Findings Of Fact As planned, Phase I of Foxwood Lake Estates will consist of 300 mobile homes, which would require treatment of up to 45,000 gallons of sewage per day. The proposed sewage treatment plant would have a capacity of 46,000 gallons per day and would be capable of expansion. It would discharge treated, chlorinated water into a completely clay-lined polishing pond that has been designed for the whole of Foxwood Lake Estates at build-out; capacity of the polishing pond would be three times the capacity necessary for Phase I by itself. From the polishing pond, water is to flow into one or both of two evaporation-percolation ponds, either of which would be big enough for all the sewage expected from Phase I. The sides of these ponds would be lined with clay and a clay plug would constitute the core of the dike on the downslope side of each pond. According to the uncontroverted evidence, effluent leaving the treatment plant for the polishing pond would have been effectively treated by the latest technology and would already have been sufficiently purified to meet the applicable DER water quality requirements. The applicant proposes to dig the triangular polishing pond in the northwest corner of the Foxwood Lake Estates property, some 400 feet east of the western property line. The evaporation-percolation ponds would lie adjacent to the polishing pond along an axis running northwest to southeast. Their bottoms would be at an elevation of 164.5 feet above mean sea level and they are designed to be three feet deep. The evaporation-percolation ponds would lie some 300 feet east of the western property line at their northerly end and some 400 feet east of the western property line at their southerly end. A berm eight feet wide along the northern edge of the northern evaporation-percolation pond would be 50 feet from the northern boundary of the applicant's property. Forrest Sawyer owns the property directly north of the site proposed for the evaporation-percolation ponds. He has a house within 210 feet of the proposed sewage treatment complex, a well by his house, and another well some 300 feet away next to a barn. Two or three acres in the southwest corner of the Sawyer property are downhill from the site proposed for the ponds. This low area, which extends onto the applicant's property, is extremely wet in times of normal rainfall. Together with his brother and his sister, Charles C. Krug owns 40 acres abutting the applicant's property to the west; their father acquired the property in 1926. They have a shallow well some 100 feet from the applicant's western property boundary, and farm part of the hill that slopes downward southwesterly from high ground on the applicant's property. Sweetgum and bayhead trees in the area are also a money crop. Charles C. Krug, whose chief source of income is from his work as an employee of the telephone company, remembers water emerging from this sloping ground in wet weather. Borings were done in two places near the site proposed for the ponds. An augur boring to a depth of six feet did not hit water. The other soil boring revealed that the water table was 8.8 feet below the ground at that point. The topsoil in the vicinity is a fine, dark gray sand about six inches deep. Below the topsoil lies a layer of fine, yellow-tan sand about 30 inches thick. A layer of coarser sand about a foot thick lies underneath the yellow-tan sand. Beginning four or five feet below the surface, the coarser sand becomes clayey and is mixed with traces of cemented sand. Clayey sand with traces of cemented sand is permeable but water percolates more slowly through this mixture than through the soils above it. The applicant caused a percolation test to be performed in the area proposed for the ponds. A PVC pipe six feet long and eight inches in diameter was driven into the ground to the depth proposed for the evaporation-percolation ponds and 50 gallons of water were poured down the pipe. This procedure was repeated on 14 consecutive days except that, after a few days, the pipe took only 36 gallons, which completely drained into the soil overnight. There was some rain during this 14-day period. Extrapolating from the area of the pipe's cross-section, Vincent Pickett, an engineer retained by the applicant, testified that the percolation rate of the soils was on the order of 103 gallons per square foot per day, as compared to the design assumption for the ponds of 1.83 or 1.87 gallons per square foot per day. Water percolating down through the bottoms of the evaporation- percolation ponds would travel in a southwesterly direction until it mixed with the groundwater under the applicant's property. It is unlikely that the ponds would overflow their berms even under hurricane conditions. Under wet conditions, however, the groundwater table may rise so that water crops out of the hillside higher up than normal. The proposed placement of the ponds makes such outcropping more likely, but it is impossible to quantify this enhanced likelihood in the absence of more precise information about, among other things, the configuration of the groundwater table.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That DER grant the application on the conditions specified in its notice of intent to issue the same. Respectfully submitted and entered this 17th day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of December, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrew R. Reilly, Esquire Post Office Box 2039 Haines City, Florida 33844 Walter R. Mattson, Esquire 1240 East Lime Street Lakeland, Florida 33801 David M. Levin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent KW Resort Utilities Corp. ("KWRU") is entitled to issuance, by Respondent Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), of Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit FLA014951-012-DWIP and UIC Permits 18490-020 and 18490-021 (collectively, the "Permit at Issue"), authorizing the major modification of KWRU's existing permit to operate a domestic wastewater facility located at 6630 Front Street, Stock Island, Florida 33040. The Permit at Issue would authorize the expansion of KWRU's existing domestic wastewater facility and the installation of two additional underground injection wells.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Last Stand is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Florida law. Last Stand has challenged the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Petitioner George Halloran is a natural person residing in Key West, Florida, and is a member of Last Stand. Halloran has challenged the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Respondent KWRU is a Florida corporation. KWRU is the wastewater utility service provider that owns and operates the Existing Wastewater Facility2/ and is responsible for its design, construction, operation, and maintenance. It is the applicant for the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Respondent DEP is the state agency charged with administering the domestic wastewater program in Florida pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes, implementing, as applicable, rules codified at Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-4, 62-302, 62-303, 62-520, 62-528, 62-600, and 62-620, and various industry standards and manuals incorporated by reference into DEP rules. DEP's proposed agency action to grant the Permit at Issue is the subject of this proceeding. Background and Overview Domestic Wastewater Regulation in the Florida Keys The State of Florida has recognized the need to protect the Florida Keys' unique, sensitive environmental resources. To that end, portions of the Florida Keys are designated, pursuant to statute and by DEP rule, as an Outstanding Florida Water ("OFW"). § 403.061(27), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(9). The Florida Legislature also designated the Florida Keys an Area of Critical State Concern. § 380.0552, Fla. Stat. A stated purpose of this designation is to protect and improve the Florida Keys nearshore water quality through construction and operation of wastewater facilities that meet the requirements of section 403.086(10). Additionally, the Florida Legislature has enacted section 403.086(10), which addresses the discharge of domestic wastewater in the Florida Keys. That statute finds that the discharge of inadequately treated and managed domestic wastewater from small wastewater facilities and septic tanks and other onsite systems in the Florida Keys compromises the coastal environment, including the nearshore and offshore waters, and threatens the quality of life and local economies that depend on these resources. Section 403.086(10) directs that after December 31, 2015, all new or expanded domestic wastewater discharges must comply with the treatment and disposal requirements of the statute and DEP rules. Specifically, domestic wastewater treatment facilities having design capacities greater than or equal to 100,000 gallons per day must provide basic disinfection of the wastewater pursuant to DEP rule and must treat the wastewater to a level of treatment, which, on a permitted annual average basis, produces an effluent that contains no more than the following concentrations of the specified constituents: Biochemical Oxygen Demand ("CBOD5") of 5 milligrams per liter ("mg/L"); Suspended Solids of 5 mg/L; Total Nitrogen, expressed as N of 3 mg/L; and Total Phosphorus, expressed as P of 1 mg/L. Collectively, these effluent standards constitute the "advanced wastewater treatment" ("AWT") standards. Section 403.086(10)(e) also imposes requirements regarding disposal of treated domestic wastewater effluent through underground injection. Section 403.086(10)(e)1. requires Class V injection wells serving domestic wastewater treatment facilities having design capacities of less than one million gallons per day (hereafter "MGD") to be at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet, or to such greater cased depth and total well depth as may be required by DEP rule. Section 403.086(10)(e)2. requires Class V injection wells serving wastewater treatment facilities with design capacities greater than or equal to 1 MGD, excluding backup wells, to be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet or to such greater depth as may be required by DEP rule. The Existing Wastewater Facility KWRU currently is permitted, pursuant to Permit FLA014591 (the "Existing Permit"), to operate a domestic wastewater facility (the "Existing Wastewater Facility" or "Facility")3/ located at 6630 Front Street, Stock Island, Florida. Stock Island is located immediately east and slightly north of Key West. By way of background, KWRU's domestic wastewater system currently consists of three elements: a collection system, which collects wastewater from serviced properties; a transmission system, which transmits wastewater from the collection system to the treatment plant; and the Existing Wastewater Facility, which treats the wastewater and then sends it either as reclaimed water for reuse as irrigation water at the Key West Golf Club, or for toilet flushing or air conditioning makeup water at other facilities specified in the Existing Permit,4/ or disposes of it as treated effluent through two underground injection wells. No modifications to the collection or transmission systems have been proposed or challenged. Thus, only the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility are at issue in this proceeding. The Existing Wastewater Facility serves residential and commercial properties located on Stock Island, Florida, immediately adjacent to Key West in the lower Florida Keys. Specifically, the Facility treats domestic wastewater originating from approximately 1,416 existing residential connections and 216 commercial connections. The commercial connections consist of a convalescent center, a college, restaurants, recreational vehicle parks, an animal clinic, and a hospital. There are no industrial wastewater contributors to the Facility. The Facility includes a Category III, Class C wastewater treatment facility operating under the Existing Permit. It is staffed by a Class C or higher operator for six hours a day, seven days per week, in accordance with the Existing Permit and applicable DEP rules. The Facility has a design capacity and a permitted capacity5/ of .499 MGD annual average daily flow ("AADF") and consists of two treatment trains having capacities of .249 MGD and .250 MGD AADF. These treatment trains are piped together to allow operation of the Facility as a single plant. The Facility was upgraded in the mid-2000s and is capable of treating influent wastewater to AWT. However, as authorized under the Existing Permit, the Facility currently treats domestic wastewater to secondary standards, which do not impose nitrogen or phosphorous limits. Under the Existing Permit and in accordance with section 403.086(10), the Facility is not required to meet AWT standards until January 1, 2016. Vacuum and gravity collection systems collect the domestic wastewater from the properties that KWRU services. Wastewater influent from the collection systems flows through the transmission system to a splitter box at the KWRU property, where it is sent to the Facility for treatment. The Facility contains two treatment trains, each consisting of a bar screen, an equalization tank, an aeration tank, an anoxic zone, a post-aeration basin, a clarifier, a silica sand/river rock filter, and a chlorine contact chamber. The bar screens, which constitute the first step in the treatment trains, remove floatables from the wastewater stream. After passing through the bar screens, the wastewater drops into two equalization tanks. As their name indicates, the equalization tanks smooth out the peaks in wastewater flow to the Existing Wastewater Facility. Specifically, wastewater flows to the Facility in large volumes during two periods each day, morning and evening, corresponding with peak water use by the serviced properties. During these large flow volume periods, the equalization tanks fill up with sewage influent, which is meted out during lower-flow periods for treatment by the Facility. In this manner, the Facility treats roughly the same amount of wastewater per hour, which is key to the steady state operation of, and the reliable treatment of the wastewater by, the Facility. From the equalization tanks, the wastewater is directed to the three-stage bioreactor portion of the treatment process. Microorganisms are utilized at each stage to break down the waste. The first stage of the bioreactor process occurs in the aeration basins. Here, wastewater enters the fine-air zone, where it and the microbes used in this stage of the treatment process come into contact with tiny oxygen bubbles. The microorganisms use the oxygen to oxidize the waste and complete the ammonification of the wastewater. The wastewater then passes through bulkheads to the anoxic zones, where the oxygen level is extremely low. In the anoxic zones, bacteria denitrify, or remove nitrogen from, the wastewater. The wastewater is then sent to the post-aeration basins, where excess carbon is removed through oxidation. Thereafter, the wastewater is sent to the clarifiers, where the microorganisms settle out of the wastewater to form a solid precipitate on the bottom of the tank. The precipitate is plowed into a sump and returned by pump to the bioreactors, where the microorganisms are reused in the activated treatment process. When the microorganisms cease to optimally function in treating the waste, they are culled from the treatment process and sent to a digester, where they oxidize, through the endogenous decay process, to the point that they die and only their endoskeletons remain. Sludge, consisting of the endoskeletons and water, is pumped to a sand filter drying bed. The filtrate water is pumped back through the Wastewater Facility to be reused in the wastewater treatment process, while the dried endoskeletons, which are termed "biosolids," are transported offsite for disposal in a Class I landfill. The treated, clarified wastewater is pumped through sand/rock filters, then to the chlorine contact chambers where it is exposed to a minimum of 15 minutes of chlorine disinfection. As noted above, the Existing Permit authorizes the reuse of reclaimed water for, among other uses, irrigation by land application at the 100.27-acre Key West Golf Club golf course. The golf course irrigation system consists, in part, of two unlined interconnected ponds that do not directly discharge to surface waters6/ and that have a storage capacity exceeding one million gallons. KWRU sends reclaimed water to the golf course through its reclaimed water reuse system only in the quantity required to meet the course's irrigation needs. The Existing Permit imposes a minimum residual chlorine level of 1 mg/L and a maximum of 5 mg/L turbidity for the treated wastewater to be considered reclaimed water that can be reused as irrigation at the golf course or as otherwise authorized in the Existing Permit. If the treated wastewater does not meet these standards, switchover/interlock equipment at the Facility disables the power to the pumps that send the reclaimed water offsite for reuse.7/ At that point, the treated wastewater is considered treated effluent.8/ The effluent fills the effluent wet well and is piped directly to the existing underground injection wells for disposal. Pursuant to the Existing Permit, the effluent is disposed of by gravity flow through two Class V, Group 3, ten- inch underground injection wells bored to a depth of 110 feet and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet. Collectively, the two injection wells have a maximum permitted capacity of .499 MGD AADF. As authorized by the Existing Permit, the underground injection wells discharge the effluent to Class G-III ground water within the Key Largo Limestone.9/ The underground injection wells are not the primary means of disposal for the treated wastewater, in the sense that they are used to remove effluent from the Facility only if and when reclaimed water is not needed by the golf course or the other receiving facilities, or when the treated wastewater does not meet the required residual chlorine and turbidity limits discussed above. The Existing Permit and the activities authorized thereunder are not at issue in this proceeding. Activities Authorized by the Permit at Issue The Permit at Issue proposes to authorize the construction of a new .350 MGD treatment train, which will increase the design capacity and permitted capacity of the plant from .499 MGD to .849 MGD AADF. The proposed modification of the Existing Wastewater Facility entails the addition of a 90-foot diameter tank containing an influent screen, a 105,554-gallon influent equalization tank, a 163,000-gallon aeration chamber, a 154,725-gallon post-anoxic chamber, a 35,525-gallon re-aeration zone, a 112,062-gallon clarifier, and a 317,950-gallon digester. The sand filters and chlorine contact chambers currently in use will be expanded to accommodate flows from the new treatment train, and the chlorine contact chambers will be changed to liquid bleach feed. The Permit at Issue also proposes to authorize the construction and operation of a new .499 MGD AADF underground injection well system consisting of two new Class V, Group 3 ten- inch wells, drilled to a depth of at least 110 feet and cased to a depth of at least 60 feet, which would discharge effluent to Class G-III ground water within Key Largo Limestone. When placed into service along with the two existing injection wells, the total design capacity and permitted capacity of all four underground injection wells would be .998 MGD AADF.10/ The existing reclaimed water reuse system for the Key West Golf Club or the other receiving facilities currently is authorized for a permitted flow capacity of .499 MGD AADF and a design capacity of 1 MGD AADF. The Permit at Issue would authorize the construction of a new reclaimed water reuse system having a permitted capacity of .849 MGD AADF; however, the design capacity of the system remains 1 MGD AADF, and the amount of reclaimed water sent to the golf course for reuse as irrigation is not being changed by the Permit at Issue from that currently authorized by the Existing Permit. Hereafter, the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility that are the subject of the Permit at Issue are referred to as the "Project." The expanded facility resulting from completion of the Project is referred to as the "Expanded Wastewater Facility." The Existing Wastewater Facility treatment trains will be modified to meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. Specifically, an alkalinity control system, a carbon injection system, and an alum injection will be added and certain aspects of the wastewater treatment process will be modified as necessary to meet the AWT standard. The new treatment train proposed as part of the Project will be designed to meet the AWT standards upon operation, which will not occur sooner than 2016. Accordingly, as required by section 403.086(10(d)1., all effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facility will meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. As a result of conversion of the wastewater treatment process to AWT, and even assuming all treated effluent is injected down the wells, total nitrogen loading will be decreased from 58 pounds per day to 15.9 pounds per day and total phosphorous loading will be decreased from 14.4 pounds per day to 5.3 pounds per day. This is the case even though the volume of effluent disposed of through the wells may as much as double. Only the activities comprising the Project, which are the proposed to be authorized by the Permit at Issue, are the subject of this proceeding. The Permitting Process The overarching purpose of the wastewater facility permitting process, including permitting of modifications to an existing wastewater facility, is to ensure that the wastewater facility does not discharge wastes to any waters of the state without first being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of such waters. This is accomplished by requiring the facility to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable DEP rule standards, which incorporate industry standards. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 600.100(1). Similarly, the overarching purpose of the Underground Injection Well System permitting process is to protect the quality of underground sources of drinking water and prevent degradation of the quality of other aquifers adjacent to the injection zone that may be used for other purposes. This is accomplished by requiring underground injection wells to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable DEP rule requirements and standards. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.100(1). The Wastewater Facility or Activity Permit Application Form 1, General Information, and Application Form 2A, Permit for Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Reuse or Disposal Facility, which are adopted by rule, are the forms that must be completed and submitted to DEP to receive authorization to modify existing wastewater facilities or construct new wastewater facilities. This form includes a list of requirements, some (but not necessarily all) of which apply to proposed modification of an existing wastewater facility. The form requires that a Florida- licensed P.E. certify that the engineering features of the project have been designed by the engineer in conformance with the sound engineering principles applicable to such projects, and that, in his or her professional judgment, the facility, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and the rules. The Application to Construct/Operate/Abandon Class I, III, or V Injection Well System, which is adopted by rule, is the application form that must be completed and submitted to DEP to receive authorization to construct and operate a Class V Injection Well System. This application form includes a list of requirements, some (but not necessarily all) of which apply to a specific underground injection well construction project. The form requires that a Florida-licensed P.E. certify that the engineering features of the injection well have been designed and examined by the engineer and found to conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application. By signing and sealing the application, the P.E. certifies that, in his or her professional judgment, there is reasonable assurance that the injection well, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules. Once the application forms are submitted, DEP permitting staff reviews the applications and determines whether items on the forms and any materials submitted to support those items are incomplete or need clarification. In that event, staff sends the applicant a Request for Additional Information ("RAI"), requesting the applicant to provide additional information to address incomplete or unclear aspects of the application. Once the applicant has provided information sufficient to enable DEP to review the application for issuance or denial of the permit, DEP determines the applications complete and reviews the project for substantive compliance with all applicable statutory and rule permitting requirements. DEP is authorized to issue the permit, with such conditions as it may direct, if the applicant affirmatively provides reasonable assurance, based on the information provided in the application, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of DEP standards or rules proposed in the application. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.070(1). If the applicant fails to provide such reasonable assurance, the permit must be denied. Conversely, if the applicant provides such reasonable assurance, the applicant is legally entitled to issuance of the permit. Engineering Design of the Project KWRU retained Weiler Engineering Corporation to design the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility and the new underground injection well (again, collectively referred to as the "Project") and to prepare and submit the applications for the Permit at Issue to DEP. Edward Castle and Christopher Johnson prepared the applications for the Permit at Issue. As the applicant, Johnson signed the application documents as required pursuant to the application form. As the engineer of record, Castle signed and sealed the certifications in the application forms, representing that he was the engineer in responsible charge of preparing the Project's engineering documents. Castle's signature and seal on the application forms for the wastewater treatment facility expansion portion of the Project constitute his representation that he designed and examined the engineering features of the wastewater treatment facility expansion; that these features conform to sound engineering principles applicable to the Project; and that, in his professional judgment, the wastewater treatment facility expansion portion of the Project, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. Similarly, Castle's signature and seal on the application to construct the new underground injection wells constitute his representation that he designed the engineering features of these injection wells; that the injection wells conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application; and that in his professional judgment, there is reasonable assurance that the wells, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent discharged through the injection wells meet AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. As previously noted, the design capacity of wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is proposed to be .849 MGD AADF. Castle selected this design capacity based on historic wastewater flows at the Existing Wastewater Facility and foreseeable projected wastewater treatment capacity demand in the future.11/ Specifically, to estimate future capacity demand, Castle considered development agreements, requests for utility service, the existence of scarified property and applicable development density, wetslips, recent property sales, and estimated and proposed in-fill development on Stock Island. He projected residential development wastewater treatment demand based on historic actual flow data from the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan ("Master Plan"), in conformance with the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, the so- called "Ten States Standards," a wastewater systems design and planning guidance document incorporated by reference in rule 62- 600.300(4). Additionally, Castle applied the estimated sewage flows codified in Florida Department of Health rule 64E-6.008, Table I, System Design Estimated Sewage Flows ("DOH Table I"), to estimate wastewater treatment demand for projected commercial and hotel development uses. Once Castle had projected wastewater capacity demand for residential and hotel/commercial uses at buildout on Stock Island, he factored in an additional 15 percent capacity safety factor to derive the .849 MGD AADF design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Castle chose AADF, rather than the maximum monthly average daily flow or three-month average daily flow, as the timeframe for the design capacity based on historical flow amounts to the Existing Wastewater Facility and because of insignificant seasonal variations in historical flows to the Facility.12/ This is because the population on Stock Island contributing flow to the Existing Wastewater Facility is largely comprised of non-seasonal residents and commercial operations.13/ Nonetheless, to ensure the Expanded Wastewater Facility will have adequate capacity to effectively treat wastewater to the required standards during higher flow periods that may result from non- residential seasonal occupancy in the future, Castle assumed year-round, 100 percent occupancy for the projected hotel and commercial development on Stock Island in determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Castle estimated a peak hourly flow of 1.273 MGD for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. This figure estimates the maximum flow through the facility on an hourly basis specifically to take into account the diurnal variability of wastewater flow entering the facility. By definition, the peak hourly flow is a maximum hourly flow rather than the sustained flow or volume into or through the facility. The projected maximum hourly flow of 1.273 MGD, which was determined by multiplying the annual average daily flow by a peaking factor of 1.5, is an estimate of the maximum hourly flow wastewater coming into the Expanded Wastewater Facility's equalization tanks. Importantly, it is not the volume of wastewater flow, on an annual average daily basis, that will leave the facility's equalization tanks and flow through the facility's treatment process. Put another way, the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow is not the Expanded Wastewater Facility's design capacity. As previously noted, the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Facility also would be .849 MGD AADF. The permitted capacity is the amount, on an annual average daily flow basis, that the wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is authorized to treat and discharge. This metric establishes an absolute limit, on an annual average daily basis, on the quantity of wastewater that can be treated by, and discharged from, the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Also as discussed above, once the two new underground injection wells are installed, the total design capacity of the four wells at the Expanded Wastewater Facility will be .998 MGD AADF. The two new injection wells are being added to ensure adequate disposal capacity for the .849 MGD permitted capacity and, importantly, to accommodate the peak hourly flow. The reclaimed water reuse system currently has an authorized design capacity of 1 MGD AADF, and this is not being changed by the Project, although the permitted capacity is being increased to .849 MGD AADF. As discussed in greater detail below, neither the design capacity nor the permitted capacity of the reuse system is a function of the irrigation application rate per acre of the golf course, and neither represent the amount of irrigation applied to the golf course per day. In determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle considered wastewater capacity demand for the facility through the year 2020, rather than over a 20- year period. This is because buildout of the properties on Stock Island that will contribute flow to the facility is reasonably projected to occur between 2018 and 2020. After buildout, there will be no additional properties being developed to contribute additional wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the proposed design capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate under rule 62-600.200(19) and other pertinent provisions in chapter 62-600 and conforms to sound engineering principles applicable to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that the proposed permitted capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate under rule 62- 600.200(62) and other pertinent provisions of chapter 62-600 and conforms to sound engineering principles applicable to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence further establishes that the Project, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. The credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that the underground injection wells, as designed, conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application; and that there is reasonable assurance that the wells, when properly constructed, maintained, and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all pertinent statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent discharged down the injection wells meet AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. DEP Review and Proposed Issuance of the Permit at Issue The wastewater treatment facility and underground injection well applications for the Project were submitted to DEP on April 15, 2014. During DEP's review of the applications for the Project, the question arose whether the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow stated in the permit application would trigger the so-called "deep well" requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. that the underground injection wells be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet. DEP ultimately concluded that the term "design capacity," as used in the statute, referred to an average daily flow rate14/ over a specified period of time——here, a year——for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, rather than the transient peak hourly flow for the facility. Thus, the Expanded Wastewater Facility does not have a design capacity exceeding 1 MGD, so the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. does not apply to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. DEP permit review staff issued one RAI, and KWRU timely provided the requested information. Upon receipt and review of KWRU's response to the RAI, DEP deemed the application for the Permit at Issue complete. DEP staff reviewed the permit applications for compliance with applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. DEP's review does not entail re-designing or re- engineering the project or questioning the design engineer's reasonable exercise of judgment on design matters, as long as the project is accurately designed based on sound engineering principles and will operate in accordance with the applicable permitting requirements and standards. Thus, as a matter of practice, DEP relies, to a large extent, on the design engineer's certification that the system is accurately designed according to sound engineering principles——as is appropriate and authorized pursuant to the certification provisions on the application forms, rule 62-4.050(3), and chapter 471 and Florida Board of Engineering rules.15/ Gary Maier, P.E., professional engineer supervisor III and supervisor of DEP's domestic wastewater facility permit review staff, also reviewed the applications, the Intent to Issue, and the draft Permit at Issue to ensure that the Project complied with all applicable rules and standards and that KWRU had provided reasonable assurances such that the Project should be approved. Ultimately, DEP determined that KWRU provided reasonable assurances that the relevant permit applications met the applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. Accordingly, DEP issued a Notice of Intent to issue the Permit at Issue. Establishment of Prima Facie Entitlement to Permit at Issue The relevant portions of the permit file, including the permit applications, supporting information, and Notice of Intent to Issue for the Permit at Issue, were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. With the admission of these documents into evidence, KWRU established its prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the Permit at Issue. See § 120.569(2)(p), Fla. Stat. Challenge to the Permit at Issue Once KWRU demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the Permit at Issue, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence proving their case in opposition to the Permit at Issue. See id. To prevail in this proceeding, Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove their case by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence. Petitioners have raised numerous grounds in the Second Amended Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing16/ that they contend mandate denial of the Permit at Issue. Each of these grounds is addressed below. Alleged Permit Application Deficiencies Petitioners contend that the Permit at Issue should be denied due to alleged deficiencies in the applications submitted for the Project. Capacity Analysis Report Petitioners allege that, under rule 62-600.405, KWRU was required to submit a Capacity Analysis Report ("CAR") as part of its application for the Permit at Issue and that its failure to do so renders the applications incomplete, thus requiring denial of the Permit at Issue. The purpose of a CAR is to analyze capacity at an existing wastewater facility and to apprise DEP when it becomes evident that expansion of the wastewater facility may be needed. Specifically, the CAR is performed and submitted on a periodic basis, or when certain contingencies occur, to apprise DEP of the actual flows through the facility. If the actual flows are approaching the facility's permitted capacity, the CAR serves to notify DEP that expansion of the facility may be warranted. Thus, the CAR helps ensure that the permittee recognizes the need for, and properly plans for, future expansion of the facility. In support of their contention, Petitioners presented the testimony of William Lynch, a Florida-licensed P.E., who has experience in the planning and design of wastewater treatment facilities in Florida, including the Florida Keys. Lynch testified that the most recent three-month average daily flows reported to the DEP by KWRU repeatedly exceeded 50 percent of the permitted capacity of the Existing Wastewater Facility, thereby triggering the requirement in rule 62-600.40517/ that a CAR be submitted. KWRU previously submitted an initial CAR when the Existing Wastewater Facility historically exceeded 50 percent of its permitted capacity. Thereafter, KWRU submitted an updated CAR in April 2012, as part of the renewal application for the Existing Permit that KWRU filed in October 2011. The April 2012 CAR indicated that permitted flows would not be exceeded for ten years. Thus, under rule 62-600.405(5), a subsequent updated CAR would be due at five year intervals or when the applicant applied for an operation permit or renewal of an operation permit, whichever occurred first.18/ The persuasive evidence establishes that during the period between issuance of the Existing Permit in February 2012 and submittal of the applications for the Permit at Issue in 2014, the three-month average daily flows for the Existing Facility had not exceeded 50 percent of the treatment plant's capacity and the five-year interval CAR submittal interval (which would have expired in 2017) had not yet expired, so an updated CAR was neither required nor submitted. When development on Stock Island resumed in the 2012 through 2014 timeframe following an economic recession, it became apparent from actual flow data that the Existing Wastewater Facility would need to be expanded to accommodate the wastewater flow from new development, as well as to accommodate wastewater flow from existing development being required by law to connect to a central wastewater system. Accordingly, in April 2014, KWRU submitted the applications for the Permit at Issue. As part of KWRU's applications, the design and permitted capacity of the Existing Wastewater Facility were analyzed, and future wastewater flows for the facility were projected, taking into account all relevant factors, including projected development over an appropriate planning period, new connections from existing development, and the lack of seasonal variation in historic flows. Based on this information, the proposed design and permitted capacities for the Expanded Wastewater Facility were determined. This information is precisely that which would have been required in an updated CAR. Because all pertinent information necessary to determine the design and permitted capacities for the Expanded Wastewater Facility was submitted as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue, a separate CAR was not required and, indeed, would have been redundant and pointless. It should be noted that the Permit at Issue specifically requires submittal of a CAR upon renewal, which is five years from the date of issuance. Further, the Expanded Wastewater Facility is subject to chapter 62-600, including rule 62-600.405, so KWRU would be required to submit a CAR if circumstances specified in the rule were to occur.19/ Thus, Petitioners failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that a CAR was required to be submitted as part of applications for the Permit at Issue. Accordingly, the absence of a CAR as part of the applications is not a basis for denying the Permit at Issue. Deep Injection Well Requirement Petitioners contend that the design capacity for KWRU's wells exceeds 1 MGD, so KWRU was required under section 403.086(10)(e)2. to apply for approval to install deep injection wells——i.e., wells that are cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet. Petitioners further contend that KWRU's failure to include an application for deep injection wells in its applications thus mandates denial of the Permit at Issue. Under section 403.086(10)(e)1., injection wells serving wastewater facilities that have a design capacity of less than 1 MGD are required to be at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet. Under section 403.086(1)(e)2., injection wells serving wastewater facilities having a design capacity equal to or greater than 1 MGD must be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet or such greater depth as may be required by DEP rule. As previously discussed, rule 62-600.200(19) defines "design capacity" as "the average daily flow projected for the design year which serves as the basis for the sizing and design of the wastewater facilities." The rule states that the design capacity is established by the permit applicant, and that the timeframe associated with the design capacity——such as annual average daily flow, maximum monthly average daily flow, or three- month average daily flow——also is specified by the applicant. Additionally, rule 62-600.400(3)(a), which is part of DEP's Design Requirements rule for domestic wastewater facilities, reiterates that the applicant establishes both the design capacity and the timeframe used to define its selected design capacity, with the caveat that the timeframe selected must reflect seasonal variations in flow, if any. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that KWRU's selected design capacity and timeframe ——here, .849 MGD AADF——accurately and appropriately addresses the projected wastewater flows that will be treated by the Expanded Wastewater Facility. As Castle credibly testified, historical flows to the Existing Wastewater Facility do not indicate substantial seasonal residential flow, consistent with the workforce population residing year-round on Stock Island. Moreover, to the extent there may be some seasonal flow variation associated with projected hotel and commercial development, Castle took that into account in determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. For these reasons, Castle's selection of AADF as the design capacity metric is appropriate, conforms to sound engineering principles, and complies with applicable DEP rules. Further, as previously discussed, the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow is exactly that——the peak or maximum flow expressed on an hourly basis——that can be processed by the Expanded Wastewater Facility. It does not constitute the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility, which, by definition, is the average flow over a specified period of time. The persuasive evidence in the record shows that the proposed design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is .849 MGD AADF, and this design capacity is appropriate and based on sound engineering principles. As such, the design capacity of the facility is less than 1 MGD, so the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. does not apply to the Project. Thus, Petitioners failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. applies to the Project. Accordingly, they did not establish that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that KWRU did not apply for approval of deep injection wells as part of the applications for the Project. Identity of Permittee The Permit at Issue is proposed to be issued to Key West Resort Utilities Corporation, which is not an existing entity registered to do business in Florida or in any other state. Petitioners contend, and KWRU and DEP do not dispute, that a permit issued to an entity that does not legally exist cannot legally authorize any activities. Accordingly, to the extent the Permit at Issue is proposed to be issued to Key West Resort Utilities Corporation, Petitioners contend that this constitutes a basis for denying the Permit at Issue. At the hearing, DEP and KWRU presented credible evidence showing that the correct permittee is KW Resort Utilities Corp., not Key West Resort Utilities Corporation as was stated on the proposed Permit at Issue. Further, the permit applications correctly identify KWRU as the applicant for the Permit at Issue. Thus, identification of Key West Resort Utilities Corporation as the permittee on the proposed Permit at Issue was a typographical error, and the evidence establishes that this error will be corrected when the Permit at Issue is issued. If this typographical error is corrected, then the Permit at Issue should not be denied on this basis. Alleged Project Design and Engineering Deficiencies Petitioners allege that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance, based on a preliminary design report, plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, modification, or operation of the Expanded Wastewater Facility will not discharge or cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403 and applicable DEP rules. Petitioners further allege that KWRU has undersized the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility and that the appropriate design capacity is greater than 1 MGD, thus triggering the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. Projected Flows to Expanded Wastewater Facility In support of their position, Petitioners presented the testimony of William Lynch, a Florida-licensed P.E., who testified that the future wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility projected by KWRU in its applications are incorrect because they do not accurately address planned development in KWRU's service area, as required by the Ten States Standards. Lynch took the position that pursuant to the Ten States Standards, the appropriate planning horizon for the Project is at least ten years, which would require KWRU to project wastewater flow to the Expanded Wastewater Facility through approximately 2025, rather than through 2020, as projected in the applications for the Project. However, the persuasive evidence shows that KWRU utilized an appropriate planning horizon in projecting future wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. KWRU's facility design engineer, Castle testified, persuasively, that although the graphic submitted in the application shows the projected wastewater flows only through the year 2020, the planning horizon he used actually was infinite. This is because the projected buildout of the service area20/ to maximum wastewater flow is anticipated to occur between 2018 and 2020, and after that point, wastewater flows to the facility would remain constant. Thus, it was pointless to depict projected flows out to the year 2025——particularly since the narrative in the application describing the Project makes clear that buildout of KWRU's service area is anticipated to occur by 2020. Because the wastewater flows projected for the year 2020 accurately represent the maximum flows that the Expanded Wastewater Facility can process, the projected planning horizon to the year 2020 is appropriate for the facility, complies with the Ten States Standards, and complies with DEP rules. Lynch also asserted that the projected wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility from development identified in the application do not accurately apply the standards in DOH Table I and that this inaccuracy further contributed to underestimation of the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Lynch arrived at this position by applying Table I to all identified future development——both residential and nonresidential——and considering an additional development (Key West Harbor Yacht Club) not listed in the applications. He projected that the future wastewater flow from these developments would be approximately 146,110 gallons per day——approximately 46,000 gallons per day higher than the 100,000 gallons per day that Lynch claimed KWRU projected for the planned developments on Stock Island. Based on the addition of 46,000 gallons to KWRU's proposed design capacity of .849 MGD, Lynch opined that .895 MGD is the design capacity that should have been proposed for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. However, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that, in determining the design capacity of .849 MGD for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle accurately projected the wastewater flow quantities from future development on Stock Island. Castle described in detail the process he undertook to determine the projected wastewater flows from the various land uses and locations on Stock Island through projected buildout between 2018 and 2020. Specifically, he identified planned nonresidential development on Stock Island expected to begin producing wastewater flows in 2014 and applied the DOH Table I standards to determine the projected flows for each development. To determine projected wastewater flow from future residential development on Stock Island, Castle identified approximately 40 acres of scarified or under-utilized property in KWRU's service area and applied a density of 12 equivalent dwelling units ("EDU") per acre,21/ with 167 gallons per day of wastewater flow attributable to each EDU, using actual historic wastewater flow data from the Master Plan. Additionally, for each scarified or under-utilized property having water frontage, he projected one boat slip per 35 feet of frontage and applied a 75-gallon-per-day flow for each boat slip using DOH Table I recreational vehicle flows. For years 2016 through 2019, Castle projected incremental increases in wastewater flows per year22/ to account for potential development of other currently occupied properties. The aggregate of all projected flows from the identified developments, the 40 acres and boat slips, and the incremental increases per year through buildout yielded a projected wastewater flow of .74 MGD to the Expanded Wastewater Facility by years 2018 through 2020, which represents buildout flow to the facility. Castle then added a "safety factor" of 15 percent to the projected .74 MGD wastewater flow to accommodate currently unknown future redevelopment of existing occupied properties, to reach the .849 MGD design capacity. The 46,000-gallon discrepancy between Lynch's .895 MGD design capacity calculation and Castle's .849 MGD design capacity calculation is attributable to four basic differences in how they each determined design capacity. First, Lynch used more recent development agreement and development order information that more precisely identified and quantified specific land uses than the information that KWRU had available to it at the time it prepared and submitted its application. However, the evidence did not establish that the flow information on which Lynch relied and that on which Castle relied were so appreciably different as to significantly affect the projected design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Second, Lynch applied DOH Table I to project future wastewater flows from all future planned development on Stock Island, both residential and nonresidential, whereas Castle applied DOH Table I only to determine nonresidential development future flows, and used actual historic flow data from the Master Plan to determine residential development future flows. Castle's residential flow calculation using historical actual flow data conforms to the recommendation in section 11.242(a) of the Ten States Standards that actual flow data be used, to the extent possible, to predict future flows; thus, Castle's calculation likely more precisely projects future flow attributable to residential development on Stock Island.23/ Third, Lynch took into account the Key West Harbor Yacht Club flow into the Expanded Wastewater Facility, whereas KWRU did not consider this flow in projecting future flows to the facility. This omission constituted an oversight on KWRU's part, and the flow from this development should have been included in the wastewater flow projection for the facility. However, the persuasive evidence did not show that this omission constituted a significant error in KWRU's .849 MGD AADF design capacity projection.24/ Fourth, Lynch apparently misinterpreted a statement in the application referencing "such redevelopment" as referring to the known planned developments on Stock Island, which were specifically identified by name in the application, and, thus, interpreted the reference to 100,000 gallons as being the flow KWRU projected for those known, named developments. However, the persuasive evidence established that the 100,000 gallons that KWRU assigned to "such redevelopment" in its application referred not to the known, named developments identified in the application, but instead to presently unknown future development on Stock Island, which Castle took into account by including the 15 percent "safety factor" in determining design capacity. Pursuant to the foregoing, it is determined that KWRU demonstrated, by credible, persuasive evidence, that it accurately estimated future wastewater flows from projected development on Stock Island to determine an appropriate design capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Design Capacity Timeframe Petitioners allege that the timeframe associated with the design capacity specified by KWRU——the annual average daily flow, or AADF——is not appropriate for the Expanded Wastewater Facility because it fails to reflect seasonal flows to the facility as required by rules 62-600.200(16) and 62-600.400(3)(a). Petitioners assert that the design capacity for the facility should instead be expressed in maximum monthly average daily flow ("MMADF") to account for seasonal flows. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Lynch, who opined that the KWRU service area experiences seasonal flows driven by the influx of tourists to Stock Island during tourist season. Lynch based this opinion on the wastewater flow data for the Existing Wastewater Facility for the year 2014, and his calculations showing that the three-month average daily flow ("ADF") for October through December 2014 was 11 percent higher than the AADF and that the MMADF for that period was 16 percent higher than the AADF. Lynch considered this variation substantial enough to indicate seasonality, so that MMADF is the appropriate design capacity timeframe for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Using MMADF as the design capacity timeframe, Lynch opined that the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility should be 1.04 MGD MMADF——which would trigger the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. Castle chose AADF as the timeframe for the Expanded Wastewater Facility design capacity because historical flow records over a period of years do not show significant seasonal variations in flow for Stock Island. Castle testified, credibly and persuasively, that while the historical flow data shows a consistent slight increase in flows from August to December, in his view, the variation is not significant enough to constitute a seasonal flow. This is consistent with the evidence establishing that Stock Island is a "bedroom community" having a mostly year- round workforce population. Lynch formulated his opinion regarding appropriate design capacity using 2014 flow data for the entire year, which was not available at the time KWRU filed its permit applications for the Project in April 2014. Although Lynch relied on more recent data, his opinion was based only on one year of data. By contrast, Castle selected AADF as the design capacity metric based on the previous five years of flow data, which showed variations in flow ranging between two percent and 12 percent on a three-month average daily flow basis. Castle credibly testified that these variations were not significant enough to indicate seasonal flows and did not closely correlate with tourist season in the Keys. Additionally, in calculating his flow projections for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle assumed 100 percent year-round occupancy for residential units, so that his projected design capacity of .849 MGD necessarily took into account potential seasonal flows. Thus, to the extent there are seasonal flows, the facility simply will receive flows below the design capacity during off-season. The undersigned finds Castle's use of long-term historical flow data more reliable than Lynch's use of only one year of data in assessing whether there is flow seasonality.25/ DEP's wastewater permitting supervisor, Gary Maier, concurred that the variations in wastewater flow do not reflect a significant seasonal variation that would require the use of a smaller averaging period than AADF. Maier also observed that none of the wastewater facilities in the Florida Keys having a design capacity greater than 100,000 gallons per day has a design capacity based on MMADF. This evidences that Castle's selection of AADF as the timeframe metric conforms to the design capacity standard used for facilities of comparable size in the Florida Keys. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that KWRU's selection of AADF as the design capacity timeframe metric for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate and complies with DEP rules. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that KWRU's selection of AADF as the design capacity timeframe metric violates any applicable laws or rules. Accordingly, Petitioners did not demonstrate that the Permit at Issue should be denied on this basis. Ability of Expanded Wastewater Facility to Reliably Meet AWT Petitioners further allege that KWRU failed to provide a complete application demonstrating that the treatment processes for the Expanded Wastewater Facility will efficiently and reliably meet effluent limitations for design year flow. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that KWRU provided all of the information required for the applications for the Permit at Issue, so DEP correctly determined that the applications were complete before commencing its substantive review of the applications. Also as discussed above, Lynch opined that the proposed design capacity was undersized for the flows he projected for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. However, the persuasive evidence shows that KWRU's proposed design capacity of .849 MGD AADF is appropriate, conforms to sound engineering principles, and meets applicable statutory and rule requirements. In order to ensure that a wastewater facility functions effectively and reliably, it is important that the facility not be substantially oversized for the amount of wastewater flowing into the facility. In an over-sized facility, inconsistent timing of wastewater flow, lack of appropriate chemical environment for waste breakdown, and inadequate food supply for the microorganisms may lead to ineffective performance of the facility. A consequence of these imbalances is that undesirable microbes may populate the facility, causing incomplete solids settlement, overflow of solids downstream to the filters, and operational problems resulting in failure of the facility to treat wastewater to AWT standards. KWRU provided reasonable assurance, based on the proposed .849 MGD AADF design capacity and the other engineering features of the Project, that the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriately sized and will effectively and reliably treat the wastewater to AWT standards. Thus, Petitioners failed to prove that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it is undersized and will not reliably meet AWT standards. Key West Golf Club Reuse System Issues Petitioners contend that as part of the applications for the Project, KWRU proposes to send 1 MGD of reclaimed water to the golf course. Petitioners claim that, given an irrigated area of 100.27 acres and an average irrigation rate of .73 inches per acre per day, only 300,000 gallons of reclaimed water per day is accounted for by reuse as irrigation. On that basis, Petitioners allege that KWRU has not demonstrated that the 700,000 gallon-per-day balance of reclaimed water sent to the golf course will be reused for a beneficial purpose rather than being disposed. This contention is based on a misunderstanding of the structure and function of the reuse system. The 1 MGD flow stated in the permit application is the design capacity of the reuse system, which is not being changed by the Permit at Issue. Importantly, this figure does not quantify the amount of water that is or actually will be sent to the golf course or applied as irrigation to the golf course irrigated area in a single day. Rather, it represents the flow capacity to which the reuse system is designed.26/ The applications for the Permit at Issue do not propose any changes to the quantity of reclaimed water being reused, which is governed by the irrigated acreage at the golf course and the irrigation rate. These parameters are not being changed. As previously discussed, KWRU sends reclaimed water to the golf course only on an as-needed basis, where it is stored in the ponds until needed for irrigation. If the course does not need reclaimed water sent to the ponds, KWRU does not send the water. Thus, the golf course controls the amount of reclaimed water that is sent to the storage ponds. Although the permitted capacity of the reuse system is being expanded from .499 MGD AADF to .849 MGD AADF, the actual amount of reclaimed water sent to the golf course by KWRU is not anticipated to change because, as discussed above, the amount being reused for irrigation is not being changed. Since the amount of reclaimed water being reused for irrigation is not increasing, the reuse system is not being expanded. Thus, the evidence does not show that 700,000 gallons per day of reclaimed water will be sent to the golf course for disposal, inconsistent with rule 62-610.810(2), rather than being reused for a beneficial purpose.27/ Petitioners also assert that the increased permitted capacity of the reuse system constitutes a "new or expanded reuse or land application project," so that an engineering report and reuse feasibility study were required as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue, pursuant to rule 62-610.310(1). KWRU previously provided these documents when it originally applied for authorization of the reuse system. The credible, persuasive evidence shows that increasing the permitted capacity of the reuse system does not trigger the requirement to submit another engineering report or reuse feasibility study. This is because no changes to the structural components or operation of the reuse system facilities are proposed. As Castle credibly explained, and Maier confirmed, the relevant question in determining whether an engineering report is required is whether the land application rate and/or the irrigated acreage is being changed, which would increase the amount of reclaimed water being reused and, thus, would require expansion of the reuse system. As discussed, neither the irrigated area nor the irrigation application rate is proposed to change under the Project. Thus, neither an engineering report nor a reuse feasibility study are required as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue. Therefore, Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that KWRU did not submit a reuse feasibility or engineering report as part of its applications for the Permit at Issue. Alleged Surface Water Quality Violations by Injection Wells Petitioners allege that disposing of the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility through the injection wells will cause or contribute to violations of surface water quality standards codified in chapter 62-302. Petitioners further allege that, as a consequence, the discharge will violate antidegradation requirements in rules 62- 4.242, 62-302.300, and 62-302.700(1), and that the wells do not comply with the underground injection control rule requirement in rule 62-528.630(7), specific to Monroe County, that the wells not cause or contribute to surface water quality violations. Regulatory Status of Surface Waters in Stock Island Vicinity A significant portion of the surface waters in the Florida Keys, including those surrounding Stock Island and Key West, are classified as Class III surface waters pursuant to rule 62-302.400. Water quality criteria adopted by rule for Class III surface waters are established to protect fish consumption, recreation, and the propagation of a healthy, well- balanced population of fish and wildlife. As previously noted, certain portions of the Florida Keys, including the surface waters surrounding Stock Island and Key West, are designated an OFW. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.700(9)(i)13. No degradation of surface water quality, other than that allowed under rules 62-4.242(2) and (3), is permitted in an OFW. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(1). The narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62- 302.530(47)(a) states: "[t]he discharge of nutrients shall be limited as needed to prevent violations of other standards contained in this chapter. Man-induced nutrient enrichment (total nitrogen or total phosphorus) shall be considered degradation in relation to the provisions of Rules 62-302.300, 62-302.700, and 62-4.242, F.A.C." The narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62-302.530(47)(b) states: "[i]n no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna." These criteria apply in Class III surface waters, including the surface waters in and around the Florida Keys. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.531(1). Rule 62-302.531(2) requires DEP to numerically interpret the narrative nutrient criterion for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and for nutrient response (chlorophyll- a). Where a site-specific numeric interpretation of rule 62- 302.530(47)(b) has been established, that numeric interpretation constitutes the primary standard applicable to that site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.531(2)(a). A range of natural factors affect nutrient loading for a given waterbody. Therefore, site- specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria generally are deemed more reliable than broadly applicable, non-site specific criteria. Estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b), consisting of nutrient values for nitrogen and phosphorus and a nutrient response value for chlorophyll-a have been adopted for many areas in the state of Florida, including the Florida Keys. These numeric interpretations——commonly referred to as "numeric nutrient criteria," or "NNCs"——are open water, area-wide averages. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.532(1). For the Florida Keys, seven Florida Keys Marine Nutrient Regions ("FKMNRs") have been identified and geographically delineated on a series of maps adopted by rule. For each of these FKMNRs, NNCs have been adopted for nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.532(1)(g). The NNCs for the Lower Keys Region and the Back Bay Region are germane to this proceeding. For the Bay Back Region, the NNCs are .009 mg/L for phosphorus, .25 mg/L for nitrogen, and .3 µg/L for chlorophyll-a. For the Lower Keys Region, the NNCs are .008 mg/L for phosphorus, 0.21 mg/L for nitrogen, and 0.3 µg/L for chlorophyll-a. These NNCs are expressed as annual geometric means that are not to be exceeded more than once in a three-year period.28/ The area of water extending from the shoreline out to 500 meters offshore in the Florida Keys is referred to as the "Halo Zone." DEP has adopted by rule a map delineating the Halo Zone. The NNCs applicable to surface waters in each of the FKMNRs currently do not apply to the surface waters in the Halo Zone. Thus, only the narrative nutrient criteria codified at rules 62-302.530(47)(a) and (b) apply to surface waters in the Halo Zone at this time.29/ Additionally, pursuant to chapter 62-303, the Impaired Waters Rule, DEP has identified and delineated spatial assessment areas in waterbodies based on homogeneity for multiple water quality parameters.30/ These assessment areas, called "Waterbody IDs" or "WBIDs," are delineated for purposes of assessing, through water quality sampling, whether the surface waters within the WBID are impaired——that is, whether they fail to meet one or more of the applicable water quality standards due to pollutants.31/ DEP has delineated several WBIDs, identified by number, in the Halo Zone surrounding Key West and Stock Island. The Halo Zone surrounding Stock Island comprises WBID 6014B, and the Halo Zone surrounding Key West consists of WBIDs 6014A and 8073A through 8073H.32/ The Back Bay Region, which is located north of Stock Island and outside of the Halo Zone, is designated as WBID 8074. The Lower Keys Region consists of WBID 8073, which is located northwest of Stock Island and surrounding Key West outside of the Halo Zone, and WBID 8079, which is located south of Stock Island outside of the Halo Zone. Water quality monitoring, consisting of sampling for a range of parameters, is conducted at monitoring stations within each of these WBIDs. At least one monitoring station is located within each WBID. This water quality sampling is conducted according to DEP's applicable standard operating procedures. The monitoring stations have collected nutrient and nutrient response data spanning a period of years. The data collected in 1995 through 2013 are pertinent to this proceeding.33/ The Keys RAP, which was prepared in 2008 and updated in 2011, prescribes specific management activities to be implemented to restore surface water quality in the Florida Keys, including eliminating cesspits and onsite septic tank systems and connecting wastewater generators to centralized wastewater systems that treat the wastewater to AWT standards. As authorized under rule 62-303.600, DEP determined that the Keys RAP provides reasonable assurance that the restoration goals for the surface waters in the Florida Keys will be achieved by ensuring that all management activities specified in the Keys RAP would be implemented for specified waterbodies by 2015. Accordingly, in February 2012, DEP approved and adopted the Keys RAP by Secretarial Order. Current and historic water quality data show that all WBIDs in the Keys, including those in the Lower Keys Region, Back Bay Region, and Halo Zone for the surface waters surrounding Key West and Stock Island, are not impaired for nutrients——that is, that the NNCs and narrative nutrient criteria, as applicable, are being met. Pursuant to sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, and rule 62-303.600, DEP has classified the Florida Keys WBIDs as Category 2 under the waterbody use attainment classification scheme34/ for nutrients and nutrient response. The classification of the Keys WBIDs in this category means that sufficient water quality data are available to determine that at least one designated use is attained. Thus, as authorized by section 403.067 and rule 62-303.600(2), DEP has placed the Keys WBIDs on the "Delist List."35/ This "de-listing" action recognizes that the Florida Keys WBIDs, including those in the Halo Zone, are not impaired for nutrients and chlorophyll-a. Subsurface Geology in Vicinity of Stock Island The parties agree that, as a general proposition, the ground water and surface waters are connected to each other in the Florida Keys. However, no evidence was presented showing a specific location or locations where ground water connects to surface waters. Although it generally is undisputed that, at some point, ground water connects to surface waters, the parties disagree regarding whether, where, and how long it may take for the injected effluent to reach surface waters. Petitioners contend that due to the local geology, the injected effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility rapidly reaches surface waters in the vicinity of Stock Island and that the increased discharge through the new injection wells will exacerbate and cause or contribute to surface water quality violations in the immediate vicinity of Stock Island and offshore. In support of this position, Petitioners presented the testimony of Scott Zednek, a Florida-licensed P.G. Zednek opined that due to the absence of subsurface sediments that would prevent upward flow to surface waters, the buoyant freshwater effluent injected down the wells will rapidly vertically migrate through the highly transmissive Key Largo Limestone and Miami Limestone to reach surface waters. To develop his opinion, Zednek reviewed a Florida Geological Survey boring log ("FGS Log") approximately one-third mile from the Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility and a Universal Engineering Services geotechnical study boring log ("UES Log") performed on the KWRU site. The FGS Log was prepared specifically to analyze the subsurface geology. The UES Log was performed as part of a geotechnical study to analyze subsurface conditions onsite specifically for the purpose of determining the load-bearing capability of the KWRU site to support a concrete water tank. As such, the FGS Log provides a more precise view of the subsurface geology in the vicinity of the KWRU site.36/ Based on the UES Log, Zednek opined that there are no confining layers underlying the KWRU site. The UES Log for the site shows N-values, generated using an ASTM-designated process for determining the resistivity or strength of the subsurface, of between two and 43 for the first 60 feet of sediment below the surface. According to Zednek, an N-value of less than 50 indicates lack of a confining layer. Further, his review of the UES Log did not show the presence of Q-layers, which may function as semi-confining layers, or aquitards, that would substantially restrict the movement of fluid, including the injected effluent.37/ Based on the UES Log, Zednek opined that the limestone underlying the site is fractured, creating vertical pathways for the injected effluent to migrate upward to the surface. Zednek testified that the Key Largo Limestone, into which the effluent is injected, is very porous and highly transmissive, facilitating rapid migration once the effluent is injected. Based on his review of the FGS Log, Zednek testified that a Q-layer first appears at approximately 62 feet below the ground surface——below the depth of the injection wells' casing—— so it would not act as a confining layer for the injected effluent. Zednek further observed that this Q-layer is only 1.5 centimeters thick. In his experience, this thickness is not sufficient to create a confining or semi-confining layer. Zednek thus opined that the subsurface geology at the KWRU site will enable and facilitate vertical migration of the injected effluent to surface waters. Zednek also noted the proximity of the Safe Harbor channel cut. He opined that the injected effluent likely would horizontally migrate through the highly transmissive Key Largo Limestone,38/ then vertically migrate to surface waters through the "path of least resistance" at the Safe Harbor channel cut. As further support for his opinion, Zednek cited an interim report summarizing results of a subsurface dye tracer study performed for the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority regional wastewater treatment facility. The study's purpose was to determine whether the subsurface geology at the Cudjoe Key location was sufficiently confining to prevent vertical migration of the injected effluent from shallow injection wells proposed at that facility. According to Zednek, the interim report showed that the subsurface at the injection site was not sufficiently confining to prevent the injected effluent from rapidly vertically migrating to surface waters. Petitioners also presented the testimony of John Paul, Ph.D., in support of their contention that the injected effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility would rapidly rise through the subsurface limestone up into surface waters. Dr. Paul testified regarding viral tracer studies he had conducted at Long Key, approximately 65 miles east-northeast of Stock Island, and at the Saddlebunch Keys, located approximately 20 miles east- northeast of Stock Island. In conducting these studies, Paul injected bacteriophage viruses into Class V wells and tracked their movement into surface waters. In the Long Key study, the injected viruses moved through the subsurface limestone to the south-southeast and appeared in surface waters in deep canals on the ocean side of U.S. 1 approximately 53 hours after injection. In the Saddlebunch Keys study, the viruses also appeared in surface waters some distance south-southeast of the location at which they were injected.39/ Paul acknowledged that when the viruses appeared in surface waters, they were detected at a concentration of one trillionth (.0000000000001 or 1 x 10-12) less than the concentration in which they had been injected, indicating significant dilution by ground water and/or surface waters. He also acknowledged that canals dredged to depths shallower than the injected depth may not facilitate rapid migration of the injected effluent to surface waters. In rebuttal, KWRU presented the testimony of Michael Alfieri, a Florida-licensed P.G. who specializes in hydrogeology. Alfieri examined the FGS Log and UES Log, and also reviewed the detailed lithology logs and photographs for the FGS Log. Based on his review of this information, Alfieri opined that the FGS Log indicates the presence of semi-confining layers that function as aquitards in the first 60 feet of subsurface sediment. Alfieri noted that the existence of an aquitard depends on the nature of the geologic materials present at that location, so that N-values do not perfectly correlate with the presence or absence of confining layers. Thus, a carbonate silt or clay having an N-value of only two may better function as an aquitard than a porous, transmissive limestone having an N-value of 50, and silts or clays having a thickness as little as one centimeter may function as an aquitard to significantly impede fluid flow.40/ Based on his review of the FGS Log and the detailed lithology log descriptions and photographs for the FGS Log, Alfieri observed four laminated calcrete zones, six Q-zones, and chalky limestone within the first 60 feet——all of which would function as aquitards to impede the vertical movement of the effluent.41/ Thus, according to Alfieri, the effluent is anticipated to migrate laterally from the injection wells below these confining layers before migrating through a vertical pathway to reach surface waters at an unknown location. To predict the likely migration pathway for the effluent, Alfieri conducted hydrological modeling using a simplistic SEAWAT computer model. He used horizontal and vertical transmissivity values for the subsurface strata derived from geological studies previously conducted in the Florida Keys. Although these studies indicate greater horizontal than vertical transmissivity, Alfieri assumed equal vertical and horizontal transmissivity for modeling purposes——necessarily yielding more conservative results than would be anticipated to occur in real life. Accordingly, the modeling results showed more rapid vertical migration than would be anticipated in real life when the Q-zones and calcrete layers depicted in the FGS Log are considered. Even with these conservative assumptions, the modeling results showed the injected effluent migrating horizontally at least a mile offshore42/ before migrating upward to surface waters. The persuasive evidence shows that the injected effluent will be confined to the subsurface and will travel laterally a substantial distance before rising to surface waters at some unknown location or locations offshore. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence does not support the conclusion that the effluent will rapidly rise to the surface waters in the nearshore area in the vicinity of the KWRU site.43/ Narrative Nutrient Criteria Petitioners allege that the effluent injected down the wells into the ground water will reach surface waters, causing or contributing to a violation of the narrative nutrient criteria for surface waters codified in rules 62-302.530(47)(a) and (b).44/ In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of James Fourqurean, Ph.D., who has extensive experience in research on Florida Keys aquatic ecosystems in their healthy and imbalanced states. Dr. Fourqurean described these ecosystems in their healthy state and in their nutrient-enriched state. Florida Keys nearshore ecosystems normally are oligotrophic, which means they are nutrient-limited. Thus, they do not normally exhibit high chlorophyll-a levels and microalgae counts. When nutrient levels in the Florida Keys ecosystems increase——whether by increasing the concentration of nutrients in discharges or by increasing the volume of water containing nutrients——primary production, i.e., plant growth, increases. Seagrass communities are phosphorus-limited, so that when these communities are exposed to phosphorus-enriched water, the phosphorus is rapidly absorbed from the water column and is stored in the benthos.45/ This phosphorus capture initially leads to increased seagrass abundance, but as phosphorus enrichment continues, the community species composition rapidly shifts to favoring seaweed and microscopic algae, ultimately damaging or destroying the seagrass community. Coral reef communities similarly are nitrogen-limited. Thus, when coral reef communities are exposed to nitrogen- enriched water, they shift to algae-dominated communities——again, damaging or destroying the coral reef communities. Based on historical aerial photographs of the area surrounding Safe Harbor and his experience studying seagrasses in the Florida Keys, Fourqurean concluded that the natural seagrass populations in the entire Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary area, which includes the Stock Island area, are experiencing ecological imbalance. On the basis of the water quality sampling he conducted in and around Safe Harbor, Fourqurean opined that the imbalance is the result of man-induced nutrient enrichment. However, he did not engage in field studies in and around Safe Harbor, so could not cite specific examples where seagrasses had been replaced by algal-dominated communities in that area. Fourqurean noted that human waste contains high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen. In his view, because the effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility contains phosphorous, it necessarily constitutes a source of phosphorous in the surface waters in Safe Harbor, even though it is injected into ground water. However, he acknowledged the existence of numerous other sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Safe Harbor vicinity, including septic tanks, boat cleaning operations and pump outs, and storm water runoff. He further acknowledged that he did not know where or when effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility (and, by extension, the Expanded Wastewater Facility) may reach surface waters. Fourqurean acknowledged that the Permit at Issue would authorize the injection of effluent treated to AWT standards into ground water, rather than directly to surface waters, and he further acknowledged that the total phosphorus and nitrogen loading from the Expanded Wastewater Facility would substantially decrease as a result of conversion to AWT, even though the volume of effluent discharged down the wells may as much as double. He remained concerned that the Expanded Wastewater Facility may contribute phosphorus——even in very small quantities——to surface waters, causing imbalance to seagrass communities. He also opined that when saline ground water and the fresher effluent mix, the resulting brackish solution would dissolve the calcium carbonate comprising the subsurface limestone, releasing stored phosphorus that would eventually reach surface waters and negatively affect nearshore seagrass communities, However, he acknowledged that depending on subsurface physical conditions and flow paths of the effluent, phosphorous, nitrogen, or both, may be completely removed prior to the effluent reaching surface waters. He further acknowledged that seagrass community health in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has improved in the last two years and that water quality also has improved, reversing a ten-year decline. This is consistent with replacement of onsite septic tanks by central wastewater treatment systems in the Florida Keys. On rebuttal, KWRU presented the testimony of William Precht, who has extensive experience with Florida Keys geology and aquatic communities. Precht confirmed the existence of numerous sources of significant nutrient enrichment in the Safe Harbor vicinity other than the Existing Wastewater Facility, and noted that these sources must be taken into account when analyzing nutrient enrichment in Safe Harbor. He testified that raw wastewater is particularly deleterious to benthic communities. Thus, connecting wastewater generators that currently use septic tanks to central wastewater treatment systems can significantly improve water quality. Precht observed that Fourqurean's single-day sampling in the Safe Harbor area provided information regarding variability in nutrient concentrations, but characterized Fourqurean's conclusion that the Existing Wastewater Facility was the source of the nutrients as "unscientific" because it was based on supposition rather than on testing. He opined that the limited data set gathered over a one-day period could not reliably identify the source of nutrient enrichment in Safe Harbor. Precht testified that flushing capability is a key influence on nutrient concentration in surface waters. The further from a natural marine environment that water quality testing is performed, the more likely water quality will be poor due to nutrient enrichment from land-based sources. Given the configuration of Safe Harbor, water quality would be poorest in the interior dead-end canals and would steadily improve as one moved into more open water and flushing increased, with the highest water quality in open waters outside the canal system. Precht opined that the presence of noxious benthic plant life in the Safe Harbor vicinity may be attributable the destruction of seagrass communities in the area by historical dredging, rather than due to nutrient enrichment. Based on the reduction in total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading as a result of implementing AWT, Precht opined that the proposed discharge will not negatively affect the biological communities in the Safe Harbor vicinity. He further opined that due to the rapid uptake of phosphorus in the marine environment and due to denitrification that occurs in ground water and in marine surface waters, there is little chance that any nutrient loading that may result from the injected effluent would cause damage to the coral reef environment. Also on rebuttal, Alfieri persuasively testified that although phosphate release does occur when freshwater is injected into limestone that formed in a saline environment, this process gradually occurs over "geologic time"——that is, over millions of years. Therefore, he did not anticipate a significant release of phosphate from the subsurface limestone as a result of the effluent discharge. Also, limestone rapidly absorbs phosphorous, so phosphorus in the injected effluent would be absorbed quickly by the subsurface limestone.46/ Further, in any event, the effluent will be diluted by at least seven orders of magnitude——that is, one hundred millionth (.00000001)——of the injected concentration by the ground water, and/or by surface waters (assuming the effluent eventually reaches surface waters). As discussed above, the Keys RAP was prepared in 2008 and updated in 2011. The Keys RAP prescribes specific management activities to be implemented to restore surface water quality in the Florida Keys, including eliminating cesspits and onsite septic tank systems and connecting wastewater generators to centralized wastewater systems that treat the wastewater to AWT standards. Pursuant to the Impaired Waters Rule and DEP's adoption of the Keys RAP, activities that are consistent with the Keys RAP are considered to provide reasonable assurance that the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b) will be met. As discussed above, the Project will expand a centralized wastewater treatment plant that will accept, and treat to AWT standards, wastewater generated by development on Stock Island——including development that currently relies on onsite septic tanks for wastewater disposal. The Project is consistent with the Keys RAP, so there is reasonable assurance that the Project will meet the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b). The persuasive evidence shows that the Project will not cause or contribute to alterations of nutrient concentrations in water bodies so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Thus, Petitioners failed to show that the Project will cause or contribute to violation of the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b). Further, for the reasons discussed below, it also is determined that the Project will not violate the narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62-302.530(47)(a). Numeric Nutrient Criteria Petitioners also allege that the effluent will cause or contribute to violation of the estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria for the Back Bay nutrient region, codified at rule 62-302.532(1)(g)1., and the Lower Keys nutrient region, codified at rule 62-302.532(1)(g)3. In support, Petitioners cite the results of surface water sampling performed by Fourqurean in the Safe Harbor area showing high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a. Petitioners contend that these high nutrient levels evidence that the existing injection wells already are causing or contributing to surface water quality violations in the waters surrounding Stock Island, and that the increased effluent discharge from the proposed new injection wells will exacerbate this situation, further causing or contributing to violations of surface water quality standards. In preparing his opinion regarding the effect of the proposed injection wells on surface water quality, Fourqurean sampled surface water quality on one day at nine stations located in the vicinity of Stock Island, ranging from shallow waters inside the Safe Harbor basin to deeper waters offshore. Samples were collected at the surface and at a depth of one meter below the surface following the standard operating procedures for water quality sampling established by the Florida Keys Water Quality Protection Program. Fourqurean testified that the samples collected at the stations inside the Safe Harbor basin and near the shore of Stock Island showed very high levels of chlorophyll-a, evidencing that these areas are dominated by microalgae and, thus, are eutrophic. Additionally, the samples collected inside the Safe Harbor basin exhibited very high phosphorus concentrations—— almost three times greater than the estuary-specific numeric nutrient criterion for phosphorus. Phosphorus concentrations correspondingly decreased as samples were collected outside of the basin and offshore. Nitrogen concentrations followed a similar pattern in the sampling that Fourqurean conducted inside and outside of the Safe Harbor basin. According to Fourqurean, the high nutrient concentrations in the samples taken in Safe Harbor, when compared to the lower concentrations in samples taken outside of Safe Harbor, evidence the existence of a large source of phosphorous and nitrogen in Safe Harbor——in his view, the Existing Wastewater Facility. However, Fourqurean acknowledged that there are many potential nutrient enrichment sources on Stock Island, including fishing operations, boat sewage pump-outs, and direct discharges of storm water to surface waters. He further acknowledged that the specific source of phosphorus and nitrogen in the surface waters surrounding Stock Island cannot be identified. He did not opine as to the relative amounts of nutrients in surface waters that he believes are being contributed by the Existing Wastewater Facility or that will be contributed by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, as compared to other nutrient sources in the Safe Harbor area. He also acknowledged that a scientifically-valid water quality study would require more than a single day of sampling.47/ Kenneth Weaver, environmental administrator for DEP's Standards Development Section,48/ credibly and persuasively testified, and the water quality data for nutrients and chlorophyll-a collected in the WBIDs surrounding Key West and Stock Island show, that the surface waters in these WBIDs meet the applicable NNCs.49/ Historical water quality data also show that since 2008, the surface waters in these WBIDs continuously have met the baseline concentrations on which the NNCs were established and adopted. Even with the increased volume of wastewater treated by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, implementation of the AWT standard by the facility's wastewater treatment trains will substantially reduce the amount of total nitrogen and total phosphorus discharged into ground water through the injection wells. Specifically, for total nitrogen, the concentration will be reduced from 13.92 mg/L to 2.25 mg/L, and the total amount of nitrogen loading will be reduced from 58 to 15.9 pounds per day, representing a total net reduction of 72.4 percent in the discharge of total nitrogen. For total phosphorus, the concentration will be reduced from 3.47 mg/L to .75 mg/L, and the total amount of phosphorus loading will be reduced from 14.4 to 5.3 pounds per day, representing a total net reduction of 63.3 percent in the discharge of total phosphorus.50/ Weaver addressed the effects of these projected nutrient discharge concentrations on the surface waters in WBIDs 8074 and 8079, which comprise the portions of the Lower Keys Region and Back Bay Region closest to the KWRU site. He opined that, because these regions are currently meeting the applicable NNCs for nitrogen and phosphorus, and because KWRU's implementation of AWT will result in substantial reduction of total nitrogen and phosphorus loading, the NNCs will continue to be met in these regions——even in a "worst-case" scenario that assumes all of the treated effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility is disposed of through the injection wells and reaches the surface. The persuasive evidence shows that the Project will not cause or contribute to violations of the applicable numeric nutrient criteria. Thus, Petitioners failed to show that the Project will cause or contribute to violation of the applicable numeric nutrient criteria in rule 62-302.532(1)(g)1. and 3. Surface Water "Free-From" Standards Petitioners allege that the effluent contains iron and copper above detection limits, as well as personal care products and pharmaceuticals, and that these constituents violate rules 62-302.500(1)(a)5. and 62-302.530(61). Rule 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. requires all surface waters of the state to be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man- induced non-thermal components of discharges which, alone or in combination with other components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal), are present in concentrations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species, unless specific standards for such components are established by rule. Rule 62-302.530(61) effectively requires surface waters to be free from substances in concentrations which injure, are chronically toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavioral response in humans, animals, or plants. These rules collectively comprise the "free-from" standards for surface waters. Petitioners presented no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will contain pharmaceuticals or personal care products. However, even assuming these constituents were present in the effluent, Petitioners did not present evidence showing that they are carcinogenic; mutagenic; or teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species; or that they are injurious or chronically toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavioral response, in humans, animals, or plants. Petitioners did not present evidence showing that the effluent contains copper and iron in quantities that violate any applicable surface water quality standards, including the surface water "free-from" standards. Paul testified, based on sampling he conducted at domestic wastewater outfalls discharging directly to surface waters, that effluent treated to AWT standards often contains pathogenic bacteria and viruses that constitute threats to human health. On this basis, he opined that even though the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility is treated to AWT, it may contain pathogenic constituents that are harmful to human health. However, as previously discussed, the evidence shows that the effluent discharged through KWRU's injection wells will be substantially diluted by groundwater, and also by surface waters to the extent it reaches surface waters at some unknown location. Accordingly, the results of Paul's pathogen studies cannot be extrapolated to conclude that KWRU's effluent also will contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses in such amounts as to constitute a threat to human health. Petitioners failed to show that the effluent disposed of in the injection wells will cause or contribute to violations of the surface water quality standards in rules 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. and 62-302.530(61). Dilution to Meet Surface Water Quality Standards Petitioners allege that KWRU is relying on dilution of the effluent in order to meet surface water quality standards without having been permitted for a mixing zone, in violation of rule 62-302.500(1)(c).51/ This contention lacks merit. As discussed in detail above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the effluent discharged through the injection wells will not violate water quality standards for and parameters, including for nutrients, and will not cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that once injected, the effluent will horizontally migrate a considerable distance before it may migrate vertically to reach surface waters. The parties generally agree that ground water and surface waters are "connected" in the Florida Keys. To that point, although it appears likely that at some point the effluent will reach surface water, the evidence does not establish that is an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, even assuming the effluent would reach surface waters at some unknown location and time, the persuasive evidence shows that it would be so substantially diluted by the ground water that it would neither cause nor contribute to violations of surface water quality standards. Further, the persuasive evidence, consisting of Weaver's "worst case" analysis of nutrient loading from the effluent discharge, which assumed no dilution by ground water, establishes that even if the effluent——which will be treated to AWT standards——were discharged directly into surface waters, it would meet the applicable nutrient criteria. Finally, Petitioners' claim assumes that the effluent will be discharged into surface waters. However, as discussed above and in greater detail below, to the extent the effluent ultimately may be discharged to surface waters, such discharge would be indirect, so would not be subject to statutory and rule provisions requiring establishment of a mixing zone. For these reasons, Petitioners failed to prove that KWRU violated any applicable law or rule by not requesting and obtaining a mixing zone for the discharge of the effluent through the injection wells. Class V Injection Wells in Monroe County Petitioners also allege that issuance of the Permit at Issue violates rule 62-528.630(7), which requires all Class V Group 3 domestic wastewater injection wells in Monroe County to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the well will not cause or contribute to a violation of surface waters standards as defined in chapter 62-302. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the operation of the wells as authorized under the Permit at Issue will not cause or contribute to violations of surface water quality standards codified in chapter 62-302. Accordingly, Petitioners failed to prove that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it violates rule 62-528.630(7). Antidegradation Petitioners contend that the Permit at Issue must be denied because KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that the injection of effluent will not violate the antidegradation requirements applicable to surface waters codified at rules 62- 4.242, 62-302.300, 62-302.530(47)(a), and 62-302.700(1). This contention lacks merit. As more fully discussed below, the antidegradation requirements in these rules apply only to a direct discharge to surface waters, which is not present in this case. Here, the evidence clearly establishes that the injection wells do not directly discharge effluent into surface waters. It is undisputed that the effluent will be injected from the wells into Class III ground water, where it will migrate through the subsurface strata. Although it is likely that, due to a "connection" between ground water and surface waters, the effluent ultimately will reach surface waters at some unknown location or locations at some unknown time, this constitutes an indirect discharge, which is specifically excluded from the term "discharge of a pollutant." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-620.200(13). However, even if the antidegradation rules did apply to the discharge of the effluent through the injection wells, Petitioners failed to prove that the discharge would degrade surface waters. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the surface waters in the Florida Keys, including those in and around Stock Island and Key West, currently meet the narrative and/or nutrient criteria, as applicable, and that effluent discharged through the injection wells will be treated to AWT standards, substantially reducing the facility's total nutrient loading below current levels. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence established that, even in a "worst-case" scenario, which assumes no dilution of the effluent by ground or surface waters, the effluent still would not cause or contribute to a violation of the narrative or numeric nutrient criteria. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence showed that, in fact, the effluent will be very substantially diluted by the ground water into which it is injected, and will be further diluted if and when it ultimately reaches surface waters. For these reasons, Petitioners failed to prove that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the disposal of the effluent through the injection wells would not degrade surface waters, in violation of rules 62-4.242, 62-302.300, 62- 302.530(47)(a), and 62-302.700(1). Alleged Violation of Ground Water Standards Petitioners allege that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the injection wells would not violate applicable ground water standards. Petitioners further allege that there is an underground drinking water source under Stock Island. In that case, more stringent ground water quality and injection well rule standards would apply to operation of the injection wells. Petitioners did not present any credible, persuasive evidence to support these allegations. The persuasive evidence establishes that although there is a fresh water lens under Stock Island, it is not classified as an underground source of drinking water52/ due to its substantial variability in horizontal and vertical extent, which renders the salinity levels highly variable. Thus, the ground water at Stock Island is classified as Class G-III ground water which is non-potable ground water having a total dissolved solids content of 10,000 mg/L or greater, or having a total dissolved solids content of 3,000 to 10,000 mg/L and having been determined to have no reasonable potential as a future source of drinking water or designated by rule as an exempted aquifer. Only the minimum criteria for ground water, known as the "free-from" standards, apply to Class G-III ground water. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-520.430(1). These criteria require that at all times and in all places, ground water be free from discharge components in concentrations that are carcinogenic, teratogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to humans; acutely toxic within surface waters affected by ground water; pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; create or constitute a nuisance; or impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-520.400. There is no evidentiary basis on which to infer that the effluent from Expanded Wastewater Facility that is disposed through the injection wells will violate the free-from standards KWRU's many years of effluent monitoring at the Existing Wastewater Facility show that the effluent does not violate these standards. Further, David Rhodes, a Florida-licensed P.G. employed by DEP, credibly testified that a violation of the free- from standards necessarily would entail the presence of toxic materials in KWRU's effluent and that there would be immediate and dramatic effects on the flora and fauna at the golf course, where reclaimed water is reused for irrigation. Since such effects never have occurred, it is reasonable to infer that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will not violate the free-from standards.53/ Additionally, as previously addressed, the credible, persuasive evidence demonstrates that no surface water quality violations will result from installation and operation of the injection wells as part of the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Accordingly, the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters will not be impaired due as a result of the injection wells. Petitioners also claim that due to inadequate treatment by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, the effluent disposed in the injection wells will contain unacceptably high levels of bacteria and viruses. The persuasive evidence establishes that KWRU provides high-level disinfection prior to injecting the effluent or sending the reclaimed water for reuse at the golf course. Historical monitoring data shows that KWRU's effluent complies with applicable microbial standards, and unrebutted evidence consisting of quality-related beach closure data for the Florida Keys, gathered as part of the Department of Health's Healthy Beaches monitoring program, indicates that no beach closings in the Florida Keys ever have been attributed to KWRU's Existing Wastewater Facility. Petitioners did not prove that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the injection wells authorized as part of the Project will not result in violations of applicable ground water standards. To the contrary, KWRU provided reasonable assurance that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility disposed in the injection wells authorized as part of the Project will not violate any applicable ground water standards. Alleged Water Quality Violations Due to Reuse System Petitioners allege that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the storage of up to 1 MGD of reclaimed water in the reuse system storage ponds on the Key West Golf Club golf course will not cause or contribute to a violation of surface water quality standards and ground water standards. Specifically, Petitioners posit that, because the ponds are unlined, reclaimed water from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will leach from the ponds into the ground water and reach surface waters, violating surface water quality standards and ground water standards and negatively impacting human health through high levels of microbial pathogens, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. Petitioners further allege that discharge of reclaimed water from the ponds into the ground water could mobilize constituents of concern from the Key West Landfill and a closed waste-to-energy facility, both of which are near the golf course, ultimately resulting in surface water quality standards and ground water violations. In support of these contentions, Petitioners presented the testimony of Scott Zednek, who testified that the reclaimed water, which is fresher than the surrounding ground water, may leach from the ponds into the ground water, and thereafter potentially may reach surface waters. According to Zednek, this leaching could occur because the ponds are unlined. Additionally, Zednek opined that, because there is a closed landfill near the golf course, the reclaimed water leaching from the reuse system ponds could mobilize and spread contaminants from the landfill. The persuasive evidence demonstrates that storage of the reclaimed water in the reuse system ponds will not result in violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. Although the golf course ponds are unlined in the sense that a high-density polyethylene or impermeable clay liner has not been installed on the bottom and sides of the ponds, over the years, marl has formed on the bottom and sides of the ponds, creating an aquitard that substantially confines the reclaimed water to the ponds, rather than allowing it to readily leach into the ground water. Further, the reclaimed water generally is less saline than the ground water underlying the course, so tends to "float" on top of, rather than readily mixing with, the denser, more saline ground water. Additionally, the evidence shows that years of historical ground water monitoring data obtained through monitoring wells on the golf course near the reuse system ponds showed no ground water standards violations as a result of storing reclaimed water from KWRU in the ponds.54/ Because the amount of reclaimed water being sent to the reuse storage ponds is not being changed by the Project, and the nutrient levels in the reclaimed water are being through AWT, there is no factual basis from which to infer that storage of the reclaimed water in the pond will result in violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. The persuasive evidence also does not support Zednek's view that reclaimed water leaching into the ground water from the storage ponds will mobilize pollutants under the nearby landfill. As discussed above, the persuasive evidence establishes that, due to the aquitard, there will be very little leaching of reclaimed water into the ground water, and even if such leaching did occur, there would be very little mixing of the reclaimed water with the more saline ground water. As such, there is no demonstrated factual basis on which to infer that reclaimed water will flow under, and mobilize and spread pollutants from, the landfill. Further, the evidence establishes that the predominant ground water flow direction under Stock Island is to the south- southeast. Since the landfill is located north of the reuse system ponds, any reclaimed water that did enter ground water would flow south-southeast, away from the landfill. Zednek also opined that if the storage ponds overflowed, the reclaimed water could run off into surface waters, resulting in surface water quality violations. However, the evidence establishes that KWRU will only send as much reclaimed water to the reuse storage ponds as the Key West Golf Club requests, so any assertion that the ponds will overflow is speculative. Further, even if the ponds were to overflow, Petitioners did not show that the reclaimed water would flow into surface waters, or that it would violate surface water quality standards if it were to flow into surface waters. Petitioners did not prove that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that the storage of reclaimed water in the reuse system storage ponds at the Key West Golf Club will not violate any ground water standards. Stated another way, KWRU provided reasonable assurance that the storage of reclaimed water in the reuse system ponds at the Key West Golf Club golf course will not cause or contribute to violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. Applicability of AWT to Existing Wastewater Facility Commencing January 1, 2016, the two new treatment trains authorized by the Permit at Issue must meet the AWT standards. These treatment trains are authorized to treat wastewater to specified secondary standards through December 31, 2015. Petitioners assert that the Permit at Issue must be denied because the two new treatment trains should be required to meet AWT standards immediately upon operation, and that allowing the new treatment trains to meet secondary standards through December 31, 2015, violates section 403.806(10) and rule 62- 620.620(4). Sections 403.086(10)(c) and (d) expressly impose the AWT standards on all new or expanded domestic wastewater discharges after December 31, 2015. Accordingly, the Permit at Issue is completely consistent with the statute. Further, the Permit at Issue does not violate rule 62- 620.602(4). That rule requires a wastewater facility permit applicant to make certain specified demonstrations when a permit is renewed, revised, or reissued having a less stringent effluent limitation than contained in a previous permit. Although the Existing Permit states that the Existing Wastewater Facility has been modified to meet the AWT standards, it further states: "[t]he extended aeration process will be switched to the AWT nutrient removal system prior to January 1, 2016." The clear import of this statement is that the AWT standards are not required to be met until January 1, 2016, consistent with section 403.806(10). Because the Permit at Issue also requires the new treatment trains to meet the AWT standards commencing on January 1, 2016, the Permit at Issue does not impose a less stringent effluent limitation than that imposed by the Existing Permit; accordingly, KWRU is not required to make the so-called "anti-backsliding" demonstrations set forth in rule 62- 620.620(4). Furthermore, it is undisputed that the new treatment trains will not be constructed and operational before January 1, 2016; thus, as a practical matter, the new treatment trains must meet the AWT standards immediately upon going into operation. Thus, Petitioners have not shown that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it violates section 403.806(10) and rule 62-620.620(4). Petitioners' Standing As noted above, Petitioner Halloran, resides in Key West, Florida. His residence fronts on the water and he owns a boat. Halloran and his family use and enjoy the waters around Key West for swimming, fishing, kayaking, and other in-water recreational uses, eat local-caught seafood, and engage in nature photography. Halloran also owns rental properties that front on the water, and he owns and rents out dock space for houseboat mooring. He is a member of Last Stand. Halloran has challenged the Permit at Issue because he is concerned that the increased discharge of effluent from the Project down the injection wells will degrade the waters around Key West where he and his family engage in in-water recreational uses. He also is concerned that the increased effluent discharge, particularly nutrients, will harm the seagrasses, coral reefs, and the benthic communities in the waters around Key West. Halloran read the initial petition prepared and filed in this proceeding, and he skimmed the Amended Petition specifically to determine the changes from the initial Petition.55/ He acknowledges that he does not completely recall the entire contents of the initial petition or the Amended Petition. Petitioner Last Stand is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Florida law. Naja Girard D'Albissin, a member of the Board of Directors of Last Stand, appeared on behalf of Last Stand. D'Albissin testified that Last Stand currently has approximately 105 members. Last Stand's mission is to promote, preserve, and protect the quality of life in Key West and the Florida Keys, with particular emphasis on protecting the natural environment. Last Stand historically has engaged in environmental advocacy directed toward governmental entities and engaged in litigation opposing activities that its members believe would harm the natural environment. In July 2014, Last Stand's Board of Directors voted to challenge the Permit at Issue. Respondent DEP stipulated that 52 members of Last Stand spend time or reside in Monroe County, 50 members enjoy the waters and natural environment of the Florida Keys, and 50 members believe that their use and enjoyment of the natural environment and economic interests in Monroe County will be adversely affected by the Project. Last Stand tendered, for admission into evidence, affidavits of some of its members attesting to the substantial interests they contend will be injured by the Project. However, Last Stand had refused to allow Respondents to engage in discovery regarding these members' alleged substantial interests; accordingly, the undersigned did not allow these members to testify at the final hearing.56/ The affidavits were excluded from admission into evidence as unsupported hearsay. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Entitlement to Permit at Issue KWRU met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the Permit at Issue by entering into evidence the applications and supporting materials for the Permit at Issue for the Project. Additionally, KWRU presented persuasive, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that necessary to meet its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to demonstrate its entitlement to the Permit at Issue. Petitioners did not meet their burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p) in this proceeding to demonstrate that the Project does not meet all applicable statutory and rule requirements. Furthermore, on rebuttal, KWRU and DEP thoroughly addressed and rebutted the grounds that Petitioners allege justify denial of the Permit at Issue. The persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Project meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements. Accordingly, KWRU is entitled to issuance of the Permit at Issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit FLA014951-012-DWIP and UIC Permits 18490-020 and 18490-021. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 15th day of January, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Alexis Crlenjak is the owner of an unimproved lot approximately 90 feet by 230 feet in size which abuts Black Creek in Clay County, Florida. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) By application received by the St. Johns River Subdistrict of the Department of Environmental Regulation on September 9, 1980, Petitioner sought a permit to place approximately 1,000 cubic yards of clean fill dirt over an area of 90 by 130 feet to a depth of 3 feet on the southern portion of his lot. The stated purpose for the request was to enable Petitioner to obtain a county permit to install a septic tank and drainfield in the filled portion of the lot. Such a permit previously had been denied by the county for the reason that inadequate drainage for a septic tank existed in the lot's present natural condition. (Testimony of Petitioner, Exhibit 2) Subsequent to receipt of the application, DER's Subdistrict Office solicited comments or objections to the proposed project from adjacent landowners and various governmental agencies. An adjoining landowner, Frederick G. Flagge, filed an opposition to the concept of placement of a septic tank and drainfield next to his land due to the possibility of seepage and contamination. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, expressed the view that placement of fill material in flood plain wetlands to raise the elevation for a septic tank placement is not in the public's interest and recommended denial of the application, and suggested that the applicant utilize the upland portion of his property for such purpose. The Southeast Regional Office of the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, concluded that the work would adversely impact fishery resources by filling productive wetlands and made a similar recommendation to that of the EPA. A representative of the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service inspected the area in November 1980, and found that the proposed project would destroy 0.27 acres of wetlands which provide nesting, feed and shelter habitat for various species of birds, maimals and reptiles. The agency therefore recommended that any fill be limited to upland areas. The Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission reviewed the application and recommended denial because the project would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources by eliminating a protective wetland habitat. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) Petitioner's lot is bounded on the north by Black Creek, on the east by a dredged canal which terminates at a boat basin immediately south of his property. A filled driveway separates Petitioner' s land from the Flagge property to the west. Although the area surrounding the north bank of Black Creek is still in a natural condition, Petitioner's and Flagge's lots are practically the only ones on the south bank in that area which are undeveloped and still in a relatively natural state. The northern border of Petitioner's property is high and dry due to the berm along Black Creek which has been deposited over the years and has become vegetated. However, the southern half is a hardwood swamp area where blackgum is the dominant species, together with other species such as buttonbush, water ash, dahoon, willow, water locust, red maple and sweetgum. Black Creek is classified as a Class III body of water under Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. The type of vegetation on the southern portion of Petitioner's lot is associated with periodic inundation during seasonal rainfall, and is thus deemed to constitute the landward extent of waters of the state pursuant to the vegetative indices of Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. After receiving the application an environmental specialist in Respondent's subdistrict office visited the site and thereafter prepared a Permit Application Appraisal. He identified the various species of plant life located in the area to be filled and determined that it was properly within Respondent's jurisdiction. His appraisal found that the swamp area in question benefits the water quality of Black Creek by filtering sediments and assimilating pollutants generated by upland runoff. He also found that the area is a fish and wildlife habitat, provides flood control, and serves as a primary food source for fish and wildlife. He therefore determined that the proposed project would result in the elimination of those biological resources that aid in maintaining water quality and would further degrade water quality by adding septic tank waste in close proximity to the waterway. He concluded that the project as proposed would induce flooding on the lot to the West by blocking the flow through the swamp which presently is connected by a culvert under the filled driveway to the west. His supervisor subsequently visited the site and agreed with the application appraisal. It was their combined opinion that filling of the land would eventually lead to eutrophication of the adjacent canal and adversely affect the water quality of Black Creek. At the time of their visits, the DER personnel did not observe standing water on Petitioner's property, but did so on the adjacent lot to the west. (Testimony of Rector, Tyler, Exhibit 2) As a result of the adverse application appraisal, Respondent advised Petitioner on December 9, 1980, of its intent to deny the application based on the loss of submerged land, and anticipated water quality degradation by replacing the aquatic ecosystem with a septic tank and drain ield which has a potential for leaking into the adjacent canal. The Notice of Intent to Deny further specified state water quality standards which would be adversely affected, and found that the applicant had not provided the department with affirmative reasonable assurances that the immediate and long-term impacts of the project would not result in a violation of state water quality standards. (Testimony of Tyler, Exhibit 2) At the hearing, Petitioner scaled down his request by stating that he now only wished to fill an area approximately 25 feet by 40 feet in the southwest corner of his lot to serve as the drainfield for a septic tank. However, the DER personnel who had reviewed the project testified that their recommendation of denial would not be changed in spite of the reduced proposed filling activity. They were of the opinion that the same considerations which led to the denial recommendation would still be present, except on a smaller scale. They indicated that Petitioner could still use his land, in spite of the permit denial, for recreational activities, or by erecting a "stilt" house on the lower half of the lot. However, in such an eventuality, the septic tank and drainfield would have to be placed on the upland portion of the lot. As petitioner pointed out, this cannot take place under current health regulations in view of the fact that a well is located on the north side of the adjacent lot, and the spacing distance would be insufficient for state and county permitting purposes. Although Petitioner denied that a culvert existed under the driveway separating the lots, he conceded that he had not visited the property for about a year. (Testimony of Tyler, petitioner, Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Victoria J. TSchinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Alexis Crlenjak Assistant General Counsel Route 2, Box 618 Department of Environmental Havana, Florida 32333 Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioners and Intervenors challenge the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 0142476-003 to IMC Phosphates Company (IMC) for proposed mining of phosphate at the Manson Jenkins Property (Property) located in Manatee County, Florida. The ultimate issue is whether IMC has provided reasonable assurance that the applicable requirements of Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and relevant rules promulgated thereunder, have been satisfied justifying entitlement to an ERP.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, IMC, is a general partnership authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is the applicant in these proceedings. IMC has applied for an ERP to mine, reclaim, and conduct associated activities on the Property in Manatee County, Florida. These activities shall be referred to as the "Manson Jenkins Project." The Department administers the ERP program for various activities including phosphate mining and reviewed the ERP application for the Manson Jenkins Project. Petitioner, DCAP, is a not-for-profit corporation. Alan Behrens and Joe Fernandez reside in DeSoto County and joined in the DCAP Petition. Petitioner, Charlotte County, and Intervenors, Sarasota County and Lee County, are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Intervenor, the Authority, is a regional water supply authority established under Section 373.196, Florida Statutes, and created by interlocal agreement to supply wholesale drinking water to its member governments and to approximately 100,000 residents of Charlotte, DeSoto, and Sarasota counties, most of whom reside in Charlotte County. Intervenors, ECOSWF and Manasota-88, are not-for-profit environmental organizations. IMC and the Department agreed to the standing of the Petitioners and Intervenors to participate in these proceedings. Environmental Resource Application General In 1993, the Legislature directed the Department and the water management districts to combine the Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) program, administered by the water management districts pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Dredge and Fill Program, administered by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, into a single permitting program, the ERP Program. The Department and the water management districts worked jointly to merge the two programs. The process was completed in 1995, when the rules implementing the ERP Program took effect. The MSSW permits were issued by the water management districts for construction activities that would significantly alter surface water flow or otherwise affect surface water management systems. The dredge and fill permits were issued by the Department for activities proposed in surface waters and wetlands. The ERPs are now issued by the Department pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, which requires the issuance of an ERP for any construction activities in or seeking to alter certain waters and wetlands. ERP applications for phosphate mining are submitted to, processed and evaluated by, the Department's Bureau of Mine Reclamation (Bureau) pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and specific rules. By law and interagency agreement, the Department issues ERPs for proposed phosphate mining operations. The Bureau conducts an initial review and may request additional information. Upon review of the initial application and responses, the Bureau determines whether the application is complete. Unless waived by the applicant, the Bureau has 90 days within which to take agency action, i.e., either grant or deny the application. ERPs are divided into the construction and operation phases. During the construction phase of a phosphate mining operation, an applicant conducts the mining and related activities, including the actual preparation and mining of the land. After mining, an applicant pumps sand tailings back into the mine cuts, re-contours the land and plants the appropriate vegetation, also known as the reclamation process. After reclamation, the Department inspects the site and determines whether on-site wetlands can be properly reconnected to waters of the state. Reconnection typically occurs when the Department determines that the site functions as a self-sustaining natural system, and water quality standards are met. Following reconnection, the operational stage of the ERP begins because the property is then a natural site and self-sustained. Throughout the construction and operation phases, the Department continually inspects the property. A site will not be released from permit requirements until all permit conditions have been met. For ERP permits issued within the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the Department incorporated by reference certain sections of Chapters 40D-1, 40D-4, 40D-40, and 40D-45, Florida Administrative Code, and specific provisions of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (1995) (ERP BOR), as its permitting criteria. See Rule 62-330.200(3)(a)-(e), Florida Administrative Code. The main permitting criteria followed by the Department in issuing ERP permits for activities within the SWFWMD are contained in Rule 40D-4.301, Florida Administrative Code (Conditions for Issuance of Permits), and Rule 40D-4.302, Florida Administrative Code (Additional Conditions for Issuance of Permits). Both rules became effective in 1995. Prior to the merger of the Department and the water management districts' functions under the Department's regulatory umbrella, the various districts had slightly different conditions for the issuance of permits. The Department and all of the districts developed one version of these rules, which were then adopted by the four districts (without the Northwest Water Management District, which does not implement the program) to promote uniformity. In turn, the Department incorporated the above-mentioned rules by reference. Thus, for example, Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302 are a blending of the previous MSSW rules with the previous dredge and fill rules. In evaluating ERP permit applications, the Department considers the SWFWMD's (as well as other water management districts) historical interpretation of the rules which have been adopted by the Department, although the Department is not bound to adopt former SWFWMD interpretations nor does the Department defer to the SWFWMD's interpretation of these rules. Until this proceeding, the Bureau evaluated adverse water quantity and flow impacts based on a standard that limited post-mining flows and mass volume to 105 percent and 85 percent of the pre-mining flows and volumes, respectively. As a direct result of the filing of a challenge to this policy, the Department will not rely on this policy as a basis for decision in this proceeding. See Charlotte County, Florida, and Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority v. Department of Environmental Protection and IMC Phosphates Company, DOAH Case Nos. 01-2399RU and 01-2412RU (Settlement Agreement July 6, 2001). In this de novo proceeding, IMC has the burden to establish reasonable assurances in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302, Florida Administrative Code. 2. The Manson Jenkins ERP Application Review Process On October 1, 1999, IMC submitted to the Department an application for an ERP for authorization to mine phosphate, reclaim, and conduct associated activities on the Property. The Manson Jenkins Project is an extension of the existing Fort Green Mine, which is contiguous to the Property. The Department reviewed the information contained in the initial application and issued a series of requests for additional information. IMC provided responses to these requests on February 7, June 5, July 15, September 6, and October 11, 2000. Thereafter, the Department determined that the application was complete and issued a Notice of Intent to Issue (NOI) an ERP to IMC on February 8, 2001. This NOI was published in the Bradenton Herald on February 12, 2001. The parties stipulated that "Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto are the applicable law in this proceeding." However, the parties disagree regarding which specific statutes and rules apply here. 3. Draft Environmental Resource Permit The Department's NOI includes a draft ERP. This permit is issued under the authority of Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. The draft ERP authorizes IMC, in part, "to mine or disturb approximately 361 acres of wetlands for phosphate mining and associated activities . . . . The mitigation/reclamation will consist of approximately 537.8 acres of wetlands . . . . The project will also disturb 1988.1 acres of uplands for phosphate mining and associated activities [and t]he reclamation will consist of 1811.3 acres of uplands . . ." in a variety of land formations. IMC voluntarily agreed to provide a two-phased Conservation Easement consisting of not less than 521 acres, consisting "of [during phase one] not less than 182 acres associated with the no-mine area of the West Fork of Horse Creek, which shall be preserved from mining associated disturbance" and, during phase two, "an additional 339 acres of created wetlands and encompassed stream associated with the West Fork of Horse" Creek. The Conservation Easement is not considered part of the mitigation offered by IMC. The Conservation Easement authorizes the Property owners to use these areas after reclamation and release of the Property. The draft ERP contains general conditions, and specific conditions requiring, in part, monitoring to assure that the proposed mitigation of waters and wetlands is completed in accordance with success criteria contained in the draft ERP; monitoring to assure that groundwater levels are maintained at appropriate levels in areas undisturbed by mining or mining related activities; and numerous other legally enforceable conditions of approval. Phosphate Mining Geological Background and Phosphate Mining Process Millions of years ago, the oceans were rich in phosphorous. At that time, central Florida was under water. Over geological time, certain organisms decayed and settled to the bottom of the ocean. After the waters receded, deposits of phosphate were covered by land. Essentially, phosphate is the product of marine deposits. Although deposits are located in other states, such as Idaho and North Carolina, the largest phosphate rock deposit in the United States is in Central Florida, including the Manson Jenkins Property. The deposits of phosphate-bearing material are referred to as the "matrix," which consists of one-third phosphate, one-third sand, and one-third clay. On the Manson Jenkins Property, the entire matrix or ore body is approximately 15 to 18 feet thick. This phosphate matrix layer is buried under a layer of soils, rocks, sand, and clay, known as the "overburden," which is up to approximately 33 feet thick. There is a layer beneath the matrix which is 150 to 200 feet thick which is a confining layer of dense clay and separates the surficial aquifer from the intermediate aquifer. The phosphate to be mined on the Property is above the bed clay and the top of the intermediate aquifer system. Because the matrix is overlain by the overburden, the only way that it can be accessed and removed is through a surface mining operation. The first step prior to any land disturbance associated with phosphate mining is the installation of a "ditch and berm" system around the proposed mining area. The ditch and berm system is referred to by the Department and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "best management practice" (BMP). The ditch and berm system for the Property will be designed and installed pursuant to specific criteria. This system is designed to preclude a direct release of impacted water from the mining area to adjacent land, and wetlands or waters, such as streams. The ditch and berm system can be expected to operate appropriately and efficiently if it is constructed, operated, and inspected in accordance with the design criteria described by IMC engineers. A properly designed, constructed, and operated ditch and berm recharge system will effectively maintain water levels outside of the mine areas. A berm is a small embankment which has an inspection roadway on top which is typically 12 to 15 feet wide and has a fairly flat downstream slope. The berm is designed to be flat and stable. The primary purpose of the berm is to prevent water that is collected in the ditch from overflowing into the preserved areas and other undisturbed areas and creating, among other things, potential water quality problems. This system is also designed to prevent water that may be associated with the mining activity from moving off-site to adjacent, undisturbed areas, including wetlands or waters and to protect the ecology of the area outside of the berm. Another function of the system, including the recharge ditches, is to maintain groundwater along the boundaries of the property line so that undisturbed areas outside the mining area will remain at pre-mining conditions. Water levels are actively maintained in the ditches surrounding mining areas to assure that the mining excavations do not drain groundwater from adjacent areas. Preserved areas are also surrounded by ditch and berm and recharge systems that hydrate the area so that, for example, existing wetlands are not degraded. Prior to mining a to-be-disturbed area, the ditch portion of the ditch and berm system acts to collect water and carry it to an area where it is pumped into a recirculation system. The ditch and berm system also typically acts as a recharge system. IMC will design, construct, and operate a recharge system that will maintain the water level in the area immediately adjacent to the mine cuts. The water that is in the recirculation system consists of rainfall, water from the deeper aquifer systems, water from the surficial aquifer system that drains into the mine cuts, and runoff that is captured behind the ditch and berm systems. Prior to mining, IMC will install monitor wells at regular intervals along the recharge ditches, which will be located adjacent to either preserved areas or adjacent to property owned by someone else other than IMC, who would be concerned about drawing the water level down beneath his property. The monitor well gauges will give an indication as to the baseline water levels, the fluctuations of the water level, and the high water levels along the preserved areas. The monitor well gauges can also be read to ensure that the water in the recharge ditch is getting into the ground and maintaining the water table at the same level it was prior to mining. Water can also be drawn from nearby wells which can be used to make up the water that seeps out of the recharge system. IMC currently operates approximately 75 miles of perimeter ditches and berms at various mining operations. IMC has resolved compliance issues relating to recharge ditches (because of dewatering concerns) on the Fort Green Mine. Compliance issues, including the Four Corners Mine, have been reported by IMC to the SWFWMD. Also, IMC has had other unpermitted discharges related to its ditches and berms, which have been resolved by consent orders. Compliance issues regarding the East Fork of the Manatee River have not been resolved completely, as the SWFWMD has not closed its enforcement files. IMC will continue to act to resolve these issues until reclamation is completed around the East Fork. Notwithstanding these compliance issues and the related problems, the weight of the evidence indicates that IMC is capable of designing, constructing, and maintaining the proposed ditch and berm system, including the recharge ditches, on the Property in order to avoid past problems which resulted in, for example, dewatering of property. These problems can be significant and, if left undetected and unremedied, can cause serious consequences. Careful and timely monitoring, and continued self-reporting of non-compliance by IMC is imperative. The SWFWMD has issued a consolidated water use permit for the Property. Under this permit, IMC has reduced its daily permitted pumping by an average of over 50 percent. Prior to mining, an alternate flow way (AFW) will also be constructed to carry water that was previously flowing from the northwestern portion (boundary) of the Property to the preserved area to the south of the Property. The AFW will temporarily replace the conveyance and storage of the portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined. The AFW is likely to be removed in years 5 to 6 of mining. See Findings of Fact 87-94. Once the ditch and berm system is in place, the land is cleared to prepare for mining. The area is mined in strips or rows. After clearing, large electrically powered draglines remove the overburden layer to expose the phosphate-bearing matrix. The overburden is cast into an open adjacent mine cut, exposing the matrix for mining. These same draglines then extract the matrix and place it in depressions created at the mine which are called "slurry wells" or "pits." The matrix is then mixed with water in the pits to form a slurry which is conveyed hydraulically through a series of pipes and pumps to a "beneficiation" plant to remove the phosphate rock product from the matrix. The recovered phosphate matrix contains phosphate rock, clay, and sand. At the beneficiation plant, the phosphate rock, sand, and clay are physically separated. The phosphate rock is stored prior to additional processing required to convert it to fertilizer at off-site facilities. The sand is hydraulically transported back to the mining areas for use in land reclamation. The clays are generated from the beneficiation process and hydraulically transported to a clay settling area (CSA) where they are dewatered prior to reclamation. IMC plans to construct and operate two CSAs on the Property. However, the weight of the evidence indicates that approval of the ERP application at issue here, does not approve these CSAs because they have to be permitted and operated under separate Department regulations. See Findings of Fact 244-247 and 268. CSAs are a repository for the clay material. They are generally built in mined-out areas and built with the overburden material that is dragline cast in the mine cut. CSAs are necessary because, unlike sand which readily drains through water, clay materials are very light; and it takes time for the clays to settle out of the water, so the water can be reused in the re-circulation system. IMC expects that the two CSAs on the Property will ultimately be designed to handle the equivalent amounts of clays that will be mined from the Manson Jenkins Project. There will also be two CSAs immediately to the east of the Property on the Fort Green Mine, which will be operating as a result of the mining on the Property. Specifically, the CSAs proposed for the Property are expected to be constructed in mined-out areas (the northeast portion of the Property) and are expected to be surrounded by engineered dams approximately 40 feet above the surrounding land surface grade. One of the CSAs will encompass approximately 540 acres and the other 520 acres. After the clay is initially settled, specialized equipment will be used to dig drainage ditches and take other steps to expedite the settling process. This will allow a "crust" to form on the top of the clay surface. Thereafter, the dams surrounding the CSA (which are composed of overburden material) will be pushed in to cover a portion of the settled clays. The area will then be primarily uplands with relatively small wetland systems present. Years ago, settling areas would be reclaimed in 10 to 15 years. Today, with special mobile equipment, CSAs can be reclaimed within 3 to 5 years. Reclamation of the CSAs on the Property is expected to be completed within the 15 year timeframe contemplated for mining and reclamation activities. Once the matrix has been removed from a mining area segment, land reclamation commences. IMC expects to use four, different land reclamation techniques, including but not limited to, crustal development reclamation and land and lakes reclamation. These methods were described in detail during the hearing. Manson Jenkins Project Pre-Mining Conditions (Historical and Current Conditions of the Property) The Property encompasses approximately 2,808 acres in northeast Manatee County, Florida, which is largely owned by FP- 1 and FP-2 Corporations. IMC has a lease to mine the Property, having obtained these rights in 1993 when IMC entered into a partnership with Agrico Chemical Company, who, in turn, acquired the mining lease in 1986. The lease prohibits the owners from using the Property during mining, until it is released from reclamation. The owners have the right to use the Property prior to mining and after reclamation. The Parties stipulated that there are no archeological or historical resources located at the Property. The Peace River starts in Polk County, north of Bartow, and flows through Wauchula and Arcadia, and southwesterly to Charlotte Harbor. Horse Creek begins in the southern portion of Polk and Hillsborough Counties and flows south through Hardee County, approximately 40 miles to the confluence of Horse Creek and the Peace River in DeSoto County. The eastern boundary of the Property is the Manatee County-Hardee County boundary line. The Property abuts land to the east that is being mined and reclaimed by IMC as part of its Fort Green Mine, and the Manson Jenkins Project is an extension of that mining operation. According to a 1940 composite aerial, as interpreted, the Property contained wetlands that had not been ditched or drained. At the time, the West Fork of Horse Creek had not been channelized. The aerial indicates that there was a line of wetlands and a series of elongated marshes strung together, like a string of sausages, running south along the West Fork, and a distinct, yet not continuous, channel running southeast toward the southern boundary of the Property. The 1940 aerial, as interpreted, also indicates that the upland areas of pines had been cut. Cattle grazing is also apparent. The upland, however, consisted of very dense and rich undergrowth of range grasses, palmettos, low shrubs, and other assorted species. As of 1950, herbaceous wetlands existed at the north end of the Property and a vegetative cover existed between that wetland and the forested portion of the Property at the southern end. At that time, there was no channelization. As of 1965, the West Fork of Horse Creek, in or around the middle of the Property, had been channelized and heavily ditched. The area in the northeastern portion of the Property had been impacted by agriculture and row crops. The wetlands had been drained and tied into these ditches. The native range had been removed. IMC and its predecessors did not participate in the drainage of the Property for agricultural purposes. The present condition of the Property is very similar to the condition as of 1965. There is an approximately 3-square-mile area north of the Property which drains through a marsh, down to the West Fork of Horse Creek. The West Fork of Horse Creek, which enters the northwest portion of the Property, bisects the entire length of the Property in a north-south direction, and is channelized. The West Fork of Horse Creek is a first order stream because of its location in the watershed. See Findings of Fact 234-236. There is a headwater marsh area which leads into the northwestern portion of the Property and is part of West Fork of Horse Creek. The uppermost portion of the West Fork on the Property, which will be mined, has been referred to as "a channelized or ditch portion" or a "wide ditch." This includes the headwater marsh area. There is a "complex of wetlands" in the northwest corner of the Property which contribute water flow down the West Fork. There is a large ditch in the middle of the headwater marsh which conveys most of the water through the system and down the center of the Property. This portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek does not have the upland vegetation that is usually associated with a stream bank. Its ecological value is less than what is generally found in other first order stream or headwater systems. While the experts diverge on this issue, the weight of the evidence indicates that while the headwater marsh area to the north of the Property and in the northern portion of the Property has hydrological importance, the West Fork of Horse Creek is not a regionally significant stream. The weight of the evidence indicates that the West Fork of Horse Creek is a tributary of Horse Creek which, in turn, is a tributary of the Peace River. However, it is unclear whether the West Fork of Horse Creek is a work of SWFWMD. Assuming that it is, reasonable assurances have been provided that this project will not cause adverse impacts to the West Fork of Horse Creek in light of the mitigation offered by IMC and the proposed reclamation of the area and the reasonable expectation that this area will be improved from its current state. See Finding of Fact 257. There is also an area on the West Fork of Horse Creek and to the southeast of the Property (Section 13) which will be preserved and not mined, which is a combination of a channel system and forested uplands and wetlands. Walker Road runs north and south and is located in the middle and west of the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property. Walker Road follows the proposed AFW. There is also a dirt or shell road which runs west to east across the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property and a spillway structure at this location. The spillway structure was used by the landowner in agricultural practices to control the flow of water to irrigate the crops in the northeastern portion of the Property. The Property is located in the West Fork of Horse Creek, Manatee River, and Myakka River Basins, and in the far western part of the Peace River Basin. IMC's ERP Application contains approximately 300 acres, west of Walker Road (part of Sections 2 and 11) and in the northwestern portion of the Property in the Manatee River Basin. (Approximately 17 acres of wetlands in this area will be mined and will be replaced with approximately 51 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 95-96 and 211.) This area is not part of the Development of Regional Impact approved by Manatee County, although IMC plans to request permission from Manatee County to mine this area, and if approved, IMC would mine less than 200 acres. This portion essentially drains into the Manatee River. Further, IMC has included the southwest triangle of these 300 acres as a preservation area. This area contains, among other land covers, mixed wetland hardwoods and freshwater marshes. There is another portion of the Property in the Myakka River Basin, approximately 32 acres, located in the southwest corner of the site. (There is also a small wetland in this area consisting of approximately 4 acres of wetlands which will be replaced with approximately 12 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 95-96.) This portion drains through a drainage ditch and eventually enters Wingate Creek and the Myakka River. The balance, and by far the largest portion of the Property, is located in the Peace River Basin. After leaving the Property boundary to the south, the West Fork of Horse Creek joins the main branch of Horse Creek approximately 3 to 3.5 miles south of the Property line. Horse Creek then joins the Peace River approximately 30 miles from the Property boundary. The Peace River then empties into Charlotte Harbor approximately 40 miles from the Property. Today, the predominant land use on the Property are improved pasture and agricultural ditches. In order to achieve this cover and use, an extensive surface drainage system was constructed to drain isolated marshes into the West Fork of Horse Creek and to reduce the flood stage elevations within the creek itself. In areas with less extensive ditching, the existing vegetative communities more closely approximate natural systems. The improved pasture has been planted with bahia grass and other exotic pasture grasses. In recent years, a large portion of the pasture area has been converted into a sod farm and the sod has been stripped from that area leaving a large area of bare semi-vegetative soil. The Property is not pristine or close to its original condition, although, as argued by Charlotte County and others, portions of the Property do provide ecological functions. The wetlands on the Property have been subjected to extensive agricultural ditching. The main ditch is quite wide and deep, and there are many side ditches that proceed into smaller wetlands. There are also some lands that have not experienced conversion to improved pasture which, for the most part, are scheduled for preservation. IMC plans to mine, in part, the channelized portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek from north to south to the preserved area where the more heavily vegetated and forested portion of the natural stream channel of the West Fork of Horse Creek is located. This area will be blocked off during mining by a ditch and berm system. IMC will construct an AFW to carry the water that was previously flowing from the northern area (that is not part of this project and is not owned by IMC) around the area to be mined in the stream channel, which will be reconnected into the preserved area to the south. See Findings of Fact 87-94. From a hydrological standpoint, the to-be-mined marsh and channelized stream segment will be replaced with a flow- through marsh and recreated stream segment that connects the area to the north with the preserved portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The uplands will be placed back to the same elevations existing pre-mining and additional wetlands added. The marsh and the vegetative part of the stream will be slightly bigger. Proposed Mining Activities (Mine Sequence for the Property) IMC proposes to mine 2,348 acres of the 2,808 acres on the Property in approximately 6 to 9 years. The mining activities at the Property will follow the general sequence outlined above. Reclamation is expected to begin within 3 to 4 years after the commencement of mining operations, except for the CSAs. The mining and reclamation activities are expected to completed within 15 years. IMC will construct an AFW in year one (and prior to mining) of the mining activities. The AFW should be tied into the preserved area in the southern portion of the Property as soon as feasible in order to minimize the impacts to this area and downstream. The AFW is necessary because IMC intends to mine approximately 1.6 miles of the channelized or ditched marsh and stream portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek located in the northwest to middle portion of the Property. The AFW is designed to temporarily replace the conveyance and storage of the portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined north of the preserved area. The AFW will carry water that was previously flowing from the northwestern boundary of the Property to the preserved areas to the southern portion of the Property. In this manner, if constructed and operated properly, it is expected that the proposed mining and related activities at the project area 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. Further, the AFW and downstream areas will not be expected to suffer from erosion as a result of the installation of the AFW. The slopes and bottom of the AFW will be a vegetated channel designed to receive surface water runoff from the area north of the Property and convey it southward and then eastward back into that portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property which is part of the area being preserved in the southern portion of the Property. The bottom of the AFW will be vegetated with wetland type vegetation and will provide a habitat for fish and other wildlife. The AFW will not be used until the vegetation has become established. Vegetation is an effective method for minimizing erosion in a flow way or stream as described here. The design recommendations also require that the ends of the access corridor be stabilized so if they are subjected to overflow during the 25-year or 100-year storm event, they will be protected from erosion. Any sharp bends in the AFW will be stabilized prior to being put into service. The size of the AFW (50 feet wide) was revised and adjusted so it could carry the expected flows without backing the water up and causing water elevation to be above that which existed historically. The actual design of the AFW has been modified in accordance with the ERP conditions. The Draft ERP, "Specific Condition 4. c." provides: An alternate flow way shall replace the headwater marsh and wetlands of the West Fork of Horse Creek during site preparation, mining, and until the reclamation is re- connected. The alternate flowway will begin south of the north project boundary and end at the north end of the preserved wetlands, as shown on Figure IV F. The alternate flowway will convey water from areas north of the north project boundary south into the unmined portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The AFW shall be constructed as a trapezoidal channel with a minimum bottom of with [sic] of 50 feet and side slopes no steeper than 3 ft horizontal to 1 foot vertical, (3H to 1V). A recharge ditch and associated berms shall be placed along the entire east side and portions of the west side of the alternate flowway as noted in Figures IV F and IV F(a). To ensure maximum water quality treatment, the flowway will be planted with a variety of herbaceous wetland species such as pickerel weed Peak level recording devices will be placed at the north end, south end, and just north of the half Section line of Section 11. The top of the recording tube and the cross section elevations of the alternate flowway will be surveyed at the time of installation. This data will be submitted with the first monitoring report. Stream flows will be measured in conjunction with the quarterly mine inspection at each peak level station until the reclamation is reconnected to the West Fork unmined area. IMC-Phosphates shall submit monthly flow data and rainfall data to the bureau for review and approval. IMC-Phosphates shall not conduct any activities that result in a violation of Class III water quality standards within the West Fork [of] Horse Creek flowway. If at any time the water quality fails to meet [C]lass III standards, the bureau shall be immediately notified and corrective measures implemented. The reconstructed stream channel, like the AFW, will be vegetated and not placed into service until the vegetation is established. IMC proposes to disturb 361 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the Property. This acreage comprises approximately 4, 17, and 330 (approximately 351 acres according to Dr. Durbin) acres in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins, respectively. The balance of the Property will be reclaimed as uplands. See Findings of Fact 218-219. IMC will reclaim 538 acres of wetlands for the 361 acres of disturbed wetlands, consisting of approximately 12, 51, 475 acres of wetland mitigation in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins, respectively. IMC proposes to preserve approximately 316 acres (approximately 45 percent of the wetlands on-site) of jurisdictional wetlands on the Property, including over 70 percent of the forested wetlands on-site. By eliminating existing agricultural ditching and providing appropriate mitigation, and by providing upland buffers around the wetlands, the post-reclamation condition of the Property is expected to be better than the current condition of the Property. Conditions for Issuance Water Quantity Impacts Surface Water General During the final hearing, substantial evidence was presented concerning the potential impact of mining on surface water flows across the Property and downstream. Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. Dr. Garlanger is an expert in hydrology and hydrologic modeling with special expertise in surface and ground water systems associated with phosphate mining operations and reclaimed mined lands. IMC requested Dr. Garlanger to assess the potential impacts of the proposed mining and reclamation on the hydrology of the Property, and also to assess the potential hydrological or hydrogeological impacts downstream from the site to wetlands or waters of the state. Dr. Garlanger used models to assist him in assessing the nature, scope, and the extent of any future impacts resulting from the phosphate mining. Modeling requires the making of calculations relating one variable to another. Scientists, such as Dr. Garlanger and others who testified during this final hearing, who run comparative water balance models to calculate the differences in daily stream flow leaving a project site at the project boundary, must take into account several factors associated with the hydrological cycle, including the following: 1) the typography of the site; 2) the hydraulic conductivity or permeability of different soil levels; 3) the transmissivity of the different aquifer systems; 4) the geometry of the stream channel; 5) the amount and timing of rainfall on-site; 6) the amount of surface runoff; 7) the amount of evapotranspiration (ET); 8) the amount of deep recharge to the Floridan aquifer system; 9) the amount of groundwater outflow, including that portion of which makes it to the stream and becomes base flow; and 10) the temperature, wind speed, and amount of solar radiation, because they control ET. Each of these issues was reasonably evaluated by Dr. Garlanger. The weight of the evidence supports the accuracy, completeness, and conclusions of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work. Dr. Garlanger has been reviewing hydrological aspects of mining projects since 1974 for phosphate mining projects that require hydrological and hydrogeological analysis reflecting the unique aspects of mining operations. Dr. Garlanger explained how professional judgment was applied in his engineering calculations and how his model input data are reasonable. He also explained that he used reasonable information estimates to conduct this particular modeling work, which are consistent with measured data. Surface water flows are dependent on two sources: rainfall runoff from adjacent areas and groundwater that enters surface water streams and is sometimes referred to as "base flow." The weight of the evidence demonstrated that during mining activities the act of confining mining areas by the ditch and berm system would capture the rainfall runoff on these areas and thus reduce that rainfall runoff contribution to the ditched segment of the West Fork of Horse Creek (prior to the time that it is mined), the AFW during its operation, and the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek (during the time that mining continues to occur in the vicinity). During the active mining and reclamation activities, the ditch and berm system operates to maintain groundwater levels in areas undisturbed by mining at pre-mining conditions. Water levels are actively maintained in the ditches surrounding mining areas to assure that the mining excavations do not drain groundwater from adjacent areas. Thus, during the active mining and reclamation activities, the base flow component of surface water is not likely to be affected. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the base flow contribution to surface water flows through the AFW, when operational, will be somewhat higher than is present in the West Fork of Horse Creek during pre- mining conditions. After mining and reclamation are complete, the ditch and berm systems will no longer be needed and present at the Property, and thus rainfall runoff is not expected to be captured thereby. More wetlands, however, will be present at the Property after reclamation is completed than are now present. These wetlands tend to "use," through ET, more water than a comparably sized upland area. Thus, after reclamation is completed, there will be a reduction in the amount of water contributed from the Property to the flow of water in the reclaimed and preserved portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The weight of the evidence indicates that the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Property will not cause any adverse impacts on surface water quantity at the Property during active mining and reclamation or thereafter, and that there will be no adverse impacts at downstream locations. 2. Rainfall Predictive modeling was carried out by Dr. Garlanger to assess the potential significance of rainfall runoff capture and base flow reductions anticipated during mining and after reclamation of the Property. The model efforts simulated stream flow conditions on a daily basis, assuming that the Property experienced rainfall of the same frequency and duration as had occurred during a 19-year period from 1980 to 1998 at the Wauchula rainfall gauge. The amount of rainfall drives the hydrological model because it determines the amount of groundwater outflow, the amount of surface water runoff, and basically determines the amount of stream flow. The volume and timing of rainfall are important factors to consider; information regarding the variability of rainfall is a critical input into any model. In mining operations, discharge volumes correspond directly to rainfall. When rainfall volumes increase, mining operations' discharges increase. When rainfall volumes decrease, mining operations' discharges decrease. Thus, rainfall is the primary controlling factor in the volume of water discharge from a phosphate mine. The Property is located in the Peace River Basin. See Finding of Fact 75. Information is available from the National Climatic Data Center (Center), the government archive for climatic data, which indicates the occurrences of annual rainfall in the Peace River Basin between 1933 and 2000. The Center is a reasonable source of rainfall data. From 1933 through 2000, the arithmetic average of the rainfall in the Peace River Basin was 52.3 inches. (The average rainfall was collected from five stations throughout the Peace River Basin and then averaged.) However, within this period, there is significant variation in rainfall between the high and low rainfalls. There have only been four occurrences when the rainfall has been between 51 and 54 inches during this time frame. The record low rainfall of 35.9 inches occurred in 2000 in a significant drought year. The highest rainfalls have been in the 72 to 75-inch range and near 75 inches on two occasions; thus, a model must be based on more than one year of data. Dr. Garlanger examined the daily rainfall for a 19- year period between January 1980 and December 1998. This rainfall was measured at Wauchula, which is a town in the Peace River Basin almost due east of the Property and located on the Peace River. The weather station collects daily rainfall data and the Center is the source of this information. The average rainfall at Wauchula for this 19-year period is 52.17 inches, similar to the 1933 through 2000 period mentioned above, and also indicates that there is significant daily variability of rainfall. The claim that the accuracy of Dr. Garlanger's modeling is questionable because IMC's modeling "only uses rainfall information from the Wauchula rain gauge" is not persuasive. Dr. Garlanger reasonably chose this particular period of time, 1980 to 1998, and the location for several reasons. First, the data was available from the Center and is reliable. Second, the average rainfall that he used in the Peace River Basin is the average from five stations in the Basin, not just from one station. Third, Dr. Garlanger also considered the data from a rain gauging station approximately 3 miles downstream from the Property where Horse Creek crosses State Road 64, and the average rainfall was about 52.2 inches, which is similar to the 19-year period of data for the Peace River Basin. It is also argued that Dr. Garlanger "fabricated certain rainfall data." In rebuttal, Dr. Garlanger agreed that a data gap of approximately 7 months existed in the rainfall record at the Wauchula station, which he used. He described the efforts made by his assistant in supplying data for the missing period of record, which included an examination of the average rainfall for the other 18 years, for a particular day which was missing from the original data set. The weight of the evidence shows the calculations for these missing months out of the entire 19-year record did not adversely affect the overall conclusions of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work, including the predicted impacts. It is also suggested that Dr. Garlanger's modeling work improperly "omits a 3 square mile of the West Fork of Horse Creek watershed . . . that is critical to judging environmental impacts and changes in flow on the Manson Jenkins Property." While the entire Horse Creek watershed exceeds 200 square miles, an area of approximately 10 square miles composes the Horse Creek watershed upstream of the Property. A portion of IMC's Fort Green Mine is located in the West Fork of Horse Creek watershed. This portion of the Fort Green Mine includes approximately 3 square miles of catchment area. While IMC's Fort Green Mine is not currently contributing surface runoff to the West Fork of Horse Creek, the 3 square miles lying in the Fort Green Mine catchment area still comprise part of the overall Horse Creek Basin. In order to properly evaluate any impact on existing flow expected from Manson Jenkins activities, Dr. Garlanger reasonably did not select the 10-square mile historic basin, which would include the 3 square miles of Fort Green Mine catchment area and which, if included in the modeling assumptions as part of the watershed, would produce more favorable, higher flows. Rather, Dr. Garlanger reasonably used the current condition or baseline condition, which is the approximately 10 square miles of the historic basin minus the 3- square mile catchment area of the Fort Green Mine, approximately 6.2 square miles, in order for a valid comparison to be made of the potential effects that Manson Jenkins activities would have on existing flow. Dr. Garlanger's exclusion of this 3-square mile area in his modeling for the project was prudent to predicting what, if any, flow impacts would occur on a daily basis and under existing conditions. Dr. Garlanger's modeling work reasonably predicted both (1) the runoff that would occur on a daily basis over the next twenty years if no mining were to occur and (2) the runoff that would occur given the same rainfall record during mining and post-reclamation conditions at the Property. It was reasonable to use the same rainfall record in comparing these two scenarios in order to get a model comparison that accounted for pre-mining, during-mining, and post-reclamation conditions. 3. Evapotranspiration The reasonableness of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work is illustrated by the predictive accuracy of Dr. Garlanger's ET data as compared to measured data. Dr. Garlanger's model estimated ET on a daily basis, and the same ET values were used by Dr. Garlanger for the same types of vegetation cover. Dr. Garlanger compared the predicted daily ET with the ET calculated on actual, measured stream flow data along with the estimate of the rainfall in the Horse Creek Basin for the period from 1980 through 1998. Dr. Garlanger's predicted ET for the Property was 39.2 inches per year. The ET data from Horse Creek at State Road 64 is 40.3 and at State Road 72 is 39.9. Thus, Dr. Garlanger's predicted ET was within 2 percent or 3 percent of the data from these stations where the stream flow was measured. 4. Flow Impacts Using the reasonable meteorological data assumptions noted above and applying accepted hydrological and other physical laws, Dr. Garlanger used the model to predict anticipated flow conditions at the Property and downstream. The modeling results demonstrate that flow in stream segments which receive rainfall runoff and base flow contribution from the Property would be reduced only during the relatively small percentage of time that the streams would normally exhibit high flow conditions. For example, at the southern Property boundary line, the flow in the West Fork of Horse Creek during active mining and reclamation activities is predicted to be reduced only during the higher flow periods which exist for 10-20 percent of the time during the year. For the remaining 80-90 percent of the year flow reductions are not anticipated. After reclamation is completed, flow in the West Fork of Horse Creek at the Property line is predicted to be reduced only during approximately 5 percent of the time during the year when high flows are experienced in the stream. The only impact of the anticipated flow reductions during high flow periods at the Property boundary will be to reduce the depth of the water within the channel of the stream at that point. At the southern boundary of the West Fork of Horse Creek as it leaves the Property boundary, during the operation of the AFW, there should be no decrease in average stream flow, and there may even be a net increase in stream flow. During years 6 through 13 of the mining/reclamation sequence, or the mine life, Dr. Garlanger calculated there would be a decreased stream flow leaving the Property boundary of approximately 1.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) on an annual average basis as a result of mining activity, assuming the average rainfall during that period is 52 inches and the area has the same rainfall distribution as in Wauchula from 1980-1998. (The 1.4 cfs decrease applies downstream as well, but reflects Dr. Garlanger's worst case assumption.) Dr. Garlanger further testified that the slight decrease in flow in the Horse Creek, corresponding to a decrease in flow depth of a few inches when the flow depth in the Horse Creek is between 7.5 feet and 12.8 feet, will not cause adverse water quantity impacts. Dr. Garlanger compared on a daily basis the predicted reduction in stream flow resulting from mining to the baseline pre-mining condition. This allowed Dr. Garlanger to predict the effect on the depth of water in the stream channel at various points in time during both high flows and low flows. Significantly, Dr. Garlanger's modeling work indicates that during higher rainfall events, that is, high flows, when most of the runoff would occur, the greatest effect as a result of mining occurs. Predictably, during the period when there are no rain events or small rain events, that is, when there is low flow, Dr. Garlanger's calculations show the Manson Jenkins activities have virtually no impact on flow. Consequently, the effects of IMC's proposed mining and reclamation activities are consistent with the permitting rules because IMC's mining activities will reduce rather than cause adverse flooding. Water leaving the Property travels downstream to Horse Creek and the Peace River and ultimately to Charlotte Harbor, about 40 miles downstream from the Property's southern boundary. Dr. Garlanger also assessed the timing and magnitude of flow reduction impacts at several points in these downstream locations. Once again, slight flow reductions during high flow conditions were predicted for downstream segments of Horse Creek and the Peace River with the magnitude of the flow reductions decreasing significantly as one moves farther downstream from the Property. It is expected that such reductions in depth will have no ecological significance. During low flow periods, no flow reduction impacts were predicted at these downstream locations. The flow in the Peace River at Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor over the next 19-year period is not expected to be lower than the measured flow existing during the previous, historic 19-year period, such that any change will have an adverse water quantity impact. Water flowing from the Property ultimately enters the Peace River at a point downstream from the Arcadia gauging station where measurements are taken to control the ability of the Authority to withdraw water for municipal water supply purposes. Accordingly, the predicted reduction in flow during high flow conditions resulting from the permitted activities at the Property cannot be reasonably expected to adversely affect the Authority's legal rights to withdraw such water. See Findings of Fact 248-249. The Authority's water intake structure is located upstream (on the Peace River) of the confluence of Horse Creek and the Peace River. The predicted small reduction in flow during high flow conditions attributed to activities at the property, will have little or no impact on the Authority's capacity to withdraw water at that point. Furthermore, the freshwater-saltwater interface in the Peace River will be well downstream of the intake structure and cannot be expected to be impacted by any reasonably predicted reduction in freshwater flow caused by activities at the Property. The persuasive evidence in the record indicates that the predicted impacts calculated by permit opponents on the Peace River flow resulting from mining were not accurate. For example, pre-mining flow from both the wet season and the dry season is not identical and the calculation of average annual flow does not properly match wet and dry season flows. Additionally, the water quantity calculation errors included using the wrong number of days for both wet and dry season average flows, which overestimated the impact by 50 percent for the dry season and 100 percent for the wet season. Certain assumptions made by permit opponents concerning flow reductions due to industry-wide mining are not reliable. The assumptions concerning the amount of land that would be mined after 2025 exceeded actual available land to be mined by a significant percentage. It was assumed the area to be mined after 2025 is approximately 161,000 acres, when the amount of land that could be added to mining is less than 20,000 acres. (A high-side number might result in another 40,000 acres mined after 2025, which is approximately 25 percent of the estimates.) The overestimate of these assumptions resulted in a 100 percent higher reduction in flow in the Peace River at the Authority's water withdrawal point than would modeling estimates using reasonable assumptions. 5. "No-Flow Days" Analysis The record does not support the claim of an increase in the number of no-flow days in West Fork of Horse Creek at the Property boundary. The record shows there was no accounting (by party opponents) for the fact that flow from direct runoff is actually distributed over a period of time. The model incorrectly had runoff from a storm occur all on the day of the storm, rather than over a period of days. Contributing stream flow from the undisturbed area located upstream of the Property was also not considered. Dr. Garlanger's modeling data was not accurately transferred, and there is evidence that had the correct flow data from Dr. Garlanger's work been used, the increase in no-flow days would not have been calculated as they were and relied upon. Further, in rebuttal, and contrary to permit opponent's suggestion that Dr. Garlanger did not estimate no-flow days, Dr. Garlanger reevaluated his calculations and reconfirmed that, while there is an expected reduction in the flow, there is no increase expected in the number of no-flow days. Dr. Garlanger's modeling work is both professionally competent and reasonable in predicting Manson Jenkins activity flow impacts. 6. Model Calibration It is also argued that Dr. Garlanger's modeling work was "not calibrated." However, this argument is rejected based on the weight of the evidence. Dr. Garlanger explained that the model used for the Manson Jenkins Project was calibrated by the models used at another phosphate mine (the Ona Mine tract) located a few miles east of the Property. He also used the same input parameters for the Farmland-Hydro Mine in Hardee County. In this light, the model provided Dr. Garlanger with a reasonable estimate of both pre-mining or baseline condition and the post-reclamation condition, and also furnished him with a basis to estimate impacts during mining. In Dr. Garlanger's professional judgment, every input parameter used for the project's modeling work was reasonable and is accepted. Additionally, Dr. Garlanger compared the project groundwater outflow for the different sub-basins and found the outflow averaged 7.5 to 7.8 inches per year for all basins. Dr. Garlanger testified the measured groundwater outflows reported by W. Llewellyn, United States Geological Survey, averaged 7.7 to 8.9 inches per year in the Horse Creek Basin. Thus, Dr. Garlanger's modeling work, as to the groundwater component, was reasonably good predictive work. Furthermore, as discussed herein, the ET rate is one of the most important factors in determining the amount of water available to be discharged through the stream system. There is persuasive evidence that Dr. Garlanger calibrated the IMC model for ET. When referring to calibration, Dr. Garlanger referred to estimated ET from the different vegetative types on the Property. In this manner, Dr. Garlanger used the estimate of the average annual ET for the upland and for the upland wetlands. ET cannot be directly measured. Rather, it must be determined indirectly. Thus, estimates of the average annual ET are made by the modeler exercising professional judgment. The average daily ET value used in the modeling was determined based on total ET from the entire 218-square mile Horse Creek Basin down to the gauging site at Arcadia. Dr. Garlanger then determined what portion of the basin was upland, wetlands, or riverine wetlands, and what the ET values were for each of those systems. In disagreeing with Dr. Garlanger's model, permit opponents imply that Dr. Garlanger's ET numbers are unreliable as they "came from information . . . that indirectly measured ET for wetlands in the Everglades." Dr. Garlanger's initial ET used 50 inches per year for both riverine and upland wetlands. However, Dr. Garlanger knew that total ET rates for the system-types on the Property range between 36 and 39 inches per year. Thus, he had discussions with other hydrologic experts about his concern of using 50 inches of ET per year for both riverine and upland wetlands. In order to evaluate the appropriate ET rate for the Property, Dr. Garlanger also reviewed data from a study containing indirectly measured ET for wetlands in the Everglades, which systems can be compared to the wetlands at the Property. The Everglades data was contained in a scientific paper concerning a study performed in the Everglades by ecologists, limnologists, and physicists where they indirectly measured ET under various conditions. The Everglades professional study assisted Dr. Garlanger and other experts in determining, based on their professional judgment, what would be the appropriate and reasonable ET rate to use in the IMC model. 7. The Department's Review of the Models The Department, by and through the Bureau, reviewed the ERP Application for, among other things, comparison of pre- mining with post-mining conditions, the use of the AFW, and the best management practices of IMC, and concluded that reasonable assurances to issue the permit were provided under the permitting rules. Furthermore, the Department will continually evaluate the project's effects by the ongoing monitoring for impacts to site conditions, and the Department will perform quarterly inspections. It is typical for the Department to rely on the models and permit information that is submitted by the permit applicant's professional engineer. While Mr. Partney did not necessarily agree with portions of Dr. Garlanger's model analysis, he stated that "this approach is fine for planning and checking the feasibility of a plan." Mr. Partney maintained that, in his professional opinion, because the reclamation activity would result in a net improvement of the environment on the Property, an approximate 5 percent annual average decline in flow was not a concern. (Dr. Garlanger stated that a 5 percent or greater reduction of annual average flow is significant. However, for the reasons stated herein, Dr. Garlanger felt that the impacts would not be adverse.) Groundwater In the vicinity of the Property, groundwater is present in the unconfined surficial aquifer within the overburden and matrix and in the underlying confined intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems. Surficial groundwater levels in areas not disturbed by mining will be maintained by use of the ditch and berm system. Dr. Garlanger presented credible evidence that after reclamation, groundwater levels return to pre-mining elevations. Credible evidence was presented that in some cases, slightly more groundwater outflow to the streams and preserved areas is expected than to the same areas prior to mining. During active mining operations, there will be a short-term reduction in recharge of groundwater to the deeper aquifer systems in the immediate area of mining. This short- term reduction has no adverse impact upon water supply availability in the underlying aquifer systems and is largely offset by the increase referred to above. Underlying the CSAs, deep groundwater recharge will be increased over that experienced normally during the timeframe that the clays are settling. Once the clays are fully settled, deep recharge in these areas will be within the range that occurs naturally in the vicinity of the Property. Flooding 1. General Modeling submitted by IMC as part of the ERP application demonstrated that off-site flows after mining and reclamation would be in compliance with design requirements set forth in the 1995 SWFWMD Basis of Review adopted by reference by the Department. The AFW is specifically designed to assure that during its operation it had the capacity to carry anticipated flows from the drainage area north of the Property during high peak flow conditions without causing water to back up and flood that area or to cause flooding at downstream locations. After mining and reclamation, the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek will have sufficient capacity to handle anticipated storm events without causing flooding. The increased wetland acreage after reclamation will provide additional storage and attenuation of flood flows and, therefore, may actually reduce the possibility of flooding. It is asserted that IMC "did not evaluate the impact of long-duration flooding events." But, the ERP permitting criteria did not require long-duration flooding analysis of the natural systems as a condition for issuance of the permit. Even if IMC were obligated under the rules to specifically address long-duration flooding, the record shows there are no predicted adverse impacts from Manson Jenkins activities concerning long- duration flooding because the modeling shows any "event flooding" is likely to drain off before an adverse impact to a natural system would occur. 2. Recharge Ditches There is no substantial evidence to support permit opponents' claim that the flood analysis needs to be "redone" because of IMC's failure to account for the effects of seepage from the recharge ditches on the AFW. Dr. Garlanger predicted that the recharge ditches would result in an additional 3.26 cfs of flow in the AFW. Opponents' expert Mr. Zarbock testified that this additional increase was a reasonable calculation. Adding 3.2 cfs to the peak flow in the AFW predicted by the HEC-RAS model for the 100-year storm event results in a relatively small percent increase in the peak flow. This small increase in peak flow is an insignificant increase with no meaningful effect on the flood analysis and on actual water levels either upstream or downstream of the Property. Adding an additional 3.2 cfs of groundwater outflow to the West Fork of Horse Creek’s average annual flow of 5.5 cfs resulted in a 59 percent increase (not 99 percent as asserted by opponents) in the average annual flow, and is not expected to have a detrimental effect on the average flow in West Fork of Horse Creek, Horse Creek, Peace River, or Charlotte Harbor. 3. Integrity of Clay Settling Areas The weight of the evidence indicates that this ERP permit is not intended to address dam construction or to evaluate the sufficiency of dam design, both of which will be considered under other permitting processes. However, the record shows the proposed Manson Jenkins CSAs must be engineered dams designed, built, and operated to achieve full compliance with the stringent requirements of Rule 62-672, Florida Administrative Code, according to exacting standards concerning site investigation, soil testing, cross-section design work, stability analysis, and design safety factors. After construction, the dam will be inspected weekly. The Department does not require flood inundation studies for the type of dam proposed by IMC, although it is characterized by Mr. Partney as a significant hazard dam. These studies are only required by the Department for high-hazard dams, which the IMC dams are not. Additionally, Mr. Partney, Florida’s Dam Safety Engineer, advised that the Department has made recent changes that ensure that construction of the CSAs is improving. See Findings of Fact 244-247. Dr. Dunn admitted that "the probability of failure is low" for a CSA. IMC has been issued its Federal Clean Water Act NPDES Permit which authorizes IMC to conduct its operations, involving the use of water. The NPDES Permit also regulates the discharge of waters to the surface and ground. The NPDES permit has specific conditions to assure the safety of dams that IMC must comply with related to the construction and operation of the CSAs. Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Capabilities General Rule 40D-4.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. These issues are addressed in the prior section. However, additional issues are addressed below. 2. Depressional Storage Dr. Garlanger provided a reasonable explanation regarding whether an increase in depressional storage can be expected. Dr. Garlanger performed calculations based on the average thickness of phosphate matrix being mined. The removal of the phosphate rock from the matrix generally reduces the depth of the soil profile components by 1.7 feet. The overburden that is removed in order to access the phosphate matrix is "cast" back into the adjacent mine cuts and occupies a greater volume after it is removed for mining than it will prior to mining. In other words, the overburden "swells" after it is removed to expose the phosphate matrix. This "swelling" results in an increase in volume of the overburden somewhere between 10 percent and 15 percent. Thus, based on the measurements of the density of spoil piles performed by Dr. Garlanger, the overburden actually increases in thickness by about 3.3 feet, which would more than make up for the 1.7 feet reduction in thickness of the soil profile components resulting from the removal of the phosphate rock. Additionally, the sand and clay components of the matrix also increase in thickness after having been mined, processed at the beneficiation plant, and through the reclamation processes, which further increase the average thickness of the soil profile components. If there is an increase in the average thickness of the soil profile components, even though most of the increase is associated with the reclaimed clay areas, there cannot be an increase in depressional storage. 3. Reclaimed Land Forms and Reestablishing Hydrologic Regimes The storage and conveyance capabilities provided by the flow-through marsh and the stream segment that are proposed to replace the existing ditched segment will greatly enhance the surface water conveyance and storage capabilities on the Property. Specifically as to the AFW, IMC's engineers and consultants from Ardaman & Associates reasonably designed the AFW to adequately replace the conveyance and storage capabilities of the portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined. Also, a Storm Water Management Plan, which is a required document by the Bureau, analyzed surface water discharges under both historic conditions and under post- reclamation conditions and determined sufficient storage and conveyance capabilities will exist during mining and post- reclamation. A primary purpose of the reclamation plan developed by IMC is to create a land use topography on the Property that will allow runoff to occur as it did under the pre-mining condition prior to the ditching that was completed decades ago. Even though land surface on average is higher due to the "swelling" of the materials used in reclamation, the reclamation is contoured so that there is no storage except for the storage that is purposefully left in the recreated wetlands. Party opponents claim that a review of other mine permit applications shows a hydrologic characteristic of "reduced runoff from storm events by approximately 15 percent of the pre-mining condition." However, Mr. Zarbock, in reviewing approved phosphate mine applications, did not see any such phosphate mine applications that showed a 15 percent (not higher than 12 percent) reduction in flow, nor could he identify any mine that experienced the percentage reduction in flow that he assumed in performing his calculations. Water Quality Impacts Surface Water Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that enumerated water quality standards will be violated. The waters and associated wetlands of the West Fork of Horse Creek located on or downstream from the Property are Class III waters. Downstream from the Property, the West Fork meets Horse Creek and both Creeks continue as Class III waters until Horse Creek becomes Class I waters in DeSoto County. The Myakka River is Class III waters through Manatee County. (Approximately 4 acres of wetlands will be mined on the Property located in the Myakka River Basin, to be replaced with approximately 12 acres of wetlands. See Finding of Fact 77.) The Manatee River to the west of the Property, including the North and East Forks of the Manatee River, are Class I waters. See Rule 62-302.400(12)41, Florida Administrative Code (The Manatee River is a Class I river from "[f]rom Rye Ridge Road to the sources thereof ") The far northwestern portion of the Property is in the Manatee River Basin. (Approximately 17 acres of wetlands in this area are proposed for mining and will be replaced with approximately 51 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 76 and 211.) These wetlands have a ditched connection between the these wetlands and other wetlands, which ultimately lead to the East Fork of the Manatee River. As a limnologist, Dr. Durbin agreed that these existing wetlands, even after reclamation, are part of the water source for the Manatee River watershed. Dr. Dunn stated that if the "[BMPs] operate as designed [he assumed], that there will not be water quality impacts" to the East Fork of the Manatee River during actual mining. Rather, he was concerned about (after mining and reclamation and before release) "potential water quality problems for those areas that contribute flow to the East Fork of the Manatee River," as Class I waters. Dr. Durbin reasonably explained that after mining and reclamation, the existing wetlands will be severed from the Manatee River because the agricultural ditching will be removed, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that the replaced wetlands will not have a surface water discharge into other wetlands which are ultimately tributaries to the East Fork of the Manatee River. Thus, the wetlands will not flow to surface waters that then enter Class I waters. Further, there are no expected measurable decreases in depth of flow to the Manatee and Myakka Rivers resulting from mining and reclamation activity on the Property, which might reasonably be expected to adversely impact the water quality of these rivers. There are no measurable impacts to any Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW)(no OFWs are located on the Property), including aquatic preserves, or to Class I or II waters, which are likely to result from this project. See Findings of Fact 193-195. The ditch and berm system around active mining and reclamation areas will preclude the direct release of waters impacted by mining to surface water bodies on the Property. The system is designed to isolate the unmined areas from surface water runoff that may be present in the mine area and to maintain water levels in undisturbed wetlands. See Findings of Fact 31-42. Waters collected in the ditch and berm system will be reused and recycled by IMC in the mining operations. Some portion of that water will be discharged through permitted discharge outfalls not located on the Property in accordance with IMC's currently valid Department NPDES Permit. Such discharges must comply with discharge water quality criteria set forth in the NPDES Permit. Permitted water discharges from these outfalls is necessary because IMC will need the ability to release water from the mine into nearby waters and streams. The activities on the Property are regulated pursuant to the Fort Green Mine NPDES Permit, and, in particular, outfalls 3 and 4 which discharge water into Horse Creek. (Outfalls number 1 and 2 discharge water into Payne Creek.) Over the past 5 years, in measuring the water quality of the water leaving the permitted outfalls, IMC is unaware of any violations of permit limits, including surface water quality standards at the Fort Green Mine site based on samples taken at the outfalls. In the event there is a concern regarding water quality at an outfall, a gate constructed at the outfall can be quickly closed to stop off-site flows. Water quality data from Payne Creek, where over two- thirds of the watershed has been mined and a good portion reclaimed, demonstrate that phosphate mining has not adversely impacted dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the receiving stream, i.e., the concentrations are comparable to other streams. Payne Creek has had lower nitrogen concentrations in most years than other measured streams, such as Joshua Creek, which has had no mining. Water used to recharge the ditch and berm system and maintain groundwater levels will be of high quality and is not expected to cause or contribute to adverse water quality impacts should they reach area surface waters as a part of base flow. The predicted reductions in stream flow, either during active mining and reclamation or after reclamation is complete, are not expected to have an adverse impact on the water quality of surface waters flowing through the Property or at any point downstream. Freshwater flows have a major role in determining the salinity in an estuary. The small reduction in fresh water flow during high-flow conditions predicted during mining and after reclamation of the Property is not expected to cause adverse impacts to salinity levels in the Charlotte Harbor Estuary. The small predicted impact is of insufficient magnitude to be measurable and, therefore, to warrant a reasonable concern. During active mining and reclamation activities at the Property, off-site drainage entering the Property will be unaffected by mining operations. Augmented base flow will be of high quality and runoff from undisturbed areas that reach surface waters on the Property will be the same as prior to the time mining commenced. Evidence presented at the final hearing demonstrated that, once mining and reclamation activities have been completed and the West Fork of Horse Creek has been reclaimed, surface water bodies on the Property or downstream in the Horse Creek and Myakka River are expected to achieve all applicable Class III surface water quality criteria. The proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Property are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of Class I standards in the Manatee River. Charlotte County's expert witness, Dr. Janicki, opined that the proposed mining and reclamation project will not cause a violation of any currently applicable numerical water quality standards. Water quality sampling at the Property indicates that DO levels lower than the Class III standards currently occur in the West Fork of Horse Creek and in wetland systems at the Property. This is not an uncommon occurrence in natural systems. The DO levels in reclaimed wetlands at the Property will essentially mimic conditions in naturally occurring wetlands, and it is not anticipated that DO levels in the reclaimed wetlands will be depressed any more than occurs in a natural system. With regard to the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek, the reclaimed stream will be at least equivalent to the current ditched segment with regard to DO levels, and it is likely that DO levels will be improved overall since the design of the system will provide for a meandering channel and for the placement of logs or other obstructions in the channel which should increase aeration and thus potentially elevate DO. Opponents' expert Dr. Dunn agreed the existing water quality in the West Fork of Horse Creek is not as good as it is in the main channel of Horse Creek. Water quality monitoring carried out by IMC on reclaimed areas demonstrates that water leaving the reclaimed areas and entering surface water bodies meets applicable water quality standards. IMC will be required to monitor the quality of water in the reclaimed wetlands areas on the Property and will not be authorized by the Department to connect the reclaimed areas to the surface water system unless monitoring data demonstrate that water quality criteria are met. Under IMC's ERP Application, prior to any reclaimed wetland being reconnected to the off-site surface waters, there is one full year of water quality sampling required in order to demonstrate that water quality standards are met before the wetland is connected to the natural system, which is an extra safeguard not required in non-mining ERP applications. Moreover, there is credible evidence in the record of IMC's historical and successful use of AFWs and their effect on water quality. A study done by the Department in 1994 stated that the water quality indicators in an operational AFW were better than those same indicators at a natural site that did not have alternate flow-way characteristics. The weight of the evidence indicated that the water quality and biological integrity of the AFW will be in full compliance with the permitting requirements and with the state water quality standards. The weight of the evidence in the record does not indicate that the mining and restoration of the West Fork of Horse Creek will result in violations of water quality standards, as the water quality leaving the site during mining and after reclamation will be similar to the water quality that currently exists on-site. There are several reasons why water quality will not be adversely impacted: (1) a substantial portion of the watershed for the West Fork of Horse Creek lies north of the Property, and the water coming from this area will still move through the Property into the preserve area and off- site; (2) IMC will use best management practice berms to keep any runoff from active mine areas or cleared areas from entering the wetlands and streams associated with the flow way over the reclaimed wetlands precluding degradation of the water quality from those areas; and (3) IMC will use clean water in the recharge ditch system which will be seeping into the surrounding wetlands and the stream that is essentially feeding the wetlands with clean water augmenting the flow downstream. Groundwater Groundwater quality monitoring in the vicinity of the phosphate mining operations has demonstrated that such operations will not adversely impact the quality of groundwater in the vertical aquifer adjacent to mining operations or in the deeper intermediate or Florida aquifer systems. Impacts to Wetlands and Other Surface Waters Functions Provided to Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface water, and other water-related resources of SWFWMD. Prior to mining, pedestrian-type surveys of the Property will be conducted of the Property to determine the listed wildlife in order to avoid impacting particular species. Some species, including gopher tortoises, would be relocated to an unmined area. The weight of the evidence shows that IMC will minimize impacts to fish and wildlife through (a) a Conservation Easement, which preserves those areas with an abundance of habitat diversity, (b) through best management practice berms, which protect water quality of adjacent systems, and (c) through the AFW, which will allow continuous movement of fish and wildlife from areas north and south of the Property as well as creation of additional habitats. IMC's efforts to avoid and minimize the potential for impacts to fish and wildlife during mining and reclamation satisfy permitting rule requirements. Fish and wildlife functions in areas to be mined or disturbed at the Manson Jenkins Project will be temporarily impacted. The areas to be impacted typically are of lower ecological value while IMC has agreed to preserve a substantial amount of the higher quality wetlands on the Property together with, in some cases, important adjacent upland habitats. The impacts that do occur will be mitigated by the replacement of the impacted systems by more and higher quality systems than existed prior to mining. This includes the enhancement of the project with the wildlife corridor through the middle of the Property and improvements to the stream system. The Conservation Easement can be expected to protect the "habitat mosaic of the corridor." (The Conservation Easement on the Property includes approximately 521 acres.) Credible evidence also shows that IMC will satisfy permitting rule requirements after mining. Under the reclamation plan there will be diverse, connected habitats instead of the existing pre-mining single ditch and, primarily, agricultural land cover. There is also empirical data in the record concerning reclamation indicating that reclaimed areas were equal to or better for fish and invertebrate use when compared to natural systems, and similar results are also expected for IMC's reclamation. Both state and federal agencies approved the work plan of IMC used to survey wildlife at the Property. IMC's wildlife surveys are reasonable, which enabled the preparation of a comprehensive wildlife management plan. Avoidance and Mitigation Avoidance Phosphate ore underlies the land surface beneath waters and wetlands. Thus, it is not possible to avoid disturbance of these systems and still mine the valuable resource. See generally Section 378.201, Florida Statutes. IMC and the Department evaluated the quality of the waters and wetlands proposed for disturbance at the Property as part of the permit application process. Most of the wetlands systems deemed to be of higher quality through the application of the WRAP (Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure) analysis are being preserved. (The WRAP Procedure is an accepted procedure to evaluate wetland functions and assign a value based on several criteria. The first WRAP was developed by South Florida Water Management District. WRAP scores generally are numerical values that can be assigned on a per-unit-acre basis to wetlands that are an index of their functional value.) For all areas that are not avoided, IMC is required to take steps as part of its land reclamation process to mitigate the unavoidable impacts associated with mining the Property. It was suggested that IMC did not avoid impacts due to IMC's determination to mine approximately 17 acres of wetlands in the Manatee River Basin. This suggestion is not persuasive because over 316 acres of wetlands will be left unmined on the entire Property, which equates to approximately 45 percent of the wetlands on the Property, including over 70 percent of the forested wetlands on the Property. The weight of the evidence shows that IMC was prudent in balancing between avoidance of appropriate environmentally significant areas, such as some wetland systems, and the operational needs to reach the phosphate matrix that is underlying the Property. Also, approximately 3.7 tons of phosphate rock reserves underlie the preserved areas with a projected loss of total income of over $55 million. 2. Mitigation In the ERP Program, the term "mitigation ratio" refers to the wetlands or other surface waters and areas the applicant is proposing to, for example, create, restore, enhance, donate in kind, or preserve, versus the impacted wetlands. For example, a mitigation ratio of two to one means the applicant is proposing to mitigate or recreate two acres of wetlands for every acre that is being disturbed or impacted. Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that wetlands reclamation activities for, in part, phosphate mining undertaken "pursuant to chapter 378 shall be considered appropriate mitigation for [Part IV of Chapter 373] if they maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities." See also Section 3.3.1.6., Basis of Review. Mining, reclamation, and revegetation on the Property is expected to be completed within 15 years, including reclamation of the CSAs. The conceptual reclamation plan, which includes the Property, was approved by Department final agency action on March 20, 2001, pursuant to Chapter 378, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62C-16, Florida Administrative Code. However, this approval does not mean that IMC is not required to prove reasonable assurances regarding its mitigation plan, which is discussed herein. Rule 62C-16.0051(4), Florida Administrative Code, requires the restoration of impacted wetlands on at least an acre-for-acre and type-for-type basis. Compliance with this provision is mandatory for phosphate mines. IMC's mitigation plan satisfies this acre-for-acre, type-for-type mitigation requirement. In addition to satisfying the mitigation guidelines contained in the permitting requirements, other factors such as (a) the low quality of the wetlands that are being disturbed due to historical ditching and draining to accommodate historical agricultural land uses, (b) the significant on-site preservation effort, and (c) the Integrated Habitat Network (IHN) that provides a regional benefit to wildlife and their habitats and to water quality and which represents mitigation beyond applicable requirements, all taken together demonstrate the appropriateness of IMC's mitigation plan. The total cost to IMC for wetlands mitigation at the Property is approximately $3.6 million. The number of acres of wetlands affected by the Manson Jenkins activities in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins total approximately 361 acres. See Findings of Fact 76-77 and 95-96. IMC will reclaim 538 acres of wetlands as mitigation for the 361 acres of generally low quality wetlands that will be disturbed at the Property. The reclamation area wetlands will be designed to provide a diversity of habitat and function that does not presently exist at the Property. IMC's reclamation plan adequately mitigates for any impacts by creating approximately 538 total wetland acres distributed among these three basins. Additionally, those wetlands that are created will have associated upland buffers, which the existing wetlands do not, and these newly created buffers will provide additional, enhanced wildlife and water quality benefits at each created wetland. In the reclaimed landscape, a forested buffer is expected which will provide some wildlife and water quality benefits to each wetland. The created wetlands will be hydrated by the groundwater outflow from the recharge system. IMC has had experience in the reclamation of wetland systems in Florida. Since 1975, IMC and its predecessor company, Agrico Chemical Company, have reclaimed approximately 6,850 acres of wetlands. Biologists and reclamation experts Dr. Durbin and Dr. Clewell presented persuasive evidence that IMC is capable of successfully completing the proposed reclamation activity and that the ultimately reclaimed wetlands systems will restore long-term ecological value to the Property and adjacent areas. Nevertheless, restoration and reclamation of wetlands is not a perfect science; mistakes have been made, e.g., Dog Leg Branch, and are documented in this record. To his credit, Dr. Clewell agreed. However, several studies, including Charlotte Exhibits 29 and 31 and others, do not persuasively indicate that IMC's proposed reclamation and restoration proposal for the Manson Jenkins Project will not be successful or that IMC does not have the wherewithal and overall professional expertise to accomplish the desired result. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that IMC can effectively carry out the proposed reclamation plan as set forth in the ERP and that, with regard to waters and wetlands impacted by mining operations at the Property, it will effectively mitigate the unavoidable ecological losses associated with mining those areas. The ERP contains detailed success criteria for the required wetlands reclamation. Extensive monitoring is required and Department personnel carry out regular inspections of reclamation sites. Only after reclamation success criteria are achieved, including attainment of necessary water quality criteria, will the reclaimed wetlands be approved by the Department and reconnected to the natural system. Stated differently, the project will only be deemed to be officially successful after release by the Department. This does not mean, however, that reclaimed wetlands, including wetlands reclaimed by IMC, have not been or are not functional before release. This includes the Big Marsh. (It appears that the existence of nuisance species currently precludes the release of Big Marsh. Dr. Clewell advised that Big Marsh is very close to meeting all criteria for release right now. See Findings of Fact 231 and 265.) 3. Acre-for-Acre/Type-for-Type As noted above, Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, contains an acre-for-acre, type-for-type mitigation strategy for phosphate mining reclamation, and IMC's reclamation plan exceeds the one-to-one mitigation ratio contained in the mine reclamation rules of Chapter 378, Florida Statutes. Substantial evidence in the record exists to support the claim that the ecological value of the wetlands proposed to be reclaimed will be higher than the current ecological value of the wetlands that will be disturbed and are currently existing at the Property. There are two types of reclamation: herbaceous and forested reclamation. IMC has reclamation experience, and based on IMC's experts' evaluation of many reclaimed sites, the average WRAP value assigned to herbaceous systems is .64 and for forested systems is .73. The wetlands proposed to be disturbed at the Property have an average pre-mining score for herbaceous systems of .54 and for forested systems of .51. Once reclamation occurs, the reclaimed herbaceous systems at the Property will score 1.19 times the existing the value, or an approximate 20 percent improvement from the existing wetland systems at the Property. Significant ecological improvement is also evidenced for the Property's reclaimed forested wetlands that will have an improved value of approximately 43 percent. The evidence shows IMC used the WRAP procedure to value wetlands and the functions wetlands provide to fish and wildlife as well as the accompanying water quality and quantity issues at the Property. WRAP was used for the Manson Jenkins Project because it was required by similar permitting under the Clean Water Act for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Department participated in the evaluation of the methodology used, including auditing the results in the field and on paper. But the Department did not accept or reject the methodology per se. On the other hand, the "King Formula" used by permit opponents' expert Dr. Dunn to critique IMC's reclamation proposal is a "completely different approach" from the regulatory requirement of acre-for-acre, type-for-type that is applicable to this ERP application. Further, the "King Formula" has not been accepted by the Department as an appropriate methodology for ERP evaluations, nor has Dr. Dunn ever before relied on the "King Formula" to support any ERP permit that he assisted in obtaining. There is credible evidence that even if the permit opponents' mitigation calculation (or "King's Formula") is applied, IMC would need 1.15 to 1 replacement for herbaceous systems and 1.27 to 1 replacement for forested systems. The record reflects IMC is required under the proposed ERP permit to have 1.38 to 1 replacement for herbaceous systems and 2.28 to 1 replacement for forested systems. Thus, IMC is committed to a more functionally equivalent mitigation objective than is calculated using the opponents' method for evaluating mitigation ratios. 4. Restoration of the West Fork of Horse Creek and Headwater Marsh The record shows that IMC has a successful history of restoration generally and, specifically, reclaiming headwater marshes as part of their overall mitigation experience. IMC's reclamation efforts have been recognized with both state and federal awards. Two examples of reclamation projects which appear to be functionally successful, although not yet released by the Department, are Big Marsh, which is a 229-acre headwater marsh flowing into Horse Creek, and the approximately 200-acre, P-20 Marsh, which is a headwater of Horse Creek, and next to Big Marsh. Both Big Marsh and P-20 Marsh show comparable features, placement, and functions when compared to their pre-mining condition and their current post-reclamation condition. The restoration efforts at the P-20 Marsh are relevant because it is similar to the Property in that it too was cleared of vegetation and ditched. Testimony shows that the benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are important to the successful functioning of a headwater marsh, are reasonably expected to be recolonized in the reclaimed system at the Property in a variety of permit- required habitats, which habitats are ecologically better than the existing habitat conditions on the Property. Further, the benthic invertebrate populations existing in the area north of the Property will be connected to the reclaimed Property enabling recolonization of the reclaimed marsh. IMC presented credible evidence that the excavated portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek will have ongoing, functional value and the reclaimed headwater marsh and stream system will at least maintain, but likely improve the water quality and function of the excavated portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. IMC's reclamation plan is to recreate West Fork of Horse Creek to more resemble a natural Florida stream with a meandering flow-away with trees that shade the stream and provide improved habitats for fish and wildlife. Moreover, the existing West Fork of Horse Creek, though properly identified as a "first order stream," is a very small system with intermittent flow. The stream ordering system is a method of classifying the size of streams in terms of watershed basins and sub-basins. A "first order stream" is the smallest of the set of streams making up an entire drainage basin and is more a landscape or hydrologic indicator and does not necessarily indicate a stream's ecological value. The West Fork of Horse Creek is not a regionally- significant stream because the existing conditions at the West Fork of Horse Creek are degraded as a result of agricultural ditching, the ecologically poor uplands surrounding the area, and the overall presence of agricultural land. More specifically, the area proposed for mining in the West Fork of Horse Creek is of "very low ecological value, relative to what another first-order or headwater system might be." 5. Temporal Lag It has been asserted that there will be some temporal lag of ecological function at the Property because certain reclaimed systems will take some time to become mature. (Temporal lag is the phrase given to a lag time between the impact to a wetland system and the replacement of the functions once offered by the wetland system. Chapter 62C, Florida Administrative Code, does not require consideration of temporal lag in determining reclamation requirements. The weight of the evidence presented, however, shows that more acres of wetlands will be reclaimed than are being disturbed and the reclaimed systems will be of higher ecological value than the stressed systems proposed for mining. Furthermore, the evidence at hearing demonstrated that the total amount of wetland acreage at the Property is not significantly reduced. Also, fairly early in the mining and reclamation sequence, the total number of wetland acres on the Property are reasonably expected to exceed pre-mining conditions. Even using the worst-case scenario as proposed by opponents to the permit application with longer temporal lag (6 years instead of 3 years for herbaceous systems and 40 years instead of 20 years for forested systems), the resulting calculated required herbaceous system ratio of 1.21 to 1 is still less than the permit's requirement of 1.38 to 1. Similarly, the forested system's worst-case calculated ratio using permit opponents' unwarranted temporal lag assumptions is 1.74 to 1, which is still less than the 2.28 to 1 permit requirement. Further, the evidence shows that doubling the time between the removal of the systems and mitigation, from 4 to 8 years, results in a herbaceous ratio of 1.39 to 1 and a forested ratio of 2.04 to 1, which indicates that even if the time between impacts and mitigation were doubled, IMC's reclamation plan would still be adequately mitigating for any impacts. 6. Iron and Manganese IMC's expert explained the scientific research performed on behalf of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research involving 11 phosphate mines and more than 40 exploratory wells and borings to evaluate the water quality of mined lands. There were no exceedances of standards with the exception of iron and manganese, which were expected to exceed standards because Florida has high background concentrations of iron manganese oxide in the soil. There is no reason to believe Manson Jenkins’ activities will cause adverse impacts to wetlands due to "groundwater perturbations." 7. "Flocculation" (Iron Bacteria) There is credible evidence that iron bacteria is a naturally-occurring substance and is common in Florida soils. Dr. Durbin testified that iron bacteria is not a reasonable concern for the Manson Jenkins Project. A benefit provided by the proposed reclaimed streams, wetlands, and lakes is that these are natural treatment systems that, in the case of iron bacteria, will remove iron from the water and will not cause any off-site concerns. Secondary Impacts 1. General Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. IMC presented credible evidence that the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Project will not cause any adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. 2. Stability of CSA's and Associated Dams Mr. Partney, the Department's dam safety engineer, has been involved with the state of Florida's current dam safety program since its inception approximately six years ago, and has been in charge of the dam safety program since its inception. He testified that no inundation studies are necessary for the clay-settling ponds and their associated dams in this project because these are not high hazard dams. The record does not support permit opponents' statement that the proposed Manson Jenkins CSAs are considered high hazard dams. As a result, inundation studies are not required to be performed to determine the risk and consequences of a discharge. The Department's dam safety program rules are contained in Rule 62-672, Florida Administrative Code, and regulate the construction of the dams surrounding CSAs by specifically requiring soil testing, cross-section design work, and stability analysis, among other design safety factors that incorporate engineering practices employed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under their dam construction rules. The dam failures that have occurred in the past were dams constructed prior to the implementation of this rule except for one, IMC's Hopewell Mine dam. This dam failure was investigated by a "blue ribbon panel," including Mr. Partney. The cause of the failure was determined, and the problem with that failure corrected in the current version of the rule. The weight of the evidence also supports IMC's commitment to dam safety as evidenced by IMC's response to this dam failure. IMC voluntarily agreed to remove all pre-rule, non-engineered dams from operations, and within one and a-half years, IMC had categorized, inventoried, and taken out of service all non-engineered structures. Also, IMC has a Site Preparedness Plan, otherwise called an emergency plan, that prescribes actions should the signs of a potential failure be detected. Weekly inspections are required and documented. The testimony of permit opponents' expert Dr. Dunn supports the fact that the probability of a failure of a CSA and its associated dam is low. Mr. Partney shares this view, i.e., CSAs are "extremely safe" and there is about a "one in two million chance or so of one of them failing." 3. Authority's Withdrawals from the Peace River The weight of the evidence indicates that the Manson Jenkins Project will not adversely affect the Authority's permitted limits on the withdrawal of water from the Peace River because the activities at the Property will not physically affect the flow of the Peace River, upstream of its confluence with Horse Creek at the Arcadia gauge station, which is the station that determines the Authority's permitted allowance to withdraw water. IMC's expert in environmental hydrodynamics and estuarine physics, credibly testified that the slight potential reduction in freshwater flow due to Manson Jenkins’ activities has little or no potential to negatively impact salinity concerns in downstream water bodies. 4. Ditch and Berm Protection of Wetlands There was credible testimony that the ditch and berm system is a best management practice to ensure the protection of the hydrologic systems adjoining the Property. See Findings of Fact 31-42. IMC's expert, Dr. Garlanger, is one of the co-authors of the criteria used by IMC to engineer these BMPs ditch and berm systems, and the weight of the evidence indicates that the proposed ditch and berm system will protect the water quality of the surrounding wetlands systems as well as maintain the hydrologic regime of the off-site systems. Minimum Flows and Levels Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. This subsection references minimum flows and levels. The Department has not established minimum flows and levels. The water management districts establish minimum levels for aquifers and surface waters and minimum flows for surface water courses pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The Department is "very involved with the districts in developing those minimum flows and levels as part of [the Department's] supervisory authority." In the case of ERP applications filed with the Department for facilities located within SWFWMD's jurisdiction, it is the minimum flows and levels established by SWFWMD that are protected from adverse impact pursuant to Subsection 40D-4.301(1)(g). However, the weight of the evidence, especially the testimony of Department witnesses, indicates that minimum flow and levels adopted pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, must be established by rule, and not a permit condition that only applies to one permittee, such as the Authority. SWFWMD has not established, by rule, a minimum flow or level pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, for any water body impacted or potentially impacted by the proposed mining or reclamation at the Property, including the Peace River. The proposed mining and reclamation activity, therefore, will not adversely impact the maintenance of any minimum flows and levels established by law. Works of the District Rule 40D-4.301(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, provides that reasonable assurance be given that a project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the district, here SWFWMD, established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statues. The weight of the evidence indicates there will be no adverse impact to any surface water body on or downstream of the Property either from a water quality standpoint or from a water quantity standpoint. Accordingly, there will be no adverse impacts to a "work of the district" established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. See also Finding of Fact 72. This proceeding is to determine IMC's entitlement to an ERP, not a "work of the district" permit. It has been the practice of the Department, that if an ERP is issued by the Department, the permittee does not need to also obtain a separate "work of the district" permit. However, SWFWMD's "work of the district" rule has not been adopted by the Department. Effective Performance and Function Engineering and Scientific Capability The mining and reclamation activities proposed for the Property are capable, based upon generally acceptable scientific principals, of being effectively performed and functioning as proposed, including the AFW, ditch and berm systems, the reclaimed wetland areas, and the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek Stream Channel. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Financial, Legal and Administrative Capability IMC has all necessary legal property rights to mine and reclaim the Property as lessee under a mining lease issued by the Property owners. IMC has demonstrated by the weight of the evidence that it is an entity with financial, legal and administrative capability of ensuring that the activities proposed at the Property will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ultimately issued ERP, including the additional agreed permit condition referenced below. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code. IMC is a large business with assets in excess of $1.6 billion. IMC also presented credible evidence that it has provided Manatee County with a reclamation bond in the amount of $17 million to cover all reclamation liability existing in Manatee County at that time, including the upcoming year that IMC plans to mine. IMC has agreed to provide Manatee County with a general surety bond of $1 million and an environmental risk insurance policy in the amount of $10 million. At hearing, the Department requested and IMC agreed to have the following permit condition added to the ERP upon issuance: At least thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of mining operations, the final version of the financial responsibility mechanism required by Section 3.3.7.6 of the Basis of Review shall be provided to and approved by the Department as required by Rule 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code (October 1995) and Rule 62-330.200(3), Florida Administrative Code. After reclamation of the Property, IMC has in place a Conservation Easement that places restrictions, such as requiring all regulatory approvals to be obtained, and imposes required management practices in the event that agricultural operations are initiated by a third party. Credible evidence in the record supports IMC's historical efforts in reclaiming wetland systems such as Big Marsh despite suggestions that IMC has not demonstrated the capability to restore marsh systems because, e.g., Big Marsh has not been "released" by the Department. Although this system has not been "released," this system is ecologically valuable. See Findings of Fact 225 and 231. Public Interest Test Several statutory and rule criteria must be considered and balanced to determine whether IMC's proposed activity's on the Property are not contrary to the public interest. See Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes; Rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)1-5, and 7, Florida Administrative Code. Public Health Safety or Welfare or the Property of Others As noted elsewhere in this Recommended Order, the proposed project will not cause adverse water quality, water quantity or flooding on the Property or at any point off the Property. The mining and reclamation activities will be carried out within private property subject to security and control by IMC. The CSAs proposed to be constructed at the Property will be designed and constructed in accordance with strict regulatory requirements. A separate Department permit must be applied for and issued before construction of a CSA may commence. The weight of the evidence indicates that the chance of failure of any dam designed and constructed in accordance with current rule provisions is remote, e.g., one in two million according to Mr. Partney. See Findings of Fact 50-57, 161-165, and 244-247. 2. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The proposed activity at the Property will not cause adverse impacts to natural systems that are not directly subject to disturbance. The ditch and berm system will protect adjacent areas from direct surface water impacts and will maintain groundwater conditions so that preserved wetland systems will continue to function during mining activities. The mining activities will be conducted in a sequence designed to minimize impacts on mobile wildlife species. By mining in the area farthest away from the preserved wetlands in the south and moving in that direction, these wildlife will be able to relocate into the preserved areas. During active mining operations, the mining areas provide value to wildlife. Many bird species use CSAs and active mine cuts during mine activities. Other animals, including raccoons, deer, possums, armadillos, snakes, and frogs use the mine areas while mining is being conducted. IMC has surveyed the Property to identify plant and animal species present at the site and developed a wildlife management plan which was included as part of the application with the ERP. This plan addresses potentially listed threatened or endangered species that could be found on the Property now or in the future and prescribes measures for protecting those listed species. The wildlife management plan comports with good scientific practice. The proposed reclamation will enhance conservation of fish and wildlife values over that currently present at the Property. Currently the site contains several small wetland systems spread out over the site connected by ditches. These wetlands are generally surrounded by pasture. The proposed reclamation plan will consolidate the wetlands into a larger contiguous mass along the West Fork of Horse Creek and will provide for an adjacent upland corridor. The upland corridor will provide additional habitats for species that may use it as a transitional zone between a wetland and an upland. IMC's voluntary establishment of a Conservation Easement over the preserved wetlands in the south portion of the Property and the reclaimed wetland system within and adjacent to the West Fork of Horse Creek in the north provide reasonable assurance that the fish and wildlife values inherent in these areas will be protected. (The Conservation Easement covers approximately 521 acres of wetlands on-site.) In addition, this system upon completion will act as a wildlife corridor of approximately 2.5 miles in length along the West Fork of Horse Creek and will connect to a larger network of habitat corridors known as the IHN. See Finding of Fact 216. IHN is a regional conceptual plan developed by the Department in 1992 for the entire Southern Phosphate District of Florida (1.3 million acres in Polk, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and DeSoto Counties) and is intended to link existing wildlife habitats, thereby allowing wildlife populations the ability to travel throughout reclaimed areas and publicly owned lands. 3. Navigation, Flow or Harmful Erosion or Shoaling The West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property is not a navigable waterway. The AFW will be vegetated before it is put into operation. It is specifically designed to handle high flow stream events, including the 100-year flood event, and will not erode or cause downstream erosion. Any sharp bends in the AFW way will be stabilized prior to use. The reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek will be reclaimed as a natural system and will be able to manage high flows without experiencing erosion in the reclaimed stream channel or causing erosion downstream. 4. Fishing, Recreational Values or Marine Productivity The Property is privately owned and does not support public recreation or fishing activities. Following completion of mining reclamation activities, fish and wildlife values in the reclaimed wetlands and waters will be enhanced. 5. Temporary or Permanent Nature Phosphate mining, by its very nature, strips and deprives the land of existing resources, and its effects cannot be underestimated. Dr. Dunn characterizes phosphate mining as destroying the land. Nevertheless, phosphate mining is considered a temporary disturbance of the land, see Section 378.201, Florida Statutes, when compared to other types of activities. Unlike other types of activities, such as commercial or residential development, mining is completed within a finite period of time, and land reclamation follows thereafter resulting in the return of the land to other valuable land forms. 6. Current Conditions and Relative Value of Functions Performed by Affected Areas The proposed activity on the Property will not have an adverse effect on the condition and relative value of functions currently being performed at the Property in areas that will not be disturbed by mining. The areas to be disturbed by mining reflect man-induced changes over the years and provide relatively limited ecological value on the whole. Cumulative Impacts General The Department's method for evaluating the potential impacts from individual ERPs satisfies regulatory consideration of cumulative impacts of a project because so long as phosphate mines mitigate in the same drainage basin as the impacts of the proposed activity and meet the statutory and rule requirements, there will be no cumulative impacts. See Section 373.414(8)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department's evaluation includes the conceptual reclamation plan, which is mandated by Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, that describes the complete mining plan and activities for a site as well as the site's reclamation plans and the Integrated Habitat Network plan. Further, the Department's policy of analyzing similar projects (in the case of IMC's permit application that means other phosphate mines) is reasonable because phosphate mining is a temporary activity that reclaims the land to an enhanced natural system. Other types of development, such as residential and industrial, are not temporary in nature. Additionally, the Manson Jenkins Project received regional review and approval as part of IMC's Development of Regional Impact process from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, which distributed information concerning the Manson Jenkins Project to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council and Manatee County. The weight of the evidence indicates that there will be no adverse water quality impacts on undisturbed areas at the Property or at any downstream location. There are no adverse water quantity impacts on or off the Property. Implementation of the reclamation plan approved by the Department pursuant to Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, and the mitigation which will be provided, as proven in this proceeding, will maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities and thus constitute appropriate mitigation. Such mitigation will occur on the Property and will be in the same drainage basins where the activities are proposed. 2. IMC's Cumulative Impact Calculations Although the Department does not require the type of cumulative impact analysis permit opponents suggest is needed, Dr. Garlanger testified that IMC performed an analysis on the Horse Creek Watershed Basin involving the existing Ft. Green and Four Corners Mines and the future Ona Mine. IMC assessed the impact of past, current, and future mining activities in the Peace River Basin on the flow in the Peace River Basin and on Horse Creek on a cumulative basis. The predictive cumulative impact assessment modeling performed by Dr. Garlanger analyzed the future long-term potential impacts on stream flow by determining the capture during previous mining activities as a baseline period and the resulting impact from the reclamation activities for that baseline. This was then compared with the potential decreases in runoff due to the capture in the areas that are planned to be mined and reclaimed in the future. The cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC made a predictive assessment through the year 2020, which includes mining at the Property as well as mining proposed for three new mines (Ona Mine, Pine Level Mine, and Farmland-Hydro Hardee County Mine) that are in the Horse Creek Basin and existing mines that would be mining at times up to the year 2020. In order to ensure a worst-case prediction, Dr. Garlanger in his analysis assumed that all the direct surface runoff from all of the mining areas would be captured within the mine recirculation systems and consumed in the process and not available to contribute to stream flow in the area. The analysis then assumed that to the extent an area was captured, it would reduce stream flow by that amount in the areas that normally would have flowed to the natural surface water systems. A cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC concluded that for approximately 70 to 80 percent of the time there is essentially no impact on the flow in Horse Creek. Further, reduction in flow during high-flow periods, which is approximately 10 percent of the time, would reduce the flow depth from 7.46 feet to approximately 7.18 feet or less than .3 of a foot and for one percent of the time the reduction in the flow would be from 12.8 to 12.6 feet. These are the predicted impacts if all the potential capture for Horse Creek occurred. The changes in the depths of these waters, during high-flow periods, will likely have a positive impact on decreasing the amount of flooding during a high-flow period. During other times there is no adverse impact from decreasing water by just a few inches out of several feet of water. The same type of cumulative analysis was performed for the entire Peace River Basin. The areas mined and the areas reclaimed were determined using the same maximum potential capture and decreased runoff due to reclamation. Calculations were performed as to the potential decreased stream flow in the Peace River above Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor due to past, current, and future mining activities. Similar to the Horse Creek Basin analysis, Dr. Garlanger used the maximum potential capture and maximum decrease in the stream flow resulting from reclamation and calculated the maximum expected decrease in stream flow in the Peace River Basin above Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor for both the baseline condition and the future mining period through the year 2020. This analysis determined that for approximately 80 percent of the time there will be no impact on the Peace River. The only impact is a small increase in flows during high-flow periods at the Arcadia station. Similarly, at the point where the Peace River empties into Charlotte Harbor, the differences in stream flow are practically immeasurable and, if anything, there is predicted a slight increase in flow. The flow will increase slightly because the average area that was captured during the baseline period decreases over time, meaning there is less area for rainfall capture within mining recirculation systems. Though the cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC does show a slight reduction in flow in the Horse Creek, the impact will be a decrease in the stream flow depth of less than 3 or 4 inches in water that is already 7.5 feet and 12.8 feet deep, respectively, which few inches will not cause any adverse impact. Further, the analysis showed that for the same rainfall the overall flow in the Peace River at Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor through the period 2020 will actually be greater than during the past 19-year period. Furthermore, phosphate mining operations do pump water from the Floridan aquifer system to use in their operations. Deep groundwater pumping can contribute to reduced flow in the Peace River, but phosphate mine operators have substantially reduced their withdrawal of deep well groundwater over the last decade, and it is not anticipated that any substantial increase in use will occur in the future. IMC's withdrawals of groundwater for mining activities conducted at the company's mines, including the Property, have been authorized by the issuance of Water Use Permit No. 20114000 by SWFWMD. 3. Flow Impacts There is significant testimony concerning an analysis of the impacts of phosphate mining and reclamation on a watershed. IMC's expert Peter Schreuder performed an analysis involving the Peace River, Alafia, and Withlacoochee River Basins. Phosphate mining activities take place in the Peace River and Alafia River Basins and no phosphate mining activities taken place in the Withlacoochee River Basin. Each of these watersheds has a gauging station (a place where flows are electronically measured on a continual basis going out of a watershed) maintained by the United States Geological Survey. The analysis performed by IMC's expert compared the pattern of flow in watersheds where no phosphate mining was taking place with flow patterns in watersheds where phosphate mining was occurring. IMC's expert gathered data from the farthest downstream gauging station at each of these three watersheds; the data dated back to nearly 1935. This data provided actual measured flow data, with rainfall as the driving variable. The purpose of the analysis was to determine if phosphate mining was having an influence on flow. It is alleged that phosphate mining reduces flow. If the allegation is correct, the trend would be downward because less flow in the river would be expected. However, the weight of the evidence showed that under normal flow conditions, mined basins have more flow than unmined basins and in storm events the mined basins moderate the runoff to some minor degree by attenuating runoff and allowing for a slower and later release as beneficial, normal, base flow instead of flood flows. 4. Non-Mining Impacts There is convincing evidence in the record that other types of developments expected in the Peace River Basin, which include commercial and residential development as well as agricultural development, do not have the potential to capture surface runoff to the extent of mining activities. Additionally, residential and commercial development, because they result in lower evaporation due to the abundant impervious areas, result in an increased runoff in the basin. Thus, if these types of developments were included in the impact analysis, there would be an additional increase in runoff. G. Specific Conditions The draft ERP sets forth numerous general and specific conditions. Petitioners and Intervenors question the sufficiency of several specific conditions. In particular, Specific Condition 4.c. requires IMC to collect and report flow data from the AFW, but does not identify a reference stream or indicate what the Department is do with the data and how the data is to be evaluated. Mr. Partney convincingly suggested that these issues should be included in Specific Condition 4.c. On this record, it is difficult to conclusively determine which stream should be used as a reference stream. Pursuant to its special expertise, the Department should consider adding supplemental language to clarify these issues. See generally Reedy Creek Improvement District v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 486 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Specific Condition 12.b.i. requires that "[t]he created replacement stream for the West Fork of Horse Creek shall have a similar hydroperiod to the upper reaches of the preserved area of Horse Creek." Mr. Partney suggested that while "there may be some impacts going on," "they're not as significant in terms of the ratio of the impact to the ratio of the project area at that point. There would be--certain to be significant area of watershed that was not experiencing impacts. And a substantial portion of the Horse Creek in this area is preserved. So there is some assurance at that point that there will be sufficient natural conditions to give [the Department] the data [the Department] needs." Nevertheless, the monitoring of flow patterns is critical to the success of this project. In this light, the Department should endeavor to assure itself that the portion of the Horse Creek to be used for comparison is suitable for the purposes reflected in Specific Condition 12.b.i.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: Petitioners and Intervenors have standing to challenge the issuance of ERP No. FL 0142476-003; IMC provided reasonable assurance that it has the ability to comply with the conditions of draft ERP No. FL 0142476-003; IMC has complied with all conditions for final issuance of draft ERP No. FL 0142476-003; ERP No. FL 0142476-003 be issued with the following additional permit condition: At least thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of mining operations, the final version of the financial responsibility mechanism required by Section 3.3.7.6 of the Basis of Review shall be provided to and approved by the Department as required by Rule 40D-4.301(l)(j), Florida Administrative Code (October 1995), and Rule 62-330.200(3), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Aliki Moncrief, Esquire Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Post Office Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Vivian Arenas, Esquire De la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. Post Office Box 2350 Tampa, Florida 33601-2350 Martha Y. Burton, Esquire Charlotte County Attorney's Office 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Alan Behrens 4070 Southwest Armadillo Trail Arcadia, Florida 34266 Douglas Manson, Esquire David M. Pearce, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 John R. Thomas, Esquire Thomas & Associates, P.A. 233 3rd Street, North, Suite 302 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street Post Office Box 398 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Sarasota County Attorney's Office 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 Roger W. Sims, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire Jeff Donner, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert L. Rhodes, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20006 Susan L. Stephens, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Petruff & St. Paul, P.L. 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The disputed issues are as follows: Whether the proposed Water Conservation Plan is sufficient to meet the requirements of the District rule; Whether the proposed pumping will adversely affect wetlands and wetland vegetation in contravention of District rule; Whether the permit applicant has provided reasonable assurance of entitlement to the requested permit as required by the District rule; and What limiting conditions pursuant to Rule 40C-2.381, F.A.C., should be imposed on the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP).
Findings Of Fact THE PARTIES The Commission was created by the legislature pursuant to Public Law 67-1754 in combination with Public Law 85-503. Its principal office is located in New Smyrna Beach, Volusia County, Florida. The Commission is charged with maintaining a water supply and providing wastewater treatment and electrical power. The District is an agency created pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in charge of regulating, among other things, consumptive uses of water in a 19 county area of the State of Florida, including all of Volusia County. The geographical boundaries of the District are described in Section 373.069(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Vernon and Irene Beckham are property owners of the property proposed for the construction of the new State Road 44 wellfield. Volusia City-County Water Supply Authority is a cooperative created by interlocal agreement in accordance with Section 163.01, Florida Statutes (1991), which party made no appearance at the Formal Administrative hearing but adopted the position of the Commission. Nassau is an individual residing at 4680 Cedar Road, New Smyrna Beach, Florida. THE APPLICATION The present service area of the Commission encompasses approximately 43 square miles, of which only about 15 square miles of the service area are located in the City of New Smyrna Beach. On August 8, 1984, the District issued Consumptive Use Permit No. 2- 127-0214NG to the Commission for its Glencoe and Samsula wellfields, which permit would expire in seven years. The combined authorized withdrawal of the existing wellfields is 5.2 mgd on an average day and 8.31 mgd on a maximum day. In December 1990, the Commission submitted its Consumptive Use Permit Application to renew the existing permit, including the development of an additional water supply wellfield. This application also sought an increased allocation to meet projected demand for the Commission's service area. The total allocation sought was 5.59 mgd on an average day and 8.31 mgd on a maximum day. However, the District has recommended 5.29 mgd on an average day and 7.62 mgd on a maximum day by 1998. The source of the water for all three wellfields is the Floridan aquifer. The Floridan aquifer can produce the volumes of water requested based on the past pumpage from the Samsula wellfield and the Glencoe wellfield. The Glencoe wellfield has been in operation since early 1950. The Samsula wellfield has been in operation since 1982. The Commission has never exceeded the currently permitted withdrawals as measured by annual, daily, or peak basis. WATER DEMAND Approximately 75% of the demand is related to residential consumption. Approximately 10% of the demand is related to commercial and industrial consumption. Approximately 7% of the demand is related to irrigation. Lastly, approximately 8% of the demand is for miscellaneous consumption, including loss that occurs in the treatment process itself. Gross water use in the area served by the Commission is about 138 gallons per person per day. The approximate 103 gallons per person per day (net) used by residences is small as compared to other providers of potable water. The present population of the Commission's service area is approximately 31,570 customers. The projected 1997 population of the Commission's service area is 40,680. The Commission's population projections were obtained by methods consistent with the District's Permit Manual. VI. PERMIT CRITERIA Water Conservation Plan The Commission has submitted a complete Water Conservation Plan. The implementation of that plan is a condition of the permit. The Water Conservation Plan includes a customer audit program of the system to determine how much water is pumped and where the water goes once it is distributed. The customer audit program involves employees of the Commission discussing the historical water usage with the customer, detection of leaks, installation of water restrictors, and the prevention of freezing pipes in the wintertime. The Commission encourages reduced consumption through the water meter charges. Larger meters use more water than smaller meters. The monthly charge for the larger meters is higher thereby encouraging the use of smaller meters. The Water Conservation Plan includes a pressure monitoring program to detect leaks in the system. The program has been implemented. The system pressure monitoring plan measures the pressure in different zones around the Commission's service area and, should a large main burst, an alarm is triggered. Repair of that water main would occur immediately. The Water Conservation Plan includes an analysis of the economic, environmental and technical feasibility of using reclaimed water in Commission's Exhibit No. 14, Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater Conceptual Planning Document. The Reuse of Reclaimed Wastewater Conceptual Planning Document involves four major phases of construction starting in 1991 with completion in 1995. The first phase is underway. As part of the reuse plan, the Commission is modifying the wastewater treatment plant to accept reuse water. The construction is 99 percent complete. A total cost for that is approximately 1.5 million. The Commission will be replacing some freshwater irrigation sources with reclaimed water. The Commission has valid DER permits for this use of reclaimed water. As part of the reuse plan, the Commission has entered into construction contracts to serve the municipal golf course, the landscape at city hall and city parks with wastewater. The transmission and distribution lines will be completed before October 1992. The cost is approximately $700,000. Other phases of the reuse plan include construction of the major infrastructure inside and outside the city for reuse distribution. Total investment is in excess of five million dollars. Major customers along the route have been identified to increase the demand on the reuse system. The Water Conservation Plan includes an employee awareness program and an educational program as well as a time frame to implement those programs. The Commission has a public relations program to inform the customers about water conservation which includes newspaper publications concerning reading water meters, xeriscaping, and methods to reduce water consumption and the time/temperature machine which has prerecorded messages. The Commission has a program for educating the public and encouraging xeriscaping or the use of drought resistant foliage. Xeriscaping is implemented at the wastewater lift stations. The Commission has used direct mailing to provide water conservation information to customers. The Commission has a program for inspecting and replacing defective meters. If a meter malfunctions, the replacement reduces the system losses and accurately records water usage. The Commission has a program to monitor unmetered uses, which includes reporting from users such as the fire department of their unmetered use. On a monthly basis, the fire department reports its water usage as calculated by its operation schedule. The Commission is using the lowest acceptable quality water source, including reclaimed water, for certain types of needs such as irrigation of golf courses. The Water Conservation Plan addresses the use of treated effluent to minimize withdrawals of groundwater. Issues Related to Reasonable Assurance Hydrogeology The Floridan aquifer occurs at approximately 100 feet below the land surface throughout Volusia County. It's overlain by approximately 100 foot of sandy and clayey material collectively called the Clastic aquifer or the surficial aquifer. The proposed SR 44 wellfield site is underlain by an approximate 900- foot depth of freshwater of the Floridan aquifer. In the high recharge area of the Deland Ridge, water moves rapidly into the surficial aquifer and recharges the Floridan aquifer. A regional groundwater gradient extends from the Deland Ridge towards the east. There is a volume of water in the Floridan aquifer that is constantly moving from the west to the east to replenish water that is being withdrawn. Based on the regional movement of the Floridan aquifer and the nature of the Floridan aquifer, the water that is being replenished by the withdrawal is mainly coming from the Floridan aquifer with some contribution from the surficial. Another way to determine the source of the water is by geochemical analysis. The source of the water for this use is characterized as freshwater category number three meaning that it is Floridan aquifer water that is replenishing the water that is being withdrawn and not surface water that is going directly into the Floridan aquifer system. Aquifer Tests The aquifer performance test at the SR 44 wellfield shows that the aquifer is able to produce the volumes of water requested. The depths of the proposed wells, and APT test well, at the SR 44 wellfield is 250 feet below land surface or 150 feet into the Floridan aquifer. The APT at the SR 44 wellfield site provided for the collection of data to show what happens to the water levels while the aquifer is stressed. The second APT at the SR 44 wellfield site tested the Floridan aquifer at a depth of 750 feet below land surface. The section of the Floridan aquifer tested was 500 feet thick. The second APT and geophysical logs showed that there were not any additional flow zones below the upper Floridan aquifer which would yield additional water. Prior to the pump recovery test at the Samsula wellfield, the wells were pumping at 2.59 million gallons per day for a couple of days prior to shutting them off. For a period of five days, four wells in the vicinity of the Samsula wellfield were monitored by the District for water level recovery. The actual observations and the predicted drawdowns in the model correlated well. Drawdown does occur at homeowners' wells when the Commission's Samsula wellfield is pumping, but it does not interfere with existing legal users based on the District rules. The drawdown will not cause a ten percent reduction in the withdrawal capability of the homeowner's well. Computer Modeling The PLASM model simulates the response of the surficial and Floridan aquifers to pumping. The computer model oversimplifies the nature of the surficial aquifer by characterizing the layer as a solid homogeneous type of a system, basically being all sand. In reality, there are some shell and clay layers or hardpan. The transmissivity or the ability to transmit water through the aquifer for surficial aquifer sand ranges between 1,000 up to about 12,000. The transmissivity in the model is 5,000 gallons per day per foot (gpdpf) for Layer 1 which was reasonable. In Layer 2, the data from the APT produced a value of 50,000 gpdpf and a leakance value, or value that would correspond to water that moves from the surficial aquifer down to the Floridan aquifer, of 0.0012 gpdpf. This 50,000 and 0.0012 values are reasonable numbers for this area of Volusia County. The PLASM model is an accepted model for simulating pumpage. In the PLASM model, the transmissivity was varied in two different directions, but it averaged 50,000 gpdpf in the Floridan aquifer system. In the Floridan aquifer system, water is going to be moving based on the transmissivity of the aquifer and a leakance value from the surficial aquifer. The water primarily flows in a horizontal direction. There is a component of vertical movement. The difference between the horizontal movement and the vertical movement is an order of magnitude. There's an order of magnitude difference between the 50,000 gpdpf and the 0.0012 gpdpf which shows that the majority of the water is coming from a horizontal direction. There is some vertical movement. The vertical movement is not only from above, but because of the Floridan aquifer there is also vertical movement from below. When a well is pumping water, the water is being replenished mostly from the horizontal direction and from the lower direction in the same aquifer system, with some contribution downward based on the leakance value from above. This is demonstrated or shown by a small predicted drawdown in the surficial aquifer and that predicted drawdown is basically two orders of magnitude less than the drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer. Proposed Recommended Withdrawal Rates The proposed recommended withdrawal rate from the SR 44 wellfield is 1.43 mgd for average daily flow. With the proposed recommended withdrawal of 1.43 mgd at the SR 44 wellfield, the maximum drawdown in the surficial aquifer is approximately 0.34 feet. With the proposed recommended withdrawal of 1.43 mgd at the SR 44 wellfield, the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer is approximately ten feet. A withdrawal of 1.93 mgd at the SR 44 wellfield site would result in a maximum drawdown in the surficial aquifer of 0.7 feet and in the Floridan aquifer of thirteen (13) feet. The proposed recommended withdrawal rate from the Samsula wellfield is 1.93 mgd for average daily flow. With the proposed recommended withdrawal of 1.93 mgd at the Samsula wellfield, the maximum drawdown in the surficial aquifer is approximately seven tenths (0.70) of a foot. With the proposed recommended withdrawal of 1.93 mgd at the Samsula wellfield, the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer is approximately seventeen (17) feet. The proposed recommended withdrawal rate from the Glencoe wellfield is 1.93 mgd for average daily flow. Under the existing permit, the Samsula wellfield is withdrawing at the higher rate of approximately 2.59 million gallons per day. The volumes of water requested from both the Samsula wellfield and the SR 44 wellfield have been reduced from what was originally proposed by the Commission. The reduced allocation for the Samsula wellfield will improve groundwater elevations and thereby reduce groundwater impacts. Water Quality The state water quality standard for public drinking water is 250 milligrams per liter (mg/l) chlorides. For water supply systems where the chloride level is below 250 mg/l, the District uses that level to determine whether or not the pumping is going to cause significant saline water intrusion. The proposed use cannot cause the water quality to exceed 250 mg/l in chlorides. The water quality data from the existing Samsula and Glencoe wellfields shows that none of the wells or trends from the indicate that they are either above 250 mg/l or trending in a degradation mode toward 250 mg/l. The water quality in the wells is stable without degradation of the water quality in either of the Glencoe wellfield or the Samsula wellfield. The water quality data collected during the APT at the SR 44 wellfield showed that the chlorides were below 250 mg/l and that during the test, there was no change or a trend of becoming salty. An independent study used geophysical methods to determine the depths below land surface where high concentrations of saline water exist. That depth was at approximately 1200 feet below land surface. Proposed Permit Conditions The Commission accepts the conditions of the permit as proposed in the Commission Ex. 10-B. The proposed conditions require the Commission to limit the withdrawals per wellfield as specified and to monitor each production well with a flow meter, monitor the groundwater levels, monitor the surface water conditions, monitor rainfall, and monitor the wetlands. The proposed permit conditions and the County's ombudsman program adequately address the possible impacts of the proposed wellfield on existing users. The monitoring will be able determine the impact of the wellfield on those users. The Commission accepts the condition to mitigate for interference with existing legal users in compliance with the proposed permit conditions. The Volusia County ombudsman program provides the method of investigating and resolving issues related to interference of the proposed wellfield operation with existing legal users. The Commission will participate in this program. The Commission's purchase of the property is contingent upon obtaining the consumptive use permit. The Commission will own the site as shown on various exhibits. The drainage pattern of Tiger Bay is northerly for most of the basin. A canal located north of the area provides the primary drainage for Tiger Bay. A small drainage area within Tiger Bay of approximately 90 acres drains south into the SR 44 wellfield site. Some of the drainage does come through the two 30-inch culverts under SR 44, and both commingle with the wetlands that are on the site as well as drain into a ditch located along the Ranchette Road. The maximum capacity at ideal conditions for those two culverts would be approximately 300 CFS, cubic feet per second. The entire Tiger Bay drainage basin is approximately 13,000 acres. The volume of surface water which can flow from Tiger Bay is 13,000 cfs. That volume could not flow through the culverts at SR 44 without overtopping the road. Ecology The upland communities surrounding the Samsula wellfield are primarily pine flatwoods and mixed pine forested areas. The proposed 1.93 mgd average day withdrawal quantity being recommended by the District for the Samsula wellfield will not adversely affect these upland communities because: (a) the upland communities do not rely on inundated or saturated conditions so the proposed consumptive use will not adversely affect the hydrology these upland communities rely on; and (b) the magnitude of the predicted drawdown will not cause a shift in vegetation meaning a change in the types of plants that already exist there. The wetland communities surrounding the Samsula wellfield site consist of cypress dome and bay swamp communities. With the projected drawdowns information for the Samsula wellfield, there will not be significant adverse impacts to uplands or wetlands that would be identifiable based upon the projected wellfield withdrawal rates as recommended by the District. Any potential for impacts has been reduced in that the current pumpage rates are projected to decrease. The proposed 1.93 mgd average day withdrawal quantity being recommended by the District for the Samsula wellfield will not cause the water table to be lowered such that these wetland communities will be significantly and adversely affected for the following reasons: The wetlands in the area of the Samsula wellfield lie in a sloped terrain. Underlying the site is a soil area known as a spodic horizon or a hardpan layer. The spodic horizon is an area where there is a deposition of organics and it has a different chemistry than the surrounding soils. The spodic horizon, when saturated, acts as a semi-impervious or impermeable layer which causes impedance of water as it goes through. This spodic horizon in the area of the Samsula wellfield is typically two feet below the soil surface. The predicted drawdown will not cause water levels to be dropped such that in normal wet season conditions, which is the time when hydrology to a wetland is most important, the spodic horizon will still be saturated so that water is coming into the wetlands through rainfall directly, as well as rainfall that falls on the adjacent uplands and moves laterally through the soils to the wetland above the spodic horizon. Thus, the spodic horizon will prevent a shift in the "water budget" of these wetlands such that the wetlands will not be harmed by the proposed use. The wetlands systems surrounding the Samsula wellfield are primarily densely forested systems with a fairly substantial accumulation of organic or muck type soils in the surface. The soils assist these wetlands in retaining moisture which provides a "built-in system" for the wetlands to withstand fluctuations in hydroperiods. The wetland systems surrounding the Samsula wellfield appear to have an altered hydrology. The identifiable impacts are ditches or shallow swales along State Road 44. The wetlands south of 44 in the vicinity of wells one, two and three have been bisected by roads and there are swales cut adjacent to those roads. The power line that runs north-south has cut off and eliminated half of a cypress wetland south of 44 and about half of a cypress wetland north of 44. It is possible that these ditches and roads may have caused the altered hydrology in these wetlands. It cannot be concluded that the current Samsula wellfield operation has caused this altered hydroperiod. However, the drawdown that is predicted to occur at the Samsula wellfield under the proposed 1.93 mgd average day withdrawal being recommended by the District is much less than the drawdown that is occurring from the current pumpage at this wellfield. The projected drawdowns from the proposed three wellfield configurations indicate less potential for impacts than the current two wellfields as far as Samsula is concerned. Thus, even if the wetlands surrounding the Samsula wellfield have been affected in any way by the current pumpage rate, the reduced drawdown rates that will result from the 1.93 mgd average day proposed pumpage rate will greatly improve this condition. Other than slight alteration along the edge of SR 44, the wetlands in the vicinity of Samsula wells five and six have not been significantly altered. No changes in vegetation and no apparent changes in hydrology occur in those areas. The cypress wetland north of SR 44 has a drainage ditch emerging to the east. Another wetland immediately north of SR 44, north of well four, is adjacent to the road and the roadside swale or ditch in that vicinity. The species of wildlife identified are ones that are adapted to altered conditions. Abundant wildlife is generally found living in association with improved pastures and close proximity to man. Most of the wetlands in the area of the Samsula wellfield, north and south of SR 44, are in improved pasture or where roads and power lines have been cut. There was evidence of impacts to the wetlands and some drainage. The edge of the cypress dome north of SR 44 has blackberries and other weedy type species along the margins of it. The wetland immediately southeast of well one at the Samsula wellfield was a healthy bay dominated area with ferns underneath. The lichen line on the trunk of the tree and the mosses indicate that the water has been up to or near the historical high within the past season or two. Otherwise, the lichens would grow at the base of the tree. At the Samsula wellfield site, there are no wetlands within the inner drawdown contour of 0.7. There are some wetlands between the 0.7 and the 0.5 contours. The upland communities in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield are primarily pine flatwoods and improved pasture. In the pine flatwoods areas, the soils indicate that the water table extends from a height of 0.5 feet below land surface and down to a hardpan layer. The water table in the pine flatwoods fluctuates between the hardpan and 0.5 feet below land surface. The proposed 1.43 mgd average daily withdrawal which is being recommended by the District for the proposed SR 44 wellfield will not significantly and adversely affect these upland communities because these upland communities are not reliant on inundated or saturated conditions, and the proposed consumptive use will not cause a shift in hydrology such that the vegetation found in these communities will no longer be there. The wetland communities in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield consist of cypress sloughs and cypress domes which also have herbaceous areas with them. The cypress dominated wetlands are on the northeastern portion of the site and the northwestern portion of the site extending down through the central and southeastern part of the site. Cypress dominated wetlands occur on the southwestern border with one in the east-central portion of the site. Between the cypress dominated wetlands and pine flatwoods are grass prairies. The Commission determined the hydroperiod of the wetlands using vegetative physical evidence or biological indicators, such as lichen lines and mosses, and soil physical evidence from soil probes, which are indicators of long-term and sometimes short-term changes. The wetland on the east-central portion of the proposed SR 44 wellfield site inundates to approximately six and one half inches. In the dry season, the soils dry out to 0.15 feet below land surface. In the wet prairie or wet grassy area, the water table seasonally fluctuates between the hardpan layer of 2.2 feet bls and a tenth or two-tenths of an inch above the surface as based on adventitious roots growing from a St. Johns wort plant species. The water table fluctuations explain the seasonal high and the seasonal low water elevations. The factors which most influence the wetlands and their hydrology are subsurface flow during the wet season, the runoff and direct rainfall. The proposed 1.43 mgd average daily withdrawal for the proposed SR 44 wellfield will not significantly and adversely affect these wetland communities because these wetlands are also underlain by a spodic horizon which, as in the case of the Samsula wellfield wetlands, functions to provide lateral movement of water into the wetlands. The predicted drawdowns for the proposed SR 44 wellfield will not lower the water levels in these wetlands so as to prevent the spodic horizon from performing this function. The recommended withdrawal rate of 1.43 mgd for the proposed SR 44 wellfield reduces the opportunity for impacts. The part of the wellfield site where the greatest drawdown of 0.34 feet occurs is the furthest away from the majority of the wetlands on the site. However, the wetland and soil types on the surface layer are different than the wetland and soil types found at the Samsula wellfield site. The District is recommending a pumpage rate for the proposed SR 44 wellfield that would result in a maximum .34 feet of drawdown in the surficial aquifer while recommending a pumpage rate that would result in a maximum .7 foot drawdown in the surficial aquifer for the Samsula wellfield. The wetlands at the proposed SR 44 wellfield site do not have the dense canopy as well as the accumulation of muck soils in the surface that the wetlands at the Samsula site have. Additionally, the wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield site include herbaceous systems which tend to be shallower systems, not as deeply set as the forested cypress systems are, and therefore tend to be more sensitive to changes that occur in the top couple of inches of soil which is above the spodic horizon. Thus, the wetlands in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield would be significantly and adversely affected if the Commission were permitted to withdraw water at a pumpage rate that would result in a drawdown of greater that .34 feet. The drawdowns upon which the evaluation of potential wetland impacts are based are predicted drawdowns. Monitoring and Proposed Conditions To provide additional assurance, the District has recommended a series of permit conditions, numbered 31 through 45 on the Commission Ex. 10-B, that will require the permittee to conduct extensive groundwater and surface water monitoring, as well as vegetative monitoring in the vicinity of the proposed SR 44 wellfield and the Samsula wellfield site. Condition number 31 identifies the overall program of wetland and ground and surface water monitoring. Condition number 32 requires the permittee to install surficial aquifer monitoring wells in the vicinity of the wellfield sites. These monitoring wells will be constructed below the spodic horizon and inside and outside the "area of concern" which is the area within the tenth of a foot drawdown contour at the wellfield sites. This condition will enable the District to analyze how the proposed use is affecting the overall groundwater levels unaffected by the spodic horizon. Placing these wells both inside and outside the area of concern will allow the District to determine if any change in groundwater levels is due to the wellfields or normal climatic patterns. Condition number 33 will allow the District to obtain a constant record of information to analyze what trends are occurring in the wetlands in the wellfields and to have sufficient data during normal climatic variations of the wet and the dry seasons to determine the presence of a trend. The required period of record collection, defined in this condition as the shorter of one calendar year or one consecutive wet to dry season, is a sufficient period of record collection because the purpose of this condition is to obtain a picture in time of the existing conditions in the wetlands surrounding the wellfields during the dry season and the wet season. Condition 33 requires the permittee to submit an annual hydrologic report to the District. This is a sufficient time period of reporting because the purpose of the report is to allow the District to accumulate and assess an entire year's of data or the entire dry to wet season variation. With the annual report, any adverse wetland vegetation changes can be detected prior to any permanent harm to the wetlands. Condition number 34 requires the permittee to install shallow piezometers and staff gauges in the monitored and referenced wetland areas. The monitored wetlands are the wetlands inside the "area of concern." The referenced wetlands are outside the "area of concern." Condition number 34 will allow the District to analyze the hydrology above the spodic horizon. This in turn will allow the District to evaluate the hydrology of the monitored wetlands against the hydrology of the referenced wetlands to determine if any adverse impacts are occurring in the wetlands due to the wellfields' operation. Condition Number 35 requires the permittee to submit surveyed cross- sections of each of the monitored wetlands and the referenced wetlands. This condition will allow the District to receive a linear view of both the monitored and referenced wetlands so that when the District receives the groundwater and surface water information required by condition number 34, it can assign that information to a picture, and know what the wetlands look like under varying water conditions. Condition number 36 requires the permittee to select referenced wetlands similar to the wetlands that are going to be monitored in the area of concern. This will ensure that the reference wetlands match vegetatively and hydrologically with the wetlands that are being monitored within the area of concern. Condition number 37 requires the permittee to install rain gauges at both wellfield sites. This will allow the District to compare rainfall to groundwater information and determine what the relationship is between water levels in the surficial aquifer and the amount of rainfall that has occurred. Condition number 38 requires the permittee to monitor, on a weekly interval, the water levels in each of the monitored wetlands and in the referenced wetlands and submit annual reports of this data. Condition number 39 requires the permittee to install continuous recorders on the staff gauges and piezometers in the reference and monitored wetlands. The information gathered will provide the District with detailed records of the water fluctuations in these wetlands systems relative to rainfall input. Condition number 39 requires the permittee to submit annual reports of the information gathered to the District. The annual report will allow the District to determine if any adverse trends are occurring in the wetlands. No permanent adverse change could occur to the wetlands communities surrounding either wellfield before the District receives this annual report. Condition number 40 requires the permittee to conduct baseline water quality monitoring at each of the monitored wetlands. If any adverse change does occur to the wetlands surrounding either wellfield, and if the permittee chooses to mitigate for this adverse change by augmenting the wetland systems, then this permit condition will allow the District to ensure that the water used to augment those wetlands is of the same quality as the water currently found in those wetlands. Condition number 41 requires the permittee to initiate a baseline vegetative monitoring program of the monitored and reference wetlands at both wellfields. This condition will allow the District to have a vegetative picture of the wetlands prior to any pumpage. Condition number 42 requires the permittee to conduct a vegetative monitoring program of the monitored and reference wetlands at both wellfields with the initiation of withdrawals. Condition number 43 requires the permittee to provide a wetland similarity assessment for both wellfields. The permittee must compare the results of the wetland vegetative monitoring program each year against the baseline vegetative monitoring of the same wetland and against the vegetative monitoring of the referenced wetlands. This condition will assist the District in determining if any adverse trends are occurring in the wetlands surrounding either wellfield. Condition number 44 requires the permittee to create two duplicate reference herbarium collections of the flora present in the monitored and referenced wetlands and the adjacent upland areas. This condition will ensure that there is consistency in the vegetative identification throughout the monitoring program. Condition number 45 requires the permittee to mitigate any harm to the wetlands that is detected from the monitoring required by other permit conditions. This condition does not require any particular form of mitigation. The wellfield withdrawals at the projected rates and the suggested permit rates should not have an impact on threatened or endangered plant or animal species in the Samsula wellfield area or the proposed SR 44 wellfield area. The monitoring program will provide the data to determine on a short- term or long-term basis whether the pumpage rates are causing impacts. Potential harm can be mitigated by adjusting the quantities and locations of withdrawal. V. ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS The Commission seeks fees and costs from Petitioner pursuant to Section 120.59(6), Florida Statutes (1991). Such entitlement requires a showing that the Petitioner brought this case or filed a pleading for an improper purpose. While the evidence does show that certain pleadings filed by Petitioner (or his attorney who withdrew 24 hours prior to the beginning of the hearing) may have had as one purpose the delay of the hearing scheduled for March 24, 1992, the totality of the evidence establishes that Petitioner's purposes were not improper. Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes (1991), establishes the right of any citizen of the state to intervene into "proceedings for the protection of air, water, or other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction " The actions of Petitioner in this proceeding were not clearly shown to be for delay, harassment or other improper purpose. In fact, Petitioner handled himself well as a pro se litigant after his attorney's untimely withdrawal. If anyone acted with an improper purpose in this proceeding, it was Peter Belmont, Nassau's attorney until he withdrew less than 24 hours prior to the hearing. The record shows that Belmont entered into the representation of Nassau with full knowledge that he would seek all possible delays in the proceedings. He engaged in no preparation for the hearing and he left Nassau unprepared also. Belmont's bad faith actions in this case however can only be determined and remediated by the Florida Bar, not by the undersigned through an award of fees and costs. Finally, there has been no delay in these proceedings. The petition was filed with DOAH on January 16, 1992. The District moved to consolidate it with two other pending case set for January 20, 1992. Those cases were voluntarily dismissed. An Initial Order was sent to the parties on January 21, 1992, seeking suggested dates for the hearing. The hearing was set to begin March 16, 1992, less than 60 days from the filing of the case. A one week continuance was granted and the case was heard beginning on March 24, 1992. If anything, this case has proceeded expeditiously.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a Final Order GRANTING the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach's Consumptive Use Permit, subject to the March 9, 1992 permit conditions proposed by the District (Commission's Exhibit 10-B). RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0246 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, William Nassau Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 4(3) and 5(10). Proposed findings of fact 1-3, 6-9, 11, 12, 14, 19, and 22 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13, 15-18, 20, and 21 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed finding of fact 10 is irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-11(1-11); 13-19(15-21); and 35(12). Proposed findings of fact 12 and 20 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed findings of fact 32-34 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 21-31 and 36-111 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommmended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-21(22-46); 22(16); 23(7); 25(19-21); 29-31(12-14); and 32-142(43-153). Proposed findings of fact 24 and 26-28 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: William Nassau 4680 Cedar Road New Smyrna Beach, FL 32168 Nancy B. Barnard Eric Olsen Attorneys at Law St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Roger Sims Rory Ryan Lynda Goodgame Attorneys at Law Holland & Knight P.O. Box 1526 Orlando, FL 32802 Wayne Flowers, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether Celebrity Resorts, Inc., (Celebrity) is entitled to a Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit for a surface management system to serve its proposed development in Marion County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact PROPOSED PROJECT Celebrity is seeking a District MSSW permit to construct a surface water management system to serve a proposed recreation vehicle (RV) park. The facility is to be located in northern Marion County on the southern border of Orange Lake, an Outstanding Florida Water. The entire site is within the geographic boundaries of the District. The RV park is to be located on 75 acres of land, and is to contain 372 RV and "park model" sites, four bath houses, a clubhouse, and an expanded boathouse. There is a "break" in the watersheds of the Celebrity property caused by a ridge across the approximate center of the project site. The effect of this "break" is that approximately one-half of the property drains toward the lake while the approximate southerly half of the property drains into an independent depression creating a watershed separate from the lake. Parts of Marion County and Alachua county have been designated as Sensitive Karst Area Basin by the District. The project site is located in the designated area. The existing land use is open pasture. The property was previously used for citrus groves. STANDING Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area is an unincorporated group of approximately 76 individuals who want to prevent pollution of Orange Lake. Of the 76 members, three members were present and testified at the hearing. The members attending the hearing were an artist (Riley), a photographer (Suto), and a bass guide (Solomon). Ms. Suto testified that she lives about 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the site. Ms. Riley testified that she lives next door to Ms. Suto and determined that to be over two miles away from the site. Mr. Solomon testified that he lives on the southeast side of Orange Lake approximately 1 to 1 1/2 miles from the project site. No witness testified that any member has a property interest in the subject property. Of the members who testified, none use the subject property. There was no testimony that other members use the property. Twenty-six members wrote letters of concern to the District. Ms. Suto testified to the existence of high levels of lead in her well water. WATER QUANTITY The existing land use, pasture, was used to determine the pre- development peak rate and volume of discharge. The existing surface drainage of the 75-acre project site is divided into two basins. On the north side of the property, the surface water flows toward Orange Lake. This basin is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "2." The south portion of the property is contained within the landlocked drainage basin which is designated on the plans, sheet 3 of 16, by a "1." The post-development flow of surface water will be in the same direction as the pre-development flow. There are no proposed development plans or encroachments into the 100- year floodplain. Therefore, there is no increase in potential for damages to off-site property or persons caused by floodplain development or encroachment, retardance, acceleration, displacement, or diversion of surface waters. There is no reduction in natural storage areas and, in fact, the proposed project increases the natural storage on site. Drainage Basin 2 The District's criterion for systems discharging to basins with an outlet is that the post-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event shall not exceed the pre-development peak rate of discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The District's criteria also require that the post-development volume of discharge not exceed the pre-development volume of discharge. The retention system which ultimately discharges to Orange Lake is designed to retain the entire 25-year, 24-hour storm event through the series of basins on site. The pre-development peak rate of discharge for the drainage basin which flows to the lake is 55 cubic feet per second (cfs) during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The post-development peak rate of discharge from drainage basin 2 is 4 cfs. The post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre- development peak rate of discharge. Runoff from each RV site will be collected in an individual, ten-inch- deep retention basin. Runoff from the road will be collected in roadside swales. Runoff from the clubhouse, country store, and associated parking lots will be conveyed to drainage retention area (DRA) No. 8. The individual retention basins have the capacity to retain the 25- year, 24-hour storm event without discharging. Any surface water discharges from the individual retention basins in Basins 2A, 2B, and 2C as designated on sheet 3 of 16 will flow to DRA Nos. 4, 5, and 7, respectively. In Basin 2D, runoff from the road and RV park model sites will flow to DRA No. 6. The discharge from DRA No. 6 in the 25-year, 24-hour storm will be zero (0) cfs. In larger storms, any discharge from DRA No. 6 will flow to DRA No. 7. In the event DRA No. 7 overflows, the runoff will flow to DRA No. 5. Basins 2G and 2F are located around two existing sinkholes which currently collect stormwater runoff. In the proposed project, Basins 2G and 2F continue to drain the same area as pre-development. However, additional impervious surfaces will be placed in the drainage area. For this reason, an additional three to five feet of clean fill will be placed in the bottom of each sinkhole for filtration purposes. Basins 2H and 2I are less than one acre and currently drain off site. Berms are proposed around the property line at the basin to keep the stormwater on site. Basins 2H and 2I retain 3/4 inch of runoff over the individual basin. The runoff from Basins 2E1 and 2E flows to DRA No. 8 via a drainage swale. DRA No. 8 will retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the drainage area and is an off-line retention basin. The DRA No. 8 is equipped with a diversion box which allows the 3/4 inch of runoff to enter the DRA and then diverts the runoff from larger storms around the DRA so that the treatment volume of runoff (3/4 inch) continues to be treated in DRA No. 8 and does not mix with and discharge from DRA No. 8 during larger storms. Drainage Basin 1 Drainage Basin 1 as designated on plan sheet 3 of 16 is a landlocked basin which does not discharge to Orange Lake. In Drainage Basin 1, as in Basin 2, the runoff from the RV sites flows to the individual retention basins which retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The runoff from the road flows to swales. Overflow from the basins and swales flow to the DRAs. Drainage Basin 1 does not discharge during the 100- year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 24-hour storm event, pre-development or post- development Drainage Basin 1 is designed to retain the 100-year, 24-hour storm, which is an 11 inch storm event. Drainage Basin 1 is also designed to retain the 25-year, 96-hour storm event. The 25-year, 96-hour storm event is 143% of the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. WATER QUALITY Design Criteria The District's design criteria for water quality are set out in Section 40C-42.025, Florida Administrative Code. The District's retention criteria require that a proposed system have a treatment/pollution abatement volume of 1/2 inch of runoff from the site. For discharges to an OFW, the pollution abatement volume is increased by fifty percent. Therefore, the system must have the volume to retain 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. Each retention basin retains a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site. The District's criteria regarding quantity of water discharged require a larger volume of runoff to be retained than the District's criteria regarding quality. Therefore, the retention system exceeds the District's criteria regarding quality in order to meet the criteria regarding quantity. The District's retention criteria require that the basin recover the treatment volume within 72 hours. Most of the retention basins retain more than the required treatment volume of 3/4 inch, and most will also recover, or become dry, within 72 hours. The retention basins are capable of being effectively maintained in that the side slopes and bottom of the basins can easily accommodate mowing equipment. For erosion control, staked hay bales and silt screens will be utilized on site during construction to prevent the off-site transport of soil material. Following construction, the retention basins will be vegetated with sod to prevent erosion. The District's criteria require that facilities which receive stormwater runoff from areas with greater than fifty percent of impervious surface shall include a baffle or other device for preventing oil and grease from leaving the system. DRA Nos. 1, 4, 5, and 8 are equipped with an oil and grease removal device called a baffle. The baffle is an acceptable engineering design for the removal of oil and grease from stormwater in a retention basin. The facility operation is uncomplicated. If the individual basins did fill due to a storm event greater than the 25-year, 24-hour or the 25-year, 96- hour in the landlocked basin, they would simply overflow into a DRA. No structures are involved to prevent flooding in large storm events. Water Quality Impacts The individual retention basin at each RV site is considered off-line because it does not discharge in the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. DRA Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are considered off-line because they do not discharge during the design storm. DRA No. 8 is considered off-line because of the diversion box which provides for the retention of the treatment volume and diversion of the larger storms. Off-line retention systems generally show greater pollutant treatment efficiencies than other types of stormwater treatment. The first 1/2 inch of runoff or the "first flush" of rainfall contains ninety percent of the pollutants from the site. SURFACE WATER Utilizing information and methodologies generally accepted by experts in the field of water quality, the District analyzed and projected the average surface water and groundwater quality of the discharge from the surface water management system for the proposed project. No data on runoff concentrations currently exists for RV parks. This analysis was based on a review of existing data on untreated runoff concentrations from three multifamily developments and one highway study. Because data from studies of multifamily residential and highway projects was used, the District's estimates of the untreated runoff concentrations for this project are conservative in that the actual concentrations are probably less than estimated. The District's analysis of the average quality of the discharge from the proposed system was also based on projecting the treatment efficiencies associated with the system. This analysis was done by reviewing data from documented studies previously conducted to ascertain the treatment efficiency of retention methods of stormwater treatment. Generally, retention of the first 1/2 inch of runoff removes eighty percent of the pollutants. On this project, a treatment efficiency of ninety-five percent was assumed based on the fact that the system is off-line treatment and a minimum of 3/4 inch of runoff from the site will be retained in the basins prior to discharge. The expected average untreated runoff concentrations were then educed by the expected treatment efficiencies to project post-treatment water quality of the discharge from the proposed system. These numbers were then compared to Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code, water quality standards for Class III water bodies, and ambient water quality in Orange Lake. Orange Lake is classified as an OFW. Therefore, the proposed project cannot be permitted if it will cause degradation of that water body. The background data or ambient water quality data for phosphorous and nitrogen was taken from the Orange Lake Biological Report by the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission in 1986. The ambient water quality for the other parameters in Table 2 of District Exhibit 2 was computed using eight years of data from a District monitoring station on Orange Lake. The projected average concentration for each constituent in the discharge from the system is less than the ambient water quality of Orange Lake. Therefore, the proposed surface water discharge will not violate state water quality standards in waters of the state. The post-development pollutant loading rates should be equal to or better than the pollutant loading rates from the use of the property as citrus or pastureland because the runoff is being retained on site and treated before being discharged. GROUNDWATER Groundwater discharges were reviewed by assessing the type of soil below the retention basin and the distance to the water table. The soil on the site contains some organic matter which is beneficial for treatment purposes. Based on the borings submitted by Celebrity, the water table, if any, is five feet or more below the bottom of any proposed retention basin. Runoff in the basin will percolate through the soil. Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus will be taken up by the vegetation in the bottom of the basins. Metals will bind to the soil material below the basin. Oils and greases will be broken down through microbial degradation into nontoxic material. Groundwater discharges from the proposed system will not violate any applicable state groundwater quality standards. These standards will be met within the first three feet below the treatment basins. The standards will also be met by the time the groundwater discharge moves to the edge of the zone of discharge which is at the property boundary. The discharge from the proposed Celebrity project will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards in the receiving waters. SINKHOLES Sinkholes may form on the site. Sinkholes that form will probably be "cover subsidence" sinkholes. Cover subsidence sinkholes are those in which a void below the surface fills with the soil from above, causing a depression in the ground surface. There are four relict sinkholes on site. They are cover subsidence sinkholes. The sinkhole nearest the lake has water in the bottom. Stormwater runoff is directed away from the sinkhole. Any water which enters the sinkhole from the land surface or above will enter from the sky. The District has proposed criteria for stormwater systems in designated Sensitive Karst Area Basins. Those criteria are that 1) the water in the basins shall be no deeper than ten feet deep; 2) there should be at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table; and 3) the basins should be fully vegetated. The District currently applies these criteria as policy. In this project, the basins are shallow, ranging from ten inches deep at the RV sites to 2 1/2 feet in the DRAs. The basins have at least three feet of unconsolidated material between the bottom of the basin and the top of the water table. In the soil borings performed by Celebrity, the water table was shown to exist between five and fifty feet below land surface. The proposed project design meets or exceeds the proposed criteria for Sensitive Karst Area Basins. The basins will be fully vegetated or sodded with grass. Lineations or lineaments are solution features which may indicate a fracture of the underlying limestone. There may be a lineament on the site. There are other sinkholes in the area. If a cover subsidence sinkhole develops in an individual retention basin or DRA, stormwater, if any, will seep or percolate through the several feet of soil prior to reaching an aquifer. Most of the pollutants in the retention basin will meet groundwater quality standards prior to percolation and further treatment in the soil. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Special conditions Nos. 13, 14, and 15 on the permit will require Celebrity to inspect the system monthly for sinkhole development. If a sinkhole develops, Celebrity must notify the District within 48 hours of its discovery. Celebrity must submit a detailed repair plan within 30 days for written approval by the District. Celebrity proposes to repair any sinkholes that develop by a District- approved method. Celebrity Resorts, Inc., is a legally established corporation registered in Delaware and owns the subject property. Celebrity does not intend to subdivide the property but to sell memberships to use the property on a time-share basis. Celebrity will administratively operate the site by employing a park manager who will remain on the property 24 hours a day. If any problems occur with the basins, either he or his designee will be on site to respond quickly to the situation. The park manager will have a full-time maintenance staff which will operate the park. Celebrity will financially operate and maintain the proposed system using funds currently raised and in the future by membership fees. Celebrity is a publicly held corporation. Funds raised from the sale of stock, approximately $3,500,000, have paid for legal and administrative fees as well as the land purchase. Approximately $400,000 has been reserved to operate the facility. It will cost approximately $15,000 per month to run the park. Memberships will be sold for $300 per year. Part of the membership fees will go toward the general maintenance of the site. Maintenance of the proposed system will include regular mowing and monthly inspection for sinkholes and repair if necessary. WETLANDS IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT The property contains waters of the state wetlands and isolated wetlands. The waters of the state wetlands are those along the shore of Orange Lake. One isolated wetland exists on site in the sinkhole which is closest to the lake. The sinkhole has standing water in which lemna, or duckweed, is growing. Duckweed is a listed plant species in Section 16.1.1(2) of the Handbook. No construction is proposed in either the waters of the state wetlands or the isolated wetland. The District criteria require the review of impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently provided by the wetlands to these types of fish and wildlife. Since there will be no construction in the wetlands, there will be no impacts to the habitat, abundance and diversity, or food sources of off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species from this proposed project. No threatened or endangered aquatic and wetland dependent species were observed on site. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect natural resources, fish, or wildlife in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria. The proposed permit application will not adversely affect hydrologically-related environmental functions in a manner which is inconsistent with the District criteria.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition filed by Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area be dismissed for lack of standing and that Celebrity Resorts, Inc., be issued a MSSW permit for its system as designed and proposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Area 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Celebrity Resorts, Inc. 1. Proposed findings of fact 1-38 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1&2(1); 3-7(4-7); 8-20(8- 20); 21(2); 22-31(21-30); 32(16); and 33-107(31-105). COPIES FURNISHED: Crawford Solomon Qualified Representative Concerned Citizens of Orange Lake Post Office Box 481 Citra, FL 32681 William L. Townsend, Jr. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 250 Palatka, FL 32178-0250 Nancy B. Barnard Attorney at Law St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
The Issue There are two issues in these cases: (1) whether Tampa Bay Desal, LLC ("TBD") provided reasonable assurances that its permit application to discharge wastewater from a proposed seawater desalination plant, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit Application No. FL0186813- 001-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards for industrial wastewater facilities; and (2) whether Tampa Electric Company, Inc. (TEC) provided reasonable assurances that its proposed modification to an existing industrial wastewater facility permit, NPDES Permit Modification No. FL0000817-003-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards.
Findings Of Fact Parties other than SOBAC Poseidon Resources, LLC wholly owns TBD as one of Poseidon Resources' subsidiaries. Poseidon Resources formed TBD, the successor to S&W Water, LLC, as a special purpose project company to properly staff and finance the desalination project. TBW entered into a 30-year purchase agreement with TBD (then known as S & W Water, LLC) in 1999 to build, own and operate the desalination facility. Poseidon Resources operates as a privately-held company and all stockholders are major corporations. Poseidon Resources opened for business in 1995 and has over $300 million in water processing assets under management. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") delegated its NPDES permitting program to the State of Florida and is run by DEP. TEC is an investor-owned electric utility serving Hillsborough, Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. TEC owns and operates the Big Bend generating station, an electric plant consisting of four coal-fired steam units having a combined capacity of approximately 1800 megawatts. SWFWMD is a water management district in the State of Florida. SWFWMD reviews and acts upon water use permit applications and protects and manages the water and water- related resources within its boundaries. TBW and all of its Member Governments are within the geographical and legal jurisdiction of SWFWMD. Pasco County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, a member government of TBW, and is located within the jurisdiction of SWFWMD. Pasco County is a major source of the groundwater used by TBW. TBW is a regional public water supply authority. TBW is the sole and exclusive wholesale supplier of potable water for all its member governments of TBW, which are Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, the City of New Port Richey, the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Tampa. TBW serves approximately 2 million customers. SOBAC SOBAC was incorporated as a Florida not-for-profit corporation in February 2000. The stated mission of SOBAC is to protect the environmental quality of the bays, canals, and waterways of the Tampa Bay area, and to ensure drinking water for SOBAC members in the Tampa Bay area. SOBAC was formed by a group of people residing primarily in the area of Apollo Beach. Apollo Beach is a waterfront residential community that was created by dredge and fill of wetlands, estuary, and bay bottom bordering the "Big Bend" area of Tampa Bay, where the community terminates in a "hammerhead" of fill over what was once a seagrass bed. Across the North Apollo Beach "Embayment," formed by the "hammerhead," is the discharge canal of TEC's Big Bend power plant. A corrugated metal barrier partially separates the embayment from the discharge canal. This discharge canal also will receive TBD's discharge after re-mixing with TEC's discharge. SOBAC initially was formed out of concern for the environment in the Big Bend area of Tampa Bay. However, there is no requirement that SOBAC members live in the Apollo Beach area, or even in the vicinity of Tampa Bay, and SOBAC's geographic area of concern has broadened somewhat beyond the Apollo Beach area. In order to become a member of SOBAC, one need only sign a card. Prospective members are asked to donate $5 on signing up. Most members donate $5 or more. However, the donation is not mandatory. There is no requirement that members attend any meetings, or participate in any SOBAC activities. Section 3.1 of SOBAC's Constitution and Corporate By-Laws makes "active" membership contingent on payment of "the prescribed [annual] dues." Section 3.2 of SOBAC's Constitution and Corporate By- Laws requires SOBAC to establish annual dues, but no annual dues have been paid because no annual dues structure has ever been established. As a result, no annual dues have been "prescribed," and "active" membership does not require payment of annual dues. SOBAC claims to have approximately 1,000 members. These include all those who have ever become members. Approximately 700 live in the Appollo Beach area; approximately 50-75 of these members form the "core" of active members. Approximately 50-100 members live outside the Tampa Bay area; some of these outsiders probably are among the approximately 100 who are members by virtue of SOBAC's reciprocity agreement with another association called "Friends of the River." SOBAC has never surveyed its membership to determine how its members actually use Tampa Bay. However, the evidence was sufficient to prove that a substantial number of its members, especially among those who reside in the Apollo Beach area, enjoy use of the waters and wetlands of the Big Bend area for recreational activities such as boating and fishing. For that reason, if the activities to be permitted by DEP in these proceedings were to cause environmental damage, a substantial number of SOBAC's members would be affected substantially and more than most residents of distant reaches of the Tampa Bay area. Background of Desalination Project In 1998, the predecessor agency to TBW (the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority), the six Member Governments and SWFWMD entered into an agreement specifically addressing impacts to natural systems through the development of new, non- groundwater sources, and the reduction of permitted groundwater withdrawal capacity from TBW's eleven existing wellfields from the then permitted capacity of 192 million gallons per day (mgd) to 121 mgd by December 31, 2002 (the "Partnership Agreement"). Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the existing water use permits for TBW's 11 specified wellfields were consolidated into a single permit under which TBW is the sole permittee. Prior to execution of the Partnership Agreement, the existing permits for these 11 wellfields allowed for cumulative withdrawals totaling approximately 192 mgd. Upon execution of the Partnership Agreement, the consolidated permit immediately reduced allowed withdrawals to no more than 158 mgd and required that wellfield pumping from the 11 wellfields be further reduced to no more than 121 mgd by December 31, 2002, and then to no more than 90 mgd by December 31, 2007. These withdrawal reductions are necessary to reduce the adverse environmental impacts caused by excessive withdrawals from the 11 wellfields, the majority of which are located in Pasco County. In order to replace the reduction of groundwater withdrawals, TBW adopted a Master Water Plan that provides for the development of specified new, alternative sources of potable water. The seawater desalination facility ("Desal Facility") is one of the cornerstone components of the Master Water Plan. This Facility will furnish 25 mgd of new water resources for the Tampa Bay area and must be in service by December 31, 2002, in order to meet the potable water needs of the residents of the Tampa Bay area. In exchange for the groundwater withdrawal reductions, SWFWMD agreed to contribute up to $183 million towards the development of new water sources that are diverse, reliable and cost-effective. SWFWMD has agreed to co-fund up to 90 percent of the capital cost of the Desal Facility. To comply with the terms and conditions of water use permits it has received from SWFWMD for other water withdrawals in the region, TBW must increase the water sources from which it withdraws water for distribution to its Member Governments in a timely manner. The Desal Facility is the essential means by which these permitting requirements can be met. For the past two years, the Tampa Bay area has been experiencing historic low rainfall and drought conditions. The Desal Facility is supported not only by TBW and its Member Governments, but also by SWFWMD since it is a drought-proof source of supply which has the greatest ability of any new water supply source to allow TBW to meet its members' potable water supply needs while also reducing pumpage from the existing 11 wellfields. In addition to its being a drought-proof source of potable water supply, the Facility will also provide diversity and reliability for TBW's sources of supply, and is a source that is easily expandable to provide additional potable supply that may be necessary in the future. Prior to deciding to proceed with a desalination project, TBW conducted four separate studies to look at the potential individual and cumulative impacts of a desalination facility on Tampa Bay and the surrounding areas, and in particular to evaluate the changes in baywide salinity due to the desalination discharge alone and in combination with the river withdrawals occasioned by other projects. Commencing in 1997, TBW conducted a procurement process that culminated in the award in July 1999 of a contract to S & W Water, LLC, now known as Tampa Bay Desal, LLC, to design, build, own, operate, and eventually transfer to TBW a seawater desalination plant to provide potable water to Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties and to the Cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg for 30 years. TBD's Desal Facility is co-located with the Big Bend Power Station owned and operated by TEC on the northeast side of Hillsborough Bay, in Hillsborough County, Florida. By discharging the concentrate from the Desal Facility to the power plant cooling water prior to its discharge to the power plant discharge canal, environmental impacts from the concentrate are minimized, and disturbance of the discharge canal is avoided. The costs avoided by utilizing the existing intake and outflow from the TEC power plant are reflected in the lower cost of the water to Tampa Bay Water, and ultimately its Member Governments. TBW is contractually bound to TBD to purchase all of the potable water that is produced by the Desal Facility for distribution to its Member Governments and to purchase the entire Facility in the future. With the exception of the NPDES permit at issue, TBD has obtained all of the over 20 other permits which are required for the construction and operation of the desalination facility. TBD has already invested approximately $20 million in this project. The total estimated capital cost of the desalination facility is $110 million. TBD has obtained financing of $42 million and expects to acquire permanent financing in the month of October 2001. SWFWMD agreed to subsidize up to 90 percent of the capital cost of the desalination facility payable to TBW over the term of agreement with TBD. TBD is contractually bound to TBW to complete and fully operate the desalination facility by December 2002. TBD Desalination Process Overview of Process In the instant case, desalination is performed through reverse osmosis ("RO"), a mechanical process wherein pretreated water under very high pressure is pressed against a very fine membrane such that only pure water can pass through it. The vast majority of salt molecules and other substance are eliminated from the water. The RO process is not heat or chemical driven. No additional heat load is being added as a result of the desalination discharge, and the desalination plant will actually result in a reduced heat load to the bay. The desalination facility will withdraw approximately 44.5 mgd of raw water from Units 3 and 4 of TEC's Big Bend cooling water system, produce approximately 25 mgd of product water for transmission to the regional water supply system, and discharge approximately 19.5 mgd of clarified backwash and concentrate water equally into each of the power plant cooling water tunnels for dilution and release into the discharge canal. During abnormal power plant operations including times when Units 3 or 4 are not in operation and during the summer months when the normal supply water intake temperature exceeds the operating temperature range of the RO membranes, a portion of the source water will be withdrawn from an auxiliary supply water system. The auxiliary supply water system consists of a supply pump and pipeline that withdraws water from a location downstream of the fine-mesh screens for Units 3 and 4. The total combined bay withdrawal flow for the power plant and the desalination facility cannot exceed 1.40 billion gallons per day ("bgd"). This limitation ensures that entrainment does not exceed the levels previously permitted for the site, and a new entrainment study pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act is not required. Pretreatment Process The desalination intake water is pretreated in a two- stage gravity filtration process with chemical additives. During pretreatment, ferric sulfates will be added to the desalination intake water to coagulate and capture suspended solids, organic material, and metals that exist in the raw water supply. In this first stage of the pretreatment process, the intake water runs through an aerated course sand filter. Aeration enhances the coagulative process and assists in the capture of organics, suspended solids, and metals. Aeration also occurs in stage two, which uses a fine sand filter pretreatment process. The backwash water from stage two recirculates to the stage one treatment process. The pretreated waters exits through a five micron cartridge filtration prior to entering the RO process. The aerated pretreatment filter backwash water from the pretreatment stage one pretreatment will be sent to a discharge sump for initial settling and then to a clarifier and filter press to remove excess water. Approximately 14 wet tons a day which includes organics, suspended solids, and metals that are removed through the coagulative process and captured from the gravity filters are removed off-site to a landfill. The desal concentrate and clarified backwash water will be combined in a discharge sump or wet well prior to entering into a discharge line manifolded to equally distribute the concentrate discharge into all of the available cooling water outflow tunnels or conduits of the power plant discharge. Reverse Osmosis Membrane Treatment The RO desalination process consists of a two-stage pass of the pretreated water through the reverse osmosis membranes. The RO pumps will force the water through the RO membranes at pressures ranging from 600 to 1000 pounds per square inch (psi). As a result of the RO process, approximately 25 mgd of purified water, also known as permeate, will be produced for delivery to TBW. TBD anticipates cleaning its membranes twice per year, perhaps less, due to the high level of pretreatment. Periodic cleaning removes silt and scale from the membrane surface. Dilute solutions of citric acid, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, sodium tripolyphosphate, or sodium dodecyclbenzene compromise the constituents of various cleaning solutions, with the actual cleaning solution used dependent upon the actual performance of the system once it is placed in operation. Once the cleaning cycle is complete, the spent cleaning solution will be purged from the feed tank, membrane vessels, and piping and diverted into a scavenger tank for off- site disposal. Clean product water (permeate) will be fed to the feed tank and pumped into the RO membrane vessels. This process will continue until the pH of the purge water meets the Class III marine water quality criteria. The membranes will be rinsed with brine concentrate and permeate, and the rinse water will be directed to the wet well for discharge, with the concentrate into the TEC cooling water stream. TBD determined the chemical characterization of the membrane cleaning solution discharge. Cleaning solutions are not discharged in detectable concentrations. As further assurance, the permit requires toxicity testing immediately after membrane cleaning. Dilution of Discharge Water Co-locating the desalination facility with TEC's Big Bend power station allows the desalination concentrate to be diluted with TEC's cooling water prior to discharge into Tampa Bay. The point of injection of the desalination discharge will be located approximately 72 feet upstream of the point of discharge to the discharge canal to ensure complete mixing of the desalination concentrate with TEC's cooling water. This provides reasonable assurance that the desalination discharge will be completely mixed within the cooling water conduits. If all four TEC units are in operation and TBD is producing 25 mgd of finished water, the approximate dilution ratio of the desalination concentrate with TEC cooling water is 70:1. Historical TEC data indicates that a dilution ration of greater than 20:1 will occur more than 99.6 percent of the time, and a dilution ration of greater than 28:1 will occur more than 95 percent of the time. The dilution limitations in the proposed permit are more stringent than those required in Rule 62-302.530(18). The permitted dilution ratio complies with Rule 62- 660.400(2)(d) because it takes into account the nature, volume, and frequency of the proposed discharge, including any possible synergistic effects with other pollutants which may be present in the receiving water body. Comparisons of the Antigua, Key West, and Cyprus facilities are not applicable because those desalination facilities lack the initial dilution that will exist at TEC's Big Bend site. The proposed permit requires a 20:1 minimum dilution ratio at any given time, which may occur for no more than 384 hours per calendar year, and with the further limitation that the discharge at the 20:1 minimum dilution ratio shall not exceed 384 hours in any given 60-day period. At all other times, a minimum dilution ratio of 28:1 must be maintained. To ensure proper dilution and system operation, computer instrumentation in the desal facility will interface with TEC to continuously monitor the operations of TEC's four cooling tower condenser units. If any of the pumps shut down, an alarm will sound at the desalination facility and the computer system will automatically shut down the concentrate discharge to that specific condenser unit discharge tunnel. Further, the desalination plant will employ approximately 12 employees, with a minimum of two employees on duty at all times. TEC Permit Modification Big Bend power station has four coal-fired steam electric generating units. The power station is cooled by water that is taken in from Tampa Bay through two intake structures which are located along TEC's intake canal. One intake structure feeds cooling water to electrical power units 1 and 2 and the other feeds units 3 and 4. After flowing through the condensers, the cooling flows are combined into four separate discharge tunnels which outfall into TEC's discharge canal. The intake structure for Units 3 and 4 is equipped with fine-mesh screens and an organismal collection and return system that has been approved for use by DEP. The purpose of TEC's permit modification is to alter the internal piping in the facility to accommodate the desalination plant at the Big Bend site. TEC's permit modification allows for placement of an intake pipe from TEC's cooling water pipes to the desalination plant and a return pipe downstream from the intake pipe for the return of the desalination concentrate to TEC's cooling water discharge tunnels prior to outfall in the discharge canal. TEC's permit modification also allows for the placement of an auxiliary intake line by TBD to take additional water from behind the intake of units 3 and 4 up to TEC's maximum permitted limit of 1.4 billion gallons a day. The TEC proposed permit is conditioned to require TEC to maintain the structural integrity of both the steel sheet pile wall on the discharge canal and the breakwater barrier North of the discharge canal. TEC's permit modification does not request any changes to the operations of the Big Bend Generating Station. SOBAC Issues and Concerns SOBAC raised numerous issues and concerns in its petitions in these cases and in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation. However, some issues were elimination by rulings adverse to SOBAC during prehearing proceedings and final hearing. Based on the evidence SOBAC sought to elicit at final hearing and issues raised in its Proposed Recommended Order, other, earlier SOBAC issues and concerns appear to have been dropped. Remaining are essentially the following: increased salinity due to TBD discharge; alleged decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) from higher salinity; impacts of higher salinity and alleged decreased DO on marine plants and animals; alleged release of metals from sediments due to higher salinity and alleged lower DO, and effects on marine plants and animals; alleged monitoring deficiencies; alleged failure to utilize available technologies to lower salinity and raise DO; alleged deficient financial assurances; and various alleged resulting DEP rule violations. Description of Tampa Bay: Physical Properties The portion of Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay near the Big Bend facility is classified a Class III water body. Tampa Bay is a naturally drowned river valley, meaning that a deep channel exists as a result of natural forces. However, the channel has been deepened to 45 feet or greater to allow large ships to navigate the bay. This deepening of the channel increases the water flow of the head of the bay with the open gulf waters and allows this residual circulation to move more new water from the open Gulf of Mexico up into the bay. Ordinarily, circulation moves salt water up Tampa Bay and spreads it out onto the flanks of the bay where it then mixes with the freshwater. To complete this circulation, the water then flows back out towards the mouth of the bay, primarily along its flanks and shallower parts in the upper part of the water column. The water in Tampa Bay tends to flow faster in its deeper parts, both coming in and going out, and relatively slower in the shallow areas. The majority of flow of freshwater inflow occurs at the bay's flanks as can be seen very clearly in the salinity distributions. Mixing and Stratification Since the development of Tampa Bay from the 1880 condition to the 1972 and 1985 conditions, there is more mixing and exchange of water. Due to shoreline fills for development, such as Apollo Beach, there is less water that now comes in the bay than in the predevelopment condition. Tampa Bay is a fairly well mixed system from top to bottom. This is because the action of the tides basically acts like a big mix master. The bay is fairly shallow, less than four meters in depth on average. The tidal velocities can be as strong as two knots or about a meter per second. When the strong velocity pushes through shallow water, there is extensive overturning, where the bottom water is churned to the top and gets mixed very efficiently. That is very well seen in the observations during dry periods. Over 100 points in Tampa Bay were measured for temperature and salinity top, middle and bottom, and showed that they were very uniform throughout the bay. During periods of large volumes of freshwater input into Tampa Bay, freshwater is pumping into the bay faster than the tidal mixing can mix it from top to bottom. Therefore, in parts of Tampa Bay significant stratification is seen during many times in the wet season. During those times when rainfall is not as prevalent, tidal mixing once again dominates and the bay returns to a more well mixed system. The average tidal fluctuation for Tampa Bay is a range of two to three feet. Salinity As the tide in Tampa Bay comes in, it brings saltier water from the mouth of the bay toward the head of the bay, causing salinities to rise. As the tide recedes, bringing out fresher water from farther up the bay, salinities decrease. Over an individual tidal cycle, particularly during the wet season, a four or five part per thousand ("ppt") change in salinity will occur between a rising tide and a falling tide. During the dry season, tidal flushing is not as significant to salinity levels because not much difference exists in salinity from the head of the bay to the mouth of the bay. Even during the dry season, there is a one to two ppt change over a six to twelve-hour period in any given day. During the dry periods in 1990, salinities elevated up to about 33 ppt, with very little stratification. During the rainy periods, in June and July, salinities dropped rather drastically. In some areas, salinity dropped as low as to 20 to 22 ppt. However, in spite of these drastic seasonal differences, significant variation in salinity occurs as a result of tidal exchange. The Big Bend area is split by the dividing line between Hillsborough Bay and what has been classified Middle Tampa Bay. The salinity for Hillsborough Bay from 1974 through June 2001 at the surface ranges from 0.4 ppt to 38.2 ppt. The middle portion of the same water column contained a range from 2.5 ppt to 39.2 ppt, and the bottom portion showed a range from 3.9 ppt to 37.2 ppt. The average salinities during this time frame were as follows: top 24.2 ppt, middle 24.3 ppt and bottom 25.3 ppt. In the portion of Tampa Bay called Middle Tampa Bay, the surface level salinity ranged from 6.8 ppt to 38.2 ppt. At middle depth, salinities ranged from 7.4 ppt to 38.8 ppt. The bottom level salinities ranged from 11.9 ppt to 39.6 ppt. This is a large range of salinities. Tampa Bay near the Big Bend Area In the area near the Big Bend facility, the Mote Marine Laboratory survey data reflects that the salinity during May and June 2000 reached 33.4 ppt. Further, Mote Marine Laboratory data showed that the North Apollo Embayment area salinities were well mixed vertically throughout the system. The total volume of water exchanged into the North Apollo Embayment and associated canals during a mean tide is approximately 35 percent of the total volume of all water contained in that area. This tidal exchange occurs twice per day. The double diffusion process does not create high salinity in the bottom of the water column in the North Apollo Embayment. The double diffusion process, without any external influence, would lead to both surface and bottom layers of the water column reaching salinity equilibrium. Further, the turbulent mixing that occurs due to tidal processes and wind- induced mixing dominates over the double diffusion process. The Mote Marine Laboratory study conducted between May and early June 2000 did not detect any significant salinity stratification in the area near the Big Bend facility. Vertical stratification of salinity does occur but typically only during the periods of significant freshwater inflow and not in extreme drought or dry conditions. None of the Mote Marine Laboratory data detected any pockets of high salinity water or significant density stratification in the North Apollo Embayment. Estuarine Characteristics Tampa Bay is an estuary. Estuaries are semi-enclosed bodies of saltwater that receive freshwater runoff from drainage or riverine inflow, which measurably dilutes the salinity levels in the estuary. As a result, salinity levels in estuaries typically are highly variable, ranging from 0 ppt where rivers flow into estuaries, to as high as 40 ppt under conditions of low freshwater input or at estuarine mouths where they connect to the sea. There are naturally occurring dissolved oxygen levels below 4.0 mg/l in parts of Tampa Bay, including at Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission ("EPC") monitoring stations 9, 80, and 81, which are the closest stations to the proposed discharge. Dissolved oxygen in the bay decreases at night because photosynthesis ceases and respiration exceeds production. Other environmental parameters are also highly variable in estuaries. Therefore, the organisms that inhabit estuaries have adapted to tolerate these highly variable conditions. Estuarine organisms have adaptive means for tolerating changing salinity levels, either by conforming their internal salinity levels to the ambient salinity levels, or by actively regulating their internal salinity levels by intake or excretion of salt. Organisms that are adapted to tolerate a wide range of salinities within the estuary are termed euryhaline organisms. Essentially all of the common organisms in estuaries, including the Tampa Bay estuary, are euryhaline organisms, and therefore are capable of tolerating and living in a wide range of salinities and salinity changes that occur due to tidal, meteorological, and other natural forces in the estuarine environment. Extensive baseline biological studies performed on Tampa Bay reveal that the most common species in the Tampa Bay estuary tolerate salinity levels ranging from 5 ppt to 40 ppt. Seagrasses Five species of seagrass inhabit Tampa Bay. Seagrasses are photosynthetic underwater flowering plants that are typically limited in occurrence and distribution by the water clarity. This limits the depth at which seagrasses can grow. In Tampa Bay, seagrasses are limited to the fringes of the Bay, and are largely limited to depths of approximately three feet, although they can live in depths of up to six feet in clearer parts of the Bay. Seagrasses are very sensitive to increases in nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients encourage algae growth, resulting in competitive stress in seagrasses. Due to poor water quality caused by sewage discharge, dredging and filling, and other activities in the Bay, seagrass distribution in Tampa Bay decreased from an historic coverage of approximately 80,000 acres in 1950 to approximately 20,000 acres by 1982. Improvements in water quality, largely due to sewage treatment improvements, have allowed seagrasses to naturally recolonize to approximately 27,000 acres coverage, as of 1994. Wave energy affects seagrass distribution. Seagrasses cannot colonize and survive in areas subject to significant wave energy. For example, the portion of Tampa Bay dredged and filled to create the Apollo Beach "hammerhead" area was once comprised of a broad shallow-water shelf that diminished wave energy, allowing dense seagrass flats to cover the shelf area. Destruction of the broad shallow-water shelf with fill to create the Apollo Beach hammerhead has converted the area to a high wave energy system that is unsuitable for seagrass colonization and growth. Consequently, the only seagrasses inhabiting the Big Bend area are found approximately one kilometer north of the Big Bend power plant, in an area known as "The Kitchen," and approximately one kilometer south of the Apollo Beach hammerhead area. Additionally, there are ephemeral patches of seagrass inhabiting some limited areas of the North Apollo Embayment. Seagrasses are adapted to tolerate a wide range of salinities. They have specialized cells that enable them to deal with salt stress and with broad ranges of and fluctuations in salinity. These adaptations enable them to survive and thrive in estuarine environments. Of the seagrass species that live in Tampa Bay, one species, Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass), occurs in salinity ranges from zero to 40 ppt. Manatee grass, Syringodium filiforme, is most productive in salinities between 5 ppt and 45 ppt. The other three species, Halodule wrightii (shoal grass), Halophila engelmannii (star grass), and Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass), tolerate salinity ranges from approximately 5 ppt to 60 ppt. Seagrasses better tolerate higher salinity levels than lower salinity levels. Lower salinity levels are usually indicative of increased stream and land freshwater runoff, which usually is accompanied by increased turbidity and lower water clarity. Four of the five seagrass species that inhabit Tampa Bay typically reproduce asexually by producing rhizomes, rather than by flowering and producing seeds. It is not completely clear why seagrasses in Tampa Bay reproduce asexually rather than by flowering and seed production. However, recent research indicates that climatic temperature is the controlling factor for flower and seed production. In South Florida, where the climate is warmer, seagrasses reproduce by flowering and seed production. In Tampa Bay, the lower winter temperatures appear to be the limiting factor with respect to successful flower and seed production in seagrasses. Recent studies by the University of South Florida ("USF") marine laboratory indicate that naturally occurring fungal diseases may also limit successful flowering and seed production in seagrasses in Tampa Bay. Since most seagrass species that live in Tampa Bay tolerate and thrive in salinities of up to 60 ppt, the higher salinity levels in the estuary do not appear to adversely affect the ability of seagrasses to reproduce. In fact, the lower salinity levels, below 5 ppt, stress seagrasses and are more likely to adversely affect reproduction than do higher salinity levels. Mangroves Three major species of mangrove inhabit the Tampa Bay area: the red mangrove, black mangrove, and white mangrove. Mangroves inhabit the intertidal area, so they are subjected to daily tidal flooding and drying. Consequently, they must tolerate a wide range of variability in salinity levels and in water availability. Most mangroves tolerate soil salinity levels up to 60 ppt, close to twice the salinity of Tampa Bay. Mangrove mortality due to salinity does not occur until soil levels approach and exceed 70 ppt salinity. Mangroves are also adaptable to, and inhabit, freshwater environments. Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Plankton are life stages or forms of larger organisms, or organisms that have no ability for major locomotion, so they spend their entire life spans floating and drifting with the currents. Plankton are extremely productive in that they reproduce in very large numbers within very short life spans. Holoplankton are planktonic organisms that spend their entire lives in planktonic form. Examples include diatoms, which are a type of phytoplankton, and copepods, which are a type of zooplankton. Meroplankton are "temporary" plankton that drift with the currents in juvenile or larval stages, then either settle out of the water column and metamorphose into an attached form (such as barnacles) or metamorphose into mobile life forms (such as crabs, shrimp, and fish species). Phytoplankton are planktonic plant species and life forms. Zooplankton are planktonic animal species and life forms. Zooplankton feed on phytoplankton. There are approximately 300 species of phytoplankton, and numerous species and forms of zooplankton, found in Tampa Bay. Most phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic species inhabiting Tampa Bay are euryhaline species capable of tolerating the wide range of salinity levels and abrupt salinity changes that occur naturally in the estuarine system. Most phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic species and life forms in Tampa Bay tolerate salinity levels ranging from zero to 40 ppt. They appear to be more tolerant of the higher end than the lower end of this salinity range. Manatee The manatee is the only endangered or threatened species identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as inhabiting the area where the desalination plant is proposed to be located. Manatees congregate at the Big Bend Power Station during colder months because they are attracted to the power plant's warmer water discharge. Manatees are considered to be estuarine species, but they have very broad salinity tolerance ranges. They migrate into and out of freshwater springs, through estuaries, into the Gulf of Mexico, and down to the Ten Thousand Islands, where hypersaline conditions frequently exist. Manatees routinely expose themselves to and tolerate salinities ranging from zero to more than 40 ppt. Fish The fish populations in Tampa Bay are comprised of a large number of marine euryhaline species. Due to their ability to osmoregulate their internal salinity levels, these fish species can inhabit salinity ranges from 5 ppt to as high as 40 ppt. Extremely extensive monitoring and sampling programs are currently being conducted in Tampa Bay and specifically in the vicinity of the Big Bend Power Station. The Hillsborough County EPC, SWFWMD, TBW, the United States Geological Survey ("USGS"), the Florida Marine Research Institute, USF, and Mote Marine Laboratory conduct separate biological monitoring programs that sample and monitor numerous biological parameters, including invertebrate infaunal and epifaunal species composition, abundance, and distribution; zooplankton and phytoplankton species composition, abundance, and distribution; emergent and submerged vegetation species composition, abundance, and distribution; and fish species composition, abundance, and distribution. These monitoring programs, which collect and analyze biological data from many areas in the Tampa Bay estuarine system, extensively monitor numerous biological parameters in the Big Bend area. Testing and Modeling Pilot Plant Although DEP's rules do not require the use of a pilot plant to demonstrate reasonable assurances, TBD installed a desalination pilot plant at the Big Bend site in November 1999. The pilot plant matched the hydraulics and configuration of the full-scale facility on a 1/1000 scale. The pilot plant used water from the Big Bend power plant discharge as its source water. The purpose of the pilot plant was to confirm design requirements for the desalination facility and to provide samples of intake water, filtered water, pretreated water, concentrate, and finished water to use for chemical characterization and analysis. Using a pilot plant is superior to using data from engineering projections or data from a different desalination facility because the pilot plant provides data specific to the Big Bend site. Data from the pilot plant were used to establish various effluent and other limits in the permit. Chemical Characterization Intake water, filtered water, pretreated water, concentrate, and finished water from the pilot plant were analyzed for over 350 parameters chosen by DEP to determine chemical characterizations and water quality. The pilot plant operation provides extensive chemical characterization of intake and discharge water composition and mass loading. This information was key in providing accurate information on the chemical composition and mass loading of the desalination discharge concentrate. With this accurate information on the components in the discharge water, DEP was provided more than sufficient reasonable assurance on the potential effect of the chemical components of the discharge. TBD tested the pilot plant discharge water for copper, nickel, other heavy metals, and those chemical constituents specified on the DEP chemical characterization form. The chemical characterization tested for concentrations of constituents based on a 12.8 to 1 dilution ratio, and even at that dilution ratio, did not exceed any of the state water quality parameters. However, to provide additional assurance that there will not be an exceedance of state water quality standards, the permit requires a minimum 20 to 1 dilution ratio. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation Testing Temperature and salinity affect the saturation point of dissolved oxygen ("DO") which is lowest when temperature and salinity are highest. DO saturation charts, which are typically used to determine DO saturation points, are not applicable because those charts do not contain the saturation point of DO at a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit and a salinity of 79 ppt, which represents the worst case conditions for the proposed desalination facility. Bench-scale testing was performed on the undiluted desalination discharge from the pilot plant by heating discharge concentrate samples to 109 degrees Fahrenheit and aerating the samples until the DO stabilized and reached saturation point. The pilot plant bench-scale testing determined that the saturation point of DO in the worst case desalination concentrate using a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit and salinity of 79 ppt was 5.7 mg/l. Toxicity Testing TBD conducted acute toxicity testing using a worst case scenario assuming a diluted effluent of one part desalination concentrate to 12.8 parts of power plant cooling water. Acute toxicity testing evidenced no mortalities, showing that the proposed discharge will not be a source of acute toxicity. TBD conducted chronic toxicity testing on raw concentrate from the pilot plant using a worst case scenario diluted effluent of one part desalination concentrate to 12.8 parts of power plant cooling water. The No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) for raw concentrate was determined to be 100 percent and the NOEC for diluted effluent was determined to be greater than 100 percent. The evidence did not explain these concepts, but it was clear from the tests that the proposed discharge will not be a source of chronic toxicity. TBD conducted its acute and chronic toxicity testing using protocols reviewed and approved by DEP. TBD's toxicity testing was also consistent with accepted EPA standards. Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts TBD prepared an Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts and Appendices ("Assessment") to analyze the potential biological impacts of the desalination plant discharge into the Tampa Bay estuary. The Assessment examined numerous physical parameters to determine the baseline environmental conditions in the portion of Tampa Bay proximate to the proposed desalination plant site. Among the physical parameters examined in determining the baseline environmental conditions were: salinity; sediment size and composition; metal content in sediments; and numerous water quality parameters such as transparency, biochemical oxygen demand, pesticides, dissolved metals, and pH. Consistency with SWIM Plan As part of the permitting process, TBD was required to demonstrate consistency of the proposed desalination discharge with the SWFWMD's Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242. TBD submitted an extensive SWIM consistency analysis, which is sufficient to meet the consistency requirement. Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation Level II Study TBD performed a Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) Level II study pursuant to Rule Chapter 62- 650 for the purpose of determining the effect of the desalination plant discharge on salinity levels in the vicinity of the desalination plant discharge. TBD had the Danish Hydrologic Institute ("DHI") use the data collected through the WQBEL Level II study in its near-field model of the Big Bend area. See Findings 105-117, infra. DEP also used the data and the DHI model results to establish the salinity and chloride effluent limitations in the permit. The USF Far-Field Model The far-field model was prepared utilizing the Princeton model code. The Princeton model is well recognized and is generally accepted in the scientific community. The goals of the TBD far-field model performed through USF by Dr. Luther and his team were to evaluate the change in bay-wide salinity due to the desalination plant discharge, both alone and in combination with changes in salinity due to enhanced surface water system withdrawals under new consumptive water use permits issued to TBW by SWFWMD to provide other, additional sources of needed potable water supply. The primary goal was to provide DEP with the best science possible of the potential real effects of this desalination discharge into Tampa Bay. The modeling system of Tampa Bay utilized in this analysis was developed beginning in 1989. Dr. Luther and his team have continued to make refinements to the model over the last 12 years. Dr. Luther took the modeling system he had developed over the years for Tampa Bay and did three primary model scenarios. The baseline case reproduced the observed conditions during the 1990 and 1991 years--a very dry period in 1990 and a fairly wet period for 1991--as accurately as possible with all the boundary conditions estimated from observations. This was to capture an entire range of conditions in Tampa Bay. The baseline was then compared with validation data and other observations to ensure it was approximating reality. The second simulated scenario included the same effects as the baseline with the added effect of the desalination intake and discharge at the Big Bend facility. The third case approximated cumulative effects from the TBW enhanced surface water system river withdrawals according to the proposed permit withdrawal schedules. For each test case, it was assumed that only two of the four cooling units at the TEC Big Bend plant were in operation for an entire two-year period, a worst-case scenario expected to occur less than four percent of the time in any given year. The model included data on water levels, temperature, and salinity throughout Tampa Bay. In addition, it takes into account wind blowing across the surface of Tampa Bay, rainfall, freshwater inflow from rivers, and other surface water and groundwater sources. The model was calibrated and validated against actual data to verify simulation of reality as closely as possible. The model was calibrated and validated utilizing Hillsborough County EPC and Tampa Oceanographic Project ("TOP") salinity data. Physical Oceanographic Real Time System ("PORTS") and TOP data on current flow velocity and water levels were utilized to calibrate and validate water levels and current. The acoustic doppler current profilers used in the model study are able to measure the speed at which the water is traveling and the direction at various levels above the bottom within the water column. The TBD far-field model very accurately reproduces the observed tidal residual velocities observed with the acoustic doppler current profilers. The far-field model reflects any stratification that would occur during the model simulations. The far-field model simulates recirculation that occurs between the discharge and intake water. Recirculation is small due to the model's use of the actual bathymetry of Tampa Bay. There are significant shoals and other features that separate the water from the discharge and the intake canal that preclude significant recirculation most of the time. After submitting the far-field model report to DEP, further study was performed on the far-field model that calculated residence time for Tampa Bay. One study dealt with "residence" or "flushing" time. The concept of "residence time" is not well-defined; put another way, there are many different accepted ways of defining it. It may be defined in a simplified manner as the time it takes a patch of dye to flush out of the bay. However, for purposes of the studies performed on the far-field model, theoretical "particles" in model grids were tracked, and "residence time" was defined as the time it would take for the number of particles initially in a grid cell to decrease to 34 percent of the initial number. Using this approach and definition, residence time in the vicinity of the Big Bend facility on the south side where the discharge canal is located was less than 30 days. Immediately offshore of the area of the discharge, the residence time reduced to less than 15 days. The study indicated that the area of the Big Bend facility has a relatively low residence time. In the model's baseline run (for the desalination plant impacts only), maximum differences in salinity occurred during the month of April 1991. Throughout the two-year time period, the maximum concentration of salinities did not increase from this point, and in fact decreased. The maximum average value for salinity difference is 1.3 ppt at the grid cell located directly at the mouth of the TEC Big Bend discharge canal. More than two grid boxes away in any direction and the value falls to less than 0.5 ppt increase in salinity. The maximum salinity of any given day for the far- field model was in the range of 2.1 to 2.2 ppt, which compares favorably with the DHI near-field model which showed an increase of 2.5 ppt. The salinity changes caused by the cumulative effects scenario are smaller than the natural variability during the wetter months in Hillsborough Bay in cells immediately adjacent to the concentrate discharge. Increases in salinity will occur in the vicinity of the discharge canal but will be very localized and small relative to the natural variability in salinity observed in Tampa Bay. At a distance of more than a few hundred meters from the mouth of the discharge canal, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to determine statistically that there would be any increase in salinity from the desalination concentrate discharge. Over the two years modeled, there is no trend of increasing salinity. No long-term accumulation of salt is evidenced within the model. Further, no physical mechanism exists within the real world that would allow for such a long- term accumulation of salinity in Tampa Bay. Dr. Blumberg's independent work verified the conclusions in the far-field model constructed by USF. Dr. Blumberg's estimated flushing times are consistent with those found in the far-field model. DHI Near-Field Model The TBD near-field model was prepared by DHI. DHI prepared a three-dimensional near-field model to describe the potential salinity impacts from the discharge of the proposed desalination plant. The DHI model is a state-of-the-art model whose physics are well documented. By model standards, the DHI near-field model is a high resolution model. The DHI model essentially "nests" within TBD's far-field model. The near-field area includes those areas that would be directly influenced by the combined power and desalination discharges, the North Apollo Embayment and the residential canal system adjacent to the discharge canal. The near-field model was designed to determine whether or not the desalination plant would cause continuous increases in salinity and to predict any increase in salinity in the North Apollo Embayment and the associated canal system. In addition, DHI evaluated the potential for saline recirculation between the discharge and the intake via short circuiting due to overtopping of the existing break water. In order to construct the near-field model, existing data on bathymetry, wind sources, meteorology and other parameters were examined and analyzed. In addition, the information from an intensive data collection effort by Mote Marine Laboratories on current velocities, temperatures, and salinities was incorporated into the model. TBD conducted bathymetric surveys in the residential canal areas, the North Apollo Embayment, and the area between the discharge canal and the intake canal. The model has a vertical structure of six grids and reflects vertical stratification that would occur in the system being modeled. The vertical grids in the model can detect a thermal plume one meter in depth (the size of the thermal plume from TEC's discharge). Information about the TEC thermal plume was incorporated into the model and utilized to calibrate the model's predictive capabilities. The model took into account interactions between the temperature plume and the salinity plume. The model predictions matched the measured temperature plume created by the TEC discharges quite well. The near-field model conservatively assumed a scenario in which only the two TEC units with the smallest total through-flow of 691.2 million gallons a day cooling water were active. DHI then assumed production of a maximum 29 mgd in product water. A salinity level of 32.3 ppt at the intake was utilized in the simulation. The model assumed a conservative wind condition which results in less mixing and dispersion of the plume. Further, wind direction tended to be from the southwest or west during the simulation, which tends to push the plume against the TEC break water which tends to reinforce recirculation. SOBAC witness Dr. Parsons agreed that these simulations for April and May 2000 constituted extreme conditions. DHI ran its model for a total time period of six weeks. The "warm up" for the simulation took place from April 15 to May 7, followed by the "calibration" simulation from May 8 to May 22. An additional validation sequence was run from May 25 to June 8. The production run was defined as the three weeks from May 8 to May 29, 2000. The intensity of the calculations performed in the near-field model due to its high spacial resolution and numeric restrictions make it computationally demanding. The calibration runs took approximately a week to 10 days to run on a state-of-the-art computer. From a computational standpoint, it is not practical to run the near-field model for a two-year time period. The model shows good agreement between its water levels and current velocity to observed data. The model reflects the recirculation of the discharge water that would occur in the system. The maximum salinity for the extreme case scenario in the near-field model is an increase in salinity of 2.5 ppt. With three condensers running, under the modeling scenario comparing the base condition to the desal discharge, there is a maximum difference of only 2.0 ppt. Further, there is no indication of any continuous build up of salinity in the near- field area due to the desalination plant discharge. DHI performed many sensitivity runs on the model, including one which examined rainfall conditions. The results of a two-inch rainfall analysis show that rainfall profoundly freshens the water in the near-field area. Since the modeling was done in a time period of extreme drought, with no freshwater inputs, the ambient or background salinity trended up over the time frame of May through June. As with any estuary, if freshwater inflow is removed, the estuary will get saltier until freshening occurs. Even with the model simulation period extended an additional 10 days beyond that reflected in TBD Ex. 1-O, the model results did not show any increase of salinity differences caused by the desal facility above 2.5 ppt. Based on data from field collections, the operation of the desal plant under worst case conditions did not exceed the assimilative capacity of the near-field environment. A 10 percent salinity change (3.23 ppt) was not reached in any grid cell. The Blumberg Study The "Environmental Impact Assessment for a Seawater Desalination Facility Proposed for Co-Location with the Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Power Generation Facility Located on Tampa Bay, Florida" authored by Norman Blake and Alan F. Blumberg ("Blumberg Study") is a hydrodynamic model study combined with an analysis of potential biological effects. The Blumberg Study was performed at the request of and presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida. Dr. Blumberg's model used 1998 and 1999 as its baseline, which consisted of an extremely wet year followed by an extremely dry year. The model assumed a scenario of two cooling units in operation pumping 656 mgd of discharge flow. The results of the Blumberg Study are very similar to the results of TBD's far-field model. In addition, the model ran for a 9-year period without any sign of ongoing build-up of salinity. After the two-year model run, the second year ran for an additional 7 simulated years for total model simulation period of 9 years. The Blumberg Study found salinity only increased by 1.4 ppt in the North Apollo Beach Embayment. In fact, the Blumberg Study showed no salinity build-up after the second year of the 7-year portion of the model simulation. The Blumberg Study found that the flushing time for the area near the Big Bend facility ranges from 4 to 10 days. The Blumberg Study applied a formula to predict potential DO saturation level changes. The analysis concluded a small change to DO saturation assuming full saturation on average of 7 mg/l. The Blumberg Study predicted that the desalination discharge would not lower actual DO levels below 5 mg/l. The Blumberg Study concluded that the marine ecology will not be affected by the desalination facility operation. Older Two-Dimensional Models of Tampa Bay Significant strides have been made in hydrodynamic modeling over the last 10 years, with the standard changing from two-dimensional models to three-dimensional models. Three-dimensional models provide more complete results than two-dimensional models. In the late 1970's through the late 1980's, modeling was constrained by the computing limitations of the time and could not examine the difference in water layers in a bay and potentials for currents going in different directions or speeds in different layers of the bay, as now done by state-of-the-art three-dimensional models. A two-dimensional model cannot accurately represent the tidal residual circulation in an estuary such as Tampa Bay, because it omits some of the critical physical forces that drive this type of flow. As the acoustic doppler current profiler showed, water flows in the top of the water column in one direction and flows in the bottom of the water column in a different direction. A two-dimensional model would average these flows over the entire vertical water column. In doing so, it would show much slower residual flow (and, therefore, longer residence time and a longer time to flush the system). SOBAC offered the testimony of Dr. Carl Goodwin, a civil engineer with the USGS. Dr. Goodwin provided testimony on two-dimensional model studies he did for the USGS in the late 1980's to assess the effects of dredging the shipping channel in Tampa Bay. Dr. Goodwin's studies, contained in SOBAC Exs. 69 and 70, suggested the existence of "gyres" in Tampa Bay. But no "gyres" have been observed, and it now appears that these gyres actually do not exist but are two- dimensional modeling artifacts, as shown by state-of-the-art three-dimensional modeling of Tampa Bay. In an earlier version of Dr. Luther's Tampa Bay model, an experiment was performed running the model in a vertically average mode to mimic the two-dimensional model. In this mode, the model was able to reproduce the "gyres" that Dr. Goodwin observed in his two- dimensional model. When the physical equations that related to pressure forces (baroclines) were reactivated in the three- dimensional model, the "gyres" disappeared. In addition, this experiment showed that the two- dimensional model simulation showed residence times an order of magnitude longer as compared to the full three-dimensional simulation. This means that residence time would be 10 times longer in the two-dimensional model than in the three- dimensional model, which takes into account baroclinic forces. Subsequent to the publication of his modeling studies (SOBAC Exs. 69 and 70), Dr. Goodwin found that it would take approximately 110 days for water to travel from the mouth of the Hillsborough Bay to the mouth of Tampa Bay in 1985. This calculation by Dr. Goodwin was not subjected to peer review or the USGS process. However, dividing the 110-day time period with correction factor of 10 discussed above, Dr. Goodwin's corrected estimate would predict an 11-day period for transport of water from Hillsborough Bay to the mouth of Tampa Bay--similar to the Blumberg Study and far-field model results. Opinions of Other SOBAC Experts Besides Dr. Goodwin, SOBAC also elicited some general opinions regarding the combined thermal and salinity plume from Dr. Mike Champ, called as an expert in the areas of environmental biology and chemistry, and from Dr. Wayne Isphording, called as an expert in sedimentology and geochemistry. In part, Dr. Champ based his opinion on a misunderstanding that Tampa Bay is not well-mixed or well- circulated at the location of the Big Bend power plant. In this respect, Dr. Champ's testimony was contrary to all the evidence. Even the "gyres" suggested by Dr. Goodwin's two- dimensional model studies would suggest a great deal of mixing in Middle Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend plant. To the extent that the opinions of Dr. Champ and Dr. Isphording differed from the modeling results, they are rejected as being far less persuasive than the expert opinions of the modelers called by TBD, who spent far more time and effort studying the issue. Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Standard Oxygen is a gas which can dissolve in water to some degree. There are two measurements of DO in water: saturation point and actual level. The saturation point of DO in water equates to the maximum amount of DO that water will hold. The actual level of DO is a measurement of the oxygen in the water. Since the saturation point is the maximum amount of DO that water will hold in equilibrium, the actual level of DO in water is typically equal to or lower than the saturation point. Desalination will affect the saturation point of DO to the extent that it increases salinity. Increased salinity decreases the saturation point of DO because it lowers the potential for water to hold oxygen. But desalination would not affect the actual level of DO in the water if the saturation point remains above the actual level of DO in the water. TBD determined that in the worst case scenario using undiluted desalination discharge, the lowest possible saturation point of DO would be 5.7 mg/l. If the actual level of DO is above 5.7 mg/l, desalination may lower that actual level of DO to 5.7 mg/l. If the actual level of DO is below 5.7 mg/l, desalination will not lower the DO. Since TBD will aerate the water in the pretreatment process, if the actual level of DO is below 5.7 mg/l, the actual level of DO in the discharge water will be increased. The permit DEP proposes to issue to TBD requires that DO at the point of discharge from the RO plant meet the following: that instantaneous DO readings not depress the intake DO when intake DO is at or below 4.0 mg/l, and that they be greater than or equal to 4.0 mg/l when intake DO is greater than 4.0 mg/l; that 24-hour average readings not depress the 24-hour average intake DO when the 24-hour average intake DO is at or below 5.0 mg/l, and that they be greater than or equal to 5.0 mg/l when the 24-hour average intake DO is greater than 5.0 mg/l. The evidentiary basis for SOBAC's argument that the proposed permit's DO limitation allowed violations of state water quality standards was the testimony of Dr. Champ. But it was evident from his testimony that Dr. Champ was not even aware of the effluent limitations until they were pointed out to him at final hearing. Nonetheless, and although Dr. Champ barely had time to read the DO limitations, Dr. Champ immediately opined that the proposed DO limitations virtually invited water quality violations. He dismissed the permit language out-of-hand as being "loosey-goosey," "fuzzy-wuzzy," and "weasel-like." Actually, there is no conflict between the proposed permit's DO limitations and the water quality standards and water quality criteria in DEP's rules. Other witnesses, particularly Tim Parker of DEP, properly compared the language in the permit with DEP's rules containing water quality standards and water quality criteria. Mr. Parker pointed out that the rules must be read in harmony with each other. Rule 62-302.530(31) contains DO water quality criteria and requires that the "actual DO shall not average less than 5.0 in a 24 hour period and shall never be less than 4.0." Rule 62-302.300(15), a water quality standard, states: Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having a water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. Mr. Parker testified that the "natural conditions" referred to in Rule 62-302.300(15) are those found in the intake water to the desalination facility. TBD will not violate either the water quality criteria or the water quality standard for DO. If the actual level of DO in the intake water is less than 5.0 mg/l, TBD will not decrease the actual level of DO in the water below 5.0 mg/l because the actual level of DO is below the worst case saturation point of 5.7 mg/l. The water quality standard in Rule 62-302.300(15) does not prohibit discharges having DO levels below 4.0 mg/l when that discharge does not cause or contribute to existing DO violations. TBD will not cause or contribute to existing DO violations because if the level of DO in the intake water which is the natural condition is less than 4.0 mg/l, TBD will not decrease the actual level of DO in the water. To the contrary, the desalination process will increase the actual level of DO whenever it is below 5.0 mg/l. TBD has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed desalination discharge will not violate the DO water quality standards and criteria in Rules 62-302.530(31) and 62- 302.300(15) because the desalination process will not decrease the actual level of DO below 5.0 mg/l. SOBAC argued that DO levels will drop between intake and discharge as a result of desalination. Some of this argument was based on the testimony of Dr. Mike Champ, one of SOBAC's expert witnesses. But Dr. Champ's testimony on this point (and several others) is rejected as being far less persuasive than the testimony of the expert witnesses for TBD and the other parties. See Finding 196, infra. SOBAC's argument apparently also was based on a fundamental misapprehension of the results of the Blumberg Study, which SOBAC cited as additional support for its argument that desalination will decrease DO at the discharge point. The Blumberg Study only spoke to desalination's effect on DO saturation concentrations, not to its effect on actual DO levels. (In addition, contrary to SOBAC's assertions, the Blumberg Study did not model DO saturation concentrations but only inferred them.) pH The pilot plant measured and analyzed the potential for pH changes in the desalination process and demonstrated that the desalination process reduced pH by no more than a tenth of a pH unit. pH ranges in natural seawater from top to bottom change over one full pH unit; a tenth of a pH unit change would be well within the natural variation of the system. TBD has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed desalination discharge will not violate Rule 62- 302.530(52)(c), which requires that pH shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background of coastal waters, provided that the pH is not lowered to less than 6.5 units or raised above 8.5 units. Limitations for pH in the permit ensure compliance with Rule 62-302.530(52)(c) at the point of discharge to waters of the state. Temperature Nothing in the desalination process adds heat to the discharged water. To the contrary, the desalination process may dissipate heat due to the interface of the intake water with the air surface in the pretreatment process. Further, the effect of removing 25 mgd of heated cooling water as desal product water reduces the heat load coming out of the TEC plant cooling water discharge by that same 25 mgd. Temperature readings taken as part of the pilot plant study confirm a slight decrease in temperature across the desalination process. Metals The pretreatment process employed by TBD will result in a reduction in metals in the treated water. Ferric sulfate is added to the intake water upstream of the sand filters in the pretreatment process to precipitate metals into solid material which can be captured by the sand filters. Adding ferric sulfate in the pretreatment process results in a net reduction in the total mass load of metals in the discharge water. Initial calculations in the permit application that 104 pounds of ferric sulfate were being discharged in the desalination concentrate were based on using 20 mg/l of ferric sulfate and a conservative estimate of 95 percent settling of solids, with 5 percent of the ferric sulfate being discharged in the desalination concentrate. Further testing through the pilot plant revealed that coagulation optimizes at 9 to 14 mg/l of ferric sulfate with 97.5 percent of the solids settling, resulting in only 2.5 percent (52 pounds) of the ferric sulfate being discharged per day. The desal facility discharge of iron is minute in comparison to naturally occurring metals within the surface water flowing into Tampa Bay from the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Increases in iron due to ferric sulfate addition are predicted to result in a diluted discharge in which the iron level is still below Class III marine surface water limitation of 0.30 mg/l. Even SOBAC witness Dr. Isphording confirmed that there are no concerns caused by metals that TBD is adding during the process. Discharge Effect on Metal Absorption/Desorption Dr. Isphording limited his concerns to the reaction of higher salinity, DO, and redox to the sediments already contained within the area beyond the discharge point. Dr. Isphording admits that he cannot quantify what the potential release of heavy metals would be due to these factors. Absorption of metals occurs when an organic or clay particle attracts to its surface a metal. Biota do not obtain metals if the metal is held in sand or silt size particles. Biota, be they plant or animal, in most cases obtain the metals they receive from tiny particles that are suspended in the water called microparticulate material. Microparticulate material is generally referred to as colloidal phase. Typically, this phase is on the order of a tenth of a micron in size. Biota obtain metals only if they are present at clay- size particles. Only 10 percent of the quantity of metals that are theoretically available to the biota in a given environment is actually absorbed in tissues. Salinity Has Little Effect on Metals Salinity does not exert a controlling influence on absorption/desorption reactions except at very low salinities. If the salinity is zero, which is essentially a pure freshwater environment, and the salinity level then rises 3 ppt, there would be profound changes in the metal loads, for example, where rivers meet estuaries or seawater. When salinity levels in the water are on the order of 25 ppt, small salinity perturbations such as 2.5 ppt will have a very small effect on absorption/desorption reactions. In fact, the influence can be either positive or negative, but in general they are going to be quite small. Potential releases or gains of metal from salinity changes of 2.5 ppt, at the area of the discharge canal, would be difficult to predict, and it is uncertain whether the change would be positive or negative. pH Will Have Virtually No Effect on Metals Although SOBAC witness Dr. Isphording knew of no change to pH caused by the desalination process, he testified to the alleged effect of lowered pH on the metal in the sediments and water column. Only large pH differences can have a significant influence on absorption or desorption of metals. Any effect on absorption from a decrease in pH on the order of a tenth of a pH unit will be hidden within the natural variations of the estuarine system. See Finding 140, supra. Effect of Lower Oxygen Levels on Metals Redox is basically an oxidation-reduction phenomenon. In order for the low levels of oxygen to have a reducing effect resulting in a release of metals from sediments, virtually all of the oxygen would have to be removed from the water. Basically, the environment would have to reach anoxic conditions. Even then, some metals such as copper would remain within the sediments. In an oxygen-buffered system, redox perturbations will not significantly or measurably mobilize metals. Sediments can be oxidizing in the upper part and then generally become more reducing at depth. The area near the desal discharge does not have organic-rich deep sediment. Proposed Discharge Effect on Bioavailability of Metals The proposed desalination plant's discharge will not increase the bioavailability on metals above that of natural variations and any changes would be hard to discern or measure. Nor will there be any appreciable accumulation of metals in sediments in the receiving water resulting from the proposed desalination discharge. DEP has not established any sediment quality standard and monitoring of sediments is not a NPDES requirement. The desalination plant does not result in violations of Class III marine surface water criteria and standards. No Synergistic Effects Caused by Discharge There are no synergistic effects from the proposed discharge wherein the combination of two elements such as temperature and salinity together would create a new effect. Instead, pH, redox, salinity, and temperature may have small, immeasurable effects that may offset each other. No Adverse Impacts to Biota Comprehensive species lists of phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, aquatic flora (including seagrasses and mangrove species), and threatened or endangered species inhabiting the area were prepared based on extensive review of applicable scientific literature on Tampa Bay. The salinity tolerance ranges of these species were determined through extensive review of information on salinity ranges associated with species capture, laboratory studies, review of studies addressing species types and salinity tolerances in hypersaline estuaries, and species salinity tolerances determined for other desalination projects. When background salinity is above 10 ppt, changes in salinity of a few ppt have no effect on most organisms. Lower salinities are more detrimental than high salinities to most marine organisms, as long as the upper limit does not exceed a value of approximately 40 ppt salinity. Most planktonic species and life forms can tolerate salinities of up to 40 ppt. Mangrove and seagrass species living in the area can tolerate salinity levels as high as 60 ppt. Benthic macroinvertebrates in the area routinely experience, tolerate and survive in salinity levels ranging from approximately 6 ppt to over 39 ppt under natural environmental conditions. Fish species in the area routinely experience and tolerate salinity levels as high as 39 to 40 ppt under natural environmental conditions. Estuaries serve as fish nurseries because fish species lay their eggs in estuaries, and the larval and juvenile life stages live and mature in estuaries. Due to extreme range of conditions that naturally occur in estuaries, fish reproductive strategies have adapted to enable fish eggs and larval and juvenile life stages to tolerate the wide range of natural conditions, including ranges in salinity levels, that are endemic to estuaries. Egg, larval, and juvenile fish stages may be better able to tolerate extreme range of salinities than adults life stages. A 2.5 ppt increase in salinity and the permitted maximum increase of 10 percent above the intake chloride level is within the range of tolerance and variability that seagrasses, mangrove species, benthic macroinvertebrates, biota, fishes, manatees, zooplanktonic and phytoplanktonic species, and other organisms and life forms living in Tampa Bay routinely encounter and tolerate in the natural environment. A 2.5 ppt increase in salinity with the maximum permitted salinity discharge limit of 35.8 ppt of salinity and the permitted maximum increase of 10 percent above the intake chloride level will not adversely affect the survival or propagation of seagrasses, mangroves, benthic macroinvertebrates, biota, zooplankton, phytoplankton, fish, fish eggs, or juvenile life stages of fish species, or other organisms or life forms in Tampa Bay, and specifically the portion of Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the desalination plant discharge. The Shannon-Weiner Index, which is a biological integrity index codified at Rule 62-302.530(11), requires that the index for benthic macroinvertebrates not be reduced to less than 75 percent of established background levels. Since there will be no adverse impacts to benthic macroinvertebrates due to the desalination discharge and since the level of salinity increases anticipated will tend to benefit benthic macroinvertebrates population, TBD has met the criterion in Rule 62-302.530(11). The Mote Marine Laboratory data showed that Tampa Bay experienced a 2.0 ppt change in salinity over the course of one month. No fish kill or observable die-offs of species were observed or reported from this natural occurrence of elevated salinity. The desalination discharge will (1) not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats, (2) not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge, (3) not violate any Class III marine water quality standards, and (4) maintain water quality for the propagation or wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life. The desalination discharge meets the antidegradation standards and policy set forth in Rules 62-4.242 and 62- 302.300. Discharge Disposal Options Analyzed As part of the permitting process, TBD demonstrated that the use of land application of the discharge, other discharge locations, or reuse of the discharge was not economically and technologically reasonable, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242. TBD submitted a sufficient analysis of these options as part of its Antidegradation Analysis. (TBD Ex. 1G; TBD Ex. 200, Fact Sheet, p. 16). Further Protection in the Permit The permit review of the desalination permit application is one of the most thorough ever conducted by DEP. The proposed permit has conditions which create and provide a wide margin of environmental protection. The permit sets effluent limitations of various constituents which are reasonably expected to be in the desal facility discharge and provides for monitoring programs to ensure compliance with those effluent limitations. The monitoring requirements of the proposed permit exceed the monitoring requirement imposed on other facilities in the Tampa Bay area. Effluent Limitations DEP established effluent limitations using the Class III marine state water quality standards, data provided from the pilot plant regarding the chemical characterization, the modeling conducted by DHI and the University of South Florida, and the water quality data collection by Mote Marine Laboratory in connection with the establishment of the WQBEL. The effluent limitations contained in the permit are consistent with DEP rules. The proposed permit restricts TBD to the lesser of either the chloride limit of 10 percent above intake or the salinity limit of 35.8 ppt. There is no state water quality standard for salinity. The permit limit for chlorides complies with Rule 62- 302.530(18). The permit's additional requirement of a minimum dilution ratio has the effect of limiting chlorides to 7 percent above intake for 384 hours per year and 5 percent above intake for the remainder of the year and thus provides extraordinary assurance that the state water quality standard for chlorides will be met. Dr. Champ was SOBAC's primary witness in support of its argument that the proposed permit allows a discharge with excessive salinity. But it was apparent from his testimony that Dr. Champ misinterpreted the permit limitations for salinity. See Finding 196, infra. Dr. Champ conceded that the chloride limit of 10 percent above intake was appropriate but focused on the 35.8 ppt maximum, as if it overrode the chloride limitation. As found, the opposite is true. TBD will be limited to 10 percent above intake for chlorides even if the result is salinity far less than the daily maximum of 35.8 ppt. Dr. Champ also had concerns about comparing the discharge to intake chloride levels as not being representative of "normal background." He argued (as does SOBAC) for comparing discharge to chloride levels somewhere else in Middle Tampa Bay, nearby but far enough away to insure no influence from the discharge. But the modeling evidence provided reasonable assurance that there will not be a great deal of recirculation of discharge to intake and that the recirculation expected will not cause salinity to build-up continuously over time. The modeling evidence is accepted as far more persuasive than Dr. Champ's testimony. See Finding 196, infra. The only metals for which effluent limitations were established in the permit are copper, nickel, and iron because these were the only metals determined to be close to the state water quality standard levels by the pilot plant studies. The actual levels of such metals in the desalination discharge will be less than those in the pilot plant testing because the dilution ratio (12.8 to 1) used in the pilot testing is much higher than the minimum dilution ratio required by the permit (20 to 1). The permit effluent limitations for copper, nickel, and iron are based on, and comply with, DEP Rules 62- 302.500(2)(d) and 62-302.530(24), (39) and (45). The permit effluent limitations for Gross Alpha are based on and comply with the requirements in Rule 62- 302.530(58). Biological treatment of the desalination plant discharge concentrate is not required because it consists of seawater. Monitoring for Effluent Limitations DEP is able to separately determine TEC's compliance with its permit from TBD's compliance with the effluent limitations in the proposed desalination permit because of how the facility is designed and the monitoring is constructed. Monitoring requirements in the proposed permit were determined with reference to the probability of desal facility discharge exceeding specific water quality standards. DEP rules do not require monitoring for each and every constituent detected above background concentrations, only those which would probably exceed state water quality standards. The permit requires monitoring of effluent limitations at the intake to and discharge from the desalination facility and the calculation of the diluted effluent levels in the co-mingled discharge water. In order to calculate the effluent components in the diluted discharge water, continuous monitoring is performed on the TEC cooling water discharge rate of flow. Parameters of DO, conductivity, salinity, chlorides, copper, iron, nickel, radium, gross alpha, and effluent toxicity are measured at both intake and discharge pursuant to proposed permit. Monitoring of Intake Monitoring of the intake will be located, after interception off TEC Units 3 and 4, prior to entering the desalination plant. Using a sampling location of the intake to the desalination facility prior to filtering or chemical addition for background samples is consistent with the definition of "background" in DEP Rule 62-302.200(3). EPC Stations 11, 80, 81, 13, and 14 are not proper locations for background samples because salinity varies with tides and depth and those stations are too distant from the actual intake point. EPC station 9 is not a good location because it is closer to the discharge than the permit sample point. Monitoring of Discharge Monitoring of the discharge will take place in the wet well prior to discharge into TEC's cooling water discharge tunnels. This monitoring location is in compliance with Rule 62-620.620(2)(i) which provides for monitoring of effluent limitations in internal waste streams. Monitoring of the desal facility discharge concentrate in each of the four cooling water discharge tunnels is impractical due to the high volume of dilution and addition of four potential discharge locations. Once the desal facility concentrate is diluted by the TEC cooling water discharge, it is much more difficult to obtain accurate water quality testing for constituents at such minute levels. Monitoring of the Combined Discharge Concentrations Calculations determine the mixing ratios of the desalination concentrate with TEC's cooling water. Using the flow data from TEC, the calculations will accurately determine the water quality of the co-mingled discharge water. Compliance with Permit Effluent Limitations The proposed permit requires TBD to monitor constituents for which there are effluent limitations on either a daily, weekly or monthly basis, depending on the constituent. The frequency of monitoring for each constituent is based on comparing the expected levels of the constituent to the water quality standard and analyzing the probability of the desal facility discharge exceeding that standard. The monitoring provides additional assurances beyond the pilot plant studies, testing and modeling that no water quality standard will be violated. Continuous monitoring is not necessary to successfully monitor discharges. Monthly measurements are sufficient to determine compliance even for a daily permit level because the chemical characterization studies provide reasonable assurances that the desalination concentrate will not exceed the effluent limitations. Monthly monitoring provides further checks and balances to assure that the desalination discharge is in conformance with the effluent limitations and DEP rules. The EPA only requires that monitoring occur at least once a year. Conductivity provides a direct correlation to salinity and chlorides. Measuring conductivity provides salinity and chloride levels by basis of calculations and is typically used as a surrogate for monitoring chloride and salinity continuously. Salinity and chloride cannot themselves be measured continuously because they are measured by lab tests. The permit requires conductivity to be monitored continuously, not because DEP believed the desalination discharge would be near the chloride limitation, but rather to be extremely conservative. The permit conditions treat an exceedance of salinity or chlorides based on conductivity readings to be a violation of the permit effluent limitations for salinity and chlorides. TBD provided reasonable assurance to DEP that the proposed desalination discharge would not violate the DO water quality standards and criteria in Rules 62-302.530(31) and 62- 302.300(15). The permit condition requiring monitoring of DO provides verification that desal facility discharge will meet the DO water quality standards. Even SOBAC's witness Dr. Champ admitted that a continuous measurement for DO is not as valuable as random weekly samples. External Monitoring Programs The proposed permit requires TBD to develop and submit to DEP a Biological Monitoring Program to monitor seagrasses, benthic macroninvertebrates and fish populations to be consistent with existing Tampa Bay monitoring programs. This program will provide an effective means of monitoring the potential impacts of the desalination discharge. The proposed permit also requires TBD to implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program for three monitoring stations located proximal to the intake, the discharge and the North Apollo Beach Embayment which will monitor conductivity, salinity, DO and temperature continuously. These monitoring programs will provide additional ambient data to DEP. If the data indicate an exceedance or reasonable potential for an exceedance of water quality standards, DEP may reopen the permit in accordance with the reopener clause contained in the permit. These monitoring programs go beyond the requirements in DEP rules. Additionally, DEP does independent monitoring of NPDES discharges without notice and on a purposely unpredictable basis. Proof of Financial Responsibility Rule 62-620.301(6) addresses when DEP may require a permit applicant to submit proof of financial responsibility to guarantee compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. TBD's compliance history was taken into consideration during the permitting process. Adequate financial assurance were provided in the permit application. (TBD Ex. 1I). Further, the permit conditions added by the settlement agreement (TBD Ex. 470) provide for additional financial assurance beyond those that can be required by the NPDES program and DEP rules. Additional Comment on SOBAC's Evidence As already indicated, SOBAC elicited the testimony of several expert witnesses at final hearing to support its contentions. But none of SOBAC's experts spent a great deal of time studying TBD's desal project, especially compared to witnesses for the other parties. Mostly, SOBAC experts expressed general scientific principles that were not directly tied to specifics of the desal project or were very general expressions of concern. Often, SOBAC's experts were not familiar with all the efforts of experts offered by the other parties to address those very concerns. Except for Dr. Champ, no SOBAC expert opined that the proposed permits would result in violations of DEP statutes and rules. Some SOBAC experts expressed opinions that only would be relevant if there were insufficient assurances in proposed permits that DEP statutes and rules would not be violated. Statistical evidence presented was not particularly relevant. Dr. Goodwin As previously mentioned, Dr. Carl Goodwin was willing to provide testimony on work he did for the USGS, but he gave no expert opinions on the permits which are the subject of these proceedings. As also previously discussed, his two- dimensional model studies were constrained by computational limitations. Even so, his studies indicated that flushing in Tampa Bay was becoming more rapid in recent years. In addition, even if the "gyres" suggested by his two-dimensional studies actually existed, they would tend to promote mixing in Tampa Bay in area of the Big Bend power plant. Dr. Champ Dr. Champ's first opinion was that 35.8 ppt is too high a salinity limit and would result in "oceanic" conditions. He attempted to compare this result to results of diversion of substantial amounts of freshwater inputs to the Black Sea for agricultural purposes--a totally different situation not suitable for comparison to Tampa Bay. Initially, Dr. Champ suggested a limitation of a 10 percent increase above "background" or "ambient" conditions; it was apparent that initially Dr. Champ was not cognizant of the 10 percent over intake chloride limitation in the proposed permit. When he was made aware of the chloride limit, he misinterpreted the two limits, saying that TBD would not be limited to the lower of the two. When it was suggested that he might have misinterpreted the two salinity limits, Dr. Champ testified that chlorides should be compared to a "natural" or "environmental" control site somewhere nearby but outside the influence of the combined TEC/TBD discharge; he said it was a "farce" to compare chlorides to a control site "inside the plant." In so doing, he seemed not to recognize the purpose of the comparison made in the proposed permit--to isolate and identify the impacts of TBD's desal process. In addition, dismissing without much consideration the contrary results of extensive and sophisticated modeling, Dr. Champ opined off- handedly that DO would decrease due to higher salinity that would recirculate and build-up over time. In part, Dr. Champ based this opinion on his misunderstanding that Tampa Bay is not well-mixed or well-circulated at the location of the Big Bend power plant. This was contrary to all the evidence; even if the "gyres" predicted by Dr. Goodwin's two-dimensional model existed, they would suggest a great deal of mixing in Middle Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend plant. Dr. Champ next misinterpreted the DO limits in the proposed permit. See Finding 133, supra. Dr. Champ then predicted a decrease in species diversity as a result of higher salinity and lower DO. (To the contrary, salinity increases in the amounts predicted by the far greater weight of the evidence probably would result in somewhat of an increase in species diversity.) Ultimately, Dr. Champ testified that consequences to marine organisms would be dire, even if salinity increased only by 2.5 ppt, because a "salinity barrier" would form across Middle Tampa Bay in contrast to more gradual natural changes in salinity. The far greater weight of the evidence was to the contrary. Dr. Champ made several suggestions to avoid the calamitous results he predicted: require use of a cooling tower to reduce the temperature of the combined TEC/TBD discharge; collect the desal brine concentrate and barge it to the Gulf of Mexico; require intake and discharge pipes extending into the shipping channel in Middle Tampa Bay. But Dr. Champ did not study or give a great deal of thought to implementation of these suggestions. Besides, the other parties proved that these measures were not needed for reasonable assurances. In an attempt to buttress his opinion testimony, Dr. Champ also testified (along with SOBAC's President, B.J. Lower) that the TEC intake canal is virtually devoid of life and that biodiversity in the discharge canal is very low. This testimony was conclusively refuted by the rebuttal testimony of Charles Courtney, who made a site visit after SOBAC's testimony and described in detail a significant number of healthy species in the intake canal, including oyster communities, xanthid crabs, porcellanid crabs, snook, anemones, bivalves, polychaete, and mangroves with seedlings. Of the one and one- half pounds of oysters that Mr. Courtney sampled, he estimated that approximately fifty percent of those oysters were living, which represents a very healthy community. Mr. Courtney further noted that some of the crabs were carrying eggs, which indicates an active life cycle for those species. As to the TEC permit modification, Dr. Champ testified that it was “in-house stuff” which would not affect the environment outside the TEC plant. No other SOBAC witness addressed the TEC permit modification. Dr. Isphording SOBAC called Dr. Wayne Isphording as an expert in sedimentology and geochemistry. Dr. Isphording expressed no concern that the desal process would add metals to Tampa Bay. Essentially, he gave opinion testimony concerning general principles of sedimentology and geochemistry. He testified that heavy metals bound in sediments are released naturally with increases in salinity, but that salinity levels would have to be extreme to result in the release of abnormal quantities of such metals. He admitted that he had performed no studies of sediments in Tampa Bay and declined to offer specific opinions that metals in fact would be released as a result of predicted salinity increases. Dr. Isphording admitted that he knew of no condition in the proposed Desal Facility permit which would cause or allow a violation of state water quality standards. He was aware of no statute or rule requiring more monitoring and testing than is required in the proposed permit. Dr. Parsons SOBAC offered the testimony of Dr. Arthur Rost Parsons, an assistant professor of oceanography at the Naval Postgraduate School, in an attempt to raise questions regarding the near-field and far-field modeling which were provided by TBD to DEP during the course of the permitting process. However, not only had Dr. Parsons not done any modeling in Tampa Bay himself, he was not provided numerous reports and clarifications relating to the studies he was called to critique. He only reviewed an interim report dated November 1, 2000, regarding the near-field model. Dr. Parsons testified that the DHI model used for the near-field study was an excellent shallow water model. He found nothing scientifically wrong with it and testified that the "physics and the model itself is . . . well–documented." Dr. Parsons also did not contradict the results of the DHI model. Instead, he noted that the modeling task was difficult and complex, he described some of the model's limitations, and he testified to things that could have been done to increase his confidence in the model results. One of Dr. Parson's suggestions was to run the model longer. But the evidence was that, due to the model's complexity and high computational demands, it would have been extremely expensive to run the model for longer periods of time. Another of Dr. Parson's suggestions was to use salinity data would be to use the information that the model itself generated with regard to salinity distributions instead of a homogeneous set of salinity data. Dr. Parsons was concerned that use of homogeneous salinity data would not reflect the effect of "double diffusion" of heat and salinity, which would result in sinking of the combined heat. But engineer Andrew Driscoll testified in rebuttal that the effects of "double diffusion" would cease once equilibrium was reached and would not result in a hypersaline plum sinking to the bottom. In addition, he testified that turbulent mixing from tide and wind would dominate over the effect of "double diffusion" at the molecular level so as to thoroughly mix the water, especially in the shallow North Apollo Beach Embayment. Dr. Parsons also suggested that the model be run for rainy season conditions to see if the effects of vertical stratification would increase. But even if vertical stratification increased as a result of rain, salinity also would be expected to decrease. The scenario modeled was "worst case." Dr. Parsons also suggested the use of a range of temperatures for the combined heat/salinity plume instead of an average temperature. However, he conceded that it was not inappropriate to use average temperature. Instead, he would have liked to have seen the model run for a range of temperatures to see if the model was sensitive to temperature differences so as to increase his confidence in the results. Dr. Parson's testimony focused on the near-field model. His only comment on the far-field model was that he thought it should have used the out-puts from the near-field model (as the near-field used the outputs). Scott Herber SOBAC offered no direct testimony on the impact of the Desal Facility discharge on seagrasses in Tampa Bay. The testimony of Steve Herber, a doctoral student at the Florida Institute of Technology, related to the vulnerability of seagrasses, in general, to changes in salinity. However, Mr. Herber had no specific knowledge of the seagrasses present in Tampa Bay and had not performed or reviewed any scientific studies upon which his opinion could be based. He reached no conclusions about the specific permits at issue in this proceeding, nor about the effect of the Desal Facility on seagrasses in Tampa Bay. In contrast to Mr. Herber, the testimony of TBD's expert, Robin Lewis, and SWFWMD's expert, Dr. David Tomasko, provided detailed information about the seagrasses located in Tampa Bay. Both have studied seagrasses in Tampa Bay for many years and have been involved in mapping seagrass distribution in a variety of bays and estuaries along the west coast of Florida. Dr. Tomasko criticized witnesses for SOBAC who attempted to draw conclusions about Tampa Bay based on studies of other bays and estuaries because each bay has unique characteristics that cannot be extrapolated from studies of other bays. Dr. Tomasko and Lewis testified that seagrasses in Tampa Bay are becoming more abundant, that dissolved oxygen levels are increasing, and that water clarity in Tampa Bay is also improving. Dr. Mishra Dr. Satya Mishra was called by SOBAC as an expert in statistics. He is not an expert in the discrete field of environmental statistics. He has never been involved in the development of a biological monitoring program and could not provide an opinion regarding what would be an adequate sample size for this permit. He essentially expressed the general opinions that for purposes of predictive statistical analysis: random sampling is preferred; statistical reliability increases with the number of samples; and 95 percent reliability is acceptable. Dr. Mishra performed no statistical analysis in this case and could not conclude that the sampling provided in the proposed permit would not be random. Ron Chandler Ron Chandler, a marketing representative for Yellow Springs Instrument Corporation (YSI), simply testified for SOBAC regarding the availability of certain types of continuous monitoring devices. He did not offer any opinions regarding whether or not reasonable assurance required continuous monitoring of any specific parameter or any monitoring different from or in addition to what is proposed in TBD's proposed permit. John Yoho SOBAC called John Yoho as a financial and insurance expert to criticize the terms of an agreement by TBD, TBW, and DEP to settle Hillsborough County's request for an administrative hearing (DOAH Case No. 01-1950). This agreement is contained in TBD Ex. 470. But Yoho admitted that he had no knowledge regarding what is required to obtain an NPDES permit in terms of financial assurances. He also indicated that none of his testimony should be understood as relating in any way to financial assurances required for such a permit to be issued. Alleged Improper Purpose The evidence did not prove that SOBAC participated in DOAH Case No. 01-2720 for an improper purpose--i.e., 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 TEC's permit modification applications. To the contrary, the evidence was that SOBAC participated in this proceeding in an attempt to raise justifiable issues arising from the peculiarities of the relationship of TEC's permit modification application to TBD's permit application. Although SOBAC suffered adverse legal rulings that prevented it from pursuing many of the issues it sought to have adjudicated on TEC's permit modification application, it continued to pursue issues as to the TBD permit application which, if successful, could require action to be taken on property controlled by TEC and, arguably, could require further modification of TEC's permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: (1) issuing the proposed permit number FL0186813-001-IWIS, as set forth in TBD Ex. 203 with the addition of the two permit conditions specified in TBD Ex. 470; (2) issuing proposed permit modification number FL0000817-003-IWIS, as set forth in TBD Ex. 225; and (3) denying TEC's request for attorney's fees and costs from SOBAC under Section 120.595(1). Jurisdiction is reserved to enter an order on TBD's Motion for Sanctions filed on August 13, 2001, regarding SOBAC expert Ralph Huddleston. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. __________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William S. Bilenky, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Morgan & Hendrick 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9604 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3930 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2543 E. A. Seth Mills, Jr., Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700 Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Joseph D. Richards, Esquire Pasco County Attorney's Office 7530 Little Road, Suite 340 New Port Richey, Florida 34654-5598 Cathy M. Sellers, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1508 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact The Parties The City is a municipal corporation of the State of Florida. The City owns and operates a public water utility system which supplies potable water to the City of Cocoa, Cocoa Beach, Rockledge, Cape Canaveral, certain unincorporated areas of Brevard County, Merritt Island, Patrick Air Force Base, Cape Kennedy, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, and the Cocoa Beach Ocean Tracking Annex. Potable water is provided to approximately 136,000 persons in that service area. The District is an agency created pursuant to Chapter 373, F.S., with the responsibility for regulating consumptive uses of water in a nineteen county area of the State of Florida, including all of Brevard County and that part of Orange County on which the City's wellfield is located. Deseret Ranches is a Utah corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Deseret owns real property in eastern Orange County surrounding the City's existing wells. Twenty-one of the City's proposed wells are to be located on Deseret's property. Deseret's operations in the vicinity of the wells include citrus, cattle, sod harvesting, forestry, and wildlife management for hunting leases. Holland Properties, Inc., is a closely-held Florida corporation owning real property in eastern Orange County on which three of the City's proposed wells are to be located. Holland's business is primarily citrus and cattle. Holland has four wells on its property, one at a dwelling, one at the bunkhouse and cattle pens, and two in the citrus groves. Doris Keller, the Isle of Pine Property Owners Association and remaining individual petitioners own residential property near and bordering Lake Mary Jane within a two-mile radius of proposed City wells #32 and 33. The property owners generally maintain individual wells for domestic and irrigation purposes. The corporate and individual petitioners are existing legal users of water. The System and WellField The City's public water utility system consists of a wellfield and raw water collection lines, the Wewahootee pump station, transmission lines from the pump station to the treatment plant, the Dyal water treatment plant, and a distribution system which includes both elevated and ground storage. The distribution system is located in Brevard County; the wellfield and rest of the utility are located in eastern Orange County, west of the St. Johns River. The entire system and its users are located within the boundaries of the District. The City's wellfield is divided into an eastern wellfield and a western wellfield which together have a total of twenty-three active wells and nine inactive wells. Active wells 7A, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are located in the western wellfield. Active wells 1, 2, 3, 4, 4A 1, 5, 7, 7T, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12A, 12B and R-1; and inactive wells 1T, 2T, 3T, 4T, R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5, and R-6 are in the eastern wellfield. The wells designated with a prefix "R" are aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells. These are used to inject partially treated water into an underground formation for storage and later use in meeting maximum day demands on the utility. All six ASR wells have been constructed, and well R-1 is operating under a temporary consumptive use permit. All of the ASR wells are located on the 63-acre Dyal water treatment plant site owned by the City. When all are operational the six ASR wells will have a combined recovery capacity of approximately 8 million gallons a day (MGD). The City has been operating its wellfield for more than thirty years. The Application On February 20, 1979, the District issued consumptive use permit (CUP) #2-095-0005 to the City for its eastern Orange County wellfield. The permit approved a total of 30 MGD average daily withdrawal and 40 MGD maximum daily withdrawal. This total included an existing use of 16 MGD average daily withdrawal and 23 MGD maximum daily withdrawal, approved for a period of 25 years. The new use, 14 MGD average daily withdrawal and 17 MGD maximum daily withdrawal, was approved for 10 years. In September 1988, the City submitted its CUP application to renew the new use approval due to expire in February 1989. This application also sought an increased allocation to meet projected demand for the City's service area. The application included a request for authority to withdraw surface water from the Taylor Creek Reservoir, but this request was withdrawn in February 1989. The total consumptive use allocation sought in CUP application #2-095-0005 is 31 MGD average daily withdrawal and 48 MGD maximum daily withdrawal, which total includes the approved existing use which will not expire until the year 2004. The City proposes to add seven new Floridan aquifer wells (wells 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44) and eleven new intermediate aquifer wells (wells 5T, 6T, 8T, 9T, 10T, 11T, 12T, 13T, 14T, 15T and 16T) to the eastern wellfield; all to be located on land currently owned by Deseret. The City proposes to add six new Floridan aquifer wells to the western wellfield: wells 20, 21, 22, 31, 32 and 33. Wells 20, 21 and 22 will be located on land currently owned by Deseret. Wells 31, 32 and 33 will be located on land currently owned by Holland. The application includes the addition of all six ASR wells on land owned by the City. The City proposes to activate two existing Intermediate aquifer wells, 2T and 3T. District staff issued a technical staff report dated February 6, 1989, recommending approval of the September 1988 application, with conditions. After the application was amended in November 1989, District staff again reviewed it and prepared revised permit conditions, dated February 21, 1990. Petitioners have not directly contested those conditions but have proposed their own conditions if their position regarding denial of the permit is rejected. Description of the Geology and Hydrogeology An aquifer is a geologic unit, portion of a geologic unit or combination of geologic units containing water that can be withdrawn economically. There are four significant aquifer systems in the area of the City wellfield: the Surficial aquifer, the Intermediate aquifer, the upper Floridan aquifer and the lower Floridan aquifer. The potentiometric surface, or "head" of an aquifer refers to the pressure surface of a confined or semi-confined aquifer. It is the level above the top of the aquifer to which water will rise within a tightly cased well completed in the aquifer. Fine grained sands, clay and shell deposits exist from land surface to approximately 50 feet below land surface (BLS). The saturated portion of this unit comprises the Surficial aquifer, sometimes called the shallow or water table aquifer. From approximately 50 feet to 60 feet BLS there is a discontinuous clay lens. This unit acts as a semi-confining unit between the Surficial aquifer and the underlying Intermediate aquifer. There is a reasonably good hydraulic connection between the Intermediate and Surficial aquifer in the vicinity of Lake Mary Jane. The Intermediate aquifer lies approximately 60 feet to 100 feet BLS, and is comprised of water-bearing shell layers mixed with sand. Below the Intermediate aquifer is a thick clay layer, called the Hawthorn formation, which is a confining layer separating the Intermediate from the underlying Floridan aquifer. Within the Hawthorn are discontinuous lenses of marl (clayey limestone) which in some areas can produce water. The Hawthorn extends from approximately 100 feet BLS to 250 feet BLS, and becomes less thick heading west. The Hawthorne formation in the subject area has extremely low permeability, making it very difficult for water to move through the formation. It is widely accepted that there is a poor hydraulic connection between the Floridan aquifer beneath the Hawthorne, and the Intermediate and Surficial aquifers above the Hawthorne. The subject area has one inch or less per year recharge to the Floridan from the overlying aquifers. "Recharge" means the supply of water to an aquifer from an outside source, for example, rainfall. Below the Hawthorne formation is the massive limestone and dolomite sequence of the Floridan aquifer, divided generally into an upper and lower region, with the upper Floridan beginning at approximately 250 feet BLS descending to 650 feet BLS, and the lower region extending from approximately 650 feet BLS to greater than 1100 or 1200 feet BLS. Most of the water in the Floridan aquifer in the subject area enters horizontally from the Floridan aquifer in the recharge area of western Orange County. There is a natural flow from west to east, from the high recharge area and higher head, to the lower head in the east. All but one of the active wells in Cocoa's existing wellfield draws from the upper Floridan aquifer. Well 7T withdraws water from the Intermediate aquifer. Wells 1T, 2T, 3T and 4T, currently inactive, are designed to withdraw water from the Intermediate aquifer. None of the proposed new wells will draw from the lower Floridan or Surficial aquifers. The Floridan and Intermediate aquifers are capable of producing the quantity of water requested by the City, a fact which at various times in this proceeding has been admitted by Petitioners' experts, Lichtler and Drake. Wellfield Design and Operation In its 30 years of operation the City has made some wellfield management errors. A number of wells were drilled too deep and pumped too hard, causing deterioration in the water quality of wells in the eastern wellfield when poorer quality water located deep within the Floridan aquifer was drawn upward into the wells. The City has begun addressing elevated chloride levels by backplugging some of its upper Floridan aquifer wells, with success. The Petitioners are urging expansion of the City's backplugging program. However, the production capacity of a well is reduced by backplugging. The total capacity of the City's wellfield with all existing active wells operating is approximately 38 MGD. In 1989 the peak demands for water came close to exceeding capacity on several occasions, thus there is currently no reserve capacity in the wellfield. Due to the lack of reserve, the District issued water shortage orders dated November 14, 1989 and April 10, 1990, imposing water shortage restrictions in the City's service area. Reserve capacity is essential to sound wellfield management. It provides flexibility and the ability to meet water demands during routine maintenance or in the event of loss of a well due to pump breakdown or lightning strike. Additional wells will allow the City to redistribute pumpage to reduce the negative impacts of pumping in the eastern wellfield. Twenty percent, the amount requested in the City's application, is a reasonable and appropriate reserve in excess of the City's projected maximum daily demand. The City's current wellfield is physically incapable of meeting projected 1997 water demands, even without a reserve. Water Demand Conservation and Reuse In 1989 the City withdrew water from its wellfield at a rate of 26 MGD average daily withdrawal and 38 MGD maximum daily withdrawal. The City's application requests an increased allocation to meet a reasonable projected demand over the next seven years. In 1989 the City served approximately 136,000 persons and anticipates serving 160,000 by 1997, based on projections from the Brevard County planning department. In projecting need for the year 1997, the City took an average of the results of two projection methods: a straight line method and a population- based method. The straight line method is based on historical average and maximum daily demands on the system from 1984 through 1987, the four full years prior to the City's application submittal. This method projects a demand in 1997 of approximately 36 MGD average daily withdrawal and 57 MGD maximum. The population-based method calculates future average daily demands based on projections of future equivalent residential connections. Future maximum daily demands are calculated by applying an historic ratio of maximum day to average day demands. The ratio for the period 1983-1987 was 1.57. This method predicts an average daily demand of 29 MGD and maximum daily demand of 45 MGD in 1997. Averaging the two results yields a prediction of 32.5 MGD average demand and 51 MGD maximum daily demand for the City's service area in 1997. Reasonable persons can differ as to future demand projections. Gerald Hartman, Deseret's expert, projected less demand but only projected to the year 1995, as he advocates a shorter term permit than the seven years requested by the City. He also obtained historical data over an eighteen year period between 1970 and 1987, when the area was experiencing a lower growth rate. When extrapolated to a seven, rather than five year projection, Hartman's figures are reasonably close to those projected by the City. Historical demand data for the years 1988 and 1989 since the City's application was filed, are consistent with the City's projections. It is generally preferable to over-project demand, rather than under- project and have insufficient water available for the service area's needs. The District staff's proposed special permit conditions #12 and 13 provide a gradual increase in allocation over the period of the permit, up to 48 MGD maximum daily withdrawal in 1997. In addition, permit condition #9 reserves to the District the right to modify annual allocations if the permittee does not reach its new projected demand in the service area. Although the projected maximum daily demand is 51 MGD, the application seeks 3 MGD less, or an allocation of 48 MGD. Some of this deficit will be mitigated by more effective reuse and conservation methods. The City employs a full-time conservation officer to conduct education and retrofitting programs. The City's conservation efforts are consistent with other permitted users, and its commitment to reuse measures has been reasonable. The City and other governmental units or installations within its service area are reusing domestic wastewater at a rate of approximately 30%. Except for its contract with the City of Cocoa Beach, the City currently does not have the authority to impose reuse and conservation beyond its own municipal jurisdiction. As the contracts expire, renewal contracts will include such provisions. The District requires additional information to support requests with per capita usage above 150 GPD. Based on the total number of residential connections and water usage billed to residential meters, the City reasonably derives a per capita usage rate of 72 gallons per day. Alternate sources are not reasonably available to meet the City's system's near future water demands. Development of the Taylor Creek Reservoir as a surface water source will take approximately five to eight years -- too long to meet the City's needs now and in the interim. Reverse osmosis plants (sometimes called desalination) may be a viable source of water in the Brevard County area in the future, but they have a limited potential yield and are a costly alternative. Moreover, this alternative is not available now for Cocoa's near-future needs. Storage facilities are useful for meeting hourly demands during the day. They are filled at night and drained during the day when necessary. However, with a lightning strike or mechanical failure which might take several days or several weeks to repair, the storage tanks will not replace a lost well. ASR wells are a relatively new technology. The first in Florida became operational in 1984. They do not produce new water, but rather provide additional storage capacity, much like above-ground tanks. Operation of the City's one permitted ASR well has raised questions as to how long the quality of water injected into the well may be maintained. ASR wells cannot be considered a reliable substitute for additional production wells at this time. Nor is expansion of interconnections with neighboring water systems a reasonable present alternative. The City has two interconnections with the Melbourne water system and one is planned with the Titusville system. These are for emergency use only, as these two municipalities do not have excess water supply for Cocoa's service area needs. Impact of the Proposed Consumptive Use on Water Levels The City's wellfield has been in operation for thirty years and there is no evidence of adverse impact on water levels in wells owned by the Petitioners. No one has ever complained to the City regarding interference with the production of water from his or her well, with lake levels, or with vegetation. At the request of the District, the City's consultants conducted studies to determine the impact of the proposed withdrawals on existing legal users of water. The Intermediate aquifer studies consisted of aquifer performance tests (APT) and pump tests at the Wewahootee Pump Station and along Wewahootee Road, and groundwater flow modeling. The Floridan aquifer studies included APT's at ASR Well R-1 at the Dyal treatment plant, and groundwater flow modeling of proposed withdrawals from the Floridan aquifer. An APT involves withdrawing water from a well and measuring the withdrawals on water levels in that or other monitor wells. The test is used to determine hydraulic characteristics of a well and the aquifer within the vicinity of the well. Groundwater flow models are used in the field of hydrology to mathematically simulate impacts of withdrawals on one or more hydrologic formations. They are commonly relied on by regulatory agencies in evaluating applications for consumptive use. In many cases these models are the only tool available for assessing impact of water supply facilities that have not been constructed. For its groundwater flow model, the City's consultants used a model prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) called USGS MODFLOW. This is a numerical model used to calculate groundwater flows and aquifer levels for various hydrogeologic units in a system. It is a model to determine regional, rather than local, impacts. The consultants also used a more limited "analytic" model to predict the effects on water levels at various locations near the existing and proposed production wells. In measuring impacts to the upper Floridan aquifer, parameters or aquifer characteristics were obtained from historical data on the existing wellfield, published hydrogeologic information and past APT's and pump tests performed on existing city wells. This data made it unnecessary to conduct additional APT's. It was unnecessary to model the impact of proposed upper Floridan withdrawals on the Intermediate and Surficial aquifers because of the poor hydraulic connection between the Floridan and overlying aquifers. The MODFLOW model was appropriately calibrated by comparing the simulated potentiometric surface with a USGS potentiometric surface map showing the actual measured 1987 potentiometric surface of the upper Floridan aquifer, using both 1985 and 1987 pumpage amounts. Although USGS potentiometric surface maps involve, by necessity, some extrapolation and interpretation of surfaces between a series of observation wells, these maps are commonly relied upon by hydrogeologists. Calibration such as that conducted by the City produces a reasonable simulation of actual measured levels. Because there was very little information available on the characteristics of the Intermediate aquifer in the subject area, three APT's were conducted by the City's consultants to determine the hydraulic characteristics of the Intermediate Aquifer and to establish its lateral extent in the wellfield. Additionally, single well pumping tests were conducted at several sites along Wewahootee Road. The parameters derived from these tests were used with the groundwater flow model to predict area drawdowns and the impact of the City's proposed withdrawals on the area's water resources. For the groundwater flow model the City used a one mile by one mile grid at the center of the study area. There are no standard grid sizes, and the size used by the City is adequate for determining regional impacts. In the area of the City wellfield, the City's groundwater flow model tends to overestimate expected drawdowns. The city's analytical model was used to predict water level changes locally within the grids at varying distances from existing and proposed wells. This included withdrawal impacts on the potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan Aquifer in the immediate vicinity of the production wells and beneath the properties owned by Deseret, Holland, and the individual property owners. The analytical model and its parameters applied by the City were reasonable. The City's proposed consumptive use will cause a redistribution of wellfield pumping that will reduce stress on the upper Floridan aquifer in the eastern wellfield and will shift withdrawals into the western wellfield. The potentiometric surface of the Upper Floridan in the eastern wellfield will rebound (rise), and the surface will decline slightly in the western wellfield. This will more evenly spread the stress. Because of the poor hydraulic connection between the upper Floridan and overlying aquifers (Intermediate and Surficial) the reduction in potentiometric surface of the upper-Floridan by the City's proposed withdrawal will not have a measurable impact on the withdrawal capability of any Surficial or Intermediate aquifer well. Nor will the levels of any surface water bodies or wetlands be impacted by the City's use. The City's withdrawals will have no effect on users of the lower Floridan aquifer. The closest existing legal user is the Orlando Utility commission and its facilities are so far away that there is virtually no interaction between the City's withdrawals and the potentiometric surface of the lower Floridan at Orlando Utility's wellsites. It is reasonably predicted that the difference between proposed and current City withdrawals from the upper Floridan will cause approximately 0.6 to 0.8 feet additional drawdown in Deseret's wells; 2.4 to 3.3 feet drawdown in Holland's wells; and 1.3 to 4.4 feet in Keller and other individual Petitioners' wells. Effects on the withdrawal capability and operation of any existing well due to the City's proposed upper Floridan withdrawals will be insignificant and well below the 10% or greater reduction which, according to the District's Applicants' Handbook, Section 9.4.4., is the threshold for presumption of interference with an existing legal use. The results of modeling Cocoa's withdrawals from the Intermediate aquifer predicted a worst case scenario of no more than 25 feet drawdown in the Intermediate aquifer. Water table (Surficial aquifer) drawdowns will range from approximately .24 feet to .34 feet. The drawdown is too insignificant to adversely affect the use of lakes and impoundments. Drawdown effect decreases rapidly with distance from the wells, with any decline in water table inconsequential beyond a half mile radius. The District has not established minimum flows for surface water courses nor minimum levels for aquifers or surface water sources. No Intermediate or Surficial aquifer wells are located close enough to the area of influence to be affected by the City's Intermediate aquifer withdrawals. Because of the poor hydraulic connection between the Floridan and Intermediate aquifer, no Floridan wells will be affected by the City's Intermediate aquifer withdrawals. Withdrawals from the single existing ASR well has not caused any adverse impacts to the water resources of the area, to existing wells, land uses, vegetation or lakes. There has been no saline intrusion nor land subsidence problems. All six ASR wells are located in the same area, 300-400 feet apart, and no adverse impacts from these are reasonably foreseen. Even the Petitioners encourage their use. None of the Petitioners performed modeling or other analysis to show drawdowns or other impacts from the City's proposed upper Floridan and Intermediate aquifers. Instead, Petitioners' experts concentrated on criticisms of the City's parameters, assumptions and methodology in an effort to erode confidence in the City's findings. The experts presented by Petitioners had little or no experience in preparing or using the groundwater flow model USGS MODFLOW, used by the City. Nor did the Petitioners' experts actually apply other parameters to the model to determine ultimate results. District staff reviewed the groundwater flow model and analytic modeling performed by the City's consultants. Richard Levin, a hydrologist employed by the District who was trained by the authors of USGS MODFLOW, ran the model on his computer to verify the results reported by the City. Levin's calibration scenario included an additional 20 existing withdrawal sources not utilized by the City, but his results did not significantly vary from those obtained by the City. Levin also reran and confirmed the results of the City's analytic model. If, as urged by Petitioners, there is no substitute for actual experience in determining adverse impacts, that actual experience will be derived once the new wells are in place and operating. As a condition of permit approval, the District has the authority to curtail withdrawals if such impacts occur. The City will be required to mitigate any adverse impacts. There are methods available for the City to mitigate impacts on the use of other wells and the City is capable of implementing those methods. Impacts of Proposed Consumptive Use on Chloride Levels Concern about the chloride problem addressed in paragraphs 30 and 31, above, led the District staff to require that the City conduct solute transport modeling in the application process. A solute transport model is a computer simulation of the changes in water quality in an aquifer due to changes in water level in the aquifer. A solute transport model is used to evaluate the impact of groundwater withdrawals on water quality and the impact of withdrawals on the movement of naturally occurring low quality water. The use of such models in the field of hydrology is universally accepted. It is considered a highly sophisticated tool. The City's consultants used a solute transport model prepared by the USGS referred to as "USGS MOC". Calibrated parameters from the Floridan aquifer USGS MODFLOW Model were used to create a solute transport model of the smaller area immediately surrounding the City's wellfield. Within this area, water quality baseline conditions were input and the model was run to simulate recent chloride levels at the wellfield. It was run again to simulate the impact of the proposed Floridan Aquifer withdrawals on chloride levels. It was not necessary to analyze the Intermediate or Surficial aquifers, as historic data from these sources indicate no change in water quality; therefore elevated chlorides in these units is not a concern. Withdrawals from the Intermediate aquifer will not affect water quality of the Floridan aquifer due to the poor hydraulic connection. The modeling analysis did not take into account the beneficial effects of rehabilitating Floridan aquifers in the eastern wellfield (the backplugging), thus the model results are a conservative prediction of anticipated chloride levels. The parameters input into the MOC Model are reasonable. The grid size was selected to provide twice the resolution of the MODFLOW model, or 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile. Chloride concentrations used in the model came from data from existing production wells as they were being installed. They represent the original unstressed condition of the Floridan aquifer. Petitioners have posited that the City's proposed new wells will draw poorer water quality from the east into the area of the western wellfield and into their own wells. This theory suggests that chloride contamination is based on lateral intrusion, rather than "upconing" of poor quality water from below. The modeling, as well as experience in management of the City's existing wellfield, with one peculiar exception, disprove that theory. Monitoring of the eastern wellfield has not shown significant lateral movement of the lower quality water. The higher chloride levels appear confined to the production wells themselves. Success of the City's backplugging program also suggests that the chloride is moving up from below, rather than laterally. When wells experiencing higher chlorides in the eastern wellfield have been allowed to rest for short periods, the heavier chloride-laden water subsides back into the lower zones of the aquifer, and water quality is immediately improved when pumping resumes. Lateral intrusion problems resolve more slowly since horizontal movement through the aquifer is quite slow. The predominant natural groundwater flow in this region is from west to east, and lateral instrusion from east to west would have to flow against the natural gradient of the pieziometric surface. This fact is acknowledged in an informative although perhaps somewhat outdated, 1968 treatise co-authored by Deseret's expert, William F. Lichtler, Water Resources of Orange County, Florida, (Holland exhibit #20, p. 127) The District performed a geochemical pattern analysis of the City's wells to determine the relative dominance of calcium chloride versus sodium chloride. Water in the recesses of the lower Floridan aquifer is relic seawater, characterized by a predominant sodium chloride content. A fault or fracture along the St. Johns River to the east of the wellfield has allowed relic seawater to move upward into the upper Floridan in that area. The lower reaches of the upper Floridan contains water with calcium chloride content where fresh water from the western recharge area has moved in to displace the relic sea water, but which, because of its age, has picked up calcium ions from the limestone through which it has traversed. The chloride water found in the City's wells is predominately calcium chloride, drawn upwards, rather than laterally, through the aquifer. An anomaly occurs in the monitor well C, close to wells 7A, 13 and 14, where upconing occurred between depths of 1351 and 1357 feet BLS, and not between depths of 1044 and 1050 feet BLS. Chlorides concentration occurred, however, in Cocoa well 14 accross the road at depths of only 252 to 761 feet BLS. Deseret's expert claims that this is explained by the fact that chlorides have travelled horizontally from the east into well 14. The City's experts conjecture that the better water quality in the deeper zone and abrupt decrease in quality is caused by a dead pocket of fresh water, removed from the usual exchange and flow system, or a lens of fresh water similar to that which has occurred in other areas of the state even when no pumping stress is found. The weight of evidence supports the City's position that degradation of water quality is occurring primarily through upconing, and very insubstantially through lateral intrusion. This means that the City's proposed plan to reduce withdrawals from the existing eastern wellfield Floridan aquifer wells, redistributing pumping over the new wellfield configuration, continuing to backplug wells with elevated chlorides and submitting a wellfield operations plan pursuant to the District's recommended conditions, will improve existing conditions in the eastern wellfield. The proposed withdrawals in the western wellfield should not draw the poorer quality water westerly into Petitioner's wells. Saline water intrusion or encroachment is considered significant when a consumptive use causes chloride concentrations to exceed 250 milligrams per liter (mg/l), the state standard for drinking water. The City's solute transport model comparing existing permitted withdrawals to the proposed consumptive use reveals that the modeled area having chloride concentration exceeding 250 mg/l will substantially decrease from 3.4% to .4%, and the modeled area having chloride concentration between 50 and 150 mg/l will increase from 34.2% of the area to about 37% of the area. These predictions do not take into consideration the additional improvements which will occur by rehabilitating the eastern wellfield Floridan aquifer wells. The water quality in the Intermediate aquifer remains very good, and lack of a good hydraulic connection with the underlying Floridan makes it extremely unlikely that higher chloride concentrations will be moved from the Floridan into the Intermediate and surficial aquifers. Proposed use of the six ASR wells will not harm the quality of the groundwater underlying the Dyal treatment plant. It is more likely that injection of partially treated drinking water will help flush out the brackish water in the area. Petitioners did not perform modeling or other analysis demonstrating that water quality impacts from the City's proposed consumptive use are any different from those presented by the City. As with the groundwater flow model, Petitioner's experts instead sought to impeach the presumptions and techniques employed by the City's consultants in the solute transport model. Some of these are the same as used in MODFLOW. Although qualified as experts in solute transport modeling, Petitioner's witnesses have no experience in using the model, USGS MOC, at issue in this proceeding. The City proposes three new monitor wells in its 1988 and 1989 applications: one each in the eastern and western wellfield, and a third to be located north of the wellfield, somewhere between the wellfield and the Orange County landfill. These and existing monitor wells will facilitate monitoring of the flow of lower quality water. The District's conditions drafted in February 1990 to address the City's application, as amended, prescribe a detailed water quality monitoring regimen, including the submittal of water quality test results to the District prior to production withdrawals from any of the proposed Floridan aquifer wells in the eastern and western wellfields. Certain supply and monitor wells are required to be sampled and analyzed, with the results to be sent to the District semi-annually. The wellfield operation program which will be developed by the City and approved by the District must include the provision that the eastern wellfield Floridan aquifer wells will not pump more than 5.20 MGD on a combined average annual basis and the western wellfield Floridan aquifer wells will not pump more than 2.07 MGD each on an average annual basis. These conditions and the condition that the City must mitigate any adverse water quality impacts caused by its withdrawals will protect Petitioners and other existing legal users. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Consumptive Use District staff and the City's consultants conducted field investigations in the one mile corridor of Deseret's property, the center of which is the site of existing and proposed City Intermediate aquifer wells. This area is characterized by improved pasture land, pine flatwoods, citrus groves, freshwater marsh, wetland mixed forest, cypress sloughs and domes, freshwater swamps, and borrow pits and ditches. Land uses found in this area are forestry, livestock production, citrus production, sod production, landscape plant harvesting, hunting and fishing leases, and borrow pit operation. Vegetation and land uses on Holland's property are improved pasture, citrus groves, pine flatwoods and pine/palmetto rangeland, mixed hardwood wetland, cypress forest, wetland mixed forest, wet prairie, and ponds and borrow pits. The land use existing on the individual Petitioner's property is low density single family residential. In order to analyze the impact of withdrawals on vegetation and land uses, the City's consultants looked at rainfall data and water level data from three monitor wells, performed a double mass analysis for each of the three wells, examined operation records of the City's Intermediate aquifer well 7T, and made field site visits to the properties. The double mass analysis compares cumulative well stages with cumulative rainfall for the available period of record. The analysis plots the cumulative sum of one set of data against the other set of data over a common period of time. A trend line is established from the plot, and a change in the slope of the double mass line implies a change in the relationship between the two data sets. Double mass analysis is used in the fields of biology, botany and ecology to examine how groundwater and surface water levels are affected by man-made activities--in this case, pumping. Changes in water levels can in turn affect natural biological systems. The three monitoring wells selected in the analysis were installed by and maintained by the USGS for the purpose of monitoring the City wellfield. One is located in the center of the pumping area, and the other two are outside the influence of the wellfield. Rainfall data was collected from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) station at the Orlando International Airport, within ten miles of the center of the City's wellfield. This is the closest station with a continuous record dating back 30 or more years, the period covered by the City's pumping history. Data used in the analysis was appropriate. The analysis establishes that historical operation of the Cocoa wellfield under progressively greater withdrawals has had no discernible impact on the water table. Pumping from Intermediate Aquifer well 7T did not impact water table elevations in monitoring well Cocoa M, approximately one-half mile away, indicating that drawdown from Intermediate Aquifer wells is very localized. Historic water table declines have been the result of rainfall deficits, and as to Deseret's and Holland's properties specifically, due to the landowners' and others' drainage practices. A number of large ditches and pits have been constructed throughout Deseret's property, mostly located within improved pasture and interspersed wetlands. Ditches, five feet deep, and swales, one to two feet deep, have been constructed on Holland's property to lower the water table elevation in the grove area and to promote runoff and reduce ponding in the pastures. In addition, there are major drainage works in the vicinity of Holland's property and the Lake Mary Jane area less than one mile from the western boundary of Holland's property. These works include the Disston Canal and various U.S. Army Corps of Engineer projects constructed in the 1960's and 1970's to control flooding. Because water table decline due to pumping is highly localized (confined to an approximate one-half mile radius), pumping from the City's Intermediate aquifer wells will have no measurable effect on Holland's or the individual Petitioners' property. Upper Floridan withdrawals will have no measurable effect on the water table, surface water levels, vegetation or land use because the Floridan is not well connected hydraulically to the overlying regions. The City's proposed withdrawals will not cause land collapse or sinkholes, as the area is not hydrologically prone to such, and these phenomena have not occurred during the history of the wellfield. Land collapse or subsidence caused by a reduction in water levels is a specific adverse impact required by the District to be mitigated in its proposed permit conditions. The Petitioners have presented no evidence of modeling or other analysis indicating drawdowns or water table impacts different from those presented by the City or the District. The Petitioners presented no experts qualified in the fields of botany, biology or ecology. The District's proposed permit conditions #28-38 dictate detailed evaluation methods to determine the impact of the City's Intermediate aquifer wells on wetlands and vegetation. This involves the installation of pieziometers and gauges in selected wetlands, and installation of a rain gauge at the Wewahootee pump station to record daily rainfall data for the duration of the permit. Data must be reported to the District. Vegetative monitoring is required for a period of one year prior to the operation of any Intermediate aquifer wells other than 2T, 3T and 7T. Standing and Other Matters Petitioners failed to prove that they will suffer an immediate injury in fact of the type which this proceeding is designed to protect if the City's CUP application is approved subject to the District's 1990 proposed permit conditions. Rather than present affirmative evidence of actual injury, they attempted in a thorough manner to discredit the findings of the City's studies and the District's review. Modeling and predictive analysis such as that provided by the City and the District may be imperfect, but the ultimate conclusions are supported by the weight of evidence. In the unlikely event that, as suggested by Petitioners, the City has been so reckless as to pick and choose parameters to "fix" the results of its studies, this folly will quickly be exposed in the monitoring performed under the District's conditions. The District's recommended permit conditions are appropriate regulatory requirements to assure that the City's proposed use will not cause unmitigated adverse impacts. The City has accepted those conditions. The conditions proposed by Holland and Keller, et al., and by Deseret, are already covered within the District's conditions or are unnecessary. The City has proven its entitlement to the permit it seeks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered, approving the City of Cocoa's application for consumptive use permit, as amended in November 1989, and with the conditions proposed by District staff in February 1990; and dismissing the petitions of Deseret, Holland, and Keller, et al.. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 26th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings Proposed by Deseret Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. 3.-5. Adopted in paragraph 3. 6. Adopted in paragraph 1. 7.-11. Adopted in substance in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 13. 16.-17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18. Adopted in paragraph 13. 19.-46. The parties' stipulation is included in the record of this proceeding. The legal descriptions of the well sites are established without dispute and need not be repeated here. Adopted in paragraph 15. Adopted in paragraph 9. 49.-50. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 30. Adopted in paragraph 19; except for the second sentence, which is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 53.-54. Adopted in part in paragraphs 58 and 77, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 55. Adopted in paragraph 60. 56.-58. Rejected as unnecessary. 59.-70. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 30. Addressed in part in paragraph 90, otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. 74.-84. Rejected as unnecessary or contrary to the weight of evidence. 85. Adopted in substance in paragraph 78. 86.-91. Rejected as unnecessary or contrary to the weight of evidence. 92.-96. Addressed in summary in paragraph 90, but the conclusion with regard to the cause is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 97.-105. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence or unnecessary. 106.-110. Addressed in paragraph 63; however, the conclusions reflected in these paragraphs, with regard to the reasonableness of the calibration, are rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 111.-116. Rejected as unnecessary or contrary to the weight of evidence. Findings Proposed by Holland and Keller, et al. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 2. 3.-4. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 3. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 7. 9.-10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 8. 11. Adopted in paragraph 10. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 30. 14.-15. Adopted in paragraph 8. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 14. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in paragraph 14. Rejected as unnecessary. 21.-24. Adopted in paragraph 9. 25.-30. Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in summary in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 5. Rejected as unnecessary. 34.-50. Rejected as unnecessary or contrary to the weight of evidence. 51.-52. Adopted in paragraph 30. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 31. 55.-66. Rejected as unnecessary or contrary to the weight of evidence. 67. Adopted in paragraphs 67 and 70. 68.-96. Rejected as unnecessary or contrary to the weight of evidence. Findings Proposed by the City of Cocoa 1.-4. Adopted in paragraphs 1 and 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 10. 7.-8. Adopted in substance in paragraph 8. 9.-17. Rejected as unnecessary. 18.-26. Adopted in paragraphs 13-16. 27. Adopted in paragraph 2. 28.-45. Addressed in summary in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 27. 48.-49. Adopted in paragraph 25. 50. Adopted in paragraph 28. 51.-52. Adopted in paragraph 29. 53.-54. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 37. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 38. 58.-60. Adopted in paragraph 40. Adopted in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in substance in paragraph 41. Adopted in substance in paragraph 45. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. Adopted in substance in paragraph 44. Adopted in substance in paragraph 42. 69.-77. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 47. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 47. 81.-82. Adopted in paragraph 48. 83. Adopted in paragraph 47. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 46. Adopted in paragraph 45. 88.-89. Adopted in paragraph 34. 90.-91. Adopted in paragraph 35. 92.-93. Rejected as unnecessary. 94.-96. Adopted in paragraph 33. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 53. 99.-101. Adopted in paragraph 54. 102.-104. Rejected as cumulative. 105.-108. Adopted in substance in paragraph 56. 109.-110. Adopted in paragraph 57. 111. Adopted in paragraph 60. 112.-113. Adopted in paragraph 62. Adopted in paragraphs 60, 65 and 66. Rejected as unnecessary. 116.-117. Adopted in paragraph 61. 118. Rejected as unnecessary. 119. Adopted in paragraph 65. 120.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. 127.-128. Adopted in paragraph 75. 129. Adopted in paragraph 65. 130.-140. Rejected as unnecessary. 141. Adopted in paragraph 66. 142.-144. Rejected as unnecessary. 145.-146. Adopted in paragraph 74. 147.-148. Adopted in paragraph 67. 149.-150. Adopted in paragraph 68. 151. Adopted in paragraph 69. 152.-160. Adopted in paragraph 70. 161.-162. Rejected as cumulative. 163. Adopted in paragraph 64. 164. Rejected as cumulative. 165. Adopted in paragraph 64. 166.-167. Rejected as cumulative. 168.-174. Adopted in substance in paragraph 71. 175. Adopted in paragraph 72. 176. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 177.-179. Adopted in paragraph 73. 180. Adopted in paragraph 74. 181.-183. Rejected as cumulative. 184.-185. Adopted in substance in paragraph 76. 186.-187. Adopted in paragraphs 30 and 31. 188.-190. Rejected as unnecessary. 191. Adopted in paragraph 31. 192. Rejected as unnecessary. 193.-194. Adopted in paragraph 31. 195. Rejected as unnecessary. 196.-197. Adopted in paragraph 77. 198.-199. Adopted in paragraph 78. 200.-201. Adopted in paragraph 79. 202.-203. Rejected as cumulative. 204. Adopted in paragraph 85. 205. Rejected as unnecessary. 206. Addressed in paragraph 90. 207. Adopted in paragraph 85. 208.-209. Adopted in paragraph 91. 210. Rejected as unnecessary. 211.-212. Adopted in paragraph 96. 213.-218. Adopted in substance in paragraph 92. 219.-223. Adopted in paragraph 79. 224. Adopted in paragraph 95. 225. Adopted in paragraph 92. 226. Adopted in paragraph 93. 227. Rejected as cumulative. 228.-229. Adopted in paragraph 97. 230. Adopted in paragraph 98. 231. Adopted in paragraphs 100.-101. 232. Adopted in paragraph 102. 233. Adopted in paragraph 103. 234. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and unnecessary. 235.-236. Adopted in paragraph 114. 237. Adopted in paragraph 107. Adopted in paragraph 106. Adopted in paragraph 105. Adopted in paragraph 108. 241.-243. Adopted in paragraph 109. 244. Adopted in paragraph 105. 245.-246. Rejected as unnecessary. 247. Adopted in paragraph 112. 248.-253. Adopted in paragraph 111. 254.-261. Adopted in substance in paragraph 113. 262. Adopted in paragraph 115. 263.-264. Rejected as unnecessary. 265. Adopted in paragraph 52. 266. Adopted in paragraph 51. 267. Adopted in paragraph 55. 268. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 269.-274. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 275.-279. Adopted in paragraph 116. 280. Adopted in paragraphs 118. and 119. Findings Proposed by St. Johns River Water Management District Adopted in paragraphs 1. and 7. Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in substance in paragraph 8. 6.-7. Adopted in paragraph 11. 8.-9. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unnecessary. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 12. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 21. Adopted in paragraph 22. Adopted in paragraph 23. Adopted in paragraph 24. Adopted in paragraphs 25. and 26. Adopted in paragraph 26. 21.-22. Adopted in paragraph 28. 23.-24. Adopted in paragraphs 13. and 14. 25.-26. Rejected as unnecessary. 27. Adopted in paragraph 29. 28.-31. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 28. Adopted in paragraph 7. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 37. Rejected as unnecessary. 39.-40. Adopted in paragraph 36. Adopted in paragraph 38. Adopted in paragraph 39. Adopted in paragraph 40. Adopted in paragraph 41. Adopted in paragraph 43. 46.-49. Adopted in substance in paragraph 47. 50. Adopted in paragraph 49. 51.-53. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 47. Rejected as unnecessary. 56.-57. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 46. Adopted in paragraph 45. Adopted in paragraph 52. Adopted in paragraph 51. Adopted in paragraph 55. Adopted in paragraph 35. Adopted in paragraph 34. Adopted in paragraph 32. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in paragraph 54. 68.-69. Adopted in paragraph 56. 70. Adopted in paragraph 57. 71.-72. Adopted in paragraph 60. 73. Adopted in paragraph 61. 74.-76. Adopted in summary in paragraph 70. 77. Adopted in paragraph 65. 78.-80. Rejected as unnecessary. 81. Adopted in paragraph 75. 82.-83. Adopted in paragraph 63. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86. Adopted in paragraph 60. 87.-89. Adopted in paragraph 66. 90. Adopted in paragraph 67. 91.-92. Adopted in paragraph 68. Adopted in paragraph 69. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 70. Rejected as cumulative. 97.-98. Adopted in paragraph 70. Adopted in paragraph 57. Adopted in paragraph 64. 101.-102. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. 103.-106. Adopted in paragraph 71. 107. Adopted in paragraph 72. 108.-109. Adopted in paragraph 73. 110. Adopted in paragraph 76. 112.-113. Adopted in paragraph 71. 113.-115. Adopted in paragraphs 30, 31 and 77. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 31. 118.-120. Rejected as unnecessary or cumulative. 121. Adopted in paragraph 77. 122.-123. Adopted in paragraph 78. Adopted in paragraph 80. Adopted in paragraph 85. Adopted in paragraph 84. Adopted in paragraph 86. 128.-129. Adopted in paragraph 85. 130. Adopted in paragraph 87. 131.-132. Adopted in paragraph 88. 133. Adopted in paragraph 89. 134.-135. Adopted in paragraph 93. 136.-138. Adopted in paragraph 94. 139. Adopted in paragraph 95. 140.-141. Adopted in paragraph 97. 142. Adopted in paragraph 111. 143.-147. Adopted in paragraph 100. 148. Adopted in paragraph 102. 149. Adopted in paragraph 103. 150.-151. Adopted in paragraph 104. 152.-155. Adopted in paragraph 108. 156.-159. Adopted in paragraph 109. 160.-165. Rejected as cumulative or unnecessary. 166. Adopted in paragraph 112. 167. Adopted in paragraph 113. 168.-169. Adopted in paragraph 118. 170. Adopted in paragraph 116. Copies furnished: Kathryn L. Mennella, Esquire P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32078-1429 Robert Morrison, Esquire Donald Morrison, Esquire P.O. Box 3628 Orlando, FL 32802 Frederick Reeves, Esquire 202 Madison St. Tampa, FL 33602 Richard A. & Judith Pearce 14147 Nell Road Orlando, FL 32832 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire David M. Caldevilla, Esquire 705 E. Kennedy Blvd. P.O. Box 172537 Tampa, FL 33672-0537 Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Mgmt. District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429
The Issue Schofield Corporation of Orlando has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to construct and operate a Class III trash/yard trash landfill in Orange County, Florida. The issues are whether the applicant is entitled to the permit and, if so, what conditions should attach. Also at issue is Schofield Corporation's motion for attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(f), F.S.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Schofield Corporation of Orlando (Schofield), owns the proposed landfill site and existing permits for the site. The proposed site is located in West Orange County, southwest of the intersection of State Road 545 and Schofield Road on the west half of the northwest quarter of section 32, township 23 south, range 27 east, comprising approximately sixty acres within a larger eighty-acre parcel. In some undetermined distant past the site was cultivated in citrus. It is currently being excavated as a borrow pit. The materials proposed to be placed in the landfill include trash, yard trash, construction and demolition debris and clean debris, as defined in DER Rule 17-701.020, F.A.C. The northern half of the site is flat and will be used first for the composting operation. The southern excavated portion of the site will receive the permitted fill material until it is flattened. Then, the two functions will alternate; the composting will occur on the south, and the north end will be excavated to receive fill. The proposed facility will be operated by Chambers Corporation, a nationally recognized waste management company with approximately 20 years of experience in solid waste management. The landfill site will be completely fenced, with a gate entrance mid-site between the landfill and compost area. The gate will be locked when the facility is not in operation, and will be patrolled by security personnel 24 hours a day. "Spotters", or inspectors will be employed to examine incoming waste loads at the gate, from a high gantry, and at the place where the waste is deposited. The loads will be monitored by a television camera, and all haulers will be under contract. The landfill will not accept loads from trucks coming off the road looking for a place to dump. Receptacles will be maintained on site to receive errant non-permitted waste that is found in a load, and that waste will be properly disposed of elsewhere. Schofield has several permits related to its proposed operation. These include a type III landfill permit from Orange County, a compost facility permit from DER, a general construction and demolition debris landfill permit from DER, a surface water management permit from the South Florida Water Management District, and a permit to excavate or mine from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Schofield also has a contract to receive yard waste from Orange County. The initial term of contract requires at least ten percent of the yard waste to be composted or recycled, with the percentage amount to be renegotiated in subsequent contract renewals. In the hierarchy of landfills, DER considers Class III the least environmentally sensitive. Problems with unauthorized waste and with water quality occur more frequently with Class I landfills, defined as accommodating more than twenty tons a day of residential garbage. In this case DER has proposed to grant Schofield its Class III permit without the requirement of a bottom liner or a leachate or gas control system because of the nature of the waste that will be accepted and because of the rigorous controls, described above, to avoid receiving unauthorized or hazardous waste. The Petitioners are an individual and a homeowners' association representing a residential area approximately a half mile south of the proposed site. Petitioners contend that the applicant's data is insufficient to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Petitioners contend that the landfill, if approved, should be required to have a liner to prevent leachate from polluting the groundwater. They further contend that the groundwater monitoring plan submitted by the applicant is inadequate to detect vertical movement of contaminated leachate into the Floridan aquifer, a major source of water supply in Orange County. Hydrogeology The site of the proposed landfill is within a high recharge area. Water percolates rapidly though the soil, moving downward into the aquifer, and laterally off site. The site is considered Karst terrain, underlined with limerock. There is evidence of relic sinkholes, thousands of years old, but there is a low probability of future open sinkhole development. The geology in the area of the site provides adequate structural support for the proposed facility. An aquifer is generally defined as a unit of material which contains water and can give up a sufficient amount of yield to provide some productive flow for pumpage. Below the site there are two aquifers: the shallow water table, or surficial aquifer, containing clean well-drained fine sands, about 70 feet down; and the Floridan, primarily limestone, encountered at a depth of approximately 115 feet. The two are separated by a confining layer of less permeable sands and clay. Flow in the Floridan at the site is primarily from the west to east. Flow in the surficial is also generally from west to east, but the Petitioners theorize, and have presented competent supporting evidence, that there are fissures in the confining layer, allowing some internal drainage within the site, causing surficial water to flow vertically into the Floridan, rather than laterally off-site in an eastward direction. Based on recent data taken from two piezometers installed near the middle of the site, the applicant's hydrogeologist, James Golden, concedes that "mounding" exists along the eastern boundary of the site, reflecting some flow westerly back into the interior of the site. Petitioners' theory regarding internal draining of the site is based in part on data as to groundwater elevation. Groundwater elevation or high groundwater table is the elevation at which water stands on a continuous surface under the site. Jammal and Associates is a consultant firm which has done field studies of this and neighboring sites in the past, for various purposes. Some open bore readings taken by Jammal and Associates in a 1983 study for the Orange County Rapid Infiltration Basin project indicate groundwater table levels on site up to 126 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Data (NGVD). Open bore readings are less reliable than cased hole readings; due to collapses within the hole, artificially high readings are sometimes obtained. Data from the applicant's consultants reveals groundwater tables at 96-98 NGVD. This data was most recently obtained in December 1991 from sealed and surveyed piezometer casings, but not from the area of the site where Jammal's higher readings were obtained. Although it may be conjectured that Jammal's high readings are anomalous, additional sealed borings need to be obtained before the anomaly is confirmed. Groundwater elevations are significant also to determine the depth to which the landfill may be excavated. Based on its December 1991 readings, obtained after the application for permit was filed, the applicant agreed to raise the proposed bottom of the landfill to approximately five feet above the level of the estimated high (wet weather) groundwater table in the area. Water Quality and Monitoring Specific conditions of the proposed permit include DER's requirements that Class GII water quality standards be met at the boundary of the zone of discharge, in accordance with Rule 17-3, F.A.C. The zone of discharge for this facility is a three-dimensional volume defined in the vertical plane as the top of the ground to the base of the most surficial aquifer, and horizontally 100 feet from the edge of the waste-filled area, or the property boundary, whichever is less. The groundwater monitoring plan proposed by the applicant includes one upstream monitoring well on the west side of the site and five wells along the east side of the site, with an additional well at the south, between the project and the Petitioners' residential area. The wells extend down into the upper zone of the surficial aquifer, but not into the deeper limestone Floridan. The downstream wells should detect any contamination in the surficial aquifer flowing from west to east at the zone of discharge. However, they will not pick up contamination draining internally within the site and into the Floridan. Such contamination is possible, even though leachate from Class III- type wastes is expected to be relatively benign. Volatile organic carbons (VOCs) have not typically been a problem in Class III landfills, unless those landfills were previously operated as Class I sites. Secondary drinking water standards for certain metals have been violated at some Class III sites, but such violations are often related to the problem of sampling newly-installed wells. From DER records, Petitioners presented evidence of consistent drinking water quality standard violations in Class III landfills. That such violations can occur in Class III landfills is clearly established. It is not so clear that such violations will occur in this facility, given the proposed controls on load content. However, even acceptable materials will not avoid the production of leachate or gas. Within demolition waste there are chemically bound components which are inseparable, for example, creosote and other preservatives, glues, paints, resins, varnishes and stains. The lignin, tannins and volatile organic acids which are produced when wood decomposes alter the pH of the groundwater. As the water becomes more acidic, heavy metals that were typically bound up in the waste or in the soil, are released in soluble form and travel with the water. The decomposition process occurring in the construction and demolition waste is enhanced by the addition of yard trash which becomes the food source for the biodegradation. Summary of Findings and Proposed Permit Conditions If, as applicant suggests, all groundwater moves primarily from west to east within the site, given the proposed operational controls and the proposed monitoring plan, reasonable assurances have been provided that water quality standards will not be violated beyond the zone of discharge. That is, any contamination likely to occur will be contained within the surficial aquifer and within the 100 feet or property line horizontal boundary. Transmissivity of the surficial aquifer is low enough to allow mixing of the leachate before it reaches the zone of discharge. The Petitioners, however, have presented credible evidence sufficient to question the groundwater flow premise and sufficient to require additional conditions on the permit. If leachate reaches the Floridan through fissures in the confining layer, it will move rapidly off site. In its proposed recommended order DER has suggested additional permit conditions and in its adoption of the proposed recommended order, the applicant has accepted those additional permit conditions. Those permit conditions recognize the fact that data presently provided by the applicant is insufficient to overcome the evidence by Petitioners as to the hydrogeological characteristics of the site with the possibility of internal drainage and vertical intrusion of contaminated water into the Floridan aquifer. The proposed recommended order provides this finding: ...that the ground water monitoring plan as proposed in this proceeding is adequate, provided that there be added to the permit conditions that the permittee conduct appropriate water table testing with cased piezometers during the next wet season to determine whether ground water flow is internal within the site and therefore not intercepted by the present ground water monitoring wells. The permittee shall consult with DER and get approval for the location and construction of these wells prior to their installation. The results shall be immediately submitted to the DER. The ground water monitoring requirements should be modified if necessary at that time pursuant to Rule 17-28.700(5) to assure proper monitoring at this site. (DER proposed Recommended Order, p. 17) The ground water monitoring plan modification suggested by DER is that deeper monitoring wells, into the Floridan aquifer, be required if the additional testing reveals the likelihood of internal on-site ground water drainage. These conditions are still inadequate since they lack specificity with regard to the extent of testing, the location and construction of the wells, and the amendments to the monitoring program to be required if internal drainage is confirmed. Moreover, the proposed conditions fail to address the possibility that the permit should require a liner for the landfill if the data to be obtained reveals the likelihood that contaminates will penetrate into the groundwater of the Floridan. Monitoring programs, however effective, only predict or detect problems; they do not remediate them. Groundwater contamination by landfills is not quickly and easily reversed. Unlike discharges from other facilities such as spray application or deep well injection, the leachate from a landfill is not "turned off". Without the additional data which all parties agree is needed, it is impossible to determine what additional conditions, if any, should be required or what amendments, if any, need to be made to the applicant's proposed monitoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue its Final Order denying the application for Class III land fill permit. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 3.-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12.-23. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 24. Rejected as unnecessary. 25.-30. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32.-41. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance throughout the recommended findings. 44.-50. Adopted in Preliminary Statement and paragraph 4. 51. Rejected as unnecessary. 52.-53. Adopted in paragraph 2. 54.-55. Rejected as statement of testimony rather than finding of fact. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 58.-97. Rejected as argument or statement of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Subparts a), b), c) and e) are rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. The evidence suggests that violations might occur and that insufficient data has been produced. Subpart d) is adopted, by implication in paragraph 18. 99.-101. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5. 3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant, given the stipulation related to Section 403.412, F.S. standing. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. If internal drainage is shown to exist, conditions other than additional monitoring wells may be required. Adopted in paragraph 17. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19.-21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 12. 24.-26. Adopted in general in paragraph 14. 27. The unlikelihood that unauthorized waste will be dumped is adopted in paragraph 3. Whether there will be a violation of ground water quality standards at the zone of discharge was not established, given the need for additional data on internal draining. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas B. Drage, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 87 Orlando, FL 32802 Irby G. Pugh, Esquire 218 Annie Street Orlando, FL 32806 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently engaged in widening State Road (SR) 5, the Overseas Highway, to four lanes on Marathon Key. To handle surface water runoff from a portion of the project, DOT received approval from the South Florida Water Management District for a surface water management system which included two retention ponds (west pond and east pond) to be located on Marathon Airport.1 On May 23, 1985, DOT filed an application with DER for authorization to construct four Class V, group five stormwater drainage wells within the retention ponds on Marathon Airport. DOT proposed to locate three wells within the west pond and one well within the east pond to comply with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) request that water levels be minimized to deter the attraction of birds which could present a hazard to aircraft navigation. By letter dated August 12, 1985, DER forwarded to DOT permit number US44-104852, dated July 26, 1985, for construction of the subject wells. Upon its receipt of the permit, DOT let the contracts for the widening of SR 5; however, neither DER nor DOT published notice of DER's intent to issue the requested permit. On November 29, 1985, a few days after he received actual notice that the permit had been issued, Robert C. Ernst filed a request for hearing with DER contesting its issuance. Mr. Ernst owns a home which lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the subject permit and which abuts Dodge Lake, a Class III surface water body; Mr. Ernst uses the waters of Dodge Lake for swimming, fishing, and other recreational pursuits. On December 20, 1985, Mr. Ernst and others, on behalf of Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), filed a request for hearing challenging the same permit. NCC was alleged to be a neighborhood association, formed December 17, 1985, to represent the interests of property owners affected by the proposed project; however, no such proof was offered at hearing. The retention ponds proposed by DOT are designed to accommodate the first inch of stormwater runoff.2 Significantly, the first 1/2" of runoff from a highway system contains the bulk of pollutants. By retaining this runoff, and permitting it to evaporate or percolate through the soils underlying the retention ponds, any adverse impact to the ground waters is minimized. DOT's proposal to install four injection wells within the ponds will deprive them of their retention capability. These wells will, within a 12-20 hour period, inject the first 1/2" of runoff (over 1 million gallons) directly into the groundwaters. Therefore, evidence of the nature of the pollutants, the quality of the receiving waters, and the geologic and hydrologic qualities of the area are significant. Highway runoff contains high concentrations of pollutants ranging from toxic mutagenic and carcinogenic substances such as heavy metals (primarily lead and zinc), pesticides, and herbicides to oxygen consuming materials and solids which cause damages such as siltation and eutrophication. These pollutants, including oils, greases, and copper, can have significant adverse effects upon the quality of the receiving waters and the life forms it supports. Underlying the proposed retention ponds is an aquaclude which extends from the surface to a depth of 30-40 feet. This aquaclude, a hard layer formation with very poor percolation qualities, will preclude any waters injected below it from returning to the surface and will direct their flow laterally. Since the maximum depths of Dodge Lake and the 100th Street Canal are 13' and 21' respectively, injection of the stormwater runoff at 50', well below the existing aquaclude, provides reasonable assurances that these water bodies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. However, the impacts to the groundwater and other water bodies is not so clear. Other than sampling the groundwater to establish its character as Class III groundwater,3 DOT and DER did not perform any water quality analysis. Accordingly, the existing quality of the receiving groundwaters was not shown. Further, there was no showing of the hydrologic characteristics of the area. Therefore, there was no evidence of the mixing or dilution of the contaminants which would be injected, or of their ultimate point(s) of discharge into the surface waters surrounding Marathon Key.4 DOT and DER assert that "specific conditions" #4 and #5 attached to the subject permit will provide assurances that injection of the stormwater runoff will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Those conditions provide: The following parameters shall be sampled at Well W-2 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 3 of 5 and Well E-1 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 4 of 5 and reported quarterly to the Department ninety (90) days following certification and placement of this facility in operation. The parameters to be sampled are: Napthalene, Lead and volatile organic compounds including: Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Vinyl Chloride, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,2- Dichloroethane, Benzene, and Ethylene Dibromide. The discharge authorized by this permit shall be consistent at all times with the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Should conditions in the receiving stream warrant, the Permittee may be required by the Department to upgrade, reduce, or cease the discharge approved by this permit and adopt an alternative method of disposal within a reasonable period of time. Under specific condition #4, the ground waters will be sampled at one injection well within each of the retention ponds. Without evidence of the mixing and flow characteristics of the groundwater, the reliability of the proposed monitoring program is questionable since it was not shown where, transitionally or ultimately, the pollutants would settle. Absent such proof, there is no evidence that the wells are sited so as to detect any water quality violations. Therefore, specific conditions #4 and #5 do not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Petitioners, Robert C. Ernst and Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, contest the decision of DER to issue a permit to DOT to construct four Class v, group five-stormwater drainage wells. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 120.57 provides: The provisions of this section apply in all proceedings in which the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. When standing is resisted, as it is in this proceeding, the burden is on the protestant to prove standing. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not attempt to define substantially affected persons. The Florida courts have, however, adopted the federal "injury-in-fact" and "zone of interest" tests governing standing. Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA) 1985). Under this two-prong test, a person is substantially affected if he can demonstrate that he will suffer "injury-in- fact" which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to relief and the injury is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to protect (the "zone of interest"). Where, as here, an association institutes a proceeding on behalf of its members, it can be accorded standing only when it demonstrates that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are substantially affected by the proposed agency action, the nature of the injury is of a type which the proceeding is designed to protect: and, the relief requested is of a type appropriate for an association to receive on behalf of its members. See Florida Home Builders Assoc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). Mr. Ernst has demonstrated his standing to maintain this action. His home lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the proposed project and he uses the waters proximate to the proposed wells which could be adversely impacted if the wells were not properly constructed or sited. NCC failed, however, to demonstrate its standing since it failed to offer any evidence that a substantial number of its members could be substantially affected by the proposed project or that the interest sought to be protected was within the association's general scope of interest and purpose. Although Mr. Ernst has demonstrated standing, DOT asserts that his petition was untimely since it was filed more than three months after DOT received its permit. DOT's assertion is without merit. It is established law that persons whose substantial interests may be affected by proposed agency action must be accorded a point of entry into the proceedings. See Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Until accorded notice, actual or constructive, such person has not been offered a point of entry. Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., provides a method to assure constructive notice is given to all substantially affected persons, and to limit the time within which a request for an administrative hearing may be filed. That rule provides that each person who filed an application for a DER permit may publish a notice of proposed agency action in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the activity will be located. If notice is published, a person whose substantial interests might be affected by the proposed action must file his request for hearing within 14 days of the date of publication. Significantly, the rule also provides: Since persons whose substantial interests are affected by a Department decision on a permit application may petition for an administrative proceeding within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice and since, unless notice is given or published as prescribed in this rule, receipt of notice can occur at any time, the applicant or persons benefiting from the Department's action cannot justifiably rely on the finality of the Department's decision without the notice having been duly given or published. DOT elected not to publish notice under the provisions of Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., and cannot justifiably rely on the finality of DER's decision. Mr. Ernst's petition for hearing, filed within a few days of his receipt of notice, was timely. 5 DER has jurisdiction over the permitting of the proposed four Class V, group five-stormwater drainage wells pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-4 and 17-28, F.A.C. A party seeking approval to inject stormwater drainage into Class G-III water must provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), F.A.C. That rule provides: All ground water shall at all places and at all times be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non- thermal components of discharges in concentrations which, alone or in combination with other substances, or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Are harmful to plants, animals, or organisms that are native to the soil and responsible for treatment or stabilization of the discharge relied upon by Department permits or Are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic to human beings, unless specific criteria are established for such components in Rule 17-3.404: or Are acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the ground water at the point of contact with surface waters or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; or Create or constitute a nuisance or Impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. DOT has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of the groundwater standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order: Dismissing the petition for hearing filed by Neighbors for Clean Canals, and Denying the issuance of permit number US44-104852 to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1986.
