STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SECRET OAKS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-0863

) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )

now known as DEPARTMENT OF )

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, )

)

Respondent, )

and )

) MARTIN PARLATO and LINDA PARLATO, )

)

Intervenors. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Upon due notice, this cause came on for formal hearing on May 5, 1993, in St. Augustine, Florida, before Ella Jane P. Davis, a duly assigned hearing officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ronald W. Brown, Esquire

Dobson & Christensen

66 Cuna Street, Suite B

St. Augustine, Florida 32084

For Respondent: Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire

and John Chaves, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-240

For Intervenors: Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire

Brant, Moore, Sapp, McDonald & Wells Post Office Box 4548

50 North Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32201

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether or not Petitioner should be granted a dredge and fill permit for construction of a multi-family dock in either of the two configurations proposed in its application filed pursuant to Section 403.918 Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 18, 1992, Petitioner Secret Oaks Owners Association applied for a dredge and fill permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER). Petitioner's application proposed alternative configurations, an elbow dock or, in the alternative, a dock going straight out on the St. Johns River in St. Johns County, Florida. The application was submitted pursuant to Rules 17-

1. and 17-312 Florida Administrative Code and Section 403.918 Florida Statutes. The permit application was filed in the wake of circuit court litigation which is detailed within this recommended order only to the extent necessary.

   
   

   On January 23, 1993, DER issued a notice of denial. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S., which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.

   
   

   On April 21, 1993, Martin Parlato and Linda Parlato, his wife, filed a verified petition to intervene which was granted at the commencement of formal hearing on May 5, 1993.

   
   

   DER's Motion in Limine, filed April 26, 1993, which requested that Petitioner not be permitted to present evidence regarding the purchase price of the lots in the Secret Oaks Subdivision, any potential liability of Intervenors for conversion and trespass for removal of a previously existing connecting dock, the ownership or control of a named easement, or whether or not the removed connecting dock constituted an improvement to a preexisting structure, was argued orally at the commencement of formal hearing. After stipulations that for purposes of this application, DER does not assert an issue as to the status of the easement, or ownership or control thereof by the applicant, the Motion in Limine was withdrawn.

   
   

   At formal hearing, Patrick Fugeman, Bill McGill, Jeremy Tyler, Thomas L. Wiley, Martin Parlato, and Linda Parlato testified. Petitioner had four exhibits admitted in evidence. DER had four exhibits admitted in evidence.

   Intervenors had three exhibits admitted in evidence.

   
   

   No transcript was provided, but all timely filed proposed findings of fact have been ruled upon in this recommended order, pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes.

   
   

   FINDINGS OF FACT

   
   

   1. Petitioner Secret Oaks Owners' Association, Inc. is a not-for-profit Florida corporation with its principal place of business in First Cove, St. Johns County, Florida.

      
      

   2. DER is the State agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing permits under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and its applicable rules.

      
      

   3. Martin Parlato and his wife Linda Parlato are the owners of, and reside on, Lot 10, Secret Oaks Subdivision, First Cove, St. Johns County, Florida.

      They have standing as Intervenors herein under the following facts as found.

   4. Petitioner claims rights to dredge and fill pursuant to an easement lying along the southerly boundary of Lot 10 in Secret Oaks Subdivision, which is a platted subdivision in St. Johns County, Florida. The easement runs up to and borders the St. Johns River, a tidal and navigable river in St. Johns County, Florida.

      
      

   5. Petitioner filed an application for dredge and fill permit with DER on September 18, 1992. The dock was proposed to be five feet wide and 620 feet long including a 20 foot by 10 foot terminal platform and six associated mooring pilings.

      
      

   6. On November 3, 1992, the Petitioner filed an alternative proposal with DER. That submission proposed construction of an "L" shaped walkway into the St. Johns River to connect the easement with an existing private dock to the north, which dock is owned by the Intervenors. The walkway is proposed to be five feet wide and may extend approximately 80 feet into the river, and then turn north and run parallel to the shoreline a distance of 41 feet to connect with the existing dock. Additionally, the existing dock would be reclassified as multi-family and four mooring pilings would be placed on the south side of the terminal platform.

      
      

   7. It is undisputed that a DER permit is necessary to construct either dock requested by Petitioner. While Petitioner sought to create an issue regarding a dock that once was located emanating from the easement and connecting with the present dock emanating from Lot 10 in a configuration similar to the Petitioner's proposed auxiliary dock configuration, the previous dock was never permitted and would be subject to DER rules and potential removal orders if it still existed, unless some "grandfathering" legislation or rule protected the structure. No such "grandfather" protections have been affirmatively demonstrated. Instead, it was orally asserted, without any corroborating circuit court orders, that after Petitioner prevailed over Intervenors in circuit court on various real property, riparian rights, and property damage issues due to Intervenors' removal of the old dock, the circuit court had conditioned further relief upon Petitioner obtaining the necessary DER permit.

      
      

   8. In its Notice of Permit Denial dated January 22, 1993, DER stated several reasons why reasonable assurances had not been given by Petitioners that water quality would not be violated and that the project was not contrary to the public interest, and further stated, by way of explaining how the permit might still be granted, that,

      
      

      "Compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 17- 312.080(1) and (2) can be achieved for either proposal by complying with the following requirements:

      
      

      1. Determine the legal status of the easement to establish ownership and control;

      2. Design a structure to provide a sufficient number

         of slips to accommodate all members in sufficient depth of water so that the grassbeds will not be disturbed by boating activity, or specifically limit only the area of the dock in water greater than three feet to be utilized for mooring boats or boating activity and record this action in a long-term and enforceable agreement with the Department;

      3. Obtain documentation from adjacent landowners that demonstrates they fully recognize and consent to the extent of activity which may occur in the water by either proposal (i.e., single dock or access walkway).

      
      

   9. Subsequent to the denial of Petitioner's application, Petitioner and DER representatives met and discussed DER's recommendations for reasonable assurances outlined in the Notice of Permit Denial. DER representatives have also orally recommended alternatives for hiring a dock-master or creating assigned boat slips, but DER has received no formal submissions of information from the Petitioner. All of Petitioner's and DER's proposals have not been reduced to writing. No long-term enforceable agreement as proposed by DER in the Notice of Permit Denial has been drafted.

      
      

   10. The project site is located on the eastern shore of the St. Johns River, three-quarters of a mile north of Cunningham Creek and one mile south of Julington Creek, at First Cove, a small residential community in the extreme northwest of St. Johns County, where the St. Johns River is approximately 2.5 miles wide.

       
       

   11. Located at the proposed project site are submerged grass beds (eel grass) that extend from approximately 100 feet to 450 feet into the St. Johns River in depths of two to three feet of water.

       
       

   12. The water at the proposed project site is classified as Class III Waters suitable for recreational use and fishing, but the area is not listed as an Outstanding Florida Water.

       
       

   13. The grass beds at the proposed project site are important for the conservation of fish and wildlife and the productivity of the St. Johns River. They provide detritus for support of the aquatic based food chain and they provide a unique, varied, and essential feeding and nursery habitat for aquatic organisms. They are valuable for the propagation of fish. Endangered West Indian manatees seasonally graze on the eel grass in this locale during their annual migrations.

       
       

   14. Absent the replacement of the auxiliary dock, lot owners' primary access to the larger dock is by swimming or boating from the upland of the pedestrian easement to the larger dock. This can mean sporadic interaction with the eel grass. However, DER's experts are not so much concerned with the individual and occasional usages of Petitioner's lot owners but with the type of activity common to human beings in congregate situations encouraged by multi- family docks.

       
       

   15. The proposed construction of the auxiliary dock does not intrude on the eel grass as the dock does not extend 100 feet from the upland. The grassbeds end some 200 feet east of the west end of the dock. DER experts testified that the time-limited turbidity and scouring associated with construction of either proposed configuration would have very minimal impact, but the continual increased turbidity of the water over the eel grass to be anticipated from multi-family use of either dock may detrimentally affect juvenile aquatic life and the Manatees' feeding ground.

       
       

   16. The auxiliary dock as proposed provides no facilities for docking watercraft. The permit application provides for a maximum of four facilities for docking watercraft, presumably by tying up to four end buoys.

   17. Petitioner intends or anticipates that only four boats would ever dock at one time under either configuration because of planned arrangements for them to tie up and due to an Easement and Homeowners Agreement and Declaration recorded in the public records of the county. Among other restrictions, the Agreement and Declaration limits dock use and forbids jet ski use.1

       
       

   18. The permit application seeks a multi

       alternative dock construction. Petitioner intends to control the use of the dock(s) only by a "good neighbor policy" or "bringing the neighborhood conscience to bear." Such proposals are more aspirational than practical.

       Petitioner also cites its Secret Oaks Owners' Agreement, which only Petitioner (not DER) could enforce and which Petitioner would have to return to circuit court to enforce. Petitioner has proposed to DER that it will limit all boating and water activity to the westward fifty feet of the larger dock, prohibit all boating and water activity on the auxiliary dock, and place warning signs on the docks indicating the limits of permissible activity, but Petitioner has not demonstrated that it will provide any mechanism that would insure strict compliance with the limited use restrictions placed on the homeowners in Secret Oaks by their homeowners' restrictive covenant. Testimony was elicited on behalf of Petitioner that Petitioner has posted and will post warning signs and will agree to monitoring by DER but that employing a dock master is not contemplated by Petitioner, that creating individual assigned docking areas is not contemplated by Petitioner, and that there has been no attempt by Petitioner to draft a long term agreement with DER, enforceable by DER beyond the permit term.

       
       

   19. The purpose of the dock is to provide access to the St. Johns River for the members of the Secret Oaks Owners' Association which includes owners of all sixteen lots, their families, and social invitees. Although there are currently only three or four houses on the sixteen lots, there is the potential for sixteen families and their guests to simultaneously use any multi-family dock. Although all sixteen lot owners do not currently own or operate boats, that situation is subject to change at any time, whenever a boat owner buys a home or lot or whenever a lot owner buys a boat. All lots are subject to alienation by conveyance at any time. It is noted that this community is still developing and therefore anecdotal observations of boating inactivity among homeowners before the old dock was torn down are of little weight.

       
       

   20. No practical mechanism has been devised to limit homeowners' use of the dock(s) if a multi-family permit is issued.

       
       

   21. Also, no practical mechanism has been devised to exclude any part of the boating community at large from docking there.

       
       

   22. Thomas Wiley, a DER biologist, accepted without objection as an expert in the environmental impacts of dredge and fill activities, and Jeremy Tyler, Environmental Administrator for DER's Northeast District, also accepted without objection as an expert in environmental impacts of dredge and fill activities, each visited the site prior to formal hearing. They concurred that the application to construct the 620 foot long dock presented the potential for a number of boats to be moored or rafted at the pier at any one time, particularly weekends and holidays, and that multiple moorings might greatly exceed the capacity intended by Petitioner. Wiley and Tyler further testified, without refutation, that over-docking of boats could hinder or block the use of the waters landward of the terminal structures by adjoining property owners. Congregations of power boats at marinas and facilities designated for multi- family use also pose a threat to the endangered West Indian manatees.

   23. With regard to alternative two of the application to reconstruct the unpermitted "L" shaped walkway, such a configuration would extend 80 feet of the "mean high water line", then run 41 feet parallel to the shoreline of Lot 10 before attaching to the existing pier and that the parallel portion of the walkway lies immediately adjacent to, and inshore of, the extensive submerged grass beds. According to Wiley and Tyler, it can reasonably be expected that boaters would utilize this walkway as a convenient boat loading/off

       facility rather than walking to and from the terminal end of the existing 620 foot long dock. Water depths vary from two to three feet offshore of the proposed structure, and the operation of boats, jet-skis, and other watercraft would result in prop scouring of the silt/sand bottom and damage to grass bed areas, degrading water quality and adversely impacting important habitat areas.

       
       

   24. The DER experts concluded that the applicant had not provided reasonable assurances that the proposed structures would not cause hindrances to ingress and egress or the recreational use of State waters by adjacent property owners, including Intervenors at Lot 10, that grass habitat areas will not be adversely impacted or inshore water quality will not be degraded by boating and related activity.

       
       

   25. The potential for intensive use of either of the proposed docks could result in a large number of boats and/or water activity at and around the docks. Submerged grass beds occur in waters generally less than three feet deep in areas near the docks. Any boating activity landward of 450 feet from the shore could seriously damage the extensive grass beds that occur there. Boating activity is likely to occur in the areas of the grassbeds if a number of boats are using the dock(s) at the same time or if a boater desires to minimize the length of dock to be walked, in order to reach the uplands. That damage is expected to be from prop dredging and resuspension of bottom sediments onto adjacent grasses.

       
       

   26. Upon the evidence as a whole, the project is neutral as to the public health, safety, welfare, and property of others, except to the extent it impacts the Intervenors as set out above.

       
       

   27. The anticipated increase in water-based activities around the proposed dock(s) will cause shifting, erosion and souring that can be harmful to the adjacent grass beds.

       
       

   28. The anticipated increase in water based activities around the proposed dock will adversely affect marine productivity because the clarity of the water in the area of the grass beds will be decreased.

       
       

   29. The project may be either temporary or permanent but should be presumed permanent.

       
       

   30. The project does not affect any significant historical or archeological resources.

       
       

   31. The current condition of the eel grass beds in the area is lush and valuable as a fish and wildlife habitat.

       
       

   32. In the course of formal hearing, DER witnesses testified that absent any disturbance of the grassbeds, DER would have no complaints about either proposed project configuration.

   33. After considering and balancing the above criteria, it is found that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project in either form would not violate state water quality standards and that it would not be contrary to the public interest.

       
       

       CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

       
       

   34. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this cause pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

       
       

   35. DER has permitting jurisdiction under Chapter 403 F.S., chapters 17- 301, 17-302 and 17-312 Florida Administrative Code, and Water Quality Certification under Section 401 of Public Law 92-500, over dredge and fill activities conducted in or connected to waters of the State.

       
       

   36. The St. Johns River constitutes waters of the State in which the Department has dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 17- 312.030(2)(d) Florida Administrative Code.

       
       

   37. The project proposed by the Petitioner is not exempt from permitting procedures.

       
       

   38. Petitioner has raised numerous issues related to real property rights that are irrelevant and immaterial to this administrative proceeding. See, Miller v. DER, 504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). To the extent these issues are based on putative non

       uncorroborated and unreliable hearsay and are of no probative value here. See, Section 120.58(1) Florida Statutes; Dykes v. Quincy Telephone Company, 539 So.2d 503, (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

       
       

   39. The permit applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not violate DER standards. See, Rules 17-4.070(1), 17-103. 130(1)(a) Florida Administrative Code, and J.W.C. v. Department of Transportation and Department of Environmental Regulation, 396 So.2d 778, 787 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

       
       

   40. The evidence adduced at formal hearing supports the conclusion that Petitioner has failed to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest.

       
       

   41. Petitioner's construction of 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), which it has cited to the effect that absent direct, quantified evidence from DER concerning the productivity of the wildlife habitat in the grassbeds, the proposed auxiliary dock and multi-family use permits have not been shown to adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats and therefore the permit must be granted, misconstrues the burden of proof as clearly established in the instant type of case. The 1800 Atlantic Developers case is clearly distinguishable from the situation herein. As a matter of law, 1800 Atlantic Developers was limited to a private development within the boundaries of a beach erosion control project within an Outstanding Florida Water which was required to affirmatively demonstrate that it was clearly in the public interest, in part due to mitigating factors, but which was not required to demonstrate a specific net public need or benefit. That case did not shift the burden of proof from the Petitioner under the instant circumstances and applicable standards. Also,

       on the merits of the instant case, the aquatic benefit of the eel grass to marine life has been clearly presented herein, as has the potential for harm posed by either dock configuration with a multi-family permit.

       
       

   42. 1800 Atlantic Developers did require that the agency notify Petitioner of modifications to its application which could render the project permittable. DER's Notice of Permit Denial in the instant case provided Petitioner with several such conditions which would allow the granting of a permit. If Petitioner had elected to comply with these conditions, the project would have been permittable, but Petitioner never formally attempted to comply with any. Although some of the Petitioner's and DER's subsequent oral negotiations were explored in the course of the formal hearing, all of them were not reduced to writing nor described in sufficient detail at formal hearing to show that there had been a meeting of the minds between Petitioner applicant and expert agency personnel. In this type of situation, the hearing officer is not free to define which, if any, changes could, or should, be substituted for DER's original recommendations.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the permit application be denied without prejudice to future applications.

RECOMMENDED this 28th day of July, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida.

ELLA JANE P. DAVIS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1993.

ENDNOTES

/1 The ASSOCIATION was organized pursuant to the provisions of the Secret Oaks Owners' Agreement (hereinafter "AGREEMENT") executed in March 1991 and recorded at Official Records Book 891, Page 0489 of the Official Records of St. Johns County, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3).

Article V, Sections 2, 6, 11 and 12 of the AGREEMENT provide as follows: (Petitioner's Exhibit 3).

"2. The first instrument forming the declaration creates a nonexclusive and perpetual easement over portions of Lots 10 and 11, as more particularly described in the Declaration, for the purpose of allowing ingress and egress to and from the Dock and all sixteen (16) Lots. That easement is ratified and continued by the making of this contract. Nothing in the making of this contract shall be construed to

expand the easement area described in the Declaration or to otherwise grant, or to otherwise authorize unlicensed or unauthorized trespasses upon Lots 10 and

11. The easement is clarified so that it is understood that it is over, under, in and through the Dock as well as the portions of Lots 10 and 11 described in the Declaration. The beneficiaries of that easement are the following:

1. All present and future fee simple Owners of Lots 1 through 16, inclusive.

2. All of the members of the families of all of those Owners.

3. All social invitees of all of those Owners.

4. All tenants of all of those Owners.

5. All of the members of the families of all of those tenants.

6. All of the social invitees of all of those tenants.

7. All governmental agencies having jurisdiction.

8. All public and private providers of health, safety, fire and police service.

6. At all times, the dock shall be used by the named beneficiaries only, in a reasonable manner and so as to avoid the creation of a nuisance for the Owners of Lots

10 and 11. From time to time, but only in conformity with the expressed terms of this contract, the Board of Directors of the Association may adopt reasonable ruled and regulations controlling the use of the Dock so as to prohibit specific conduct, which by experience has been shown to be an unreasonable use and a nuisance.

1. Any beneficiary named in paragraph 3 of this section V shall be entitled to moor a boat to the Dock on a temporary basis, but the boat cannot remain tied to the dock for more than seven (7) consecutive calendar days. The number of boats concurrently tied to the Dock cannot exceed the safe use of the Dock. No person shall be entitled to stay overnight on the Dock or in a boat tied to the Dock. When, if ever, the Association installs the above referenced, two dolphin pilings, then all boats permitted to be tied up under this provision shall be tied to the dolphin pilings rather than to the dock.

2. Jet skis shall not be allowed to utilize the Dock, and, additionally, they shall not be launched from the easement area."

The Declaration, Grant of Easements, Assessments for Secret Oaks Subdivision (hereinafter "DECLARATION"), recorded at Official Records Book 745, Page 0702 of the Public Records of St. Johns County, Florida provides as follows in Paragraph

1 thereof:

"The Developer hereby grants to the present and future owners of all of the lots in said subdivision and to the fee simple owner from time to time of the 120' x 182' parcel of land lying easterly of Lot 15 of said subdivision and to their guests and lessees and other persons authorized by any such owner, a nonexclusive, perpetual, and releaseable easement on, over, long, and across those portions of Lots 10 and 11 of said subdivision which are subject to the 20' drainage

easement as shown on said plat and running from Secret Oaks Place westwardly to the St. Johns River for the purpose of pedestrian access to and from the lots in said subdivision and said other parcel and the St.

Johns River and any dock now or hereafter located thereon and for the use and enjoyment of any such dock and any other improvements now or hereafter constructed within said easement by the Developer or by the owners, as hereinafter authorized. The provisions of this paragraph shall not be deemed to be or imply any dedication of said easement or of said dock, if any, or of any other improvements to any person not designated herein or to St. Johns county or to the public."

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2060

The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF).

Petitioner's PFOF:

1-5 Accepted.

6-7 Accepted that a dock existed but dates testified to were vague and inconclusive. Findings as proposed are not necessary or dispositive.

8-10 Accepted but unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative.

1. Covered as necessary. Not entirely proven. Partially uncorroborated hearsay. No circuit court orders are among the exhibits.

2. Immaterial.

13-15 Covered as necessary. Not entirely proven. Partially uncorroborated hearsay.

16-17 Accepted.

18 Unnecessary or subordinate. 19-23 Accepted.

24 Rejected as not dispositive based upon cumulative effect described in the facts as found in the recommended order.

25-30 Rejected as not supported by the record and as misconstruing the burdens herein. By its nature, much of environmental permitting is grounded in reasonable prognostication based upon prior observation and experience. Covered as necessary.

31 Accepted.

32-37 Accepted but unnecessary or subordinate and non- dispositive. Covered as necessary.

38-41 Accepted.

42 Accepted but unnecessary or subordinate.

DER's PFOF:

1-9 Accepted.

10-12 Accepted that the pre-denial reports stated this.

However, sworn testimony in the de novo proceeding based in part on observations after denial and before formal hearing have been utilized instead.

14-26 Accepted.

Intervenors' PFOF:

1-5 Accepted.

6 Rejected as argument or balancing of testimony. Not a proposal of fact.

7-8 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative.

9 Rejected as legal argument.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Ronald W. Brown, Esquire Dobson & Christensen

66 Cuna Street, Suite B St. Augustine, FL 32084

Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire and John Chaves

Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building

2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400

Sidney F. Ansbacher, Esquire

Brant, Moore, Sapp, McDonald & Wells Post Office Box 4548

50 North Laura Street Jacksonville, Florida 32201

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 10 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.

Docket for Case No: 93-000863

Orders for Case No: 93-000863