12-001228 Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin R. Smith And Stephanie Smith vs. Oculina Bank And Department Of Environmental Protection
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, April 19, 2013.


View Dockets  
Summary: Recommend that the Department deny the environmental resource permit and sovereignty submerged lands authorization because the proposed project would adversely affect the fish refuge and nursery functions of the wetlands.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8MICHAEL CASALE , )

11)

12Petitioner , )

14)

15vs. ) Case No. 12 - 1227

22)

23OCULINA BANK AND DEPARTMENT OF )

29ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION , )

32)

33Respondents . )

36)

37CAROLYN L. STUTT, ROBERT )

42PROSSER, ORIN R. SMITH, AND )

48STEP HANIE SMITH, )

52)

53Petitioners, )

55)

56vs. ) Case No. 12 - 1228

63)

64OCULINA BANK AND DEPARTMENT OF )

70ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

73)

74Respondents. )

76_______________________________ )

78E. GARRETT BEWKES, )

82)

83Petitioner, )

85)

86Vs. ) Case No. 12 - 1229

93)

94OCULINA BANK AND DEPARTMENT OF )

100ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

103)

104Resp ondents. )

107_______________________________ )

109RECOMMENDED ORDER

111The final hearing in this case was held on November 27 Î 28,

1242012, in Vero Beach, Florida, before Bram D.E. Canter,

133Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

141Hearings ("DOAH").

145APPEARANCES

146For Petitioners: Marcy I. LaHart, Esquire

152Marcy I. LaHart, P.A.

1564804 Southwest 45th Street

160Gainesville, Florida 32608 - 4922

165For Respondent Oculina Bank:

169Nicholas M. Gieseler, Esquire

173Steven Gieseler, Esquire

176Gieseler and G ie seler, P.A.

182554 Southwest Halden Avenue

186Port St. Lucie, Florida 34593 - 3818

193For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection:

199Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire

203Department of Environ mental Protection

208Mail Station 35

2113900 Commonwealth Boulevard

214Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

219STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

223The issue to be determined in this case is whether

233Respondent Oculi na Bank is entitled to a Consolidated

242Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereignty Submerged Lands

249Authorization to construct three single - family homes, an access

259drive, surface water management systems, and three single - family

269docks in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida.

277PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

279On February 10, 2012, the Department of Environmental

287Protection ("Department") issued a Consolidated Environmental

295Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization to

303Oculina Bank for the project d escribed above. On March 28,

3142012, Michael Casale filed a petition for hearing with the

324Department challenging the permit and authorization. On

331April 4, 2012, Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin Smith, and

341Stephanie Smith filed a petition for hearing wit h the

351Department. Also on April 4, 2012, E. Garrett Bewkes filed a

362petition for hearing with the Department. The Department

370referred the petitions to DOAH to conduct an evidentiary hearing

380and submit a recommended order. The three petitions were

389consoli dated for hearing.

393The Department thereafter amended its Notice of Intent to

402Issue three times to incorporate revisions to the proposed

411project. The evidence presented by the parties at the final

421hearing addressed the proposed project, as revised.

428Oculi na Bank presented the testimony of: Chris Russell;

437Morris Crady, who was accepted as an expert in land planning;

448and George Kulczycki, who as accepted as an expert in estuarine

459wetland ecology. Oculina Bank Exhibits 1 - 5, 8, and 11 - 13 were

473admitted into e vidence.

477The Department presented the testimony of Nicole Martin, a

486marine biologist. Department Exhibits 5 - 11 and 13 were admitted

497into evidence.

499Respondents' Joint Exhibits 1 - 75 were admitted into

508evidence. Following the final hearing, the Administra tive Law

517Judge ordered Oculina Bank to file a larger copy of the project

529drawings that were a part of Respondents' Joint Exhibit 74

539because the exhibit in the record had details that were too

550small to see and read. Oculina Bank filed a larger copy that

562wa s admitted into the record as Respondents' Joint Exhibit 74A.

573Petitioners presented the testimony of: Robert Prosser;

580Garrett Bewkes; Carolyn Stutt; Leonard Nero, who was accepted as

590an expert in piloting, marine conservation, and oceanography;

598David Cox , who was admitted as an expert in ecology,

608conservation planning, and wildlife habitat evaluation; Grant

615Gilmore, who was accepted as an expert in ichthyology, and

625marine and estuarine fish ecology; and Karen Garrett - Krauss, who

636was accepted as an expert in wetlands ecology and wetlands

646evaluation. Petitioners Exhibits 1 - 4, 6 - 9, 22, 23, 25, 29, and

66030 were admitted into evidence.

665The three - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

676with DOAH. The parties filed proposed recommended orders that

685were carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended

694Order.

695FINDINGS OF FACT

698Parties

6991. Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, and

706Garrett Bewkes live approximately one mile north of the proposed

716project site, on John's Island. John's Islan d is on the

727opposite side of the Indian River Lagoon from the proposed

737project site.

7392. Petitioner Carolyn Stutt uses the Lagoon for boating,

748nature observation, nature photography, and sketching.

754Petitioner Robert Prosser uses the Lagoon for boating, kayaking,

763and fishing. Petitioner Garrett Bewkes uses the Lagoon for

772boating and fishing.

7753. Petitioners Michael Casale, Orin Smith, and

782Stephanie Smith did not testify at the final hearing nor present

793other evidence to show they have substantial inter ests that

803would be affected by the proposed project.

8104. Respondent/Applicant Oculina Bank owns the project

817site, which it acquired through foreclosure, and is named in the

828agency action that is the subject of this proceeding.

8375. The Department is the s tate agency responsible for

847regulating construction activities in waters of the State. The

856Department also has authority to process applications for

864authorization from the Board of Trustees of the Internal

873Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") to u se sovereignty

885submerged lands for structures and activities that will preempt

894their use by the general public.

900The Project Site

9036. The project site is 15.47 acres and located along 45th

914Street/Gifford Dock Road in Vero Beach. It is on the western

925shore line of the Indian River Lagoon.

9327. The Lagoon in this area is part of the Indian River -

945Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve. It is also an

955Outstanding Florida Water.

9588. The Lagoon is an estuary, but it is almost non - tidal in

972this area. There is a seasonal rise in sea level that occurs

984from August to November and it is during this season that waters

996of the Lagoon flood into adjacent wetlands. The wetlands may be

1007inundated at other times as a result of large storms.

10179. The wetlands along the weste rn shore of the Lagoon play

1029a major role in regional tarpon and snook fisheries. Wetlands

1039provide essential refuges for early - stage tarpon and snook.

1049When the wetlands are inundated, larval tarpon and snook move

1059into the wetlands and seek out shallow are as to avoid predation

1071by larger fish. When the waters of the Lagoon recede, the

1082juvenile tarpon and snook remain in the wetlands where the

1092predators cannot go.

109510. The project site is dominated by salt marsh wetlands.

1105In order to control salt marsh mos quitoes, the site was

1116impounded by the Indian River Mosquito Control District sometime

1125in the 1950s by excavating ditches and building earthen berms or

1136dikes along the boundaries of the site. During the dry season,

1147the Mosquito Control District pumped wat er into the impounded

1157wetlands to keep them wet. It discontinued the seasonal pumping

1167many years ago.

117011. There was a dispute about whether the wetlands on the

1181project are isolated or are connected to the Lagoon. The mean

1192high water line of the Lagoon in this area is 0.78 feet. The

1205berms were constructed to an elevation of about five feet, but

1216there are now lower elevations in some places, as low as 2.5

1228feet in spots on the north and south berms and 3.8 feet on the

1242shore - parallel berm. Therefore, the wetlands can be described

1252as isolated for much of the year because the waters of the

1264Lagoon cannot enter the wetlands unless the waters rise above

1274these lowest berm elevations. On the other hand, the Lagoon and

1285the wetlands are connected whenever the wate r rises above the

1296lowest berm elevations.

129912. Petitioners' experts said the project site is still

1308inundated seasonally by waters of the Lagoon, but they did not

1319address the frequency and duration of the inundation. The more

1329persuasive evidence is that t he frequency and duration of

1339inundation has been reduced by the impoundment berms.

134713. There are almost 14 acres of wetlands impounded by the

1358berms. The impoundment berms and fill along the road comprise

13681.71 acres.

137014. The impounded wetlands are domi nated by salt grass.

1380There are also mangroves, mostly white mangroves, along the side

1390slopes of the berms. Most of the upland areas are dominated by

1402Brazilian pepper trees and Australian pine trees, which are non -

1413native, invasive vegetation.

141615. Within the wetlands are three ponds.

142316. Before the project site was impounded for mosquito

1432control, it had "high marsh" vegetation such as saltwort and

1442glasswort, as well as black and red mangroves. The impoundment

1452resulted in the loss of these species.

145917. There is now reduced nutrient export from the

1468impounded wetlands to the Lagoon.

147318. Nevertheless, Petitioners' experts believe the

1479wetlands still have high functional value. Dr. Gilmore believes

1488this site is "one of the critical habitats maintaining re gional

1499tarpon fisheries."

150119. Dr. Gilmore found juvenile tarpon, among other

1509species, in the wetlands on the site.

151620. The project site provides nesting, denning, and

1524foraging habitat for numerous birds and other wildlife.

153221. Petitioners presented e vidence that there might be a

1542small fish, rivulus marmoratus , that uses the site, which is a

1553listed "species of special concern."

155822. To the north and south of the project site are salt

1570marsh wetlands that have been restored. North of the project

1580site i s a portion of the mitigation area for a development

1592called Grand Harbor. To the south is the CGW Mitigation Bank.

1603Both adjacent wetland areas were restored by improving their

1612connection to the Lagoon and removing exotic vegetation.

162023. The restored we tlands to the north and south now

1631contain a dominance of saltwort and glasswort. They also have

1641more black and red mangroves. These environmental improvements ,

1649as well as an increase in species diversity, are typical for

1660former mosquito control impoundme nts that have been restored.

166924. In the offshore area where the three proposed docks

1679would be constructed, there are scattered seagrasses which are

1688found as close as 25 feet offshore and far as 100 feet offshore.

1701They include Manatee grass, Cuban shoal grass, and JohnsonÓs

1710seagrass.

171125. Oyster shells were also observed from 50 feet to 400

1722feet (the limit of the survey) offshore. There was a dispute

1733whether a significant number of live oysters are present.

1742Oculina Bank's and the Department's experts f ound no live

1752oysters, but Petitioners' expert found some live oysters and

1761believes they represent an important resource.

176726. The rules of the Board of Trustees require greater

1777protection for areas with submerged resources. Rule 18 -

178620.003(54) defines a R esource Protection Area 1 ("RPA1") as an

1799area within an aquatic preserve which has "resources of the

1809highest quality," which may include marine grassbeds and "oyster

1818bars." A Resource Protection Area 2 ("RPA2") is defined as an

1831area which is "in transitio n" with declining RPA1 resources.

184127. The grassbeds in the area of the proposed dock

1851constitute RPA1s. The oyster s in the area constitute a n RPA2.

1863The Proposed Home Sites, Access Drive, and Surface Water

1872Management Systems

187428. The proposed home sites are on separate, recorded lots

1884ranging in size from 4.5 acres to 6.5 acres.

189329. The home sites would have 6,000 square feet of

"1904footprint." The houses would be constructed on stilts.

191230. There would be a single access driveway to the home

1923sites, endi ng in a cul - de - sac. The displacement of wetlands

1937that would have been required for the side slopes of the access

1949drive and cul - de - sac was reduced by proposing a vertical

1962retaining wall on the western or interior side of the drive.

197331. Each home site has a dry retention pond to store and

1985treat stormwater runoff. The ability of these retention ponds

1994to protect water quality is not disputed by Petitioners.

200332. The home sites and access drive would be constructed

2013on the frontal berm that runs parallel to the shoreline.

2023However, these project elements would require a broader and

2032higher base than the existing berm. The total developed area

2042would be about three acres, 1.85 acres of which is now mangrove

2054swamp and salt marsh and 0.87 acres is ditches.

206333. The houses would be connected to public water and

2073sewer lines.

207534. The existing impoundment berm along the north boundary

2084of the site and the south end of the frontal berm would be

"2097scraped down" to an elevation of one foot. The re - graded area

2110would be planted with salt cordgrass.

211635. If there are rivulus marmoratus using the site,

2125scraping down the berms could destroy some of the crab holes

2136they use for habitat.

214036. A culvert will be installed beneath the drive at the

2151north side of the proposed proj ect. The culvert at the north

2163and the removal of a portion of the impoundment berm on the

2175south would allow more frequent and prolonged exchange of water

2185between the Lagoon and the interior of the site.

219437. Despite the proposed culvert and removal of a portion

2204of the frontal impoundment berm, Dr. Cox and Dr. Gilmore said

2215the elevated (about seven feet above mean high water) home sites

2226would act as a barrier to water. However, Ms. Garrett - Krauss

2238said the pre - and post - construction condition would be the same.

2251Petitioners failed to prove that the elevated home sites would

2261prevent the interior wetlands from being inundated.

226838. Two of the ponds on the site would have to be filled

2281to create the home sites. There is no proposal to establish new

2293ponds. Dr . Gilmore believes the ponds are important for the

2304nursery function of the wetlands.

230939. Oculina Bank would grant a perpetual conservation

2317easement over 11.69 acres of onsite salt marsh wetlands. It

2327would remove Brazilian Pepper trees, a non - native plan t, from

2339the site.

234140. At the hearing, Petitioners claimed that a portion of

2351the proposed conservation area was subject to a DOT easement,

2361but they were wrong.

236541. Using the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method

2372("UMAM") in Florida Administrative Code Ch apter 62 - 345, the

2385parties analyzed the functional values of the site in its pre -

2397and post - project condition. The UMAM analyses conducted by the

2408Department and Oculina Bank showed the project resulted in a

2418gain in functional value for fish and wildlife. P etitioners'

2428UMAM analysis showed a net loss of functional value.

243742. The UMAM analyses conducted by Oculina Bank and the

2447Department did not adequately address the loss of the ponds or

2458the impact on rivulus marmoratus .

246443. Petitioners contend that the p roject would have less

2474impact if it were constructed on the most western portion of the

2486site, but Petitioners failed to prove this allegation.

249444. Petitioners contend that the impacts of the project

2503have not been minimized because the houses could be sma ller.

2514Petitioners do not say how small a "minimized" house should be.

2525Of course, meeting the requirement to minimize impacts does not

2535mean only teepees are allowed. The Department has some

2544discretion in determining, under the circumstances of each

2552permi t application, whether reasonable reductions in impacts

2560have been made by a permit applicant.

256745. Oculina Bank proposes to build on the most disturbed

2577area of the site and it made costly 1 / design changes to reduce

2591impacts to wetlands. These factors, if combined with a

2600demonstration that Oculina Bank would restore the site to create

2610a net improvement for fish and other wildlife, would provide a

2621reasonable basis for the Department to determine that the

2630project impacts were minimized. However, Respondents' evidence

2637that the project would result in a net environmental improvement

2647was contradicted by Petitioners' evidence regarding the refuge

2655and nursery functions of the wetlands and the project's adverse

2665impacts to those functions. Petitioners' evidence on this point

2674was not completely rebutted by Respondents.

268046. Oculina Bank did not provide reasonable assurance that

2689the proposed project w ill not adversely impact the value of the

2701refuge and nursery functions provided by the wetlands. This

2710failure of proo f was due mainly to insufficient evidence

2720regarding (1) the interrelationship of exisiting channels and

2728open water features on the site, (2) which features are natural

2739and which are man - made, (3) how those features are used by fish,

2753(4) how they will be al tered by the project, and (5) how the

2767nursery and refuge function s of the wetlands would be affected. 2 /

2780Under the circumstances of this case, it was not sufficient to

2791merely show that the wetlands would be "re - connected" to the

2803Lagoon.

280447. The finding m ade above should not be confused with

2815Petitioners' argument that the non - natural conditions should be

2825maintained on the site. No such finding is made.

283448. The Department did not consider the secondary impacts

2843of the home sites, access drive, and surface water management

2853systems because it had determined that there would be a net

2864improvement in environmental value. However, the loss of refuge

2873and nursery functions would prevent a net improvement in

2882environmental value and it would cause secondary impacts to the

2892tarpon and snook fisheries.

289649. Petitioners identified other secondary impacts, such

2903as the impacts of human disturbance, which it said should have

2914been considered. The other impacts discussed by Petitioners

2922were considered by the Administrative Law Judge and it is found

2933that th ose impacts are insignificant.

2939T he Proposed Docks

29435 0 . Petitioners' original objection to the proposed

2952project and their decision to file a petition for hearing

2962appears to have been caused by Oculina Bank's proposal to bu ild

2974docks over 500 feet in length. The dock lengths in the final

2986revision to the project vary in length from 212 to 286 feet.

2998The docks do not extend out more than 20 percent of the width of

3012the waterbody. The docks do not extend into the publicly

3022maint ained navigation channel of the Lagoon.

30295 1 . Petitioners claim the docks would cause a navigation

3040hazard. However, because the docks meet the length limit

3049specified in rule chapter 18 - 21, they are presumed not to create

3062a navigation hazard. Petitioners' evidence was not sufficient

3070to rebut this presumption.

30745 2 . To reduce shading of sea grasses, the decking material

3086for the docks would be grated to allow sunlight to pass through

3098the decking.

31005 3 . There are no seagrasses at the waterward end of the

3113dock s where the terminal platforms would be located and where

3124boats would usually be moored.

31295 4 . The dock pilings will be wrapped with an impervious

3141membrane to prevent the treatment chemicals from leaching into

3150the water.

31525 5 . The consolidated permit and a uthorization limits the

3163vessels that can be moored at the docks to vessels with a draft

3176that would allow at least 12 inches of clearance above the

3187submerged lands at mean low water so no harm would be caused to

3200submerged resources. Signs would be posted a t each dock

3210providing notice of this restriction.

32155 6 . A dock owner is unlikely to know what size boat he or

3230she is limited to , based on a permit condition which is worded

3242this way. To provide reasonable assurance that submerged

3250resources in the area are protected, the permit condition should

3260be stated as a maximum permissible draft.

32675 7 . The Department determined that the impacts of the

3278docks, such as the installation of the pilings and shading of

3289seagrasses would de minimis. That determination is supp orted by

3299a preponderance of the evidence.

33045 8 . Petitioners claim the Department failed to consider

3314shading, prop wash, and scarring to seagrasses and oyster beds,

3324and increased turbidity. Considering the use of grated decking,

3333restricting vessels to a ma ximum draft, and other related

3343factors, the more persuasive record evidence establishes that

3351these potential impacts would be reduced to insignificance.

335959. Oculina Bank made alternative offers to satisfy the

3368public interest requirement of the Department and Board of

3377Trusteees rules; the first was to contribute $25,000 to the

3388Marine Resource Council to remove five acres of non - native,

3399invasive vegetation and plant mangroves on Pelican Island

3407National Wildlife Refuge, which is located in the Indian River

3417L agoon; the second was to purchase one tenth (0.1) of a credit

3430from the CGW Mitigation Bank. Petitioners objected to the

3439offers as inadequate for various reasons, but as explained in

3449the Conclusions of Law, neither offer is necessary.

3457CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

3460St anding

34626 0 . In order to have standing, a p etitioner must have a

3476substantial interest that would be affected by proposed agency

3485action. See § 120.52(13)(b), Fla . Stat . 3 / Standing requires a

3498petitioner to show he will suffer an injury in fact which is of

3511sufficient immediacy to entitle him to a hearing, and the injury

3522is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to

3534protect. Agrico Chem. Co. v. DepÓt of Envtl Reg. , 406 So. 2d

3546478, 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

35526 1 . The uses of the waters of the India n River Lagoon by

3567Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, and Garrett Bewkes

3575are substantial interests that would be affected by the proposed

3585project and they are interests which this proceeding was

3594designed to protect. Therefore, they have standing.

36016 2 . The Department contends that these Petitioners did not

3612have standing because they would not suffer a substantial

3621injury. The Department's argument confuses the proof necessary

3629to prove a claim and the proof necessary for standing. Proof on

3641the merit s of a claim is un necessary to prove standing,

3653otherwise every losing party would lack standing. See Palm

3662Beach Cnty. Envtl. Coalition v. Dep't of Envtl.Prot. , 14 So. 3d

36731076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

36786 3 . The uses made of the Lagoon by Petitioners are

3690substa ntial interests. Petitioners proved their interests are

3698affected by the proposed project because it would be located

3708partially within the Lagoon and would have both direct and

3718indirect impacts to the Lagoon. That proof is sufficient for

3728standing. Petiti oners claim the effects would be large and

3738contrary to applicable law; Respondents claim the effects would

3747be small (or even an improvement) and permissible under the law.

3758The resolution of this latter dispute determines who wins on the

3769merits, but not wh ether Petitioners have standing.

37776 4 . Petitioners Michael Casale, Orin Smith, and

3786Stephanie Smith presented no evidence to establish their

3794substantial interests and, therefore, did not make the necessary

3803showing for standing.

3806Burden and Standard of Proof

38116 5 . The Environmental Resource Permit was issued under

3821chapter 373. A petitioner challenging a permit issued under

3830chapter 373 has the burden of ultimate persuasion. See

3839§ 120.569(2)(p), Fla. Stat.

38436 6 . The Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization wa s

3853issued under chapter 253. It is not subject to section

3863120.569(2)(p). The applicant for such an authorization has the

3872burden of ultimate persuasion to demonstrate its entitlement to

3881the authorization. See Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co.,

3891Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

39006 7 . The applicable standard of proof is preponderance of

3911the evidence. See § 120.57)1)(j), Fla. Stat.

39186 8 . This is a de novo proceeding designed to formulate

3930final agency action, not to review action taken preliminarily .

3940J.W.C. at 785. Therefore, modifications to a project can be

3950made when they are supported by record evidence and the due

3961process rights of the parties are preserved.

3968The Environmental Resource Permit

397269 . The determination whether Oculina Bank is entit led to

3983the Environmental Resource Permit is governed by chapter 373,

3992r ule 40C - 4.301, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and

4003Storage of Surface Waters of the St. John's River Water

4013Management District ("Applicant's Handbook") .

40207 0 . Rule 40C - 4.301(1) requires, in relevant part, that an

4033applicant provide reasonable assurances that the proposed

4040activity:

4041(d) Will not adversely impact the value of

4049functions provided to fish and wildlife and

4056listed species by wetlands and other surface

4063waters;

4064(e) Will not adversely affect the quality

4071of receiving waters such that the water

4078quality standards set forth in Chapters 62 -

40863, 62 - 4, 62 - 302, 62 - 520, 62 - 522, and 62 - 550,

4103F.A.C., including any antidegradation

4107provisions of paragraphs 62 - 4.242(1)(a) and

4114(b), subsecti ons 62 - 4.242(2) and (3), and

4123Rule 62 - 302.300, F.A.C., and any special

4131standards for Outstanding Florida Waters and

4137Outstanding National Resource Waters set

4142forth in subsections 62 - 4.242(2) and (3),

4150F.A.C., will be violated;

4154(f) Will not cause adverse sec ondary

4161impacts to the water resources;

41667 1 . The term "reasonable assurance" means a demonstration

4176that there is a substantial likelihood of compliance with

4185standards. See Metro . Dade Cnty. v. Coscan Fl a. , Inc. , 609 So.

41982d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). I t does not mean absolute

4211guarantees.

42127 2 . Oculina Bank did not provide reasonable assurance that

4223the proposed project w ill not adversely impact the value of the

4235refuge and nursery functions provided to fish and wildlife and

4245listed species.

42477 3 . Section 1 2.2.1 of the Applicant's Handbook requires

4258the Department to consider whether the applicant has implemented

4267all practicable design modifications to reduce or eliminate the

4276proposed projects adverse impacts to wetland and surface water

4285functions. Petitione rs contend that Oculina Bank should have

4294done more to eliminate impacts.

42997 4 . The Department and Board of Trustees would not achieve

4311the legislative intent reflected in chapters 253 and 373, nor

4321the environmental goals reflected in their rules, by applyin g

4331the requirement to minimize impacts in a manner that discouraged

4341environmental restoration. If Oculina demonstrated net

4347improvements in environmental values to go along with its design

4357changes to reduce adverse impacts, it would have satisfied

4366Section 1 2.2.1. However, because a net improvement was not

4376demonstrated, Oculina Bank's evidence is insufficient to show

4384that all practical modifications to reduce adverse impacts have

4393been implemented.

43957 5 . Rule 40C - 4.301(1)(e) requires an applicant for an

4407Envir onmental Resource Permit to provide reasonable assurance

4415that a proposed project "will not cause adverse secondary

4424impacts to the water resources." Oculina Bank failed to

4433demonstrate compliance with this rule because the loss of refuge

4443and nursery functio ns would cause secondary impacts to the

4453tarpon and snook fishery.

44577 6 . Section 373.414(1)(a) requires consideration and

4465balancing of the following criteria when determining whether a

4474proposed project is not contrary to the public interest or, in

4485the case of projects in an Outstanding Florida Water, whether it

4496is clearly in the public interest:

45021. Whether the activity will adversely

4508affect the public health, safety, or welfare

4515or the property of others;

45202. Whether the activity will adversely

4526affect conse rvation of fish and wildlife,

4533including endangered or threatened species,

4538or their habitats;

45413. Whether the activity will adversely

4547affect navigation or the flow of water or

4555cause harmful erosion or shoaling;

45604. Whether the activity will adversely

4566affe ct the fishing or recreational values or

4574marine productivity in the vicinity of the

4581activity;

45825. Whether the activity will be of a

4590temporary or permanent nature;

45946. Whether the activity will adversely

4600affect or will enhance significant

4605historical and archaeological resources

4609under the provisions of s. 267.061; and

46167. The current condition and relative value

4623of the functions being performed by the

4630areas affected by the proposed activity.

46367 7 . Oculina Bank failed to demonstrate that construction

4646of t he proposed home sites, access road, and surface water

4657management systems would not be not contrary to the public

4667interest because Oculina Bank failed to rebut Petitioners

4675evidence that the refuge and nursery functions of the wetlands

4685would be adversely im pacted by the project.

46937 8 . The proposed docks are in an Outstanding Florida Water

4705and, therefore, must be shown to be clearly in the public

4716interest. This showing does not require demonstration that the

4725proposed project would create a net public benefit . It is

4736sufficient to show that the project would have no material

4746negative impacts or that any such impacts are clearly offset by

4757public benefits. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Dep ' t of

4768Envtl. Reg. , 552 So. 2d 946, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

477979 . Oculi na Bank proved by a preponderance of the evidence

4791that construction of the proposed docks would have no material

4801negative impacts and, therefore, that the construction would be

4810clearly in the public interest.

48158 0 . I f an applicant is unable to meet the cri teria set

4830forth in section 373.414(1), the Department Ðshall consider

4838measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to mitigate

4848adverse effects that may be caused by the regulated activity.Ñ

48588 1 . The proposed mitigation to offset impacts to the

4869wetl ands was not shown to be adequate because the potential

4880adverse impacts to the refuge and nursery functions of the

4890wetlands w ere not adequately addressed by Oculina Bank.

4899The Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization

49048 2 . Section 258.42( 3 ) (e) prohibits th e erection of

4917structures within an aquatic preserve except for certain

4925described projects, including private residential docks. See

4932§ 258.42( 3 ) (e) 1. , Fla. Stat. The term "private residential

4944single - family dock" is defined in rule 18 - 20.003(44) as a dock

4958used for a single - family residence.

49658 3 . Petitioners contend that the proposed docks do not

4976qualify as single - family docks because all three docks are being

4988developed by Oculina Bank in a single project and they will

4999generate income to Oculina Bank. Howe ver, there is nothing in

5010the definition of "private residential single - family dock" that

5020disqualifies the proposed docks as single - family docks.

5029Furthermore, the definition of "income" in rule 18 - 21.003(31)

5039does not mention income from the sale of propert y that includes

5051a dock, but, instead, refers to money paid specifically for use

5062of a dock. These would not be income - generating docks.

50738 4 . Rule 18 - 21.004(2)(b) prohibits activities on submerged

5084lands within an aquatic preserve which result in significan t

5094adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources

5102unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate

5110mitigation is proposed. A preponderance of the evidence shows

5119the proposed docks would not result in significant adverse

5128impacts to sove reignty lands and associated resources, so no

5138alternative project or mitigation is required. However, it is

5147acknowledged that the Board of Trustees has exclusive final

5156authority to determine whether mitigation measures are

5163sufficient to offset the expecte d adverse impacts of a proposed

5174project. See Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Dep ' t of Transp. , 700 So.

51882d 113, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); 1800 Atlantic at 95 1 .

52018 5 . Rule 18 - 20.004(5)(a) provides the following standards

5212and criteria for all docking facilities in aq uatic preserves

5222relevant to the issues raised by Petitioners:

52291. No dock shall extend waterward of the

5237mean or ordinary high water line more than

5245500 feet or 20 percent of the width of the

5255waterbody at that particular location,

5260whichever is less.

52632. Cer tain docks fall within areas of

5271significant biological, scientific, historic

5275or aesthetic value and require special

5281management considerations. The Board shall

5286require design modifications based on site

5292specific conditions to minimize adverse

5297impacts to th ese resources, such as

5304relocating docks to avoid vegetation or

5310altering configurations to minimize shading.

53153. Docking facilities shall be designed to

5322ensure that vessel use will not cause harm

5330to site specific resources. The design

5336shall consider the n umber, lengths, drafts

5343and types of vessels allowed to use the

5351facility.

53524. In a Resource Protection Area 1 or 2,

5361any wood planking used to construct the

5368walkway surface of a facility shall be no

5376more than eight inches wide and spaced no

5384less than one - ha lf inch apart after

5393shrinkage. Walkway surfaces constructed of

5398material other than wood shall be designed

5405to provide light penetration which meets or

5412exceeds the light penetration provide by

5418wood construction.

54205. In a Resource Protection Area 1 or 2,

5429th e main access deck shall be elevated a

5438minimum of five (5) feet above mean or

5446ordinary high water.

54498 6 . Rule 18 - 20.004(5)(b) provides the following standards

5460and criteria for private single - family docks located in aquatic

5471preserves relevant to the issues raised by Petitioners:

54791. Any main access dock shall be limited to

5488a maximum width of four (4) feet.

54952. The dock decking design and construction

5502will ensure maximum light penetration, with

5508full consideration of safety and

5513practicality.

55143. The dock wi ll extend out from the

5523shoreline no further than to a maximum depth

5531of minus four ( - 4) feet (mean low water).

55414. When the water depth is minus four ( - 4)

5552feet (mean low water) at an existing

5559bulkhead the maximum dock length from the

5566bulkhead shall be 2 5 feet, subject to

5574modifications accommodating shoreline

5577vegetation overhang.

5579* * *

55826. Terminal platform size shall be no more

5590than 160 square feet.

55947. If a terminal platform terminates in a

5602Resource Protection Area 1 or 2, the

5609platform shall be e levated to a minimum

5617height of five (5) feet above mean or

5625ordinary high water. Up to 25 percent of the

5634surface area of the terminal platform shall

5641be authorized at a lower elevation to

5648facilitate access between the terminal

5653platform and the waters of the preserve or a

5662vessel.

56638. Docking facilities in a Resource

5669Protection Area 1 or 2 shall only be

5677authorized in locations having adequate

5682existing water depths in the boat mooring,

5689turning basin, access channels, and other

5695such areas which will accommodate the

5701proposed boat use in order to ensure that a

5710minimum of one foot clearance is provided

5717between the deepest draft of a vessel and

5725the top of any submerged resources at mean

5733or ordinary low water;

573787. Oculina Bank proved by a preponderance of the evide nce

5748that the proposed docks would comply with these criteria.

57578 8 . Rule 18 - 20.004(4)(c) states that, for "a private

5769residential, single - family docking facility," compliance with

5777the standards and criteria in rule 18 - 20.004(5) shall be deemed

5789to meet the p ublic interest requirements of rule

579818 - 20.004(1)(b). Petitioners argue that rule 18 - 20.004(4)(c) is

5809inapplicable in this case because that rule refers to "a" dock,

5820but here we have three docks. The Department's interpretation

5829of this rule as applicable t o a project which involves more than

5842one dock when the docks will serve recorded single - family lots,

5854is more reasonable.

585789. Petitioners attempted to prove that the Department and

5866Board of Trustees did not treat such projects as single - family

5878docks in th e past, but Petitioners' evidence was unpersuasive.

588890. Therefore, the offer made by Oculina Bank to either

5898make a contribution to the Marine Resource Council or to

5908purchase a mitigation bank credit w as unnecessary to satisfy the

5919public interest requirem ent of rule 18 - 20.004(1)(b) .

5929RECOMMENDATION

5930Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

5940Law it is

5943RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection

5950issue a Final Order that denies the Consolidated Environmental

5959Resource Permit an d Sovereignty Submerged Land Authorization to

5968Oculina Bank.

5970DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April , 2013 , in

5980Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

5984S

5985BRAM D. E. CANTER

5989Administrative Law Judge

5992Division of Administrative Hea rings

5997The DeSoto Building

60001230 Apalachee Parkway

6003Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

6008(850) 488 - 9675

6012Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

6018www.doah.state.fl.us

6019Filed with the Clerk of the

6025Division of Administrative Hearings

6029this 19th day of April , 2013 .

6036ENDNOTES

60371/ Fo r example, official recognition is taken of the fact that

6049constructing a retaining wall for a driveway is more costly than

6060leaving a sloped bank , and building a house on stilts is more

6072costly than building the same house on a concrete slab.

60822/ In this re gard, it would be useful to know, as a comparison,

6096whether the adjacent restored wetlands are functioning well as a

6106refuge and nursery for larval and juvenile tarpon and snook.

61163/ All references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2012

6127codification.

6128COP IES FURNISHED :

6132Marcy I. LaHart, Esquire

6136Marcy I. LaHart, P.A.

61404804 Southwest 45th Street

6144Gainesville, Florida 32608 - 4922

6149Nicholas M. Gieseler, Esquire

6153Steven Gieseler, Esquire

6156Gieseler and G ie seler, P.A.

61625 5 4 Southwest Halden Avenue

6168Port St. Lucie, Flor ida 34593 - 3818

6176Nona R. Schaffner, Esquire

6180Department of Environmental Protection

6184Mail Station 35

61873900 Commonwealth Boulevard

6190Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

6195Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary

6200Department of Environmental Protection

6204Mail Station 35

620739 00 Commonwealth Boulevard

6211Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

6216Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel

6221Department of Environmental Protection

6225Mail Station 35

62283900 Commonwealth Boulevard

6231Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

6236Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

6240Department of En vironmental Protection

6245Mail Station 35

62483900 Commonwealth Boulevard

6251Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

6256NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

6262All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

627215 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

6283to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

6294will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2013
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2013
Proceedings: Respondent DEP's Exceptions to the Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank's Exceptions to Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/21/2013
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2013
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held November 27-28, 2012). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 04/15/2013
Proceedings: Respondents' Joint Exhibit 74 (exhibit not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 04/11/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank's Notice of Filing Respondents' Joint Exhibit 74A filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2013
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2013
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/04/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 02/06/2013
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 02/05/2013
Proceedings: Petitioners' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
Date: 01/30/2013
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings Volume I-III (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/30/2013
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank Notice of Filing of Hearing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 11/29/2012
Proceedings: Order (Case Nos. 12-3653RX and 12-3821RX, shall be separated from the other cases, and the Departament shall make arrangements for a case management hearing by telephone at the earliest possible date with the Administrative Law Judge, counsel for the current parties, and counsel for the South Florida Water Management District, and the St. Johns River Water Management District).
Date: 11/27/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2012
Proceedings: Order (granting motion to allow witness to appear by telephone).
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2012
Proceedings: Order of Assignment.
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioners' Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2012
Proceedings: Parties' Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2012
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case No. 12-3821RX).
PDF:
Date: 11/26/2012
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Request for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Motion to Allow a Witness to Appear by Telephone at the November 27-29 Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance for Department of Environmental Protection (R. Hoenstine) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/21/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Consolidate (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2012
Proceedings: Order (denying motion for continuance; consolidating cases).
PDF:
Date: 11/20/2012
Proceedings: Oculina Bank's Response in Opposition to Department of Environmental Protection's Request for Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/16/2012
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Motion for Clarification of Order and Request for a Continuance filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2012
Proceedings: Order (denying Petitioner's motion in limine).
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2012
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Request for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2012
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Third Notice of Minor Revisions to Notice of Intent filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/13/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Department's Amended Answers to Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin R. Smith and Stephanie Smith's Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/09/2012
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Response to Petitioners' Motion in Limine filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/05/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Motion in Limine (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2012
Proceedings: Department's Notice of Serving Answers to Petitioners' Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin R.and Stephanie Smith's Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners Carolyn L. Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin R. Smith and Stephanie Smith's Notice of Service of Interrogatories to Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Answers to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 09/27/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Serving Interrogatories Upon Respondent Florida Department of Environmental Protection (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 09/14/2012
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Second Notice of Minor Revisions to Notice of Intent filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for November 27 through 29, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Vero Beach, FL).
Date: 08/30/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2012
Proceedings: Order (on Petitioner's motion for continuance).
PDF:
Date: 08/30/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Amended Motion for Continuance and Request for Case Management Conference (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners', Unopposed Motion for Continuance (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2012
Proceedings: Order (denying motion to compel).
PDF:
Date: 08/20/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Response to Respondent Oculina Bank's Motion to Compel (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 08/13/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank's Motion for Order Compelling Discovery filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner Michael Caslae's Notice of Serving Answers and Objections to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner E. Garrett Bewkes' Notice of Serving Answers and Objections to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners, Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin R. Smith, and Stephanie Smith's Notice of Serving Answers and Objections to Respondent Department of Environmental Protection's Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner Michael Casale filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner R.E. Garrett Bewkes filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/10/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank's First Request for Production of Documents to Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin Smith, and Stephanie Smith filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2012
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP'S First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner Michael Casale filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2012
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP'S First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioner E. Garrett Bewkes filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2012
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent DEP'S First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin R. Smith and Stephanie Smith filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2012
Proceedings: Department of Environmental Protection's Notice of Minor Revisions to Notice of Intent filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin Smith, and Stephanie Smith's Notice of Serving Answers and Objections to Respondent Oculina Bank's Interrogatories (filed in Case No. 12-001228).
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner E. Garrett Bewkes' Notice of Serving Answers and Objections to Respondent Oculina Bank's Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/05/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner Michael Caslae's Notice of Serving Answers and Objections to Respondent Oculina Bank's Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/04/2012
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for September 5 through 7, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Vero Beach, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2012
Proceedings: Department's Motion to Continue Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Substitution of Counsel for Department of Environmental Protection (Nona Schaffner) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2012
Proceedings: Notice and Certificate of Service of Respondent Department of Environmental Protection Response to First Set of Interrogatories to Petitioners' Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/25/2012
Proceedings: Department's Response to Petitioners' Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/18/2012
Proceedings: Order (on stipulation for substitution of Counsel).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2012
Proceedings: (Proposed) Order Approving Substitution of Counsel filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2012
Proceedings: (Proposed) Order Approving Substitution of Counsel (filed in Case No. 12-001229).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2012
Proceedings: Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel (filed in Case No. 12-001229).
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2012
Proceedings: Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank Notice of Service of Set One of Interrogatories to Petitioners Carolyn Stutt, Robert Prosser, Orin R. Smith, and Stephanie Smith filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank Notice of Service of Set One of Interrogatories to Petitioner E. Garrett Bewkes filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2012
Proceedings: Respondent Oculina Bank Notice of Service of Set One of Interrogatories to Petitioner Michael Casale filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/09/2012
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 10 through 13, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Vero Beach, FL; amended as to dates of hearing).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes Request for Production to the Department of Environmental Protection (filed in Case No. 12-001229).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes Request for Production to Oculina Bank (filed in Case No. 12-001229).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes Request for Production to the Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners' Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes Request for Production to Oculina Bank filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 9 through 13, 2012; 9:00 a.m.; Vero Beach, FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners, Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes' Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Oculina Bank filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners, Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes' Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Oculina Bank (filed in Case No. 12-001229).
Date: 05/04/2012
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners, Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes' Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (filed in Case No. 12-001229).
PDF:
Date: 05/04/2012
Proceedings: Petitioners, Michael Casale and E. Garrett Bewkes' Notice of Service of First Set of Interrogatories to Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2012
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 12-1227, 12-1228, and 12-1229).
PDF:
Date: 04/23/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2012
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/19/2012
Proceedings: Respondents' Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2012
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 04/10/2012
Proceedings: Draft Permit filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2012
Proceedings: Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2012
Proceedings: Request for Assignment of Administrative Law Judge and Notice of Preservation of Record filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2012
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2012
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Issue filed.

Case Information

Judge:
BRAM D. E. CANTER
Date Filed:
04/09/2012
Date Assignment:
04/23/2012
Last Docket Entry:
08/21/2013
Location:
Vero Beach, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN PART OR MODIFIED
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):