20-002995 Brian Hacker vs. Kelly Endres, Ifrain Lima, And Department Of Environmental Protection Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, December 1, 2020.

Summary: Respondents established a prima facie case of entitlement to the environmental resource permit. Petitioners did not carry their ultimate burden of persuasion to prove a case in opposition to the permit.

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held before Francine M. Ffolkes,

the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative

Hearings (DOAH), on September 17, 2020, in Tallahassee, Florida, via Zoom

video conferenc e .

A PPEARANCES

Petitioners: Tracy L. Kochman n , P ro se

249 Carolyn Drive

Oviedo, Florida 32765

Shelly M. Meier , P ro se

208 Long Acres Lane

Oviedo, Florida 32765

Brain Hacker , P ro se

170 Long Acres Lane

Oviedo, Florida 32765

For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection:

Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent s Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima:

Neysa Borkert, Esquire

Garganese, Weiss, D’Agresta and Salzman

1 1 1 North Orange Avenue

Post Office Box 398

Orlando, Florida 32802

S TATEMENT OF THE I SSUE

The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and

Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima) , are entitled to an Environmental Resource

Permit ( ERP ) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted

wetlands for the construction of a single - famil y residence and associated

structures, a 30 ' x 30 ' private dock with a 4 ' access walkway, and a 12 ' wide

boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Ov i edo, Florida (Pro perty ).

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted an application

for the ERP. On February 7, 20 20 , Respondent , Department of

Environmental Protection (Department) , issued a notice of intent to issue

the ERP (NOI) for the Project .

On May 26, 2020, Petitioner , Shelley Meier (Meier) , timely filed a

p etition for h earing with the Department. On June 11, 2020, Petitioner ,

Brian Hacker (Hacker) , and Petitioner , Tracy Kochmann (Kochmann) ,

separately , timely filed petitions for hearing with the Department. On

July 1, 2020 , the Department referred the three petitions to DOAH . DOAH

consolidated the petitions on July 7, 2020.

The parties filed their Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation on September 8,

2020 , and an Amended Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation on September 14,

2020. Respondents Endres/Lim a filed a Motion to S trike Witness David

Mahnken ( Mahnken ) and Petitioner Kochmann filed an objection to the

motion on September 16, 2020. The Department filed a Motion in Limine also

on September 16, 2020. On September 17, 2020 , the Department’s motion

was granted , in part , a s it related to matters concerning the City of Oviedo 's

enforcement action ; and was denied as to the previous dredge and fill

violation on the Property. Respondents Endres/Lima’s motion to strike was denied at the final hearing.

At the final hearing, Joint Exhibits J - 1 through J - 6 were admitted

into evidence. Respondents Endres/Lima presented the expert and fact

testimonies of John Herbert ( Herbert ) , who was accepted as an expert in

civil engineering; and Gary Exner (Exner) , who w as accepted as an expert in

biology. Respondents Endres/Lima’s Exhibits R - 1 , R - 5 , and R - 6 were

admitted into evidence.

The Department presented the fact testimony of Megan Warr (Warr) ,

Environmental Specialist III ; and Jason Seyfert, Environmental Manager .

The Department’s Exhibits D - 1 through D - 3 were admitted into evidence.

Petitioners presented the fact testimony of Nicholas Lenssen and

Mr. Hacker ; and the expert testimony of Mr. Mahnken, an environmental

scientist. Petitioners ’ Exhibits P - 1 , P - 8 , and P - 22 were admitted into

evidence. The Petitioners proffered exhibits P - 2, P - 13, and P - 21, which

were denied admission into evidence.

The three - volume Transcript of the hearing was filed with DOAH on

October 16, 2020. The parties timely filed their propos ed recommended

orders on November 6, 2020.

References to Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version, unless otherwise

stated.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties

and the evidence adduced at the final hearing.

The Parties

1 . The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily

charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water

resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of

chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated ,

thereunder , in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the

Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs .

2. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the a pplicants for

the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding.

3. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the

Property. Petitioner Meier ' s property includes a single - family residence with

accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is

concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and

that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Pr oject.

4. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the

south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker ' s property includes a single - family

residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is

concerned with the completene ss of the application for the Project, the

calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided,

and that the Department ' s NOI ignores willful negligence and allows

d i sp a rate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima.

5. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single - family

residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence

that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to elimi nate and

reduce impacts detrimental to the environment.

History of the Project and Application

6. On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for

proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single - family home on

the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The

Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24,

2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018.

7. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule

Analysis for " As If In - Basin " for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns

River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on

May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the

Department on September 19, a nd October 30, 2018.

8. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The

Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a

Consent Order (CO) . The Department found , and Respondents Endres/Lima

admitted , that approximately 0.80 acres of juris dictional wetlands were

dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department ; and was done

with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls.

9. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second

ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to

which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In

addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0 .60 of forested U niform

Mitigation Assessment Method (U MAM ) wetland credits from the Lake X

Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and

Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter.

10. The Department issued a n NOI on February 7, 2020 , which was timely

published in the Sanford He rald on February 9, 2020. Respondents

Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on

February 13, 2020.

Consent Order and Compliance

11. A w arning l etter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on

January 30, 20 19, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of

forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control.

12. The CO , executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondent s

Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or cons truction activities on the

Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days , and

pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department 's costs and expenses.

After the issuance of an ERP, Respondent s Endres/Lima were also required

to implement the r estoration a ctions outlined in the CO.

13. Respondents ’ Endres/Lima’s application , dated August 19, 2020 , was

submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents E ndres/Lima

paid the CO's penalties and costs , and had multiple me etings with the

Department to complete the requirements of the CO.

14. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert , Mr. Exner , testified that he began

working on a restoration plan for the Property , which will be provided to the

Department once an ERP is issue d.

P ermitting Criteria

15. The Department reviewed the complete a pplication and determined

that it satisfied the conditions for issuance und er Florida Administrative

Code R ule 62 - 330.301, and the applicable sections of the E RP Applicant ' s

Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I).

16. The Department also considered the seven criteria in r ule 62 - 330.302

and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project

would not be contrary to the public interest.

Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance

17. Respondents ’ Endres/Lima' s civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert ,

testified that a ccording to the drainage design, the Property would have

swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the

residence . There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property

boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the

restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake.

18. He stated that the elevation of the roa d at the front of the Property

would be at 47.4 feet , and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be

at 45 feet . This would allow a 2.4 - f oo t vertical fall for the swales to convey

water to the lake. Th e design would preserve pre - development surface water

flow over the Property to Long Lake , which is the lowest elevation in the

area , and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties.

19. M r. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain

pre - deve lopment water storage capacity. The impo rted fill that is currently

on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the

lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly.

Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation

20. Respondents Endres/Lima provid ed the Department with design

modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project . These included a

15 - foot restoration buffer along the lake front ' s northern shoreline, an

elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the

proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting

the boat ramp width to a single - lane.

21. In June 2015 , an informal wetlands determination was conducted for

the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entir ety of the

Property w ere wetlands . H owever, this was an informal determination and

was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was

submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the

Property being cleared or disturbed.

22. Mr. Exner testified that , in his opinion , the Property was not all

wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks,

adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along

with other indicators of up land habitat. This wetland delineation was p art of

the permit submittal, was shown o n the plans, was accepted by the

Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring.

Mr. Exner ' s wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help

determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO.

23. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary

impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres , and a functional loss

score of 0.364. Respondent s Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM

mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the

UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation

bank credits implement part of a plan that provide s regional ecologica l value

and greater long - term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely

a ffected.

Secondary and Cumulative Impacts

24. The Project 's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres , or 870 square feet ,

of secondary impacts . These impacts w ould be fully offset by the mitig ation

proposed for the Project.

25. Petitioners ' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought

the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call

out the location of the secondary impacts. H owever, Part III: Plans of Section

B of the application , does not require that the site plan show the location of

the secondary impacts. T he application requirements for " plans " requires

only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the

acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas , and the remaining

untouched area .

26. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to

determine the secondary impact acreage . H owever, Mr. Mahnken read the

information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0 .002

acres , or 87 square feet , when th e UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the

secondary impact area is 0 .02 acres , or 870 square feet.

27. In addition, the Department ' s witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if

the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken ' s analysis, the result would have

been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits.

Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim t hat the Project would have

adverse secondary impacts.

28. Third, Mr. M ahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not

adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property

using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to ful ly offset the

impacts of the Project . Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his

opinion was open to debate , and that he had not con ducted any rigorous

hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion.

29. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by

Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order

to demonstrate compliance with s ection 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding

cumulative impacts.

30 . T he BDA Report utilized peer - reviewed hydrologic da ta that was

reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District ,

and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This

was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Miti gation Bank.

3 1 . The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage

basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located

outside of the Econlockh atchee River drainage basin, but the Project is

located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area.

3 2 . The BDA report determined that:

In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a

regionally significant mitigation bank site that has

direct hydrological and ecological connections to the

SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative

impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size,

biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank

site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally

significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this

mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for

the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additio nally,

the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of

waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover

benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on

the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiv a)

mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and

demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will

fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the

Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in - basin”

mitigation. The Lake X Mitigat ion Bank will

protect and maintain the headwaters of two

regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the

Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)],

and will provide resource protection to both river

systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to

the SJRWMD basins located within th e permitted

MSA.

33. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a

hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By

contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at

all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that

the Project would be fully offse t with the proposed m itigation. Thus,

Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project

will not cause unac ceptable cumulative impacts.

Water Quality

34. Rule 62 - 330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide

reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of

receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated .

35. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management

practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with

grass seed or sod, and a silt fence.

36. Respondent Endres/Lima' s experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner,

testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these

items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project,

par t of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the

Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in

accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP - 2.

37. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner

that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone , which

would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area

and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to

prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake.

38. Mr. Ex ner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project

would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of

surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake,

the restoration plan include s a dense planting plan with native species that

have good nutrient uptake capability .

Impacts to Fish and Wildlife

39. Rule 62 - 330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide

reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and

other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that , in his review of the Property,

he did not identify any c ritical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property

multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat,

gopher tortoises , or sand hill cranes.

40. The Department's Ms. W arr testified that the Florida Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed , a nd did not show

any listed species in the area.

Publication of N otice

41. Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on

February 9, 2020 , did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4).

D esp ite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challeng e the

proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient

because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the

address of the Project, only a link to the Department ' s permit file.

42. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has

filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a

particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of

the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the

proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed

activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water

or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity

subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the

application; or a name or numbe r identifying the application and the office

where the application can be inspected.

43. In response to the published notice, the Department received

approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petiti ons

timely filed by Petitioners. The refore, Petitioners were not harmed by any

information alleged to have been left out of the published notice.

Ultimate Findings

44. Respondents Endres/Lima provide d reasonable assurance that the

Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to rec eiving waters and

adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on - site or off - site property;

and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and

conveyance capabilities.

45. Respondent s Endres/Lima provide d reasonable assurance that the

Project complie d with elimination and reduction of impacts , a nd proposed

more than adequate mitigation.

46. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the

Proj e ct will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources ; and

unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters

within the same drainage basin.

47. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the

Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water

bodies.

48 . Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the

P roject will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and

wildlife, and listed species by wetlands , or other surface waters.

49. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reaso nable assurance by a

preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

Nature of the Proceeding

50. This is a de novo proceeding, designed to formulate final agency

action, and not to review action taken preliminarily. See Capeletti Bros. v.

Dep't of Gen. Servs. , 432 So. 2d 1359, 1363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).

51. The standard of proof for this proceeding is a preponderance of the

evidence. See § 1 20.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat .

Burden of Proof

5 2 . Petitioners ' challenge to the ERP is governed by section 120.569(2)(p) ,

Florida Statutes . This section requires that the applicant present a prima

facie case demonstrating entitlement to the permit. Thereafter, a third party challenging the issuance of the permit has the burden "of ultima te

persuasion" and the burden "of going forward to prove the case in opposition

to the . . . permit." If the third party fails to carry its burden, the applicant

prevails by virtue of its prima facie case. See § 120.569(2)(p), Fla. Stat.

53. Section 120.569(2)(p) "clearly contemplates an abbreviated

presentation of the applicant's prima facie case." Last Stand, Inc., v. Fury

Mgmt., Inc. , Case No. 12 - 2574, RO ¶89 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 31, 2012; Fla. DEP

Feb. 7, 2013). The abbreviated presentation occurs beca use the statute

outlines the information that may constitute the applicant's prima facie case, which includes the application , and supporting materials , on which the

agency concluded that the applicant provided reasonable assurances of

compliance with app licable ERP criteria.

54. Respondents E ndres/Lima established a prima facie case of

entitlement to the ERP by entering into evidence the complete application ,

supporting documentation and testimony, and the Department's NOI and

draft permit. Petitioners did not carry their burden of ultimate persuasion to

prove their case in opposition to the ERP by a preponderance of the

competent and substantial evidence. See Washington Cty. v. Bay C ty. & NW

Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. , Case Nos. 10 - 2983, 10 - 2984, 10 - 10100 (Fla. DOAH

July 26, 2012; Fla. NWFWMD Sep. 27, 2012).

Permitting Standard

55. Issuance of the ERP is dependent o n there being reasonable

assurances that the Project would meet applicable statutory and regulatory

standards. See §§ 373.413 , 373.4136, and 37 3.414, Fla. Stat. ; Fla. Admin.

Code R. 62 - 330; Sections 10.2 and 10.3 , ERP AH , Vol. I.

56. "Reasonable assurance" means "a substantial likelihood that the

project will be successfully implemented." See Metro. Dade C ty. v. Coscan

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

not require absolute guarantees that the applicable conditions for issuance of

a permit have been satisfied. Further, speculation or subjective beliefs are

not sufficient to carry the burden of presenting contrary evidence or proving a

lack of reasonable assurance necessary to demonstrate that a permit should

not be issued. See FINR II, Inc. v. CF Indus., Inc. , Case No. 11 - 6495 (Fla.

DOAH Apr. 30, 2012; Fla. DEP June 8, 2012) , aff'd 118 So. 3d 809 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2013).

Public Interest

57. Section 373.414(1)(a) requires a determination that a proposed project

is not contrary to the public interest or is clearly in the public interest . The

Department "shall consider and balance" seven factors. All seven factors are

collectively considered to determine whether, on balance, a proposed project

satisfies the public interest test. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Dep't of

Envtl. Reg. , 552 So. 2d 946, 953, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den. , 5 62 So.

2d 345 (Fla. 1990); Last Stand, Inc. v. Fury Mgmt., Inc ., Case No. 12 - 2574

(Fla. DOAH Dec. 31, 2012; Fla. DEP Feb. 7, 2013).

58. Respondents Endres/Lima demonstrated that the Project is not

contrary to the public interest pursuant to s ection 373.41 4(1)(a) . They proved

that the Project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; the conservation of fish or wildlife or their habitats; the navigation

or flow of water in Long Lake; fishing or recreational value of Long Lake; or

sig nificant historical resources. The current condition , and value of functions

being performed by areas affected by the Project , will not be adversely

affected . Mr. Exner persuasively testified that the quality of the wetlands on

the Property pre - clearing were of moderate condition and had been degraded

due to other developments along Long Lake resulting in a loss of continuity.

59. Petitioners opposed the ERP , but did not show any contrary evidence

of equivalent quality to prove that the Project is contra ry to the public

interest. See Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So. 2d 778, 789 (Fla.

1st DCA 1981) .

R ECOMMENDATION

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

R ECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting

Respondents ’ Endres/Lima's ERP application .

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 1st day of December , 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida .

F RANCINE M. F FOLKES

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The 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 1st day of December , 2020.

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard , Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Neysa Borkert, Esquire

Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman

111 North Orange Avenue

Post Office Box 398

Orlando, Florida 32802

(eServed)

Tracy L. Kochmann

249 Carolyn Drive

Oviedo, Florida 32765

(eServed)

Shelley M. Meier

208 Long Acres Lane

Oviedo, Florida 32765

(eServed)

Brian Hacker

170 Long Acres Lane

Oviedo, Florida 32765

(eServed)

Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection

Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

Legal Department, Suite 1051 - J

Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Noah Valenstein, Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection

Douglas Building

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

T allahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT TO S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

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.