15-004975 Wwals Watershed Coalition, Inc. vs. Sabal Trail Transmission, Llc, And Department Of Environmental Protection Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, December 11, 2015.

Summary: Petitioner failed to establish standing as an association. Respondent Sabal Trail proved its entitlement to an Environmental Resource Permit and authorization to use sovereign submerged lands for a natural gas transmission pipeline.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

WWALS WATERSHED COALITION, INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 15 - 4975

SABAL TRAIL TRANSMISSION, LLC,

AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this case was held on October 19

through 21, 2015, in Jasper, Florida before Bram D. E. Canter,

an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner WWA LS Watershed Coalition, Inc. (ÐWWALSÑ) :

William R. Wohlsifer, Esquire

Leighanne C. Boone, Esquire

William R. Wohlsifer, P . A .

1100 East Park Avenue, Suite B

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (ÐSabal

TrailÑ) :

Richard S. Brightman, Esquire

Timothy M. Riley, Esquire

H. French Brown, IV, Esquire

Hopping, Green and Sams

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection

(ÐDepartmentÑ) :

Jack Chisolm, Esquire

Sidney C. Bigham, III, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISS UE

The issue to be determined in this case is whether Sabal

Trail is entitled to the proposed Environmental Resource Permit

and Easement to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands to construct a

natural gas pipeline .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On July 10, 2015, the Depar tment published its Consolidated

Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and

Easement to Use Sovereign Submerged Lands to Sabal Trail. On

August 7, 2015, WWALS filed a petition for hearing with the

Department to challenge the validity of t hese two authorizations.

The Department dismissed WWALSÓ petition, but granted leave

to amend. WWALS filed an amended petition, which added its

subsidiary corporation, WWALS Watershed Coalition Florida, Inc.

(ÐWWALS - FLÑ) , as a second Petitioner. The Depa rtment dismissed

the petition of WWALS - FL as untimely and struck portions of

WWALSÓ amended petition. The Department then referred the

amended petition to DOAH. WWALS was permitted to amend its

petition again, but upon motion, certain claims in the last

amended petition were struck because they were not cognizable in

this state administrative proceeding.

On September 21, 2015, Sabal Trail filed a motion for

summary hearing pursuant to section 403.973(14)(b), Florida

Statutes (2015), which was granted.

At the final hearing, WWALS presented the testimony of:

Dennis Price, an expert in geology; Donald M. Thieme, an expert

in geomorphology; Richard Gamble, Suwannee County Commissioner;

Carlos Herd, Director of the Water Supply Division for the

Suwannee River W ater Management District; Dale Jenkins, Bureau

Chief of the Bureau of Project Management with the Saint Johns

River Water Management District; Guy Means, Florida Geological

Survey; Lisa Prather, environmental consultant for the

DepartmentÓs Central Distric t; and 13 WWALS members: David

Shields, John Quarterman, Joe McClung, Thomas Edwards, Deanna

Mericle, Christopher Mericle, Donna Ellison, Wayne Ellison,

Merrilee Malwitz - Jipson, Dana Stevens, Debra Johnson, Richard

Gamble, Willard Randall, and Lori McCran ey.

Sabal Trail presented the testimony of: Jim Abrosino, an

expert in archeology; David Dickson, senior consultant for

Cardno, Inc. , and part of the Permit team responsible for putting

together the application; David Shammo, corporate representative

of S pectra Energy Partners, LP; Marty Bass, an expert in pipeline

construction management; Gregg Jones, an expert in geology and

hydrogeology; and Alan K. Lambeth, an expert in natural gas

pipeline design and operations.

The Department presented the testimony of Lisa Prather.

Joint Exhibits 1 through 12 were admitted into evidence.

Sabal TrailÓs Exhibits 1 through 55 were admitted into evidence.

PetitionerÓs Exhibits 1 through 12 were admitted into evidence.

The six - 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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1. Petitioner, WWALS, is a Georgia not - for - profit

corporation registered with the Florida D epartment of State as a

Foreign Not For Profit Corporation. Its mailing address is in

Hahira, Georgia.

2. WWALSÓ mission is to advocate for conservation and

stewardship of the Withlacoochee, Willacoochee, Alapaha, Little,

and Upper Suwannee River watersh eds in South Georgia and North

Florida.

3. WWALS stated in its petition that it has a total of 85

members, 36 of whom reside in Florida. The total number of WWALS

members was not established at the final hearing. If members

that joined WWALS after it fi led its petition for hearing are

included, WWALS has about 40 members living in Hamilton County

and Suwannee County .

4. Sabal Trail is a Delaware limited liability company that

is registered to do business in the State of Florida. It is the

applicant for the authorizations that are challenged by

Petitioner.

5. The Department is the state agency charged with

administering the Environmental Resource Permitting program under

chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code

Chapters 62 - 4 and 62 - 330.

6. The Department is also the state agency authorized by

chapter 253, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code

Chapter 18 - 21, to review and authorize certain uses of state -

owned submerged lands.

General Project Description

7. Sabal Trail p roposes to construct an interstate natural

gas pipeline. The primary purpose of the pipeline is to support

electric power generation in Florida.

8. The pipeline would start in the vicinity of a

Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company station in Tallapoosa

County in Alabama. The portion of the pipeline in Florida would

cross twelve Florida counties, entering the state in Hamilton

County and terminating in Osceola County.

9. The pipeline would include 232.75 miles of 36 - inch

diameter pipe for the Mainline R oute, 13.1 miles of 36 Î inch

diameter pipe for the HunterÓs Creek Line, and 21.5 miles of 24 -

inch pipe for the Citrus County Line.

10. The pipe used would be made of high - strength ductile

carbon steel.

11. The project would include construction and operat ion of

three compressor stations and three meter and regulation stations

in Florida. There would also be access roads, pig launcher and

receiver stations, mainline valves, and pipe storage/work areas.

12. Most of the pipeline would be installed using a

c onventional Ðcut and coverÑ technique, which means a trench is

excavated, sections of pipe are placed in the trench and

connected, and the trench is backfilled with soil excavated from

the trench.

13. However, waterbodies along the route, including the

Su wannee River and Santa Fe River, would be crossed using

Horizontal Directional Drilling (ÐHDDÑ). The HDD method involves

boring a pilot hole beneath the waterbody and then enlarging the

hole with one or more passes of a reamer until the hole is large

enou gh to pull a prefabricated pipe segment through the hole.

The pipeline would be installed more than 40 feet beneath the

Suwannee River and Santa Fe River.

14. During HDD operations, drilling fluid or ÐmudÑ is used

to lubricate the drill head, and remove cuttings from the hole.

Drilling mud is a non - toxic, naturally occurring, bentonite clay,

which is commonly used for drilling water wells.

15. The pipeline will require a permanent 50 - foot right - of -

way.

16. Because the construction would require digging trenches

through wetlands, drilling under riverbeds, and construction of

stormwater management systems for the various stations, an

environmental resource permit from the Department must be

obtained for the work. Because some construction is over state -

o wned submerged lands, authorization from the Trustees of the

Internal Improvement Trust Fund is also required.

Route Selection

17. The pipeline route was selected based on environmental

and cultural resource factors and co - location opportunities with

exis ting utility rights - of - way. The proposed route was modified

many times to reduce environmental impacts and respond to

landowner requests.

18. The pipeline runs parallel to two existing natural gas

pipelines that cross the Santa Fe River.

19. The closest major spring to the pipeline route would be

Madison Blue Spring, 1.7 miles away. The route is closer to some

smaller springs, but it would not cross near spring vents or

areas of concentrated spring flow.

20. The pipeline would cross above the Falmouth Cave

system. However, the pipeline would be only four - to - six feet

beneath the land surface. The cave system is more than 100 feet

below ground.

21. Sabal Trail reduced or eliminated impacts to wetlands

and waterbodies along the pipeline route, but the p roject would

result in unavoidable temporary and permanent losses of portions

of wetlands along the route. The functional loss of wetland

functions, as calculated under the Uniform Mitigation Assessment

Method (ÐUMAMÑ), would be offset by Sabal TrailÓs pu rchase of

credits from approved wetland mitigation banks.

PetitionerÓs Objections

22. The primary concern of WWALS and its members is the

possibility of environmental impacts arising from the

construction of the pipeline in karst terrain.

23. Karst terra in, which is limestone undergoing

dissolution and characterized by the formation in the limestone

of holes, cracks, fissures, conduits, and sinkholes, is common in

North Florida and throughout the State.

24. Although fragile in particular locations, karst terrain

is able to support large linear facilities in North Florida such

as Interstate 10, Interstate 75, and railroads, which bear loads

of many tons without collapses occurring in the underlying

limestone.

25. Sabal Trail conducted geophysical tests, e valuated the

potential for sinkhole formation, developed drilling best

management practices, and prepared a karst mitigation plan to

address potential adverse circumstances that might arise during

construction of the pipeline.

26. The pipeline design spec ifications provide reasonable

assurance that the formation of a sinkhole along the path of the

pipeline would not cause it to break.

27. It is in the interests of Sabal Trail to build and

operate the pipeline so that breaks or disruptions of service do

no t occur.

28. There are existing natural gas pipelines that were

constructed under the Suwannee River and Santa Fe River. A

geologist with t he Florida Geological Survey testified that he

was unaware of any adverse impacts that have been associated with

th ese other pipelines.

29. WWALS presented no evidence of adverse impacts that

have been caused by similar pipelines in similar areas.

30. PetitionerÓs members are afraid the pipeline will cause

adverse impacts because of its construction in karst terrain, but

with the exception of four WWALS members whose properties would

be crossed by the pipeline, the concerns expressed by members

about how they would be affected were vague and speculative. Not

all of the potential pipeline impacts described by WWALS me mbers

were vague or speculative, but the membersÓ injuries were vague

and speculative. For example, it was not adequately explained

how a sinkhole, if one were to occur along the route of the

pipeline, would affect them.

31. WWALS expressed concerns abou t water quality, but the

use of drilling mud and grout for the HDD operations is unlikely

to affect the residential water wells of any member or non -

member. Nor would it affect the water quality of the rivers

under which the pipeline is installed, because the amount of

drilling mud and grout is so small in relation to groundwater

volumes.

32 . WWALS expressed general concerns about fish and

wildlife impacts, but no member identified any particular wetland

impact caused by construction of the pipeline that would directly

affect him or her and Petitioner presented no competent evidence

to refute the UMAM assessment or the reasonableness of the

proposed mitigation. No competent evidence was presented about

the possibility that HDD drilling under the rivers co uld result

in adverse impacts to fish and wildlife.

33. Some WWALS members testified they use and enjoy the

rivers and surrounding area, but the concerns about adverse

impacts to their use and enjoyment were speculative, being based

on the proposition tha t a sinkhole or other disruption of the

limestone will be caused by the construction of the pipeline and

it will cause a change in the rivers or land to a degree that

their use and enjoyment of the rivers or land will be materially

diminished. Petitioner did not establish the connection between

pipeline impacts and interference with membersÓ use of area

waters.

34. One member testified he has an organic farm and

believes it would be adversely affected by air pollution from a

proposed compressor station fo r the pipeline, but there is a

separate permit associated with the air quality impacts of the

pipeline. Air quality is not a cognizable issue in this

proceeding.

35. A few members believe there could be impacts that would

adversely affect their business interests, which are not

interests that this proceeding was designed to protect.

36. Although a substantial number of WWALS members have

substantial interests in the use and enjoyment of the waters and

environment of Hamilton County and Suwannee County, a showing of

potential injury to those interests was only established in the

record for four WWALS members -- the four who own land that the

pipeline will cross.

37. Four members is not a substantial number when compared

to the total number of WWALS members living in Hamilton County

and Suwannee County, which is about forty.

Public Interest

38. For projects located in, on, or over wetlands or other

surface waters, an applicant must provide reasonable assurance

that the project will not be contrary to the pub lic interest, or

if such activities significantly degrade or are within an

Outstanding Florida Water, are clearly in the public interest, as

determined by balancing the criteria set forth in rule

62 - 330.302.

39. Rule 62 - 330.302(1)(a) lists seven public in terest

factors to be considered and balanced:

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 en dangered 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

m arine 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

provisio ns of s. 267.061; and

7. The current condition and relative value

of functions being performed by areas

affected by the proposed activity.

40. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute

the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the

pipeline project would not result in adverse impacts on public

health, safety, or welfare. Beyond general, undisputed evidence

about the characteristics of karst geology, no competent evidence

was presented by Petitioner to show that a karst - rel ated impact

could occur that would affect its members.

41. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute

the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the

pipeline would not cause adverse impacts to fish and wildlife.

42. Petitione r presented no competent evidence to refute

the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the

project would not cause adverse impacts to navigation or the flow

of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling.

43. Petitioner presented no comp etent evidence to refute

the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the

project would not cause adverse impacts to fishing or

recreational values or marine productivity.

44. It is undisputed that some of the pipeline impacts and

the pip eline, itself, will be of a permanent nature.

45. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute

the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the

proposed pipeline would not adversely affect significant

historical and archaeological resources.

46. Petitioner presented no competent evidence to refute

the evidence presented by Sabal Trail and the Department that the

proposed pipeline would not adversely affect the current

condition and relative value of environmental functions being

p erformed in the area that would not be fully mitigated.

47. Considering the seven public interest factors listed

above, the proposed pipeline is not contrary to the public

interest.

48. The Suwan n ee River and Santa Fe River have been

designated as Outsta nding Florida Waters. Any activities that

would affect them must be shown to be clearly in the public

interest. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law, demonstrating

that a project is clearly in the public interest requires greater

assurance that all per mitting requirements will be complied with.

Sabal Trail showed clearly that it will comply with all

permitting criteria.

49. Rule 62 - 4.242 prohibits the degradation of water

quality in an Outstanding Florida Water. Sabal Trail and the

Department showed the construction and operation of the pipeline

would not degrade the water quality of the Suwan n ee River or

Santa Fe River.

50. Rule 18 - 21.004(1)(a) requires that activities on

sovereignty submerged lands not be contrary to the public

interest. Rule 18 - 2 1.003(51) defines public interest in this

context as:

Demonstrable environmental, social, and

economic benefits which would accrue to the

public at large as a result of a proposed

action, and which would clearly exceed all

demonstrable environmental, socia l, and

economic cost of the proposed action.

Therefore, to obtain authorization to use sovereignty submerged

lands easement, an applicant must create a net public benefit.

51. Sabal Trail and the Department demonstrated the project

creates a net public b enefit because it would not have adverse

environmental impacts that would not be fully mitigated and the

project addresses a need determined by the Public Service

Commission for additional natural gas transportation capacity

into Florida, enhancement of na tural gas supply diversity and

reliability, and increased competition for natural gas

transportation services.

52. WWALS contends the proposed project would conflict with

rule 18 - 21.004(2)(a), which requires that all sovereignty

submerged lands be primari ly managed to maintain Ðessentially

natural conditions, propagation of fish and wildlife, and

traditional recreational uses such as fishing, boating, and

swimming.Ñ However, WWALS presented no competent evidence to

show that any sovereignty submerged land s would lose their

essential natural conditions, that fish and wildlife propagation

would be diminished, or that traditional recreational uses would

be interfered with. The proposed project complies with the

requirement of rule 18 - 21.004(2).

CONCLUSIONS O F LAW

Standing

53. Standing to participate in a section 120.57(1)

proceeding is afforded to persons whose substantial interests

will be affected by proposed agency action. See § 120.52(13)(b),

Fla. Stat. (2015) .

54. For an association to establish stand ing as a party, it

must prove that a substantial number of its members, but not

necessarily a majority, have a substantial interest that

reasonably could be affected, that the subject matter of the

proposed activity is within the general scope of the inter ests and

activities for which the organization was created, and that the

relief requested is of the type appropriate for the organization

to receive on behalf of its members. Fla. Home Builders AssÓn v.

DepÓt of Labor & Emp . Sec. , 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 198 2) .

55. Economic or business interests are not substantial

interests in this environmental permitting proceeding. Agrico

Chem. Co. v. Dep't of Envtl. Reg. , 406 So. 2d 478, 482 (Fla. 2d

DCA 1981).

56. An association cannot establish its standing based on

its corporate mission or solely on the substantial interests of

its members. Fla . Home Builders , supra . A ÐriverkeeperÑ

organization like WWALS cannot establish its standing in a case

involving the very rivers it keeps without demonstrating that a

subst antial number of its members could be injured.

57. At hearing, a petitioner establishes its standing by

offering evidence to prove its substantial interests could be

affected by the agencyÓs action. St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. v.

St. Johns River Water Mg mt. Dist. , 54 So. 3d 1051, 1054 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2011). However, the evidence offered must be ÐgoodÑ

evidence; that is, competent and non - speculative.

58. The speculative concerns of WWALS members regarding the

pipelineÓs impacts on their use and enjoyment of the Suwan n ee

River, Santa Fe River, and surrounding areas, are not sufficient

to confer standing. See Menorah Manor, Inc. v. Ag. for Health

Care Admin. , 908 So. 2d 1100, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

59. WWALS failed to establish its standing because it d id

not show that a substantial number of its members could be

affected by the project.

60. In its amended petition, WWALS cites section

403.412(5), which allows a citizen of the state to intervene in

an ongoing section 120.569 or section 120.57 proceeding by filing

a verified pleading. However, section 403.412(5) does not

authorize a citizen to initiate a proceeding under section

120.569 or 120.57. Furthermore, WWALS is not a Ðcitizen of the

stateÑ because it is a Georgia corporation. Therefore, section

403.412(5) does not provide WWALS another basis for standing.

61. WWALS failed to demonstrate standing. However, because

an evidentiary hearing was held and evidence on the merits was

received, findings and fact and conclusions of law on the merits

are presented in this Recommended Order.

Burden and Standard of Proof

62. A chapter 120 proceeding is a de novo proceeding

intended to formulate final agency action, not to review action

taken earlier and preliminarily. McDonald v. DepÓt of Banking

Fin. , 346 So. 2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

63. Because chapter 373, Florida Statutes, governs the

issuance of the Environmental Resource Permit, subsection

120.569(2)(p) applies and it places the ultimate burden of

persuasion upon WWALS to prove Sabal Trails i s not entitled to

the permit.

64. The authorization to use sovereign submerged lands was

issued under chapter 253. Under that chapter, the applicant has

the burden of ultimate persuasion to demonstrate its entitlement

to the authorization. See Fla. DepÓ t of Transp. v . J.W.C. Co.,

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

65. An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that it

will comply with all applicable regulatory criteria. Reasonable

assurance means a Ðsubstantial likelihood that the project wi ll

be successfully implemented.Ñ See Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Coscan

Fla., Inc. , 609 So. 2d 644, 648 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Reasonable

assurance does not require absolute guarantees. See Save Anna

Maria, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp. , 700 So. 2d 113, 117 (Fla. 2d D CA

1997).

66. If an activity significantly degrades or is in an

Outstanding Florida Water, the applicant must provide reasonable

assurance that the activity will be clearly in the public

interest. Fla. Admin. C ode R . 62 - 4.242. To be clearly in the

publi c interest does not require a demonstration of need or net

public benefit. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Dep't of Envtl.

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

greater assurance that a project will comply with applicable

criteria. See AngeloÓs Aggregate Materials, Ltd. v. DepÓt of

Envtl. Prot. , Case No. 09 - 1543 (Fla. DOAH June 28, 2013)(The

quantum of assurance that is deemed reasonable by the Department

should depend on the potential harm.) .

67. The standard of proof is a preponde rance of the

evidence. See § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat. (2015).

68. Chapter 373, Part IV, rule chapter 62 - 330, and the

Environmental Resource Permit ApplicantÓs Handbook establish the

criteria for issuance or denial of a requested Environmental

Resource Pe rmit. Sabal Trail provided reasonable assurance that

the pipeline project will comply with all applicable permitting

criteria.

69. Because Sabal Trail clearly demonstrated compliance

with all applicable regulatory criteria, the project is clearly

in the public interest.

70. WWALS failed to prove that Sabal Trail is not entitled

to the Environmental Resource Permit.

71. Pursuant to Fl orida Administrative Code Rule

18 - 21.004(1)(a) - (b), activities on sovereignty lands must not be

contrary to the public int erest, and all easements for

sovereignty land activities must contain such terms, conditions,

or restrictions as deemed necessary to protect and manage those

sovereignty lands. Sabal TrailÓs proposed project meets these

requirements.

72. Sabal Trail prov ed the pipeline project will comply

with all applicable criteria and that it is entitled to the

easement for use of sovereign submerged lands.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Depart ment of Environmental Protection

issue a f inal o rder that approves issuance of Environmental

Resource Permit No. 0328333 - 001 and grants an easement to use

sovereign submerged lands to Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC , for

the Sabal Trail Natural Gas Pipeline.

DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December , 2015 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRAM D. E. CANTER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahas see, Florida 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 11th day of December , 2015 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Richard S. Brightman, Esquire

Timothy M. Riley, Es quire

H. French Brown , IV, Esquire

Hopping, Green and Sams

Post Office Box 6526

Tallahassee, Florida 32314

(eServed)

Gus McLachlan

Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC

Suite 300

400 Colonial Center Parkway

Lake Mary, Florida 32746

John S. Quarterman, Presiden t

WWALS Watershed Coalition, Inc.

Post Office Box 88

Hahira, Georgia 31632

(eServed)

Jack Chisolm, Esquire

Si d ney C. Bigham, III, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eSer ved)

William R. Wohlsifer, Esquire

Leighanne C. Boone, Esquire

William R. Wohlsifer, P . A .

1100 East Park Avenue , Suite B

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

Jonathan P. Steverson, Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 C ommonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Craig Varn, General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Ord er. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.