STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GREENSPACE PRESERVATION ) ASSOCIATION, INC.; FRANK ) WARD; SAL LOCASCIO; ) FREDERICK P. PETERKIN; and ) HAROLD M. STAHMER, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

vs. ) Case Nos. 97-2845

) 97-2846

ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER )

MANAGEMENT DISTRICT and )

CITY OF GAINESVILLE, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, this matter was heard on October 20 and 21, and November 6, 1997, in Gainesville, Florida, by Donald R. Alexander, the assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioners: Samuel A. Mutch, Esquire

2790 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 100, Meridien Centre Gainesville, Florida 32606

For Respondent: Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire (District) Mary Jane Angelo, Esquire

Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429

For Respondent: Richard R. Whiddon, Jr., Esquire (City) Post Office Box 1110

Gainesville, Florida 32602-1110

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether the City's applications for an individual stormwater permit and a noticed general environmental resource permit for Phase 1A of the proposed Hogtown Creek Greenway should be approved.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Case No. 97-2845 began in May 1997 when Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District, issued its notice of intent to issue an individual stormwater permit to Respondent, City of Gainesville, authorizing the construction of a 2,000 foot long asphaltic trail/boardwalk, a parking facility, and associated improvements related to Phase IA of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project in the City of Gainesville. Case No. 97-2846 involves the proposed issuance of a noticed general environmental resource permit to the City of Gainesville to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters for the same project.

On June 9, 1997, Petitioners, Greenspace Preservation Association, Inc., Frank Ward, Sal Locascio, Frederick P. Peterkin, Harold M. Stahmer and Jane B. Conner, filed Petitions for Initiation of Formal Proceedings with the St. Johns River Water Managment District seeking to contest the issuance of the two permits.

The cases were referred by the agency to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1997, with a request that an

Administrative Law Judge be assigned to conduct a final hearing.

By Notice of Hearing dated July 2, 1997, the two cases were consolidated and a final hearing was scheduled on October 1 and 2, 1997, in Gainesville, Florida. Petitioners' Motion to Reschedule was granted, and the hearing was continued to October

20 and 21, 1997, at the same location. At Petitioners' request, the cases were again rescheduled to October 21 and 22, 1997.

On June 30, 1997, Respondents filed Motions to Strike certain portions of the petitions. The motions were granted by order dated August 2, 1997, and Petitioners were required to file amended petitions reflecting the changes required by the order.

Thereafter, on September 19 and 24, 1997, Petitioners filed a First Amended Petition for Initiation of Formal Proceedings in Case No. 96-2845 and a Second Amended Petition for Initiation of Formal Proceedings in Case No. 96-2846. On October 13, 1997, the undersigned granted a Motion to Strike paragraph (e)(3) on pages

4 and 5 of the Second Amended Petition.

At final hearing, Jane B. Conner was removed as a party due to ill health. The remaining Petitioners presented the testimony of Thomas L. Morris, accepted as an expert in biology and impacts of construction projects on the biota of North Florida; Dr. David

L. Auth, accepted as an expert in zoology and herpetology in the State of Florida; Dr. Daniel B. Ward, accepted as an expert in botany; and Charles Swallows, a professional engineer and accepted as an expert in civil engineering. Also, they offered Petitioners' Exhibits 1-6. All exhibits except number 2 were

received in evidence. Respondent St. Johns River Water Management District presented the testimony of Timothy Segul, accepted as an expert in water resource engineering; Barbara Hatchitt, accepted as an expert in wetlands ecology, wetlands delineation, and environmental resource permitting; Patrick M. Frost, accepted as an expert in wetlands ecology and water managment permitting; and Rory Causseaux. Also, it offered District Exhibits 1, 2, 3A and B, 4, 5A-D, 6 and 8. All exhibits were received in evidence. The City presented the testimony of Rory Causseaux, a professional engineer and accepted as an expert in civil engineering; Larry Sellers, accepted as an expert in wetland delineation; Wayne Bowers; Theresa Scott; Deanna Kinnard; and Timothy Sagul. Also, it offered City Exhibits 1-26. All exhibits were received. Finally, the undersigned took official recognition of Chapters 40C-1, 40C-41, 40C-42, 40C-400, 62-302, 62-340, 62-520, and 62-550, Florida Administrative Code; the St. Johns River Water Management District's Applicants Handbook: Regulation of Stormwater Management Systems, Chapter 40C-42, Florida Administative Code, dated October 3, 1995; Rules

39-27.003, 39-27.004, 39-27.005, and 40C-4.021, Florida

Administrative Code; and 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 17.12.

The transcript of hearing (five volumes) was filed on November 13, 1997. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were due no later than December 1, 1997. They were timely

filed by Respondents, and they have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

On December 15, 1997, or two weeks after the designated due date, Petitioners filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. That proposed order is the subject of a Motion to Strike filed by the agency.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:

1. Background

   
   

   1. In these two cases, Respondent, City of Gainesville (City), seeks the issuance of a stormwater system management permit (stormwater permit) to construct a 2,000-foot long asphaltic trail/boardwalk, a parking facility and associated improvements for Phase 1A of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project in the north central portion of the City. That matter is docketed as Case No. 97-2845. The City also seeks the issuance of a noticed general environmental resource permit (NGP) to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters for the same project. That matter has been assigned Case No. 97-2846. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), is the regulatory agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing and approving the requested permits.

   2. Petitioner, Greenspace Preservation Association, Inc., is a not-for-profit Florida corporation primarily composed of persons who own real property adjacent to the route proposed by the City, as well as local environmental interests. Petitioners, Frank Ward, Sal Locascio, Frederick P. Peterkin, and Harold M. Stahmer, are individuals who own real property adjacent to the route proposed by the City for the Greenway. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are substantially affected by the District's proposed action and thus have standing to initiate these cases.

   3. On March 28, 1997, the City filed applications for a stormwater permit and a NPG for Phase IA of the Hogtown Creek Greenway project. After conducting a review of the applications, including an on-site visit to the area, in May 1997, the District proposed to issue the requested permits.

   4. On June 9, 1997, Petitioners timely filed a Petition for Initiation of Formal Proceedings as to both intended actions. As amended and then refined by stipulation, Petitioners generally allege that, as to the stormwater permit, the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project meets the permitting requirements of the District; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater system will not cause violations of state water quality standards; the City has failed to provide reasonable asurance that the project satisfies the District's minimum required design features; and the City has

      failed to provide reasonable assurance that the stormwater system is capable of being effectively operated and maintained by the City.

   5. As to the NPG, Petitioners generally allege that the piling supported structure is not less than 1,000 square feet; the jurisdictional wetlands are greater than the area shown on the plans submitted by the City; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system will not significantly impede navigation; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not violate state water quality standards; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not impede the conveyance of a watercourse in a manner that would affect off-site flooding; the City has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system will not cause drainage of wetlands; and the City failed to provide reasonable assurance that the system does not adversely impact aquatic or wetland dependent listed species.

   6. Respondents deny each of the allegations and aver that all requirements for issuance of the permits have been met. In addition, the City has requested attorney's fees and costs under Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), on the theory that these actions were filed for an improper purpose.

2. A General Description of the Project

   
   

   1. The Hogtown Creek Greenway is a long-term project that will eventually run from Northwest 39th Street southward some

      seven miles to the Kanapaha Lake/Haile Sink in southwest Gainesville. These cases involve only Phase 1A of that project, which extends approximately one-half mile. This phase consists of the construction of a 2,000-foot long asphaltic concrete trail/boardwalk, a timber bridge and boardwalk, a parking facility, and associated improvements. The trail will extend from the Loblolly Environmental Facility located at Northwest 34th Street and Northwest 5th Avenue, to the intersection of Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 31st Drive.

   2. The trail will have a typical width of ten feet. For the majority of its length, the trail will be constructed of asphaltic concrete overlying a limerock base, and it will generally lie at the existing grade and slope away from the creek.

   3. Besides the trail, additional work involves the repaving of Northwest 5th Avenue with the addition of a curb and gutter, the construction of an entrance driveway, paved and grassed parking areas, and sidewalks at the Loblolly Environmental Facility, and the widening and addition of a new turn lane and pedestrian crosswalk at the intersection of Northwest 8th Avenue and Northwest 31st Drive.

3. The Stormwater Permit

   
   

   1. Generally

      
      

      1. The entire Phase IA project area lies within the Hogtown Creek 10-year floodplain. It also lies within the Hogtown Creek Hydrologic Basin, which basin includes approximately 21 square miles. The project area for the proposed stormwater permit is 4.42 acres.

   2. Water quality criteria

      
      

      1. Phase IA of the Greenway will not result in discharges into surface groundwater that cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards.

      2. When a project meets the applicable design criteria under the District's stormwater rule, there is a presumption that

         the project will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. There are two dry retention basins associated with the project. Basin 1 is located at the cul-de-sac of Northwest 5th Avenue and will capture and retain the stormwater runoff from the new and reconstructed impervious areas at the Loblolly Facility. Basin 2 is located at the parking area and will capture and retain stormwater runoff at the existing building and proposed grass parking area.

      3. Under the stormwater rule, the presumptive criteria for retention basins require that the run-off percolate out of the basin bottom within 72 hours. The calculations performed by the City's engineer show that the two retention basins will recover within that timeframe. In making these calculations, the engineer used the appropriate percolation rate of ten inches per hour. Even using the worst case scenario with a safety factor of twenty and a percolation rate of one-half inch per hour, the two retention basins will still recover within 72 hours.

      4. The presumptive criteria for retention basins require that the basin store a volume equal to one inch of run-off over the drainage area or 1.25 inches of run-off over the impervious area plus one-half inch of run-off over the drainage area. The calculations performed by the City's engineer show that the two retention basins meet the District's volume requirements for retention systems.

      5. An applicant is not required to utilize the presumptive

         design criteria, but instead may use an alternative design if the applicant can show, based on calculations, tests, or other information, that the alternative design will not cause a violation of state water quality standards. As a general rule, the District applies its stormwater rule so that water quality treatment is not required for projects or portions of projects that do not increase pollutant loadings. This includes linear bicycle/pedestrian trails. The City's proposed trail will not be a source of pollutants.

      6. The City will install signs at both entrances to the trail to keep out motorized vehicles. Except for emergency and maintenance vehicles, motorized vehicles will not be permitted on the trail. The infrequent use by emergency or maintenance vehicles will not be sufficient to create water quality concerns. The construction of a treatment system to treat the stormwater from the trail would provide little benefit and would only serve to unnecessarily impact natural areas.

      7. Although treatment of the stormwater run-off from the trail portion of the project is not required under District rules, the run-off will receive treatment in the vegetated upland buffer adjacent to the trail. The District's proposed other condition number 3 will require the City to plant vegetation in unvegetated and disturbed areas in the buffer. This will reduce the likelihood of erosion or sedimentation problems in the area of the trail. Although disputed at hearing, it is found that the

         City's engineer used the appropriate Manning coefficient in the calculations regarding the buffer. Even without a vegetated buffer, run-off coming from the bicycle trail will not violate state water quality standards.

      8. The City will install appropriate erosion and sediment controls. These include siltation barriers along the entire length of both sides of the proposed trail prior to commencing construction. Such barriers will not allow silt or other material to flow through, over, or under them.

      9. The City will also place hay bales and any other silt fencing necessary to solve any erosion problem that may occur during construction. In addition, the permit will require an inspection and any necessary repairs to the siltation barriers at the end of each day of construction.

      10. Saturation of the limerock bed under the paved portion of the trail is not expected to cause a problem because heavy vehicles will not regularly use the trail. The trail portion of the project can be adequately maintained to avoid deterioration.

   3. Sensitive Karst Areas Basin criteria

      
      

      1. The two proposed dry retention basins for Phase 1A are located within the District's Sensitive Karst Areas Basin. They include all of the minimum design features required by the District to assure adequate treatment of the stormwater before it enters the Floridan aquifer and to preclude the formation of solution pipe sinkholes in the stormwater system.

      2. There will be a minimum of three feet of unconsolidated soil material between the surface of the limestone bedrock and the bottom and sides of the two retention basins. The appropriate mechanism for determining the depth of limestone is to do soil borings. The soil borings performed by the City show that there is at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basins and any limerock where the borings were taken. In other words, limestone would not be expected to be within three feet of the bottom of either basin. Based on the soil boring results, the seasonal high water table is at least six feet below ground level.

      3. The depth of the two retention basins will be less than ten feet. Indeed, the depth of the basins will be as shallow as possible and will have a horizontal bottom with no deep spots. To make the retention basins any larger would require clearing more land. A large shallow basin with a horizontal bottom

         results in a lower hydraulic head and therefore is less potential for a sinkhole to form. Before entering the basins, stormwater will sheet flow across pavement and into a grass swale, thereby providing some dispersion of the volume.

      4. Finally, the two retention basin side slopes will be vegetated. Special condition number 7 provides that if limestone is encountered during excavation of a basin, the City must over- excavate the basin and backfill with three feet of unconsolidated material below the bottom of the basin.

   4. Drainage and flood protection

      
      

      1. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the project will not adversely affect drainage or flood protection on surrounding properties.

      2. The trail will be constructed generally at existing grade. Because the trail will be constructed at existing grade, the net volume of fill necessary for Phase 1A is approximately zero. Therefore, there will not be a measurable increase in the amount of runoff leaving the site after construction, and the trail will not result in an increase in off-site discharges.

      3. District rules require that the proposed post- development peak rate of discharge from a site not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the mean annual storm only for projects that exceed fifty percent impervious surface. The proposed project has less than fifty percent impervious surface. Even though it is not required, the City has

         demonstrated that the post-development rate of discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge.

      4. Both basins will retain the entire mean annual storm so that the post-development rate of discharge is zero. Even during a 100-year storm event, the retention basins willl not discharge. Therefore, there will not be any increase in floodplain elevations during the 10, 25, or 100-year storm events from the proposed project.

   5. Operation and maintenance entity requirements

   1. The applicable requirements of Chapter 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code, regarding operation and maintenance, have been met by the applicant.

   2. The City proposes itself as the permanent operation and maintenance entity for the project. This is permissible under District regulations. The duration for the operation and maintenance phase of the permit is perpetual.

   3. The City has adequate resources and staff to maintain the phase 1A portion of the project. The public works department will maintain the stormwater management system out of the City's utility fund.

   4. The City provides periodic inspections of all of its stormwater systems. These inspections are paid for out of the collected stormwater fees. The City will also conduct periodic inspections of the project area, and the two retention basins will be easily accessed by maintenance vehicles.

   5. The City will be required to submit an as-built certification, signed and sealed by a professional engineer, once the project is constructed. Monthly inspections of the system must be conducted looking for any sinkholes or solution cavities that may be forming in the basins. If any are observed, the City is required to notify the District and repair the cavity or sinkhole.

   6. Once the system is constructed, the City will be required to submit an inspection report biannually notifying the District that the system is operating and functioning in accordance with the permitted design. If the system is not functioning properly, the applicant must remediate the system.

   7. The City will be required to maintain the two retention basins by mowing the side slopes, repairing any erosion on the side slopes, and removing sediment that accumulates in the basins. Mowing will be done at least six times per year. The City will stabilize the slopes and bottom areas of the basins to prevent erosion.

   8. The City has a regular maintenance schedule for stormwater facilities. The project will be included within the

      City's regular maintenance program.

   9. The City has budgeted approximately $80,000.00 for maintenance of the trail and vegetated buffer. Also, it has added new positions in its budget that will be used to maintain and manage the Greenway system.

   10. Finally, City staff will conduct daily inspections of the Phase 1A trail looking for problems with the vegetated buffer, erosion problems along the trail, and sediment and debris in the retention basin. If the inspections reveal any problems, the staff will take immediate action to correct them.

4. The Noticed General Environmental Resource Permit

1. Generally

   
   

   1. By this application, the City seeks to construct 481 square feet of piling supported structures over wetlands or surface waters. The proposed structures include a 265 square foot timber bridge over an un-vegetated flow channel, which connects a borrow area to Possum Creek, and a 216 square foot boardwalk over two small wetland areas located south of the flow channel. None of the pilings for the bridge or boardwalk will be in wetlands, and no construction will take place in Hogtown or Possum Creeks. The paved portion of the trail will not go through wetlands, and there will be no dredging or filling in wetlands.

   2. The receiving waters for the project are Hogtown and Possum Creeks. Both are Class III waters. Hogtown Creek originates in north central Gainesville and flows southwest to

      Kanapaha Lake/Haile Sink in southwest Gainesville. Possum Creek originates in northwest Gainesville and flows southeast to its confluence with Hogtown Creek south of the proposed bridge structure.

      
      

2. Wetlands

   
   

   1. The total area of the proposed bridge and boardwalk over surface water or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet. The wetland delineation shown on the City's Exhibit 5A includes all of the areas in the project area considered to be wetlands under the state wetland delineation methodology.

   2. The United State Army Corps of Engineers' wetland line includes more wetlands than the District wetland line. The former wetland line was used to determine the area of boardwalk and bridge over wetlands. Even using this line, however, the total area of boardwalk over surface waters or wetlands is approximately 481 square feet and is therefore less than 1,000 square feet.

3. Navigation

   
   

   1. The proposed system does not significantly impede navigation. Further, the structures will span a wetland area and an un-vegetated flow channel, both of which are non-navigable.

      In fact, the flow channel generally exhibits little or no flow except after periods of rainfall.

4. Water quality

   1. The construction material that will be used for the bridge and boardwalk will not generate any pollutants. Morever, chemical cleaners will not be used on those structures.

   2. Silt fences will be used and vegetation will be planted in the vicinity of the bridge and boardwalk to prevent erosion and sedimentation problems. The amount of erosion from drip that comes off the boardwalk will be minimal. Therefore, the bridge and boardwalk will not cause a violation of state water quality standards.

5. Off-site flooding

   
   

   1. The project will not impede conveyance of any stream, river, or other water course which would increase off-site flooding.

   2. The structures will completely span the wetland areas and flow channel, and no part of the structures, including the pilings, will lie within any water or wetland areas including the flow channel. There will be a span of 2.5 to 3 feet from the horizontal members of the bridge and boardwalk down to the ground surface which will allow water to pass through unobstructed. Further, there will not be any cross ties or horizontal obstructions on the lower portions of the boardwalk or bridge pilings. Further, due to the spacing of the pilings, the boardwalk and bridge will not trap sufficient sediment such as leaves to impede the conveyance of the flow channel. Therefore, conveyance through the flow channel will not be affected by the

      structures.

      
      

   3. Because the boardwalk and bridge are not over Hogtown or Possum Creeks, they will not cause any obstruction to the conveyance of the creeks.

6. Aquatic and wetland dependent listed species

   
   

   1. The project will not adversely affect any aquatic or wetland dependent listed species. These species are defined by District rule as aquatic or wetland dependent species listed in Chapter 39-27, Florida Administrative Code, or 50 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 17.

   2. No such species are known to exist in the project area, and none are expected to exist in the location and habitat type of the project area. Therefore, contrary to Petitioners' assertions, there are no listed salamander, frog, turtle, or lizard species known to occur within the Hogtown Creek basin.

   3. Although it is possible that the box turtle may be found in the project area, it is not an aquatic or wetland dependent listed species.

   4. One baby American alligator (between two and three feet in length) was observed in the borrow pit area of the project on September 11, 1997. Except for this sighting, no other listed animal species have been observed in the project area. As to the alligator, the only area in which it could nest would be in the existing excavated borrow pit, and none of the proposed construction will take place in that area. More than likely, the alligator had walked into the area from Clear Lake, Kanapaha Prairie, or Lake Alice. The proposed structures will not affect the movement of the alligator nor its feeding habits.

7. Drainage of wetlands

   1. Because the boardwalk and bridge are elevated structures over waters and wetlands, and the City has not proposed to construct ditches or other drainage systems, the proposed system will not cause drainage of the wetlands.

8. Coral/macro-marine algae/grassbeds

1. The proposed system is not located in, on, or over coral communities, macro/marine algae, or a submerged grassbed community.

   D. Were the Petitions Filed for an Improper Purpose?

   
   

2. Prior to the filing of their petitions, Petitioners did not consult with experts, and they prepared no scientific investigations. Their experts were not retained until just prior to hearing.

3. Petitioners are citizens who have genuine concerns with the project. They are mainly longtime residents of the area who fear that the Greenway will not be properly maintained by the City; it will increase flooding in the area; it will cause water quality violations; and it will attract thousands of persons who will have unimpeded access to the back yards of nearby residents. Although these concerns were either not substantiated at hearing or are irrelevant to District permitting criteria, they were nonetheless filed in good faith and not for an improper purpose.

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

4. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto

   pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

5. As the party seeking the issuance of two permits, the City bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the

   evidence that it is entitled to such permits. See Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So. 2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

6. The District's requirements applicable to the City's stormwater application are found in Rules 40C-42.023(1), 40C- 42.025, 40C-42.026(1), 40C-42.027, 40C-42.028, and 40C-42.029, Florida Administrative Code. By a preponderance of the evidence, the City has demonstrated compliance with all pertinent criteria. The City has also satisfied the additional requirements in Rule 40C-41.063(6), Florida Administrative Code, for projects located within the Sensitive Karst Areas Basin.

7. The District's requirements applicable to the City's noticed general environmental resource permit application are found in Rule 40C-400.475(2), Florida Administrative Code. By a preponderance of the evidence, the City has provided the reasonable assurances required by the rule.

8. Finally, the City has asked that Petitioners be required to reimburse it for attorney's fees and costs on the theory that the petitions were filed for an improper purpose. Section 120.595(1)(b), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), provides that:

   The final order in a proceeding pursuant to

   s. 120.57(1) shall award reasonable costs and a reasonable attorney's fee to the prevailing party only where the nonprevailing adverse party has been determined by the administrative law judge to have participated in the proceeding for an improper purpose.

9. Subparagraph (e)1. of the same statute defines the term "improper purpose" as follows:

   "Improper purpose" means participation in a proceeding pursuant to s. 120.57(1) primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of an activity.

   
   

10. The City did, of course, prevail in these actions. Even so, the record does not support an award of attorney's fees and costs. This is because the undersigned has concluded that

    the petitions were filed in good faith and not for the purpose of delaying the issuance of the permits or needlessly increasing the costs of the City in securing the permits. This being so, the request by the City for attorney's fees and costs is denied.

11. Finally, the District's Motion to Strike Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order as being untimely is granted. Here, Petitioners failed to request leave to late-file their order, the order does not comport with the format required by Division rule, and the order essentially responds to proposed findings contained in the City's filing.

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 applications of the City of Gainesville and issuing the requested permits.

DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

DONALD R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (904) 921-6847

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 1997.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water

Management District Post Office Box 1429

Palatka, Florida 32178-1429

Samuel A. Mutch, Esquire 2790 Northwest 43rd Street Suite 100, Meridien Centre Gainesville, Florida 32606

Jennifer B. Springfield, Esquire Mary Jane Angelo, Esquire

Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429

Richard R. Whiddon, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1110 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1110

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order within fifteen days. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the St. Johns River Water Management District.

Docket for Case No: 97-002845

Orders for Case No: 97-002845