2592in this channel, but some of the original markers are missing.

2603In addition to the main navigation channel, there is an area

2614along the north side of Coquina Key that is used by the

2626residents living along that shoreline to get to and from Tampa

2637Bay. This second route, which is not marked, is much shallower

2648than the main channel and its use by boaters at low tide is a

2662threat to seagrasses in the area. 3

266930. If more boaters in Big Bayou stayed in the main

2680navigational channel, there would be a decreased threat to the

2690seagrasses. However, the evidence shows that boaters often

2698travel out of the main channel, either by inadvertence or to

2709take a shortcut, and cross shallow areas where the seagrasses

2719are located.

272131. It was the opinion of David Crewz, a plant ecologist

2732who specializes in seagrasses, that increased boating activity

2740in Big Bayou could decrease the habitat quality of the bayou.

2751He said that one can expect more prop scarring and more

2762turbidity caused by stirring up the bottom sediments. He was

2772most concerned about boats larger than 16 feet in length that do

2784not stay in the marked navigation channel.

279132. The 1995 Florida Marine Research Institute study of

2800prop scarring, which Mr. Crewz co-authored, recommended a four-

2809point approach to reduce prop scarring: (1) boater education,

2818(2) channel marking, (3) enforcement, and (4) speed zones. The

2828conditions contained in the proposed authorizations would

2835implement two of the four points recommended by the study.

284533. PMC would install informational signs about seagrasses

2853at the proposed project and at Grandview Park so that boaters

2864using the proposed project and boaters using the boat ramp at

2875the park would be less likely to operate their boats in a manner

2888harmful to seagrasses.

289134. PMC would replace all missing markers along the main

2901navigation channel. The current distance between some of the

2910channel markers may be causing some boaters to stray from the

2921channel.

292235. PMC would mark the location of seagrasses adjacent to

2932the navigation channel.

293536. The operation phase of the environmental resource

2943permit would not become effective until the channel markers and

2953seagrass markers have been installed.

295837. The proposed educational displays, channel markers,

2965and seagrass markers would probably reduce boat traffic across

2974seagrass areas, but they would not eliminate it. However,

2983because the displays and markers would be viewed by boaters

2993using Big Bayou other than just the 60 boaters who would use the

3006slips at the proposed project, the “net” effect of the proposed

3017project would likely be no significant increase in prop scars or

3028related adverse impacts to seagrasses in Big Bayou due to the

3039proposed project. Therefore, PMC provided reasonable assurance

3046that the proposed project would not result in significant

3055adverse impacts to seagrasses.

305938. To go further, however, and contend as PMC does that,

3070even with the addition of 60 boats, the effect of the proposed

3082project would be to significantly reduce the current incidents

3091of prop scarring, boat grounding, and other adverse impacts to

3101seagrasses, is mere speculation without a statistical analysis

3109of boater behavior or other evidence that was not presented in

3120this case.

312239. PMC would also limit the use of its boat slips to

3134vessels with a draft that would provide at least a twelve-inch

3145clearance between the vessel’s draft in a motor-down position

3154and the top of submerged resource at mean low tide. This

3165condition appears to been intended to track similar wording used

3175in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.004(5)(b)8., but

3182because the condition leaves unstated the depth of the submerged

3192resources and the water level of Big Bayou at mean low tide, a

3205prospective renter of a boat slip would not know whether his or

3217her boat would comply with the condition. The rule cannot be

3228more specific because it applies to all waterbodies, but the

3238specific condition in the proposed authorizations can and should

3247be more specific to provide for adequate notice and enforcement.

325740. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed

3265project would not cause significant adverse impacts to

3273seagrasses.

3274Secondary Impacts – Manatees

327841. In Florida, between 25 and 30 percent of the annual

3289manatee deaths are caused by collisions with boats. From 2002

3299to 2006, in Pinellas County waters, 41 percent of the manatee

3310deaths of a known cause were watercraft-related. That

3318percentage exceeds the state average and corresponds to an

3327average of 3.2 deaths per year caused by boats. However the

3338study area from which these statistics were compiled does not

3348include Big Bayou.

335142. Dr. John Reynolds, a marine mammal expert, believes

3360that boat speed is the primary factor in manatee deaths from

3371boat collisions. At higher speeds, boaters and manatees have

3380less time to avoid a collision and the severity of the injury to

3393a manatee is generally greater when the manatee is struck by a

3405boat moving at higher speeds. There are no boat speed zones

3416currently established in Big Bayou.

342143. Thirty-three years of data collected by the Florida

3430Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) indicate that

3438there are no known boat-related manatee deaths within two and a

3449half miles of the project site. There have been two dead

3460manatees discovered in Big Bayou, but their deaths were not

3470attributed to boat collisions.

347444. Increasing the number of boats in an area used by

3485manatees increases the potential for boat/manatee collisions.

3492To minimize the potential for boat/manatee collisions, PMC would

3501implement the standard manatee protection measures that apply

3509during the construction of the proposed docks. PMC would also

3519implement and maintain a manatee education program approved by

3528the FWCC, including informational signs regarding manatees at

3536the proposed project.

353945. Although reducing speeds by establishing, posting, and

3547enforcing idle speed or slow speed zones in the bayou would

3558probably be the most effective measure for the protection of

3568manatees, PMC cannot be required by the proposed authorizations

3577to control boat speeds because boat speed zones must be

3587established by Pinellas County and the Florida Marine Patrol.

359646. The proposed authorizations incorporate the conditions

3603recommended by the FWCC for the protection of manatees. Tom

3613Logan, the former FWCC endangered species coordinator and now a

3623consultant who focuses on endangered species and their habitat,

3632believes that the special conditions included in the proposed

3641authorizations provide adequate protection for manatees. The

3648U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also concluded that the proposed

3658project is not likely to adversely affect manatees.

366647. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed

3674project would not cause significant adverse impacts to manatees.

3683Secondary Impacts – Recreation

368748. Petitioners claim that their recreational uses of Big

3696Bayou for fishing, swimming, canoeing, kayaking, and windsurfing

3704would be diminished by the proposed project. However, Big Bayou

3714is large enough to accommodate the additional boat trips

3723associated with the proposed project and Petitioners’

3730recreational uses. A public water body like Big Bayou must be

3741shared by persons living along or near its shores with all other

3753citizens of Florida. Although some Petitioners would prefer

3761that the bayou had the feel of a more remote or wild place, the

3775Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve is recognized to have a “highly

3785developed, urban nature.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-20.019. It

3794already has the attributes of an urban preserve.

380249. PMC provided reasonable assurance that the proposed

3810project would not prevent or significantly impair the existing

3819recreational uses of Big Bayou.

3824Cumulative Impacts

382650. Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-20.006 and Section

38343.2.8 of the Basis of Review require that cumulative impacts be

3845evaluated in determining whether to issue, respectively, a

3853submerged lands lease or an environmental resource permit. PMC

3862and the Department state in their Proposed Recommended Orders

3871that the consideration of cumulative impacts is limited to

3880projects that are existing or under construction, but Florida

3889Administrative Code Rule 18.006(1) also requires, for a

3897sovereignty submerged lands lease, consideration of “the number

3905and extent of similar human actions within the preserve which

3915have previously affected or are likely to affect the preserve.”

3925Because the principal source of potential adverse impacts

3933associated with the proposed project is boating activity, the

3942existing docking facility at Coquina Key North, the other docks

3952in Big Bayou, and the boat ramp at Grandview Park are existing

3964structures generating boating activity that must be taken into

3973account in the cumulative impacts analysis.

397951. Although the proposed project, with the conditions on

3988its construction and operation, would, alone, have no

3996significant adverse impact on water quality, seagrasses,

4003manatees, or recreational uses in Big Bayou, the cumulative

4012impacts to Big Bayou from all similar activities in the preserve

4023have created significant (material) adverse impacts to Big Bayou

4032in the form of trash, water contamination, damage to seagrasses,

4042and prop scars.

4045Public Interest Criteria

404852. Section 258.42(1)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that

4055a lease of sovereignty submerged lands within an aquatic

4064preserve by the Trustees must be “in the public interest.”

4074Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(46) defines “public

4081interest” in this context as “demonstrable environmental,

4088social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public

4098at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would

4110clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and

4117economic costs of the proposed action.”

412353. Florida Administrative Code 18-20.004(2) sets forth

4130the public interest criteria to be considered and balanced by

4140the Trustees in determining whether to issue a submerged land

4150lease or other authorization to use sovereignty submerged lands.

4159The Rule identifies public boat ramps and “marking navigation

4168channels to avoid disruption of shallow water habitats” as

4177examples of public benefits. These benefits, however, must

4185degraded natural habitat and function, harm to endangered or

4194threatened species and habitat, and adverse cumulative impacts.

420254. For issuance of the environmental resource permit, a

4211determination is required that the proposed project is “clearly

4220in the public interest,” because Big Bayou is part of an

4232Outstanding Florida Water. Fla. Admin Code R. 62-4.242(2).

4240This determination requires the consideration and balancing of a

4249number of criteria set forth in Section 3.2.3 of the Basis of

4261Review:

4262(a) Whether the activity will adversely

4268affect the public health, safety, or welfare

4275or the property of others;

4280(b) Whether the activity will adversely

4286affect the conservation of fish and

4292wildlife, including endangered or threatened

4297species, or their habitats;

4301(c) Whether the activity will adversely

4307affect navigation or the flow of water or

4315cause harmful erosion or shoaling;

4320(d) Whether the activity will adversely

4326affect the fishing or recreational values or

4333marine productivity in the vicinity of the

4340activity;

4341(e) Whether the activity will be of a

4349temporary or permanent nature;

4353(f) Whether the activity will adversely

4359affect or will enhance significant

4364historical and archaeological resources

4368under the provisions of s. 267.061 ; and

4375(g) The current condition and relative

4381value of functions being performed by areas

4388affected by the proposed activity. 4

439455. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the “clearly

4404in the public interest” test does not require the applicant to

4415demonstrate that the intended activity would have a net public

4425benefit. The counter-intuitive result is that, to meet the “in

4435the public interest” test for the sovereignty submerged land

4444lease, PMC must demonstrate a net public benefit, but to meet

4455the “clearly in the public interest test” for the environmental

4465resource permit, PMC does not have to show a net public benefit.

447756. The measures that PMC has agreed to undertake to meet

4488the public interest criteria for the proposed authorizations are

4497as follows:

4499(a) Contribute $300,000 to the construction

4506of a second boat ramp at the current

4514Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm

4521Harbor;

4522(b) Install and maintain navigational aides

4528marking the main channel in the bayou;

4535(c) Install markers indicating the location

4541of seagrass beds;

4544(d) Install and maintain an informational

4550display at the public boat ramp in Grandview

4558Park, relating to the protection of

4564seagrasses and natural resources within the

4570bayou; and

4572(e) Install and maintain an aerial map at

4580the Grandview Park boat ramp depicting the

4587location of the navigation channel and the

4594seagrass beds in the bayou.

459957. The $300,000 contribution for the boat ramp was based

4610on a similar contribution ($5,000 per slip) that was made

4621previously by the developer of another docking facility in

4630Pinellas County. The Department had originally suggested that

4638PMC contribute to a spoil island restoration project to satisfy

4648the public interest criterion. However, due to the Trustees’

4657and/or Department’s concern about the reduction in the number of

4667boat slips available to the general public, 5 the Department

4677proposed that PMC contribute $300,000 to Pinellas County’s

4686Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project in Palm Harbor.

469458. The definition of “mitigation” in Florida

4701Administrative Code Rule 18-20.003(35) states that, “Cash

4708payments shall not be considered mitigation unless payments are

4717specified for use in a previously identified, Department

4725endorsed, environmental or restoration project.” No evidence

4732was presented to show that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp

4742project is an “environmental or restoration project,” and it

4752does not appear to qualify as such.

475959. Implicit in the boat ramp contribution proposal is the

4769view that the public interest in providing more recreational

4778boaters with access to Pinellas County waters outweighs the

4787negative impacts to marine resources that are associated with

4796increased boating activity. No evidence was presented, however,

4804to explain or support this view.

481060. The strange result here is that PMC would be

4820mitigating for the adverse impacts associated with increasing

4828the boating activity in Big Bayou by helping to increased

4838boating activity in other county waters where seagrass losses

4847have been greater, prop scarring is a bigger problem, and more

4858manatees are being killed by boat collisions. 6

486661. Dr. Reynolds stated that the Sutherland Bayou Boat

4875Ramp project in Palm Harbor could be a benefit to Big Bayou if

4888the boat ramp project took boat traffic away from the bayou, but

4900he did not know whether it would. A reasonable inference can be

4912made that, being so far away, the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp

4923project is unlikely to add to or subtract from boat traffic in

4935Big Bayou.

493762. As found above, the adverse environmental impacts of

4946the proposed project, taking into account the proposed

4954conditions, would be insignificant. However, because the record

4962evidence shows that the Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp project would

4972put boats into county waters (and aquatic preserve waters) where

4982there has been greater seagrass losses, more prop scarring, and

4992more manatees killed by boat collisions than in Big Bayou, PMC’s

5003$300,000 contribution to the boat ramp project actually

5012increases the secondary impacts and cumulative impacts of PMC’s

5021proposed project and causes it to fail to meet the public

5032interest criteria.

503462. Without the $300,000 contribution to the Sutherland

5043Boat Ramp project, PMC would meet the “clearly in the public

5054interest” test for the environmental resource permit because the

5063other mitigation offered by PMC would offset the secondary and

5073cumulative impacts of the proposed project.

507963. However, a different result would occur in the case of

5090the sovereignty submerged land lease. Eliminating the $300,000

5099contribution to the Sutherland Boat Ramp project would result in

5109a situation where the public benefits of the proposed project do

5120not “clearly exceed” the costs of the project and, therefore,

5130PMC would not meet the “in the public interest” test.

514064. Although the record in this case is insufficient to

5150demonstrate that PMC’s contribution to the boat ramp project

5159would cause the benefits of the project to clearly exceed its

5170costs, the record evidence is sufficient to support issuance of

5180the lease modification if PMC were able to get the appropriate

5191government authorities to establish a boat speed zone in Big

5201Bayou, or if PMC contributed to the enforcement of boat speed

5212zones in the aquatic preserve.

521765. As restated in the Conclusions of Law, whether the

5227proposed mitigation is sufficient to offset the adverse impacts

5236of the proposed project is a determination that rests

5245exclusively with the Trustees and the Department, based on the

5255record evidence.

5257CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

526066. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

5267jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

5278proceeding.

527967. Petitioners have standing to initiate this legal

5287proceeding because their interests in using the waters of Big

5297Bayou for recreational purposes and for nature observation are

5306substantial interests which this proceeding was designed to

5314protect and the interests would be affected by the proposed

5324project.

532568. Petitioners contend that PMC does not have the

5334requisite upland interest to be entitled to a sovereignty

5343submerged land lease. Section 258.42, Florida Statutes,

5350prohibits the erection of structures within an aquatic preserve,

5359except for certain described projects, including “Private

5366Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-21.003(42) defines “Private

5373residential multi-family dock or pier” as follows:

5380“Private residential multi-family dock or

5385pier” means a dock or pier on a common

5394riparian parcel or area that is intended to

5402be used for private recreational or leisure

5409purposes by persons or groups of persons

5416with real property interest in a multi-

5423family residential dwelling such as a

5429duplex, a condominium, or attached single-

5435family residences or a residential

5440development such as a residential or mobile

5447home subdivision.

5449Petitioners argue that this definition requires that PMC have

5458“some real property interest in the upland residential area,”

5468which PMC does not have. PMC retained ownership only of a

5479narrow strip of land at the shoreline.

548669. It was undisputed that PMC owns uplands contiguous to

5496Big Bayou and that the proposed project is intended to be used

5508for private recreational or leisure purposes. Use of the

5517proposed project is restricted to condominium owners in Coquina

5526Key North. Therefore, the definition of “Private residential

5534multi-family dock or pier” does not support Petitioners’

5542argument. 7

554470. Petitioners also cite Section 258.42(3)(e)(1), Florida

5551Statutes, which refers to allowing private residential docks

5559“for reasonable ingress or egress of riparian owners,” arguing,

5569in essense, that the condominium owners are not riparian owners.

5579However, the reference in Section 258.42(3)(e)(2), Florida

5586Statutes, to “private residential multislip docks,” does not

5595contain the wording about reasonable ingress or egress of

5604riparian owners.

560671. An applicant for a submerged lands lease must

5615demonstrate satisfactory evidence of sufficient upland interest

5622which is defined in Florida Administrative Code Rule 18-

563121.003(55) as documentation which “clearly demonstrate[s] that

5638the holder has control and interest in the riparian uplands

5648adjacent to the project area and the riparian rights necessary

5658to conduct the proposed activity.” Satisfactory evidence of

5666sufficient upland interest can include leases and easements on

5675the uplands, indicating that the Trustees did not think it was

5686necessary to limit submerged land leases to riparian landowners.

5695The Trustees’ rule defining multi-family docks to include those

5704used by condominium owners and members of homeowners

5712associations is another indication of the Trustees’ willingness

5720to accommodate non-traditional upland ownership situations.

572672. The interpretation of the governing statutes and rules

5735by the Trustees and the Department as qualifying PMC to obtain a

5747submerged land lease is a reasonable interpretation because it

5756preserves the legislative intent to restrict new residential

5764docks to those persons who reside along the shore of the aquatic

5776preserve.

577773. Petitioners argue that the condominium documents do

5785not clearly restrict use of the boat slips to the condominium

5796owners. The Department stated at the hearing that use of the

5807boat slips must be restricted to use by condominium owners.

5817That should be an express condition of the proposed

5826authorizations. 8 With that condition in the lease, it is

5836concluded that PMC would qualify to apply for a submerged land

5847lease.

584874. As the applicant, PMC bears the burden of proving that

5859it has satisfied the criteria for approval of both the

5869environmental resource permit and the modified submerged land

5877lease. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396

5886So. 2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) .

589575. "Reasonable assurance" in this context means a

5903demonstration that there is a substantial likelihood of

5911compliance with standards, or "a substantial likelihood that the

5920project will be successfully implemented." Metropolitan Dade

5927County, v. Coscan Florida, Inc. , 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d

5939DCA 1992).

594176. The reasonable assurance standard requires the

5948applicant to address reasonably foreseeable contingencies. See

5955Rowe v. Oleander Power Project, L.P. , 1999 Fla. Env. Lexis 5752

5966(DEP 1999); Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Fla. Chapter

5976Sierra Club , 1988 Fla. Env. Lexis 112 (DER 1988).

598577. Proceedings under Section 120.57, Florida Statutes,

5992are intended to formulate final agency action, not to review

6002action taken earlier and preliminarily. J.W.C. , supra , 396

6010So. 2d at 785 (quoting McDonald v. Department of Banking and

6021Finance , 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Therefore,

6032modifications to a project can be made when they are supported

6043by record evidence and the due process rights of the parties are

6055preserved.

605678. For purposes of the modified lease, the public

6065interest evaluation requires the application of a balancing test

6074“to determine whether the social, economic and/or environmental

6082benefits clearly exceed the costs.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-

609220.004(2). The costs and benefits to be considered are those

6102that relate to the same aquatic preserve within which the

6112proposed project is to be located.

611879. In 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Dept. of Environmental

6127Regulation , 552 So. 2d 946, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), the court

6139held that the “clearly in the public interest” standard that

6149must be met for proposed activities in an Outstanding Florida

6159Water does not require a demonstration of “net public benefit.”

6169It is sufficient to show that the project has no material

6180negative impacts or that any such impacts are clearly offset by

6191public benefits.

619380. Because the proposed contribution of $300,000 to the

6203Sutherland Bayou Boat Ramp Project causes the proposed project

6212to have additional adverse secondary and cumulative impacts to

6221the Pinellas County Aquatic Preserve that were not addressed by

6231PMC or the Department and which cause the proposed project to be

6243contrary to the public interest, PMC failed to provide

6252reasonable assurance of its compliance with the public interest

6261criteria.

626281. It is acknowledged that the Department and Trustees

6271have the exclusive final authority to determine, based on the

6281record evidence, whether the proposed mitigation measures are

6289sufficient, to offset the expected adverse impacts of the

6298proposed project. Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Department of

6307Transportation , 700 So. 2d 113, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), 1800

6318Atlantic Developers at 955.

6322RECOMMENDATION

6323Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

6333Law, it is

6336RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental

6343Protection enter a final order denying Environmental Resource

6351Permit No. 52-0258984-001 and the modification of Sovereignty

6359Submerged Land Lease No. 520224543.

6364In the event the Trustees determine to issue the submerged

6374land lease, it is recommended that the lease be modified to add

6386a condition that the boat slips shall only be subleased or sold

6398to residents of Coquina Key North condominiums.

6405DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of March, 2008, in

6415Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

6419BRAM D. E. CANTER

6423Administrative Law Judge

6426Division of Administrative Hearings

6430The DeSoto Building

64331230 Apalachee Parkway

6436Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

6439(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

6443Fax Filing (850) 921-6847

6447www.doah.state.fl.us

6448Filed with the Clerk of the

6454Division of Administrative Hearings

6458this 21st day of March, 2008.

6464ENDNOTES

64651 / Big Bayou is also a Class II waterbody, but it is not

6479approved for shellfish harvesting.

64832 / The word “significant” is used throughout this Recommended

6493Order for its meaning “to be material or meaningful.” It is not

6505used as a synonym for “substantial.”

65113 / This discussion of boats that can cause harm to seagrasses,

6523as well as the subsequent discussion about boat/manatee

6531collisions, is meant to refer generally to boats with props and

6542not to small draft, un-motorized boats such as canoes and

6552kayaks.

65534 / The parties stipulated that the proposed project would not

6564adversely affect water flow or fishing, nor would it cause

6574flooding or environmental damage to the property of others. No

6584evidence was presented to suggest the proposed project would

6593harm historical or archaeological resources.

65985 / Undisputed evidence was presented that the “Tampa Bay area

6609has a critical shortage of boat slips and has lost 1,500 over

6622the past two years that have gone into private development.”

66326 / A reasonable inference can be made because of the large

6644distance between Palm Harbor and Big Bayou, that few boaters who

6655launch at Palm Harbor will show up in Big Bayou.

66657 / If PMC intends to operate the proposed project as an income-

6678producing enterprise, albeit for the exclusive use of

6686condominium owners, it might also qualify as an “revenue

6695generating/income related docking facility” under the Trustees’

6702rules.

67038 / The parties referred to such a condition at the final

6715hearing, but the Administrative Law Judge could not find it in

6726Joint Exhibit 1, which contains the proposed authorizations.

6734COPIES FURNISHED :

6737Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

6741Department of Environmental Protection

6745The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

67513900 Commonwealth Boulevard

6754Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

6757Tom Beason, General Counsel

6761Department of Environmental Protection

6765The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

67713900 Commonwealth Boulevard

6774Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

6777Michael W. Sole, Secretary

6781Department of Environmental Protection

6785The Douglas Building

67883900 Commonwealth Boulevard

6791Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

6794Daniel B. Schuh, Esquire

6798Schuh & Schuh

6801248 Mirror Lake Drive, North

6806St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

6810Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esquire

6814Carlton Fields, P.A.

6817Post Office Drawer 190

6821Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0190

6824W. Douglas Beason, Esquire

6828Department of Environmental Protection

6832The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

68383900 Commonwealth Boulevard

6841Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

6844NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

6850All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

686015 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

6871to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

6882will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2008
Proceedings: Consolidated Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2008
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2008
Proceedings: PMC`s Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2008
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Responses to Petitioners` Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners` Response to Respondents` Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/07/2008
Proceedings: Response to Petitioners` Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/04/2008
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2008
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held January 3-4, 2008). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 03/06/2008
Proceedings: Order on Petitioners` Motion to Strike.
PDF:
Date: 02/25/2008
Proceedings: Order on Motion to Strike.
PDF:
Date: 02/20/2008
Proceedings: Petitioners Response to the Motion to Strike filed by Respondent Prospect Marathon Coquina LLC and Motion to Strike Applicant Prospect`s Proposed Recommended Order as not Being Timely Filed filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/19/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Amended Certificate of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/18/2008
Proceedings: Motion to Strike filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2008
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2008
Proceedings: (Respondent`s) Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/13/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/12/2008
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time (proposed recommended orders to be filed by February 13, 2008).
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2008
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2008
Proceedings: Statement as to Facts and Law to Petitioner`s Motion for Sumamry Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/11/2008
Proceedings: DEP`s Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 01/22/2008
Proceedings: Transcript (Volumes I-IV )filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2008
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Hearing Transcript.
Date: 01/08/2008
Proceedings: Exhibits (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 01/03/2008
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 12/28/2007
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Filing Signature Page to Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/27/2007
Proceedings: Request for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/26/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Partially Executed Prehearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/24/2007
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Witness List filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/20/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Exhibit List filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/19/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s Motion for Summary Order Based Upon Improper Application of Permit filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition for Evidentiary Purposes filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/13/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition for Evidentiary Purposes filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2007
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for January 3 and 4, 2008; 9:00 a.m.; St. Petersburg, FL).
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2007
Proceedings: Amended Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Date: 11/20/2007
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/19/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/16/2007
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Filing Revised Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/16/2007
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Filing Revised Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Intent to Grant Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/16/2007
Proceedings: Renewed Request for Continuance of Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/15/2007
Proceedings: Verified Return of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2007
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Continuance.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2007
Proceedings: Request for Continuance of Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/08/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition for Evidentiary Purposes filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2007
Proceedings: Petitioners First Request for Production to the Respondent Prospect Marathon Coquina LLC. filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Amended Certificate of Service filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/26/2007
Proceedings: Prospect Marathon Coquina, LLCs Notice of Serving Answers to Petitioners` First Set of Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/15/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Depositions filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2007
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection`s Notice of Appearance & Substitution of Counsel (filed by W. Beason) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/09/2007
Proceedings: Petitioners` Notice of Response to Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Interrogatories on Respondents, Prospect Marathon Coquina, LLC. filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/25/2007
Proceedings: Order (Daniel Schuh`s motion is granted, style of the case shall no longer show him as Petitioner; Respondent Prospect`s request that Mr. Schuh be ordered to produce privelege log is denied).
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2007
Proceedings: Petitioner`s First Request for Production to the Department of Enviromental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2007
Proceedings: Motion to Withdraw as Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2007
Proceedings: Objection to First Request for Production as to Elizabeth Schuh, Peter and Yvonne Pav, Ian and Keli Line Burger, Bonita and Richard Agan, Frank T. Shay and Marily Shay, Emmanuel Roux, Ann Sackett, Candace and Roby O`Brien, Virginia Halsey ect. filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2007
Proceedings: Prospect`s Response to Motion to Withdraw as a Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/24/2007
Proceedings: Prospect`s Response to Objection and Designation of Place for Production to Petitioners filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2007
Proceedings: Order (motion is granted, paragraph 7 of the Petition is stricken).
PDF:
Date: 09/05/2007
Proceedings: Prospect`s First Request for Production to Petitioner (12) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/05/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Interrogatories on Petitioner (12) filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/04/2007
Proceedings: Prospect`s Motion to Strike or, in the Alternative, Motion for More Definite Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2007
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 08/28/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for December 11 and 12, 2007; 9:00 a.m.; St. Petersburg, FL).
PDF:
Date: 08/27/2007
Proceedings: Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2007
Proceedings: Petitioners` Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/24/2007
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed by M. Chumbler).
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2007
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2007
Proceedings: Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2007
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing Under Section 120.569 and 120.57 Florida Statutes filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2007
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Date Filed:
08/20/2007
Date Assignment:
08/21/2007
Last Docket Entry:
08/07/2008
Location:
St. Petersburg, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Counsels

Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (3):

Related Florida Rule(s) (7):