95-000494 Edmund Brennen vs. Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina And Department Of Environmental Protection Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, April 8, 1996.

Summary: Reasonable assurance that proposed project will not cause water quality violations and is clearly within the public interest. Grant and issue permit.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

EDMUND BRENNEN, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0494

)

JUPITER HILLS LIGHTHOUSE MARINA )

and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

PAUL C. and DOROTHY MARIN, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0495

)

JUPITER HILLS LIGHTHOUSE MARINA )

and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

D. L. LANDRETH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0496

)

JUPITER HILLS LIGHTHOUSE MARINA )

and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

DAVID and GERI WENDT, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0497

)

JUPITER HILLS LIGHTHOUSE MARINA )

and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

JULIUS and STELLA FIELDER, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0498

)

JUPITER HILLS LIGHTHOUSE MARINA )

and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

JACKIE and BRIGHT JOHNSON, JR., )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 95-0943

)

JUPITER HILLS LIGHTHOUSE MARINA )

and STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT )

OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

)

Respondents. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in these cases on September

20 - 21, 1995, at West Palm Beach, Florida, before Errol H. Powell, a duly

designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire

1218 Mount Vernon Street

Orlando, Florida 32803

J. A. Jurgens, Esquire

Post Office Box 1178

Winter Park, Florida 32790-1178

For Respondent Jupiter Scott G. Hawkins, Esquire

Hills Lighthouse Marina: Macey Biagiotti, Esquire

Post Office Box 3475

West Palm Beach, Florida 33402

For Respondent Department Lynette L. Ciardulli

of Environmental Douglas MacLaughlin

Protection: Assistant Generals Counsel

Department of Environmental

Protection

2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issue for determination is whether Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina is

entitled to be issued a permit by the Department of Environmental Protection for

its project application submitted July 29, 1992, and revised November 15, 1993,

to enlarge an existing marina and add new slips.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On December 13, 1994, the Department of Environmental Protection

(Respondent DEP) filed its Notice of Intent to issue Permit No. 432170499

(Permit) to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina (Respondent Jupiter Hills), granting

its application submitted July 29, 1992, and revised November 15, 1993, to

enlarge an existing marina and add new slips. The proposed project is located

in Martin County, Florida. On December 28, 1994, Edmund Brennan, (Petitioner

Brennan) filed a petition in opposition to granting the permit and requested an

administrative hearing. Paul C. and Dorothy Marin (Petitioners Marin), D. L.

Landreth (Petitioner Landreth), David and Geri Wendt (Petitioners Wendt), Julius

and Stella Fielder (Petitioners Fielder), and Jackie and Bright Johnson, Jr.

(Petitioners Johnson) filed identical petitions in opposition to the issuance of

the Permit, requesting an administrative hearing.

These matters were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

Subsequently, all of the matters were consolidated for hearing. An amended

petition was filed on April 28, 1995.

At hearing, Petitioners Fielder were dismissed as parties. Further, at

hearing, Petitioners presented the testimony of two witnesses, Petitioner

Brennan testified in his own behalf, and Petitioners entered four exhibits into

evidence. Respondent Jupiter Hills presented the testimony of four witnesses

and entered 19 exhibits into evidence. Respondent DEP presented the testimony

of one witness and entered two exhibits into evidence.

A transcript of the hearing was ordered. At the request of the parties,

the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten days

following the filing of the transcript. The parties submitted proposed findings

of fact which are addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On July 29, 1992, Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina (Respondent Jupiter

Hills) submitted an application to the Department of Environmental Protection

(Respondent DEP) for a permit to enlarge an existing dock facility to 488 feet

and to increase the existing 6 slips to 48 new slips. Respondent Jupiter Hills

is located 0.7 miles north of Martin County Line Road, on U. S. Highway One,

Indian River Lagoon, Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, more

particularly described as Martin County, Section 19, Township 40 South, Range 43

East, Indian River Lagoon Class III Waters.

2. On November 15, 1993, Respondent Jupiter Hills amended its application

at the request of Respondent DEP. The revised proposed project increases the

dock facility from 6 slips to 18 slips, restricting 12 of the 18 slips for

sailboat use; and proposes a new 149 foot long T-shaped pier from the existing

pier, creating a total dimension of 180 feet by 60 feet. Further, Respondent

Jupiter Hills proposes to remove four existing finger piers and 10 existing

mooring pilings, to add eight finger piers and 34 new mooring pilings, and to

place riprap along the existing seawall and new pier.

3. The proposed project is located in an Outstanding Florida Water (a

designated aquatic preserve), the Jensen Beach to Jupiter Inlet Aquatic

Preserve, which is a part of the Indian River Preserve.

4. Significant water quality parameters for this proposed project include

coliform bacteria, heavy metals, and oil and grease.

5. Water quality standards for oil and grease are not being currently met.

However, to address this noncompliance, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to

include, as part of this project, the installation of an exfiltration trench to

trap grease coming from the uplands. This trench will improve water quality,

causing a net improvement of water quality in the proposed project area.

6. Stormwater from the area, including a portion of U. S. Highway One and

parking areas within U. S. Highway One right-of-way, discharge directly into

Respondent Jupiter Hills. This stormwater then drains directly into tidal

waters. The exfiltration trench is designed to intercept up to three-fourths of

an inch of the stormwater flow currently draining into the basin.

7. The owners of Respondent Jupiter Hills will maintain the exfiltration

trench. They have signed a long-term agreement with Respondent DEP for the

maintenance of the trench, and the agreement is included in Respondent DEP's

Intent to Issue.

8. Water quality standards for fecal coliform are currently being met.

The construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing

compliance with these standards.

9. Respondent Jupiter Hills has proposed a sewage pump-out station which

is not currently in the area and which will encourage boaters to pump boat

sewage into the city treatment area instead of dumping the sewage into the

water. The pump-out station will be connected to the central sewage system, but

boaters will not be required to use the sewage pump-out station.

10. However, since liveaboards are more likely to cause fecal coliform

violations, Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed that no liveaboards will be

permitted in the proposed project.

11. Water quality standards for heavy metals are currently being met. The

construction of the proposed project will not preclude or prevent continuing

compliance with these standards.

12. Respondent Jupiter Hills proposes to use construction materials which

have not been treated by heavy metals.

13. Also, because the proposed project area flushes in one tidal cycle,

any additional metals from the boats themselves would be swept away quickly.

14. The proposed project will not adversely impact or affect the public

health, safety or welfare or the property of others.

15. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that water

quality standards will be met, continue to be met, and not violated. As a

result, the public health and safety are protected.

16. The proposed pump-out facility will reduce the incidences of illegal

head discharges into the Jupiter Sound. Thus, this facility will benefit the

health and safety of swimmers or others participating in water-related

activities in the Jupiter Sound.

17. The proposed project will not adversely affect the conservation of

fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their

habitats.

18. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to several measures designed to

reduce any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and the measures have been

incorporated into the Intent to Issue. Respondent Jupiter Hills has agreed to

not allow new power boats to dock at the proposed facility, which will prevent

adverse affects on the manatee population in the area. Additionally, the

proposed pump-out facility will improve the water quality, resulting in a

benefit to fish and wildlife, including the Benthic habitat and seagrasses.

Respondent Jupiter Hills has further agreed to install navigational signs,

directing boaters away from manatees, and no wake signs, indicating the presence

of manatees; these signs do not presently exist. Furthermore, Respondent

Jupiter Hills has agreed to post signs directing boaters away from any

seagrasses located in the proposed project area.

19. Whether seagrasses in the proposed project area will be adversely

affected is also a factor to be considered.

20. Inspections and surveys of the proposed project area in December 1992

and mid-March 1993 revealed one patch of Halophila decipiens and Halophila

johnsonii at the 100 foot contour but no seagrasses within the footprint of the

proposed project. A survey of the area in late April 1994 revealed some

seagrasses in the proposed project area but no seagrasses within the footprint

of the proposed project. In September 1995, an examination of the area revealed

Halophila decipiens just waterward of the existing slips down to the southern

property boundaries 20 to 30 feet wide and revealed sparse seagrasses

approximately 300 to 500 feet from the shoreline.

21. Halophila decipiens is more abundant and thick in the summer and tends

to die off and at its thinnest in the winter.

22. Neither Halophila decipiens nor Halophila johnsonii are threatened or

endangered species of seagrasses.

23. The seagrasses provide a significant environmental benefit. The

benefits include nutrient recycling in the area and providing habitat for

Benthic invertebrates, such as crabs, which are at the bottom of the food chain.

Also, other plants grow on the seagrasses, such as algae, and the other plants

provide food for other organisms.

24. Manatees eat several seagrasses, including Halophia decipiens but it

is not one of the manatees preferred seagrasses.

25. Seagrasses can be adversely affected in two ways. One way is that

prop dredging could scar the seagrasses. However, as to the proposed project,

the depth of the water in the area of the seagrasses will prevent any adverse

affects from prop dredging.

26. The second way that seagrasses can, and will, be adversely affected is

being shaded by the proposed dock or by boats tied-up to the dock. The density

of the seagrass, pertaining to this proposed project, is thin and low and

approximately one percent of actual coverage.

27. In determining whether the proposed project is clearly in the public

interest, Respondent DEP uses a balancing test which consists of taking the

public interest criteria and weighing the pros and cons of the proposed project.

Balancing the adverse impacts on the seagrasses and the positive effects of the

public interest criteria, the proposed project is clearly in the public

interest.

28. The slips in the proposed project will increase by 12; however, the

slips can only be used by sailboats. Since sailboats move slowly, the manatees

in the area will not be adversely affected by the proposed project.

29. Neither navigation nor the flow of water will be adversely affected by

the proposed project. Further, no harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by

the proposed project.

30. Adequate depths are off of the end of the dock for boats to safely

navigate. Shoaling is not a potential problem, and therefore, any potential

shoaling which may develop will not adversely affect navigation.

31. The proposed dock will not impact navigation into the Intracoastal

Waterway (ICW) because the dock will not extend into the ICW and because

Respondent Jupiter Hills will provide navigational aids to guide boaters to

access the Atlantic ICW. Furthermore, there is sufficient depth for navigation

between the end of the proposed dock and the sandbar where the seagrasses are

located.

32. Boat traffic coming from the south will primarily originate from the

residences to the south. The proposed dock will force these boaters 200 feet

offshore where the natural channel is located. Additionally, the dock will keep

boaters further offshore from the riparian land owners to the north, including

the Petitioners.

33. To improve the public interest aspects of the project, Respondent DEP

proposed that Respondent Jupiter Hills install riprap, which Respondent Jupiter

Hills agreed to do. Installation of the riprap will be 367 feet along the

perimeter of the proposed dock and in a 10 by 50 foot area along the bulkhead

north of the dock. Some shoaling will result but will not affect navigation.

The riprap will provide substrate and shelter for marine life.

34. The fishing or recreational values or marine productivity will not be

adversely affected by the proposed project.

35. Marine productivity will increase because the sewage pump-out station

will improve the water quality which will benefit the Benthic community.

36. The proposed project will be of a permanent nature.

37. Significant historical and archaeological resources will not be

adversely affected by the proposed project. The Department of State, which is

responsible for historical and archaeological resources, reviewed the Notice of

Intent and has no objection to the proposed project.

38. The current condition and relative value of functions being performed

by areas affected by the proposed project will be increased and, therefore,

benefited.

39. No cumulative impacts are associated with the proposed project.

40. The proposed project is not in an area of pristine shoreline; the area

is highly developed. Approximately 1,200 feet to the south of the proposed

project is a 270 foot dock with about 50 slips. When considered with the other

docks in the area, the extension of the dock in the proposed project will not

significantly or measurably further violate the water quality.

41. Respondent Jupiter Hills has provided reasonable assurance that the

proposed project is clearly in the public interest.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

42. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this proceeding and the parties thereto, pursuant to

Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

43. The issue of Petitioners' standing was not raised at hearing or in

Respondents' post-hearing submissions and is, therefore, not addressed. Even

assuming that standing is an issue, Petitioners have demonstrated that they have

standing. Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406

So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).

44. Respondent Jupiter Hills, as the applicant for the permit, has the

burden of demonstrating entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of

Transportation v. J. W. C. Company, Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

45. A permit from Respondent DEP is required for Respondent Jupiter Hills'

proposed project pursuant to Rule 62-312, Florida Administrative Code. This

Rule provides that a permit from Respondent DEP must be obtained if dredging or

filling is to be conducted in state waters, unless otherwise exempted by statute

or rule. As the proposed project involves placing of piling and riprap in

waters of the state, the proposed project involves filling as defined by

Subsection 373.403(14), Florida Statutes, and Rule 62-312.020(11), Florida

Administrative Code. No exemption is provided by statute or rule.

46. Section 373.414, Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:

(1) As part of an applicant's demonstration

that an activity regulated under this part will

not be harmful to the water resources or will

not be inconsistent with the overall objectives

of the district, the governing board or the

department shall require the applicant to

provide reasonable assurance that state water

quality standards applicable to waters...will

not be violated and reasonable assurance that

such activity in, on, or over surface waters

or wetlands...is not contrary to the public

interest. However, if such an activity

significantly degrades or is within an Outstand-

ing Florida Water, as provided by department rule,

the applicant must provide reasonable assurance

that the proposed activity will be clearly in

the public interest.

(a) In determining whether an activity, which

is in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands...

and is regulated under this part, is not contrary

to the public interest or is clearly in the public

interest, the governing board or the department

shall consider and balance the following criteria:

1. Whether the activity will adversely affect

the public health, safety, or welfare or the

property of others;

2. Whether the activity will adversely affect

the conservation of fish and wildlife, including

endangered or threatened species, or their habitats;

3. Whether the activity will adversely affect

navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful

erosion or shoaling;

4. Whether the activity will adversely affect

the fishing or recreational values or marine

productivity in the vicinity of the activity;

5. Whether the activity will be of a temporary

or permanent nature;

6. Whether the activity will adversely affect

or will enhance significant historical and

archaeological resources under the provisions

of s. 267.061; and

7. The current condition and relative value

of functions being performed by areas affected

by the proposed activity.

(b) If the applicant is unable to otherwise

meet the criteria set forth in this subsection,

the governing board or the department, in deciding

to grant or deny a permit, shall consider measures

proposed by or acceptable to the applicant to

mitigate adverse effects which may be caused by

the regulated activity. If the applicant is unable

to meet water quality standards because existing

ambient water quality does not meet standards,

the governing board or the department shall consider

mitigation measures proposed by the applicant that

cause net improvement of the water quality in the

receiving body of water for those parameters which

do not meet standards.

47. Rule 62-312.080(1), Florida Administrative Code, prohibits Respondent

DEP from issuing a permit unless the applicant has provided reasonable assurance

based on plans, test results or other information that the proposed project will

not violate water quality standards.

48. Respondent Jupiter Hills has demonstrated that it has provided

reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not cause water quality

violations.

49. Respondent Jupiter Hills has demonstrated that it has provided

reasonable assurance that the proposed project is clearly within the public

interest.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue a final

order issuing Permit No. 432170499 to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina.

DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County,

Florida.

___________________________________

ERROL H. POWELL, Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 8th day of April, 1996.

APPENDIX

The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact:

Petitioners Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1.

2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3.

3. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2.

4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2.

5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10.

6. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.

7. See, conclusion of law 43. Also, partially accepted in

findings of fact 19-27, 34-35.

8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4.

9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5.

10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6.

11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7.

12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

13. Rejected as being unnecessary. Also, see finding of

fact 18.

14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10.

15. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8, 9, and 10.

16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

17. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13.

18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11.

19. See, conclusion of law 46.

20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 16.

21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18.

22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18.

23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31.

24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28.

25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29 and 30.

26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31.

27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33.

28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37.

30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36.

31. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law.

32. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law.

33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23.

34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23.

35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24.

36. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.

37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20.

38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20.

39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20.

40. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

41. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

42. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20.

43. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

44. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 21.

45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26.

46. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 20.

47. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20.

48. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight

of the evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law.

49. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

50. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

51. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

52. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of

the evidence, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

53. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

54. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19-27.

55. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

56. Rejectd as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

57. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

58. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

59. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or

a conclusion of law.

Respondent Jupiter Hills' Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1.

2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1.

3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2.

4. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2.

5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13.

6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13.

7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 30 and 31.

8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14.

9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17.

10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29.

11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34.

12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36.

13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13.

14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38.

15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39.

16. Partially accepted in findings of fact 29, 30 and 33.

17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31.

18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15.

19. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4, 5, 8, and 11.

20. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5 and 6.

21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

22. Partially accepted in findings of fact 5, 8, and 9.

23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9.

26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16.

27. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9, 14, 15, and 16.

28. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18, 24, and 27.

29. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18 and 28.

30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28.

31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18.

32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22.

33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21.

34. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26.

35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26.

36. Partially accepted in findings of fact 20 and 26.

37. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.

38. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion

of law.

39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27.

40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27.

41. Rejected as being argument, or a conclusion of law.

42. Rejected as being unnecessary, argument, or a conclusion

of law.

43. Rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, argument, or a

conclusion of law.

44. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25.

45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33

46. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33.

47. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40.

48. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.

49. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.

50. Rejected as being irrelevant, or unnecessary.

51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10.

52. Rejected as being unnecessary, or a conclusion of law.

53. Partially accepted in findings of fact 27 and 41.

Respondent DEP's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1.

2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2.

3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3.

4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4.

5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5.

6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6.

7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7.

8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8.

9. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 and 10.

10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11.

11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12 and 13.

12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15.

13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14.

14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15.

15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16.

16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17.

17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18.

18. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20.

19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20.

20. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20.

21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20.

22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21.

23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22.

24. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25 and 26.

25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26.

26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26.

27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27.

28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27.

29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28.

30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29.

31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30.

32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31.

33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32.

34. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33.

35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33.

36. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34.

37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35

38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36.

39. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37.

40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37.

41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38.

42. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39.

43. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40.

44. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41.

NOTE: Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the

remainer has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, cumulative, not

supported by the evidence presented, not supported by the greater weight of the

evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law.

COPIES FURNISHED:

J. A. Jurgens, Esquire

Post Office Box 1178

Winter Park, Florida 32790-1178

Timothy C. Laubach, Esquire

Sears and Manuel, P.A.

1218 Mount Vernon Street

Orlando, Florida 32803

M.Tracy Biagiotti, Esquire

Scott Hawkins, Esquire

Jones, Foster, Johnston

& Stubbs, P.A.

Post Office Box 3475

West Palm Beach, Florida 33402

(Attorney for Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina)

Lynette L. Ciardulli

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Douglas MacLaughlin

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400

Kenneth Plante

General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

Douglas Building

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection

Douglas Building

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended

order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit

written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final

order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions

to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be

filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.