16-006165 Indian River Farms Water Control District vs. All Aboard Florida - Operations, Llc; Ram Land Holdings, Llc; J. Acquisitions Brevard, Llc; And St. Johns River Water Management District Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, March 30, 2017.

Summary: Petitioner did not demonstrate that the new bridges would cause flooding that would not already occur during a 100-year storm because of the height of the existing bridges.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER CONTROL

DISTRICT,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 6165

ALL ABOARD FLORIDA - OPERATIONS,

LLC; RAM LAND HOLDINGS, LLC;

J. ACQUISITIONS BREVARD, LLC;

AND ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER

MANAGEMENT DI STRICT,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this case was held on January 20, 2017,

by video teleconference at sites in Sebastian and Tallahassee,

Florida, before Bram D.E. Canter, an Administrative Law Judge of

the Division of Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner Indian River Farms Water Control District:

Michael OÓHaire, Esquire

OÓHaire, Quinn, Casalino, Chartered

3111 Cardinal Drive

Vero B each, Florida 32964 - 4375

For Respondent All Aboard Florida Î Operations, LLC:

Eugene E. Stearns, Esquire

Matthew W. Buttrick Esquire

Cecilia Duran Simmons, Esquire

Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler

Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.

Museum Tower, Suit e 2200

150 West Flagler Street

Miami, Florida 33130

Jeffrey A. Collier, Esquire

Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler,

Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.

106 East College Avenue, Suite 700

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For Respondent J. Acquisitions Brevard , LLC:

James F. Johnston, Esquire

Scott A. Glass, Esquire

Shutts & Bowen LLP

Post Office Box 4956

Orlando, Florida 32801

For Respondent RAM Land Holdings, LLC:

Joe Galletti

RAM Land Holdings, LLC

Post Office Box 533327

Orlando, Florida 32853

For Respondent St. Johns River Water Management District:

Kealey A. West, Esquire

Erin H. Preston, Esquire

St. Johns River Water Management District

4049 Reid Street

Palatka, Florida 32177

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined in t his case is whether All

Aboard Florida Î Operations, LLC (Ðthe ApplicantÑ) ; Ram Land

Holdings, LLC (ÐRLHÑ) ; and J. Acquisitions Brevard, LLC (ÐJABÑ) ,

are entitled to the Environmental Resource Permit (ÐERPÑ) issued

by the St. Johns River Water Management D istrict (ÐSJRWMDÑ) for

construction and operation of certain railway facilities within

the portion of the Florida East Coast Railway corridor known as

Segment D08 (the ÐProjectÑ).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 26, 2016, SJRWMD gave notice of its intent to

issue ERP No. 135214 - 2 to the Applicant, RLH, and JAB, pursuant

to chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2016) . The Applicant is

developing an express passenger rail service between Miami and

Orlando, known as the All Aboard Florida Project. RLH and JAB

own conservation parcels , which will be used for mitigation of

wetland and surface water impacts associated with the Project.

On or about August 29, 2016, the Petitioner , Indian River

Farms Water Control District , filed a petition challenging the

ERP , because the proposed new bridges for the Project had not

been approved by Indian River Farms Ó engineer. SJRWMD dismissed

the p etition and, on September 26, 2016, the Petitioner filed an

amended petition.

SJRWMD referred the amended petition to DOAH and filed a

m otion to dismiss, in which the Applicant joined. The motion

argued that the amended petition raised issues that were not

cognizable in this proceeding. The motion to dismiss was

granted, but leave was granted to file an amended petition

containing releva nt factual allegations and citations to relevant

statutes and rules.

On November 3, 2016, the Petitioner filed a second amended

petition, which the Applicant and SJRWMD again moved to dismiss.

An Order was entered striking all claims in the second amende d

petition arising under c hapter 298, but otherwise denying the

motion. The Order limited the issues in the case to

PetitionerÓs claims that (1) the lowest horizontal beams of the

proposed bridges would be constructed below flood elevations,

which would c ause flooding, and (2) the proposed bridges would

cause sand bars to form in the PetitionerÓs canals, which would

interfere with canal functions.

Official recognition was taken of Florida Administrative

Code Chapters 40C - 4 and 62 - 330, as well as the ERP A pplicantÓs

Handbook Volume I (ÐA.H., Vol. IÑ), and the SJRWMD Permit

Information Manual (ÐA.H., Vol. IIÑ).

At the final hearing, the Applicant presented the testimony

of its Executive Vice President of Rail Infrastructure , Adrian

Share, P.E.; Matthew Nedde ff, P.E. , who was accepted as an

expert in hydrologic and hydraulic engineering and modeling; and

Jeffrey PeQueen, P.E., who was accepted as an expert in

hydrologic and hydraulic engineering and modeling. The

ApplicantÓs Exhibits 1 - 25 were admitted into e vidence.

The Petitioner presented the testimony of its

Superintend e nt, Secretary, and Treasurer, David E. Gunter; and

George A. Simons, P.E., who was accepted as an expert in civil

engineering. The PetitionerÓs Exhibit 2 was admitted into

evidence.

SJRWM D presented the testimony of its Supervising

Professional Engineer, Fariborz Zanganeh, P.E., who was accepted

as an expert in water resource engineering; and its Chief

E ngineer for the Environmental Resource Regulation Program,

Cameron Dewey, P.E., who was accepted as an expert in water

resource engineering. SJRWMDÓs Exhibit 23 was admitted into

evidence.

The one - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

with DOAH. The Petitioner, the Applicant, and SJRWMD each

submitted proposed recommended order s which were considered in

the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parties

1 . The Petitioner is a water control district organized

under chapters 189 and 298 , Florida Statutes . It owns and

maintains the North, Main, and South Can als in Indian River

County.

2 . The Petitioner manages drainage works for approximately

55,000 acres within Indian River County s ituated west of the

Indian River Lagoon between U.S. 1 and I - 95, including portions

of the City of Vero Beach.

3 . The Applican t, All Aboard Florida Î Operations, LLC, is

a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Miami,

Florida, formed for the principal purpose of developing and

operating express passenger rail service connecting the four

largest urban population cente rs in Southern and Central

Florida -- Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and Orlando.

This project is known as the All Aboard Florida Project.

4 . Respondents, RAM Land Holdings , LLC, and

J. Acquisitions Brevard, LLC , are third - party mitigation

provid ers. The parties stipulated that R LH and JAB are not

necessary parties to this proceeding.

5 . SJRWMD is an independent special district created by

c hapter 373 , charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water

resources of the District and to administer and enforce

chapter 373 and the rules promulgated thereunder. The proposed

project is within the boundaries of the District.

The Proposed Project

6 . Most of the ApplicantÓs passenger service route,

including the portion which will pass through Indian Ri ver

County, will use an existing railroad right - of - way established in

the late 1800s by Henry Flagler, the founder of the Florida East

Coast Railway (ÐFECRÑ).

7 . The FECR rail corridor runs along FloridaÓs east coast

from Miami to Jacksonville . It was de signed to support passenger

and freight operations on shared double mainline tracks and was

in use from 1895 to 1968. The passenger service was then

terminated and portions of the double track and certain bridge

structures were removed. The freight servi ce continued and

remains in operation today.

8 . The Project would restore the passenger service that

once existed on the FECR rail corridor . The passenger service

route will utilize the FECR right - of - way from Miami to Cocoa

Beach and then continue along a new segment to be constructed

along a limited - access highway system which runs inland from

Cocoa Beach to Orlando.

9 . The Applicant is proposing to upgrade the portion of

the FECR right - of - way between Miami and Cocoa Beach by, among

other things, replac ing existing railroad ties and tracks and

reinstalling double tracks.

10 . This proceeding involves only Segment D08 of the

proposed Project. Segment D08 runs from the southern edge of

Indian River County to Cocoa Beach in Brevard County.

11 . In Segment DO8, the existing FECR railway includes

bridges which cross th e North Canal, Main Canal, and South Canal

owned and maintained by the Petitioner . The bridges are

r eferred to as the North Canal Bridge, the Main Canal Bridge,

and the South Canal Bridge. Eac h bridge supports a single

track.

12 . The P roject calls for adding new bridges alongside the

three existing bridges over the canals so that the crossings

will again accommodate two tracks.

13 . The PetitionerÓs objections to the proposed permit are

confin ed to the proposed bridges at the North Canal and South

Canal.

14 . The new bridge at the North Canal would be constructed

along the west side of the existing bridge. The new bridge at

the South Canal would be constructed along the east side of the

existi ng bridge.

Obstruction of Water Flow

15 . The PetitionerÓs main objection to the proposed

project is that the proposed new bridges over the North Canal

and South Canal are too low to allow clearance during a 100 - year

storm event, which would cause water fl ow to be obstructed. The

Petitioner believes floating debris is likely to be blocked and

accumulate at the bridges, causing water to back up and flood

lands upstream of the bridges.

16 . The PetitionerÓs Superintendent, David Gunter,

testified that there were Ða couple of events where debris

backed up either at a bridge or a culvert.Ñ However, he said

none of the PetitionerÓs ratepayers ever had a flooding event

that was attributable to the FECR bridges.

17 . The new bridges would be constructed with the same low

chord/beam elevations (lowest part of the bridge) as the

existing bridges that would remain. For the existing bridge and

the proposed new bridge over the North Canal, the low beam

elevation is 13.1 f ee t NAVD88 (North American Vertical Datum

1988) . For the existing bridge and the proposed new bridge at

the South Canal, the low beam elevation is 8.5 f ee t NAVD88.

18 . Because the proposed new bridges would be at the same

height above the canals as the existing bridges, the potential

problem the Peti tioner is concerned about -- floating debris being

trapped by the bridges -- is already a potential problem. The

P etitioner did not claim or present evidence to show that the

new bridges would increase the probability that floating debris

would be trapped, ov er and above the current probability for

such an event.

19 . The Petitioner argued that Ðtwo wrongs donÓt make a

right,Ñ and the new bridges should not be approved even though

they are at the same height as the existing bridges . Obviously,

the Petitioner wants the existing bridges raised, too.

20. Based on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps used by

the Applicant, the 100 - year flood elevation at the North Canal

bridge is 11.5 f ee t NAVD88, or 1.6 feet below the low beam

elevation of the North Canal Bridge. The 100 - year flood

elevation at the South Canal Bridge is 9.3 f ee t NAVD88, or 0.8

feet below the low beam elevation of the North Canal Bridge. 1/

21 . The ApplicantÓs consultants performed hydrologic and

hydraulic analyses for the proposed new bridges usin g a HEC - RAS

model which was adapted to local site - specific conditions and

incorporated FEMA flood level data . They determined that in a

100 - year storm event, the new bridge at the North Canal would

cause no more than a 0.04 - foot (0.48 inch es ) increase in water

levels immediately upstream (within 500 feet) of the bridge, and

the new bridge at the South Canal would result in no more than a

0.07 - foot (0.84 inch es ) increase in water levels immediately

upstream. These were considered insignificant impacts that

would not cause flooding to upstream properties.

22 . The Petitioner disputes the ApplicantÓs determination

that there is a 1.6 - foot clearance at the North Canal Bridge and

a 0.8 - foot clearance at the South Canal Bridge. The Petitioner

asserts that the F EMA elevations used by the Applicant are not

based on the best available data , and the best available data

show the 100 - year flood elevations are higher .

23 . The Petitioner calculated higher 100 - year flood

elevations using SJRWMD flood stage gages in the canal near the

North bridge and the PetitionerÓs own hydrologic model. The

Petitioner determined that the low beam at the North Canal

bridge is 0.6 feet below the 100 - year flood level, and the low

beam at the South Canal bridge is 1.5 feet below the 100 - y ear

flood level. 2 / In other words, the P etitioner contends there is

no clearance.

24 . The PetitionerÓs witness, Simons, testified about why

he thought FEMA did not use the PetitionerÓs water level data

and analysis in determining 100 - year flood elevation s for the

FEMA flood maps , but the testimony was largely hearsay.

25 . SJRWMDÓs ApplicantÓs Handbook refers to the use of

FEMA flood level data for th ese kinds of analyses, but it also

refers to the use of Ðdetailed informationÑ possessed by SJRWMD.

See S ection 3.3.4, A . H . , Vol II. Information possessed by

SJRWMD would likely include data from their own water level

gages.

26 . The Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to

prove their data and modeling was more accurate or reliable than

FEMA data a nd the ApplicantÓs modeling. FEMA flood insurance

rate maps are a standard reference in the industry. The HEC - RAS

model is a generally accepted tool used by engineers for this

kind of analysis.

27 . None of the parties presented evidence to make clear

wh at is the usual or industry protocol for choosing between

conflicting data of this kind in the permitting process .

28 . The Petitioner has the burden of proof on disputed

issues of fact and failed to carry its burden on this disputed

issue. It is found , t herefore, that the ApplicantÓs use of FEMA

data and the HEC - RAS model was reasonable.

29 . The Petitioner admitted that the 100 - year flood

elevation in the canals has been increasing over time because of

the conversion of land uses in the area from agricul tural to

urban. Because the Petitioner regulates discharges to its

canals, it has some responsibility for the rising water levels

in its canals.

30 . The Petitioner claimed that reduced clearance was due

in part to the bridges from Ðage, use, lack of main tenance,

frugality or causes other than design.Ñ However, the Petitioner

presented no supporting evidence for this allegation in the

record.

31 . In its regulatory role, the Petitioner requires a

minimum clearance of one foot between a bridgeÓs lowest

hor izontal beam and the 100 - year flood elevation to avoid

obstruction of water flow through the canals.

32. SJRWMD rules do not specify that bridges be designed to

have a minimum clearance above the 100 - year flood elevation.

33 . T he applicable design standa rds for flood protection

in the ApplicantÓs Handbook are set forth in Section 3.3.2(b),

A.H., Vol. II, which provides in pertinent part as follows:

Floodways and floodplains, and levels of

flood flows or velocities of adjacent

streams, impoundments or othe r water courses

must not be altered so as to adversely impact

the off - site storage and conveyance

capabilities of the water resource. It is

presumed a system will meet this criterion if

the following are met:

* * *

(b) A system may not cause a net reduction

in the flood conveyance capabilities provided

by a floodway except for structures elevated

on pilings or traversing works. Such works,

or other structures shall cause no more than

a one - foot increase in the 100 - year flood

elevation immediately u pstream and no more

than one tenth of a foot increase in the 100 -

year flood elevation 500 feet upstream.

34 . The bridges would not cause more than a one - foot

increase in the 100 - year flood elevation immediately upstream or

more than one tenth of a foot i ncrease in the 100 - year flood

elevation 500 feet upstream.

35 . Therefore, the Applicant is presumed to have provided

reasonable assurance that the Project would not cause adverse

flooding to on - site or off - site property, or adversely impact

the existing s urface water storage and conveyance capabilities of

the North Canal or South Canal.

36 . The Petitioner argues that the SJRWMD criteria fail to

account for floating debris. The Petitioner claims that bridge

designers are obliged to follow basic design gui delines

published by FDOT and other government agencies and provide

clearance for floating debris, but Petitioner did not offer into

evidence these Ðbasic design standardsÑ or prove their industry -

wide acceptance. 3/

37 . SJRWMDÓs engineer, Fariborz Zangane h, stated that the

potential for floating debris to be blocked by a bridge or any

other traversing work is considered by SJRWMD to be an operation

and maintenance issue, not a design issue.

38 . The Petitioner referred to some road bridges in the

area that , upon reconstruction, were raised by county, state, or

federal governments to comply with the PetitionerÓs clearance

requirement . First, it is noted that the Applicant does not

propose to reconstruct the existing North Canal Bridge and South

Canal B ridge . Second, there is a substantial difference between

the effort and cost of raising a road and raising a railroad

track.

39. Raising the proposed bridges would require elevating

the railroad bed for a considerable distance in each direction

so that slopes comply with railway safety criteria.

40 . The Petitioner failed to prove the Project does not

comply with SJRWMD flood control criteria .

The Sand Bar

41 . The Petitioner also objects to the proposed bridge at

the North Canal because the Petitioner contend s the existing

bridge pilings have caused a sand bar to form, and shoaling and

erosion would likely increase with construction of additional

pilings. The Petitioner believes the problem is caused by the

fact that the existing and proposed pilings, which w ould have

the same alignment, are not parallel to water flow in the canal.

42 . There are sand bars upstream of the bridge which

cannot have been caused by the bridge pilings.

43 . The North Canal, which runs downstream almost due east

makes a turn to the northeast under the North Canal Bridge. The

record evidence, as well as generally known facts of which the

Administrative Law Judge may take official recognition,

establish that a change in the direction of water flow in a

channel creates non - uniform flow , which can cause erosion and

shoaling.

44 . The Petitioner did not present evidence to distinguish

between shoaling and erosion that could be caused by the pilings

and shoaling and erosion that could be caused by the turn in the

canal. The P etitioner did not call a witness for this subject

who had special knowledge of the science of hydraulics and no

study was done by the Petitioner to confirm its theory of the

cause.

45 . The Petitioner has the burden of proof on disputed

issues of fact and failed to car ry its burden on this disputed

issue.

46 . The Applicant asserts that the conditions of the

proposed permit provide for maintenance that would include Ðthe

removal of any buildup of siltation that might occur over time

and potentially cause the North Canal Bridge structure to cease

operating as designed.Ñ However, whether the bridge is

operating as designed would not address whether the canal is

operating as designed because of shoaling.

47. There is no condition in the proposed permit that

imposes on the Applicant the duty to remove built - up sediment

beneath the North Canal Bridge. It is unlikely that such a

requirement can be imposed on the Applicant because it does not

own or control the canal.

48. The Petitioner claims the railroad authority denied t he

Petitioner access to the right - of - way when it sought permission

in the past to remove the sandbar at the North Canal Bridge.

Unfortunately, a permit condition that requires the Applicant to

cooperate with the Indian River Water Control District in

perf orming canal maintenance at the bridges is probably not

e nforceable.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Jurisdiction

49 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding. See §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat.

Standing

50 . For a petitioner to have standing, it must show that it

has a substantial interest that would be affected by the

proposed agency action. See § 120.52(13)(b), Fla. Stat.

51 . The Petitioner presented evidence demonstrating that

its inte rest could be affected, which is sufficient to establish

standing in this proceeding. See St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. v.

St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. , 54 So. 3d 1051, 1054 (Fla.

5th DCA 2011).

Burden and Standard of Proof

52 . The ERP was issued unde r chapter 373. A fter the

applicant for a chapter 373 permit has presented its prima facie

case for entitlement to the permit by entering into evidence the

application, relevant materials supporting the application, and

the agency staff report or notice of intent to issue the permit ,

the challeng er has the burden of ultimate persuasion to show the

applicant is not entitled to the permit. See § 120.569(2)(p),

Fla. Stat. The Applicant and SJRWMD presented a prima facie

case for entitlement to the ERP. Ther efore, the burden of

ultimate persuasion was on the Petitioner to prove their case in

opposition to the permit.

53 . The standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence.

See § 120.57)1)(j), Fla. Stat.

54 . Issuance of an ERP requires a demonstration of

reasonable assurance from the applicant that the activities

authorized will meet the applicable criteria contained in

Florida Administrative Code Rules 62 - 330.301 and 62 - 330.302, and

related provisions in the ApplicantÓs Handbook, Vol. I and II.

55 . The term Ðreasonable assuranceÑ means a demonstration

that there is a substantial likelihood of compliance with

standards. See Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Coscan Fla., Inc. , 609 So.

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

guarantees.

Applicable La ws and Rules

56 . The parties stipulated that the Project complies with

the conditions for issuance in rules 62 - 330.301(1)(a), (d), (e),

(f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k) and 62 - 330.302. Based on the

parties' stipulation, what remains at issue is whether t he

Applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the

construction, operation, and maintenance of the North Canal

Bridge and South Canal Bridge meet the conditions for issuance

in rule 62 - 330.301(1)(b) and (c).

57. This is not a rule challenge proceedin g. Therefore,

whether these rules should be amended to better accomplish the

regulatory objectives are not questions which can be considered.

58 . Rule 62 - 330.301 provides in relevant part:

To obtain an individual or conceptual

approval permit an applic ant must provide

reasonable assurance that the construction,

alteration, operation, and maintenance

removal, or abandonment of the projects

regulated under this chapter:

* * *

(b) Will not cause adverse flooding to on -

site or off - site property;

(c) Will not cause adverse impacts to

existing surface water storage and

conveyance capabilities; . . . .

59 . The Petitioner argues that the Project violates rule

62 - 330.301(1)(b) and (c) because the Project would cause adverse

flooding to offsite propert ies and adverse impacts to existing

surface water storage and conveyance capacities. The Petitioner

failed to prove that the Project would violate these rules .

60. The Project complies with the design standards for

flood protection in the ApplicantÓs Han dbook. The only

hydraulic analyses offered into evidence show the addition of

the proposed new bridges would have no impacts on upstream and

downstream properties and only de minimis impacts on the

conveyance capacity of the canals.

61 . The Petitioner ar gues that the bridge designs show

defects Ðon their faceÑ because of the lack of adequate

clearance between the low beam of the bridges and the water

elevation in the canals during a 100 - year flood event. By this

argument, the P etitioner is suggesting tha t its own one - foot

clearance requirement should be an inferred design criterion and

must be imposed by SJRWMD. That argument is inconsistent with

the prohibition against non - rule policy. See § 120.56(4), Fla.

Stat. There is no SJRWMD rule like the Petit ionerÓs rule that

imposes a minimum clearance.

62 . Furthermore, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that

the new bridges would cause flooding that would not already

occur during a 100 - year storm because of the height of the

existing bridges.

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

Environmental Resource Permit No. 135214 - 2 , with the conditions

set forth in the Technical Staff Report dated August 26, 2016.

DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March , 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRAM D. E. CANTER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

T he DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 30th day of March , 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ In its p roposed recommended order, the Applicant describes

the FEMA 100 - year flood elevations as Ð11.5 to 12.0 ft. NAVD88Ñ

(North Canal bridge) and Ð9.0 to 10.0 ft. NAVD88Ñ (South Canal

bridge), but there was no explanation why the elevations would

be expressed in ranges, rather than as single points. The

application documents show single numbers, 11.5 f ee t and

9.3 f ee t , respectively. See AAF Ex. 12, p. 4, and AAF Ex. 14,

p. 5.

2 / Petitioner did not challenge the proposed new bridge over the

Main Canal, presuma bly because there is a clearance of 4.1 feet

between the lowest horizontal beam and the FEMA 100 - year flood

elevation.

3/ Because the Petitioner contends there is no clearance when

the water in the canals is at the 100 - year flood elevation , it

is unclear why floating debris was PetitionerÓs focus at the

final hearing, rather than the obstruction of flow caused by the

bridges themselves.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Joe Galletti

RAM Land Holdings, LLC

Post Office Box 533327

Orlando, Florida 32853

Jeffrey A. Co llier, Esquire

Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler,

Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.

106 East College Avenue , Suite 700

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(eServed)

Michael O Ó Haire, Esquire

O Ó Haire, Quinn, Casalino, Chartered

3111 Cardinal Drive

Vero Beach, Florida 3 2964 - 4375

(eServed)

Eugene E. Stearns, Esquire

Matthew W . Buttrick, Esquire

Cecilia Duran Simmons, Esquire

Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler

Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.

Museum Tower, Suite 2200

150 West Flagler Street

Miami, Florida 33130

(eServed)

James F. Johnston, Esquire

Scott A. Glass, Esquire

Shutts & Bowen LLP

Post Office Box 4956

Orlando, Florida 32801

(eServed)

Kealey A. West, Esquire

Erin H. Preston, Esquire

St. Johns River Water

Management District

4049 Reid Street

Palatka, Florida 32177

( eServed)

Ann B. Shortelle, Ph.D., Executive Director

St. Johns River Water

Management District

4049 Reid Street

Palatka, Florida 32177

(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 Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.