14-000517 Capital City Bank vs. Franklin County And Department Of Environmental Protection Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, July 23, 2014.

Summary: County gave reasonable assurances that new coastal armoring (revetment) would not have adverse impacts on an adjacent revetment or adjacent upland properties.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CAPITAL CITY BANK,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 14 - 0517

FRANKLIN COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

D. R. Alexander, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH) , conducted the final hearing on

April 21, 2014, in Apalachicola, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner : Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire

Mark L. Mason, Esquire

Mowrey Law Firm , P.A.

515 North Adams Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1111

For Respondent : Thomas M. Shuler, Esquire

(County) The Law Office of Thomas M. Shul er, P.A.

40 4th Street

Apalachicola, Florida 32320 - 1702

For Respondent: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire

(Department) Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Franklin County (County) has given

reasonable assurance that it satisfies all requirements for an

after - th e - fact permit authorizing the construction of a rock

revetment seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL)

on Alligator Drive , a lso known as County Road 370.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 27, 2013, the D epartment of Environmental

Protection ( Department) issued a Notice to Proceed and After - The -

Fact Permit authorizing the County to construct a rock revetment

on Alligator Drive. After its first petition was dismissed,

without prejudice, Capital City Bank (the Bank) filed with the

Department an Amended Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing

(Amended Petition) challenging the issuance of a permit on the

ground the revetment w ill have a significant adverse impact on

its nearby property . The Amended Petition was referred by the

Department to DO AH with a request that the matter be set for

hearing.

A t the final hearing, the Bank presented the testimony of

Paul G. Johnson, a marine biologist with Paul G. Johnson and

Associates , Inc., and accepted as an expert; and Ivan B. Chou, a

professional eng ineer with Environmental Consulting & Technology,

Inc., and accepted as an expert. Petitioner 's Exhibits 1 - 28 were

received in evidence. The County presented the testimony of

Michael R. Dombrowski, a professional engineer with MRD

Associates, Inc., and a ccepted as an expert. Joint Exhibits 1 - 13

sponsored by the County and Department were received. Finally,

official recognition was taken of the F inal O rder entered in Case

No. 12 - 3276EF. See Dep't of Envtl. Prot. v. Franklin Cnty. ,

OGC Case No. 11 - 1815 , 2013 Fla. ENV LEXIS 16 (Fla. DEP Apr . 18,

2013).

A one - volume T ranscript of the hearing has been prepared .

The parties filed P roposed R ecommended O rders (PROs) , which ha ve

been considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

A. The Nature of the Dispute

1. The origins of this dispute date back a number of years.

In short, t he County currently has two adjoining revetments

seaward of the CCCL on County Road 370 ( Alligator Drive ) located

on Alligator Point in the southeastern corner of the County. 1

County Road 370 , situated immediately adjacent to the Gulf of

Mexico, is a vulnerable structure and eligible for armoring . See

Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B - 33.002(6 4 ). The old revetment i s

permitted ; the new revetment is not. Pursuant to a Department

enforcement action directed at both revetments , the County

applied for an after - the - fact permit to authorize the

construction of the new revetment. See Case No. 12 - 3276EF.

2. The two revetments, totaling around 2,800 feet in

length, ab ut County Road 370 and join near the intersection of

Alligator Drive and Tom Roberts Road. The road itself is around

50 or 60 feet from the edge of the revetments. The old revetment

extends around 2,000 feet west of the intersection while the new

revetme nt extends 800 feet east of the intersection. There is a

curve in the road at the intersection , and at that point the road

elevation drops two or three feet for a n undisclosed distance .

The revetments , however, run in a straight line. There is no

beach and dune system in front of the old revetment, while a

small amount of exposed sand is located on the far eastern end of

the new revetment.

3 . Due to storm events over the years , unauthorized debris

has been placed on top of the old revetment by the Cou nty . Under

the terms of the enforcement action, the County is required to

remove the debris . This will reduce the height of the old

revetment by several feet below its original height of nine feet

National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). 2 Where the two

revetments join, however, the height differs by only around a

foot.

4 . The Bank owns property across the street from the old

revetment and alleges that, for several reasons, the site and

design of the new revetment , coupled with the reduction in height

of the old revetment, will cause erosion of the shoreline around

the old revetment and expose County Road 370 and the adjacent

upland Bank property to erosion. Although t he current design and

location of the old revetment have been finalized through prior

agency action , the Bank has asked that the permit be denied

unless the County relocate s rock boulders from the new to the old

revetment and raise s its height back to nine feet NGVD.

5. The County asserts that the Bank's real aim here is to

require the County , at taxpayer expense, to reconstruct the old

revetment to i ts original height. Otherwise, the Department will

not waive the 30 - year erosion control line restriction and allow

the Bank to fully develop its property that is seaward of the

CCCL . See § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat.

B . The Old Revetment

6 . Since the late 1970s, the County has owned and

maintained that portion of County Road 370 that is the subject of

this dispute.

7 . In May 1986, the Department of Natural Resources, which

was later merg ed with the Department, issued to the County CCCL

Permit No. FR - 204 for the construction of the old revetment, then

1,500 feet long. The revetment was located approximately 350

feet east of Department Reference Monument R - 211 to approximately

150 feet wes t of the Department Reference Monument R - 213.

8 . In November 1994, the Department issued to the County

CCCL Permit No. FR - 446 for the re - construction of the old

revetment , as well as a 500 - foot extension of the eastern limits

of the structure with grani te boulders. The revetment , as

extended, is located approximately 540 feet west of Department

Reference Monument R - 212 to approximately 140 feet east of

Department Reference Monument R - 213. The permit did not

authorize placement of any construction debri s within the

revetment. With the extension, t he total length of the old

revetment is now approximately 2,000 feet.

9 . After an application for a joint coastal permit to

conduct a beach and dune restoration project was filed by the

County in September 2 006, a Department site inspection revealed

the presence of concrete debris and other debris material stacked

on top of the old revetment. A debris removal plan was

formulated by the Department , which was intended to be

incorporated as a special condition in the joint coastal permit.

10 . In May 2011, t he joint coastal permit was approved and

included a debris removal plan. B ecause of financial

constraints, however, the County did not undertake and complete

the work relating to the beach and dune restorati on plan or the

debris removal plan.

1 1 . In January 2012, another inspection was conducted by

the Department to document how much debris was in the old

revetment and where it was located. The inspection revealed the

presence of a significant amount of c oncrete debris and other

debris material scattered throughout the revetment and continuing

eastward.

1 2 . That same month, largely at the urging of the Bank, the

Department issued a one - count Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging

that after a storm event in J uly 2005, the County placed

unauthorized construction debris and other debris material in the

old revetment seaward of the CCCL, and that the debris still

remained within the footprint of the revetment. See Case No. 12 -

3276EF. (The Bank unsuccessfully at tempted to intervene in the

enforcement action.) As corrective action , the County was

required to remove all debris, seaward of the CCCL, from and

adjacent to the footprint of the old revetment no later than

60 days after the end of the hurricane seaso n . That work has not

yet been performed , probably because the work on both revetments

will take place a t the same time. After the debris is removed,

the height of the old revetment will vary from between five and

eight feet NGVD rather than the original nine - foot height.

13. This was not the relief that the non - party Bank desired

in the enforcement action . Instead, the Bank ha s always wanted

the old revetment to be reconstructed to the nine - foot NGVD

standard authorized in the original construction pe rmit. Even

so, t he enforcement action is now final, as no appeal was taken

by the County . Except for the unauthorized debris, the old

revetment meets all Department standards.

C . The New Revetment

1 4 . Under emergency circumstances, b etween September 20 00

and July 2005 the County placed material, including granite rock

boulders and debris material, in a location east of the old

revetment, seaward of the CCCL. The construction activity is

located approximately 140 feet east of Department Reference

Monume nt R - 213 to approximately 80 feet east of Department

Reference Monument R - 214 and is around 800 feet in length.

However, the County did not obtain a permit for the temporary

structure within 60 days after its construction, as required by

section 161.085( 3), Florida Statutes.

1 5 . In July 2005, Hurricane Dennis made landfall in the

Florida Panhandle causing damage to the shoreline along Alligator

Drive. As an emergency measure after the storm event, the County

placed rock boulders that had been displaced back into the new

revetment seaward of the CCCL. The County also placed other

unauthorized concrete debris and debris material within the

footprint of the rock revetment seaward of the CCCL. Again, no

timely authorization for this work was obtained by th e County.

1 6 . In August 2012, the Department issued an Amended NOV in

Case No. 12 - 3276EF adding a second count , which alleged that the

County had failed to obtain a permit for the placement of the

rock boulders and unauthorized debris.

1 7 . On April 18, 2013, the Department issued a Final Order

in Case No. 12 - 3276EF . As to Count II, i t gave the County two

options for corrective action : (a) that the County submit " a

complete permit application for a rigid coastal armoring

structure located between Depar tment r eference m onuments R - 213

and R - 214 that complies with all applicable Department permitting

rules and statutes" ; or (b) that "the County remove all material

placed seaward of the CCCL pursuant to a Department approved

debris removal plan [,]" leaving that portion of County Road 370

without a revetment. 2013 Fla. ENV LEXIS 16 at *16. Desiring to

protect its infrastructure, t he County opted to apply for a n

after - the - fact permit.

D . The Permit Application

1 8 . In March 2013, t he County filed an applic ation for an

after - the - fact permit for the construction of the new revetment.

As directed by the Department, t he County proposes to construct a

new revetment located between Department Reference Monuments R -

213 and R - 214. The height of the new revetment will be around

nine feet NGVD, while its slope will be one vertical to three

horizontal. The old revetment is not quite as steep, having a

slope of one vertical to two horizontal.

1 9 . The application includes a debris removal plan for the

removal of cons truction debris as well as other debris scattered

through the new revetment. Construction debris occupies a large

portion of the new revetment and largely appears to be associated

with storm damaged concrete sidewalk. All derelict concrete and

asphalt ma terial that is located water ward of Alligator Drive

and landward of the mean high water line is to be removed. Both

the County and its engineering consultant will monitor the work

at the project.

20 . After reviewing the application, t he Department

prop osed to issue after - the - fact CCCL Permit FR - 897. The Bank

then filed its Petition , as later amended .

E . Petitioner's Objections

2 1 . As summarized in its PRO , t he Bank alleges that the

County did not give reasonable assurance that t he following

statuto ry and rule provisions ha ve been satisfied : section

161.053(1)(a), which provides that special siting and design

considerations shall be necessary seaward of the CCCL "to ensure

protection of . . . adjacent properties"; rule 62B - 33.005(2),

which requires that the applicant provide the Department with

sufficient information to show that adverse impacts associated

with the construction have been minimized and that construction

will not result in a significant adverse impact"; rule

62B - 33.005(3)(a), wh ich requires that the Department "[d]eny any

application for an activity which either individually or

cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact

including potential cumulative effects"; rule 62B - 33.0051(2),

which provides that armoring "shal l be sited and designed to

minimize adverse impacts to the beach and dune system, marine

turtles, native salt - tolerant vegetation, and existing upland and

adjacent structures"; and rule 62B - 33.0051(2)(a), which requires

armoring to "be sited as far landwar d as practicable to minimize

adverse impacts . . . on existing upland and adjacent

structures ." See PRO, pp. 16 - 17. A common thread in these

regulatory citations is that a revetment should be constructed in

a manner that does not cause adverse impacts o n "adjacent

property." Except for the above cited provisions, no other

permit requirements are contested, and the County's prima facie

case satisfie d those other requirements.

2 2 . The Bank's odd - shaped property , acquired in a

foreclosure proceeding, abut s that portion of Alligator Drive

immediately adjacent to the old revetment. The eastern boundary

of the Bank's property is a t least 3 00 feet west of the new

revetment and extend s westward along County Road 370 until it

intersects with Harbor Circle. The entire tract is separated

from the old revetment by County Road 370 , a two - lane paved road .

The property was o nce used as a KOA campground ; however , t he

predecessor owner acquired development rights for a Planned Unit

Development, which apparently cannot be fully developed unless

the old revetment is raised back to its original height by the

County or some other acceptable form of erosion protection is

provided by the Bank at its own expense .

2 3 . The essence of the Bank's complaint is that the new

reve tment , as now sited and designed, wil l expose the old

revetment to a higher rate of erosion, and ultimately accelerate

the erosion of its property across the street. The Bank asserts

that this will occur for three reasons. First, the removal of

construct ion debris from the old revetment will lower its height ,

weaken the structure, and cr eate a "discontinuity in height and

composition between the revetments," resulting in increased

exposure to erosion. Second, the toe of the new revetment (at

the western end of the structure) will extend ten feet further

seaward than the old revetment, creating a discontinuity and

placing the old revetment at higher exposure to erosion .

Finally, the Bank contends a discontinuity already exists between

the two revetments d ue to the curved shape of the road at the

intersection, causing the western end of the new revetment to

extend further seaward than the old revetment . The Bank argues

that the discontinuity will amplify the wave action on the

shoreline during a severe sto rm event and eventually cause a

breach of the old revetment. In sum, the Bank is essentially

arguing that unless the two revetments mirror each other in

height and slope, and consist of the same construction materials,

the after - the - fact permit must be de nied.

2 4 . The Bank's expert, Mr. Chou, a coastal engineer, was

employed shortly before the final hearing and made one visit to

the site. Regarding the removal of unauthorized construction

debris from the old revetment, Mr. Chou was concerned tha t, whil e

not ideal, the debris offers a degree of shoreline protection.

He recommended that if removed, the debris be replaced with

boulders comparable to the design standard of the new revetment.

However, the record shows that when the loose and uneven debris

is removed from the old revetment, the existing rocks will be

moved to a n interlocking or "chinking" configuration that

actually enhances the stability and integrity of the structure. 3

2 5 . The Bank is also concerned that the height and slope of

the two revetments differ. Mr. Chou testified that th ere exists

the increased potential for erosion as a result of what he

described as a discontinuity , or a difference of characteristics ,

between the two revetments. He opine d that the protective

function of the old revetment will be compromised by the removal

of the granite boulders , which will lower the overall height of

the revetment between two and four feet . According to Mr. Chou,

if the new revetment suffers a direct hit by a major storm , i.e.,

one capable of dislodging the armor, he would "expect damage,

significant damage, right next to it."

26. Mr. Chou conceded , however, that if a permit is not

approved, and the County elects to remove the new revetment, it

could result in a significant adverse impac t to property located

along Alligator Drive. Mr. Chou further acknowledged that there

w ill be no significant adverse effect on the old revetment during

"everyday" winds, waves, and currents . Finally, he agreed that

if the toe s of the new and old revetmen t s are essentially the

same, as the certified engineering plans demonstrate they are, it

will "minimize" the discontinuity that he describes. Notably, in

2005, Hurricane Dennis actually caused accretion (an increase in

sand) on the Bank property , rather t han erosion.

2 7 . While there are some differences in height and slope

between the two revetments, no meaningful differences from an

engineering perspective were shown. Through the County's coastal

engineer, Mr. Dombrowski, who over the years has visited the site

dozens of time s and worked on a number of major projects in the

area, it was credibly demonstrated that the old and new

revetments will, in effect, form one continuous armoring

structure that will provide shoreline protection along Alligator

Drive . In terms of toe, slope, height, and construction

material, there will be one continuous and straight revetment

along the road , with a "fairly consistent elevation and slope

going from one end to the other." If a major storm event occurs,

the impacts to both revetments will likely be the same. In any

event, there is no requirement that the County construct a

revetment that is storm proof or prevents severe storm damage.

28 . The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the

new revetment is consi stent with the siting and design criteria

in rule 62B - 33.0 0 51(2). The design of the new revetment is

consistent with generally accepted engineering practice. The new

revetment is sited and designed so that there will be no

significant adverse impacts , in dividually or cumulatively, to the

adjacent shoreline. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B - 33.005(3).

2 9 . The County has provided the Department with sufficient

information to show t hat adverse and other impacts associated

with the construction are minimized, and the new revetment will

not result in a significant adverse impact to the Bank's

property. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B - 33.005(2). The new

revetment should toll erosion Î which now occurs on Alligator

Point at the rate of five feet per year -- and prov ide shoreline

protection.

30 . Finally, t he construction of the new revetment will not

cause an adverse impact to the old revetment. For all practical

purposes, the two revetments have existed side - by - side since

2005. The Bank failed to offer any credi ble evidence that the

new revetment has had a significant adverse impact on the old

revetment over the last nine years.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

31. The Amended Petition alleges that the Bank has standing

under sections 120.57 and 403.412(5). The Department co ntend s

that the Bank lacks standing to challenge the permit under

section 403.412(5), while the County contends the Bank lacks

standing under both provision s .

32. S ection 403.412(5) offers a point of entry to persons

who will "suffer an injury in fact w hich is of sufficient

immediacy and is of the type and nature intended to be protected

by [chapter 403]." Thus, the statute has language limiting its

use to proceedings involving licensing or permitting under

chapter 403. Because the proposed agency acti on does not

implicate an exercise of the Department's regulatory powers under

chapter 403, but rather those found in chapter 161, the Bank has

not, and cannot, demonstrate a substantial interest that is

protected by chapter 403. Therefore, the Bank has n o standing

under section 403.412(5).

33. In order to have standing to participate as a party

under sections 120.569 and 120.57, the Bank must have substantial

interests that reasonably could be affected by the Department's

action. See, e.g. , St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. v. St. Johns

River Water Mgmt. Dist. , 54 So. 3d 1051, 1054 (Fla. 5 th DCA

2011). Because the Bank has shown that it has substantial

interests that reasonably could be affected by the issuance of a

permit, it has standing to participate in th e proceeding.

3 4 . A permit applicant bears the ultimate burden of

providing reasonable assurance that all applicable permitting

criteria and standards will be met. See Fla. Dep't of Trans p . v.

J.W.C. Co., Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1981).

"Reasonable assurance" in this context means a demonstration that

there is a substantial likelihood of compliance with standards,

or a substantial likelihood that the project will be successfully

implemented. See Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Coscan Fla., Inc. ,

609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). It does not mean

absolute guarantees. See Save Our Suwannee , Inc. v. Dep't of

Envtl. Prot. , Case No. 95 - 3899, 1996 Fla. ENV LEXIS 37 at *17 - 18

( Fla. DOAH Dec. 22, 1995; Fla. DEP Feb. 5, 1996).

35. The Coun ty must prove the facts necessary to show its

entitlement to the permit by a preponderance of the evidence.

See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

3 6 . An application for a coastal armoring structure must

satisfy the requirements of section 161.053. Relevant t o this

dispute is the requirement that "special siting and design

considerations shall be necessary seaward of established [CCCLs]

to ensure the protection of the beach - dune system, proposed or

existing structures, and adjacent properties and the preserva tion

of public beach access." § 161.053(1)(a), Fla. Stat.

3 7 . Section 161.053(4)(a) authorizes the Department to

issue a permit after considering the following facts and

circumstances:

1. Adequate engineering data concerning

shoreline stability and stor m tides related

to shoreline topography;

2. Design features of the proposed

structures or activities; and

3. Potential impacts of the location of such

structures or activities, including potential

cumulative effects of any proposed structures

or activi ties upon such beach - dune system,

which, in the opinion of the department,

clearly justify such a permit.

3 8 . Chapter 62B - 33 contains a maze of definitions and

criteria that are used to determine if the Department would

approve an application for the ins tallation of coastal armoring.

In this case, only four provisions are at issue ; all others are

uncontested and were deemed to be satisfied in the County's case -

in - chief . First, r ule 62B - 33.005(2) requires an applicant to

"provide the Department with suff icient information pertaining to

the proposed project to show that adverse and other impacts

associated with the construction have been minimized and that the

construction will not result in a significant adverse impact."

The evidence supports a conclusio n that this requirement has been

met.

3 9 . The evidence also supports a conclusion that the

proposed activity , in combination with existing structures in the

area, will not cause impacts, either individually or

cumulatively, that would result in a signific ant adverse impact

on the old revetment or adjacent properties. See Fla. Admin.

Code R. 62B - 33.005(3)(a).

40 . Finally, r ule 62B - 33.0051(2) enumerate s the siting and

design criteria that must be followed when constructing an

armoring structure. A prima ry purpose of the rule is to ensure

that armoring "shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse

impacts to . . . existing uplands and adjacent structures ."

A related requirement, also relied upon by the Bank , is that

"[a]rmoring shall be sited as f ar landward as practicable to

minimize adverse impacts to the beach and dune system, marine

turtles, native salt - tolerant vegetation, and existing upland and

adjacent structures and to minimize interference with public

beach access." Fla. Admin. Code R. 6 2B - 33.0 051 (2)(a) . For the

reasons previously found, t he more persuasive evidence supports a

conclusion that the County has given reasonable assurance that

these requirements have been satisfied.

4 1 . In sum mary , the County has given reasonable assurance

that the new revetment will comply with all applicable rule and

statutory criteria. Therefore, the County's application for an

after - the - fact permit should be approved.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection

enter a final order approving the County's application for after -

the - fact permit number FR - 897.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2014, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

D. R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Cler k of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of July , 2014 .

ENDNOTE S

1 / A revetment , also known as a "rigid coastal armoring

structure , " is a man - made sloping structure, typically made of

granite boulders or limerock, designed in this cas e to protect

County Road 370 from coastal erosion by absorbing the energy of

incoming water from the Gulf of Mexico and to provide a certain

level of storm protection . See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B - 33.002(5).

2 When the old revetment was constructed, N GVD 1929 datum was

used as a starting point for measuring elevations. The NGVD was

later replaced by the North American Vertical Dat um 1988 (NAVD)

and was used in designing the new revetment. The differences

between the two appear to be negligible.

3 T o rebut this finding, t he Bank points to testimony by the

County Planner in the enforcement action who opined that removal

of the debris from the old revetment would weaken the structure.

However, the expert testimony of Mr. Dombrowski i s more persuasive

on this t echnical issue than the County Planner, a non - engineer.

Mr. Dombrowski explained in detail how interlocking the existing

good quality armor stone will make the old revetment more stable.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

D epartment of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 300 0

Ronald A. Mowrey, Esquire

The Mowrey Law Offices, P.A.

515 North Adams Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 - 1111

Thomas M. Shuler, Esquire

The Law Office of Thomas M. Shuler, P.A.

40 4th Street

Apalachicola, Florida 3 2 320 - 1702

B. Jack Chisholm , Jr., Es quire

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Matthew Z. Leopold , General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Stop 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Flor ida 323 99 - 3000

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

A ll parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days of the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to

this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will

r ender a final order in this matter.