14-003904 Tomm Friend; Derek Lamontagne; Turnbull Community, Inc.; And Friends Of Spruce Creek Preserve, Inc. vs. Pioneer Community Development District And St. Johns River Water Management District Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, March 12, 2015.

Summary: Petitioners failed to prove that Pioneer CDD was not entitled to the environmental resource permit for the proposed extension of Williamson Boulevard in the City of Port Orange.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

TOMM FRIEND; DEREK LAMONTAGNE;

TURNBULL BAY COMMUNITY, INC.;

AND FRIENDS OF SPRUCE CREEK

PRESERVE, INC.,

Petitioners,

vs. Case No. 14 - 3904

PIONEER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DISTRICT AND ST. JOHNS RIVER

WATER MANAG EMENT DISTRICT,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this case was held on November 18 and

19, 2014, in Daytona Beach, Florida, before Bram D.E. Canter,

Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner s : Christopher Thomas Byrd, Esquire

The Byrd Law Group

3505 Lake Lynda Drive, Suite 200

Orlando, Flo rida 32817

For Respondent Pioneer Community Development District :

Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire

Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.

245 Riverside Avenue, Suite 150

Jacks onville, Florida 32202 - 4931

For Respondent St. Johns River Water Management District:

Kealey A. West, Esquire

St. Johns River Water Management District

4049 Reid Street

Palatka, Florida 32177

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined in this case is whether Pioneer

Community Development District (ÐPioneerÑ) is entitled to an

individual environmental resource permit (ÐERPÑ) from St. Johns

River Water M anagement District (ÐDistrictÑ) for construction of

a proposed road.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 2, 2014, the District issued an ERP to Pioneer ,

authorizing construction of a road. Petitioners filed a petition

for administrative hearing with the Distric t to challenge the

permit. The District referred the petition to DOAH to conduct an

evidentiary hearing.

Petitioners presented the testimony of: Derek LaMontagne;

Lorelle Friend; Dr. Eric Hill; Lawrence Evans, accepted as an

expert in wetland mitigation and surface water management; Shawn

Collins, accepted as an expert in transportation and traffic

planning; Gerald Brinton, Volusia County Engineer; Lauretta

Menendez, accepted as an expert in environmental and occupational

public health, water science, and road and pipeline construction;

and Tomm Friend. PetitionersÓ Exhibits 1, 10, 13, 18, 20, 24 - 25,

28, 38 - 40, 44, 52, 54, and 56 were admitted into evidence.

Pioneer presented the testimony of: Gerald Brinton, Volusia

County Engineer; Michelle Borton, acc epted as an expert in

stormwater system design, stormwater engineering, and engineering

design associated with road construction; and Dr. Michael Dennis,

accepted as an expert in wetlan d science. Pioneer Exhibits 1 - 2,

7, 10 - 11, and 17 were admitted into e vidence.

The District presented the testimony of: Margie Cook,

accepted as an expert in water resources engineering; Cameron

Dewey, accepted as an expert in water resources engineering; and

Michelle Reiber, accepted as an expert in environmental science,

wetland and wildlife eco logy, and wetland delineation. District

Exhibits 1 - 49 were admitted into evidence.

Petitioners filed an ÐExhibit AÑ after the final hearing.

No objection was raised by Respondents. The e xhibit is a part of

the application file fo r the ERP and, therefore, is admitted into

evidence.

The five - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

with DOAH. The parties submitted proposed recommended orders

that were considered in the preparation of this Recommended

Order.

FINDING S OF FA CT

T he Parties

1. Petitioner Tomm Friend is a resident and landowner in

Volusia County. He uses the Doris Leeper Spruce Creek Preserve

(ÐPreserveÑ) for kayaking, canoeing, biking, horseback riding,

and observation of flora and fauna.

2 . Petitioner Derek LaMontagne is a resident and landowner

in Volusia County. He uses the Preserve for hiking, biking, and

nature photography.

3. P etitioner/Intervenor Turnbull Bay Community, Inc.

(ÐTurnbull BayÑ) , is a Florida non - profit corporation. Its

mission is to pr omote a sense of community and preserve the

quality of life enjoyed by its residents. It was stipulated that

a substantial number of Turnbull BayÓs members use the Preserve

for hiking, biking, fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature

photography.

4 . Petit ioner/Intervenor Friends of Spruce Creek Preserve,

Inc. (ÐFriends, Inc.Ñ) is a Florida non - profit corporation. Its

purpose is to promote the acquisition of lands for the Preserve

and promote long - term protection and sound management of the

Preserve. It w as stipulated that a substantial number of

Friends, Inc.Ós members use the Preserve for hiking, biking,

fishing, canoeing, kayaking, and nature photography.

5 . Respondent Pioneer is a Community Development D istrict

(ÐCDDÑ) created by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory

Commission (ÐFLWACÑ) under chapter 190, Florida Statutes.

Pioneer is the applicant for the ERP .

6 . Respondent District is an independent special district

of the State of Florida created, granted powers, and assigned

duties under chapte r 373, Florida Statutes, including powers and

duties related to the regulation of construction activities that

affect wetlands. The proposed road is within the boundaries of

the District.

The Proposed Road

7 . Pioneer proposes to construct an exten sion of W illiamson

Boulevard from its current terminus near Airport Road southward

to Pioneer Trail. The road would be constructed on property

owned by Pioneer in the City of Port Orange . P ioneerÓs interest

in constructing the road is to facilitate the developm ent of the

property.

8 . L ong - term plans by Volusia County have called for the

phased extension of Williamson Boulevard to the far south part of

the County . The road would serve County objectives of creating

an alternate route between the cities of Port O range and New

Smyrna Beach to relieve traffic on I - 95, and connecting

Williamson Boulevard to a large development in the south called

Farmton.

9 . Pioneer entered into an agreement with Volusia County to

design, engineer, and finance the construction of th e road.

After complet ion, the road would be purchased by the County .

1 0 . In the ERP application, the proposed road is described

as Ð2.3 miles of county roadway within a 130 - foot right - of - way

. . . in order to accommodate four travel lanes with on - road bi ke

lanes, [a] closed drainage system, [a] 22 - foot wide curbed and

grassed median, and a minimum 5 - foot wide sidewalk on each side

of the road. The existing two - lane roadway south of Airport Road

will be widened to four lanes.Ñ

Existing Site Conditions

1 1 . The parcel of land through which the road wo uld be

built is approximately 722 acres . It consists primarily of mesic

pine forest uplands and cypress swamp wetlands.

12. The parcel is along the west side of I - 95, east of

PioneerÓs existing Cypresshead re sidential development. Across

I - 95 is the Preserve. The parcel is within the Spruce Creek

Hydrologic Basin .

13. The wetlands located on the west side of the parcel are

in Ðnear - pristineÑ condition. They have healthy hydric periods

and ecological functi ons. These high value wetlands would be

avoided by the proposed road alignment .

14. The wetlands located o n the east and south sides of the

parcel are of lower quality because of human disturbance,

including past silvicultur al activities. These wetland s are

partially drained and their ecological functions are diminished.

1 5 . All of the wetlands on the parcel currently drain to

Spruce Creek , some through culverts under I - 95.

1 6 . Petitioners contend a section of the old ÐKings

Highway Ñ runs across the p arcel and is a historical resource that

would be adversely affected by construction of the proposed road.

However, Pioneer co nducted an archaeological and historical

survey of the parcel and determined the proposed road project

would have no effect on cul tural resources either listed or

eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places .

What Petitioners refer to as ÐKings HighwayÑ is the Ð Fort

Kingsbury to Smyrna Road. Ñ The survey concluded that th is road

no longer has historical physical integrity or can Ð convey its

historical significance. Ñ The Division of Historical Resources

within the Florida Department of State reviewed the survey

findings and concurred.

Impacts to Wetlands

17. A little more than 79 acres will be impacted by the

pro posed road, including 22.2 acres of wetlands.

1 8 . The proposed road would not follow a straight line. An

alignment was chosen to minimize impacts to wetlands. PioneerÓs

consultants explored approximately a dozen different alignments

for the road before selecting the current proposed alignment.

1 9 . The alignment extend s east from its current terminus

toward I - 95, then run s south approximately parallel to I - 95, and

then turn s back to the southwest to connect to Pioneer Trail.

More than a third of the pro posed roadÓs path would occur in

disturbed land that was cleared, filled, and is regularly mowed

under a power line and otherwise hugs I - 95. The east edge of the

road would lie within 100 to 125 feet of the west margin of the

I - 95 pavement.

20 . There ar e Ðstub - outsÑ planned for the road in

anticipation of future streets. They are proposed for locations

that avoid the need for additional wetland impacts.

2 1 . Petitioners argue the road should be limited to two

lanes because that would reduce wetland impa cts. However,

Williamson Boulevard north of Airport R oad is a four - lane road.

The segment of Williamson from Airport Road to its current

terminus is two - lane, but was built on a wide right - of - way in

anticipation of a future expansion to four - lanes.

2 2 . The CountyÓs plans for Williamson Boulevard call for

f our l ane s all the way to the ultimate southern terminus at

Farmton .

2 3 . Petitioners suggested that building an elevated pier -

supported road would lessen wetland impacts. However,

Petitioners did not p resent persuasive evidence that such a

design was necessary or practicable. They presented no details.

Mitigation of Impacts

2 4 . Pioneer proposes to purchase a total of 44.6 wetland

mitigation bank credits t o mitigate for the 22.2 acres of wetland

impact s that would be caused by construction of the road and

stormwater management system.

2 5 . The credits would be purchased from two separate

wetland mitigation banks: the Farmton North Mitigation Bank and

the Port Orange Mitigation Bank. These mitigation b anks support

wetland resources similar to those that would be impacted by the

road.

2 6 . Petitioners contend that, because the mitigation ban ks

are not in the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin , Pioneer would not

be providing adequate mitigation. The mitigatio n banks are

located within the Halifax River Mitigation Basin , also known as

drainage basin #17 . This mitigation basin includes the Spruce

Creek Hydrologic Basin and PioneerÓs parcel.

2 7 . Pioneer presented persuasive evidence that its

mitigation would pr ovide regional ecological value. Petitioners

did not dispute that the credits from these two wetland

mitigation banks would provide greater long - term ecological value

than the wetlands impacted by the proposed road.

The S tormwater Management System

2 8 . Under PioneerÓs proposal, the water management

functions performed by the wetlands that would be impacted by the

road would be replaced by the proposed sto rmwater system.

2 9 . Runoff from the road would be collected and conveyed

via curbs, gutters, inlet s, and piping into the stormwater

system.

30 . Several culverts would be built beneath the road to

maintain the existing flow of water and prevent on - site and off -

site flooding.

3 1 . The proposed system meets the design standards in the

Environmental Resou r ce Permit ApplicantÓs Handbook (ÐApplicantÓs

HandbookÑ) , including regular and special design criteria

intended to prevent degradation of water quality, as discussed in

the next section.

Water Quality

3 2 . Petitioners contend that pollutants from the road Ós

construction and operation would degrade the water quality of

Spruce Creek.

3 3 . Because Spruce Creek is designated by the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection (ÐDEPÑ) as an Out standing

Florida Water (ÐOFWÑ), the DistrictÓs permitting regulati ons

require applicants to provide reasonable assurance that, in

addition to the treatment required for discharges to n on - OFWs,

the system provides 50 percent additional treatment volume and

residence time for runoff. PioneerÓs proposed stormwater

manageme nt system would provide the 50 percent additional

treatment volume and residence time before discharging off - site.

3 4 . The proposed project is also subject to special

criteria applicable within the Spruce Creek Hydrologic Basin.

Pioneer is required to p rovide reasonable assurance that the

stormwater management system will retain more than three inc hes

of runoff from the directly - connected impervious surface area

within the Most Effective Recharge Area . The proposed system

includes dry retention faciliti es designed to meet this

requirement.

3 5 . DEP is responsible for the total maximum daily load

(ÐTMDLÑ) program for the State. The program develops TMDLs for

water bodies that have impaired water quality. DEP lists Spruce

Creek as suffering impairment by nutrients, specifically for

phosphorus and fecal coliform bacteria.

3 6 . W hen a proposed receiving water body is listed by DEP

as nutrient - impaired, the District will typically require the

permit applicant to provide calculations of pre - and post -

develop ment loading of the listed nutrient(s). The applicant

must then also calculate the removal efficiency of its proposed

stormwater treatment system to show t he project will not

contribute to the impairment of the receiving water.

3 7 . Pioneer calculated pr e - and post - development phosphorus

loading of Spruce Creek and determined that the phosphorus

removal capabilities of the proposed stormwater management system

would be sufficient to ensure that construction and operation of

the road would not contribute t o the nutrient impairment in

Spruce Creek.

3 8 . Roads do not ge nerate fecal coliform bacteria.

T herefore, the proposed road would not contribute to the fecal

coliform bacteria impairment in Spruce Creek.

3 9 . Petitioners contend the proposed road would ad versely

affect Spruce Creek by altering levels of chloride, nitrogen,

dissolved oxygen , and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons . The ERP

rule s do not require specific analyses of these constituents .

Petitioners did not present persuasive evidence that the

c onstruction or operation of the road would cause measurable

ch anges in the concentrations of these constituents in Spruce

Creek.

40 . As discussed in the C onclusion s of L aw, PetitionersÓ

contention that the stormwater management system will not

adequately protect water quality is an attempt to rebut the

presumption that compliance with the DistrictÓs design standards

provides reasonable assurance that state water quality standards

will be met . Petitioners ' evidence fell short of rebutting the

presumption.

Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

4 1 . Petitioners contend that the proposed road is

integrally related with the construction of a new I - 95

interchange at Pioneer Trail, and the impacts to wetlands caused

by the State or Federal GovernmentÓs c onstruction of the

interchange should have been taken into account as secondary

impacts of PioneerÓs road project.

4 2 . T here is no current funding agreement in place for the

construction of the interchange. The interchange is still in the

early stages of review. V olu sia County believes that even

without an interchange, the extension of Williamson Boulevard to

Pioneer Trail is a justified transportation project .

4 3 . Petitioners contend that the proposed alignment of the

road, turning back to the southwest away from I - 95 before

connecting to Pioneer Trail, is proof that the road w as designed

to accommodate the interchange. However, t he alignment at the

south end was designed to avoid the raised section of Pioneer

Trail which passes over I - 95, as well as existing electr ical

power lines and a utility station. This proposed alignment also

avoids impacts to wetlands directly south of Pioneer Trail in the

future extension of Williamson Boulevard by the County.

CDD Conditions

4 4 . Petitioners contend that Ð[a] foundational issue that

must be answered in order to address the ultimate issue is

whether [Pioneer] has met the conditions for its establishment as

a Community Development District .Ñ The condition that the

Petitioners believe Pioneer has violated comes from the foll owing

statement contained in the Recommended Order presented to FLWAC

in the proceeding related to PioneerÓs application to establish

the CDD :

Based on the record evidence, as supplemented

and corrected, the Petition appears to meet

all statutory requireme nts, and there appears

to be no compelling reason not to grant the

Petition, as supplemented and corrected, and

establish the proposed Pioneer Community

Development District by rule, unless

establishment would be at odds with State

plans to purchase the 45 0 acres east of I - 95.

In re: Petition for Rule Creation Î Pioneer Community Development

District , Case No. 05 - 1852 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 21, 2005; FLWAC

July 5, 2006).

4 5 . First, this recommendation was not adopted by FLWAC as

part of the rule establishing th e Pioneer CDD . Second, the

parcel of land that was the subject of the recommendation is

located east of I - 95. Petitioners did not show how PioneerÓs

proposed road would impair the StateÓs ability to acquire that

parcel. Petitioners did not call any know ledgeable State

employee as a witness to confirm PetitionersÓ claim that the

proposed road would impede the S tate Ós acquisition efforts.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4 6 . Respondents did not dispute the standing of

Petitioners . Petitioners have standing.

4 7 . Beca use Petitioners challenge an environmental resource

permit issued under chapter 373, the procedure described in

section 120.569(2)(p) , Florida Statutes (2014) , is applicable.

That section places on the Petitioners the burden of ultimate

persuasion.

48 . T he standard of proof is a preponderance of the

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

49 . Issuance of an ERP requires reasonable assurance from

the applicant that the activities authorized will meet the

applicable criteria in Florida Administrative Cod e Rules 40C -

2.301 and 62 - 330.301.

5 0 . Reasonable assurance means Ða substantial likelihood

that the project will be successfully implemented.Ñ See Metro.

Dade Cnty. v. Coscan Fla., Inc. , 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA

1992).

5 1 . S ection 8.3.3 of the A pplicantÓs Handbook states that

the quality of waters discharged to receiving waters is presumed

to meet State water quality standards if a project is permitted,

constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with chapter

62 - 330 and the applicable App licantÓs Handbook criteria.

5 2 . Rule 62 - 330.301(1)(d) and the ApplicantÓs Handbook

require reasonable assurance that construction, operation, and

maintenance of a project must not adversely impact the value of

functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by

wetlands and other surface waters. Pioneer provided reasonable

assurance of this requirement .

5 3 . As part of rule 62 - 330.301(1)(d), an applicant must

eliminate or reduce adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands

or other surface wate rs caused by a proposed project by

implementing practicable design modifications. Section 10.2.1.2

of the Applicant Ós Handbook specifically provides :

T he Agency will not require the applicant to

implement practicable design modifications to

reduce or elim inate impacts when . . . [t]he

applicant proposes mitigation that implements

all or part of a plan that provides regional

ecological value and that provides greater

long term ecological value than the area of

wetland or other surface water to be

adversely affected.

Pioneer showed that its proposed mitigation would provide

regional ecological value and greater long - term ecological value .

Therefore, Pioneer did not need to implement further design

modifications to reduce or eliminate wetland impacts.

5 4 . R ule 62 - 330.301(1)(e) requires reasonable assurance

that construction, operation, and maintenance of a project will

not adversely affec t State water quality standards, including

standards for Outstanding Florida Waters. Pioneer provided

reasonable assuranc e that it meets this requirement.

5 5 . Pioneer showed that it s stormwater management system

meet s the DistrictÓs design criteria , creating a presumption that

water quality will not be adversely affected . The opinions to

the contrary of PetitionersÓ expert , unaccompanied by specific

studies or data, were not sufficient to rebut the presumption.

5 6 . Rule 62 - 330.301(1 ) ( f) requires reasonable assurance

that a project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water

resources. Compliance with this criterion is determined by

applying a four - part test in section 10.2.7 of the ApplicantÓs

Handbook . U nder part (a) of the test, Pioneer must provide

reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from

construction, alter ation , and intended or reasonably expected u se

of the project will not cause or contribute to violations of

water quality standards or adverse impacts to functions of

wetlands or other surface waters. The proposed stormwater

management system and mitigation plan meet this requirement.

57 . Pioneer met p art (b) because it demonstrated tha t the

construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected

uses of the proposed project would not adversely impact the

ecological v alue of uplands for bald eagles and aquatic and

wetland dependent listed ani mal species .

58 . Pioneer met p art (c) because it demonstrated that the

proposed road would not cause impacts to significant historical

or archeological resources.

59 . Finally, Pioneer met part (d) because it demonstrated

that f uture activities will not r esult in water quality

violations or adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or

other surface waters. ÐFuture activitiesÑ are future parts of a

phased construction, and projects or activities that would not

occur but for the proposed project.

6 0 . Ru le 62 - 330.301(1)(i) requires reasonable assurance

tha t the project would be capable of performing and functioning

as proposed. The parties stipulated that the stormwater

management system would be capable of performing and functioning

as proposed.

6 1 . Ru le 62 - 330.301(1)(j) requires reasonable assurance

that a project will be conducted by a person with the financial,

legal , and administrative capability of ensuring that it will be

undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the

permit, if iss ued. Although Petitioners contend Pioneer does not

have the financi al ability to undertake the construction of the

road , they presented no persuasive evidence to prove their claim.

To the extent Petitioners ' argument is based on partial funding

of the ro ad from governmental sources, that fact is irrelevant to

compliance with this criterion.

6 2 . Rule 62 - 330.301(1)(k) requires reasonable assurance

that a project will comply with any applicable special basin or

geographic area criteria. Pioneer has demonst rated it meet s the

applicable special basin criteria.

6 3 . Rule 62 - 330.302(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance

that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance,

repair, removal, and abandonment of a project located in, on, or

over wetlands is not contrary to the public interest. Compliance

with this rule is determined by consideration of factors listed

in section 10.2.3 (a) - (g), and discussed in sections 10.2.3.1

through 10.2.3. 7 , of the ApplicantÓs Handbook . Petitioners Ó

arguments focused on five factors.

6 4 . Factor (a) asks whether the regulated activity will

adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or

property of others. PetitionersÓ evidence regarding traffic

concerns were irrelevant in this ERP proceeding. PetitionersÓ

evidenc e regarding the in eff ectiveness of the proposed stormwater

management system w as unpersuasive.

6 5 . Factor (b) asks whether the regulated activity will

adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including

endangered or threatened species, or t heir habitats.

Petitioners Ó evidence on this subject, pertaining primarily to

impacts to on - site wetlands and potential pollution of Spruce

Creek , was unpersuasive .

6 6 . Factor (d) asks whether the regulated activity will

adversely affect the fishing or r ecreational values or marine

productivity in the vicinity of the activity. Petitioners Ó

evidence regarding salinity changes and other adverse water

quality impacts was unpersuasive .

67 . Factor (f) asks whether the regulated activity will

adversely affect significant historica l and archeological

resources. The more persuasive evidence showed that there are no

such resources which would be adversely affected by the proposed

road.

68 . F inally, factor (g) calls for a consideration of the

current condition a nd relative value of functions being performed

by areas affected by the proposed regulated activity.

Respondents showed that the proposed stormwater management system

and mitigation plan properly address the current condition and

relative value of the on - site wetlands that will be eliminated or

impacted.

69 . Considering all of the public interest factors in the

rule s , Respondents demonstrated that PioneerÓs proposed project

would not be contrary to the public interest.

70 . Rule 62 - 330.302(1)(b) requires reasonable assurance

that a project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts

upon wetlands and other surface waters as set forth in s ections

10.2.8 through 10.2.8.2 of the ApplicantÓs Handbook .

7 1 . Section 10.2.8 provides that if an applicant propos es

to mitigate adverse impacts to wetlands within the same drainage

basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets these

impacts, then the regulated activity will be considered to have

no unacceptable cumulative impacts. PioneerÓs proposed

miti gation is located within the same drainage basin as the road

impacts , and the mitigation would fully offset the roadÓs

impacts. There fore, the proposed road would have no unacceptable

cumulative impacts.

7 2 . Petitioners contend that Pioneer is in violati on of the

conditions of its creation as a CDD , but that is not a claim that

can be brought i n this proceeding regarding an ERP. Any remedy

for alleged violations of a CDD approval must be sought from

FLWAC.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management

District enter a final order approving the issuance of the E RP to

Pioneer, with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff

Report dated November 3, 2014.

DO NE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March , 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRAM D. E. CANTER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, F lorida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 12th day of March , 2015 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Christopher Thomas Byrd, Esquire

The Byrd Law Group

3505 La ke Lynda Drive , Suite 200

Orlando, Florida 32817

(eServed)

Kealey A. West, Esquire

St. Johns River Water

Management District

4049 Reid Street

Palatka, Florida 32177

(eServed)

Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire

Lewis, Longman and Walker, P.A.

245 Riverside Ave nue , Suite 150

Jacksonville, Florida 32202 - 4931

(eServed)

Hans G. Tanzler, III, Executive Director

St. Johns River Water

Management District

4049 Reid Street

Palatka, Florida 32177

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties hav e the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.