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 Upon consideration of the petition for a variance, the recommendation of the Department of Environmental Regulation and the prehearing stipulation of the parties, the following relevant facts are found: Tampa Electric Company is the owner and operator of the Big Bend Generating Station which presently consists of three coal fired steam electric generating units (Units 1, 2 and 3) in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Big Bend Generating Station is located on the eastern shore of Hillsborough Bay, a Class III body of water. Discharges from the Big Bend Station are subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The discharge that is the subject of this proceeding is from the slag pond currently serving Big Bend Units 1, 2 and 3. Tampa Electric Company originally requested variances from the surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17-3.051 (minimum criteria), 17-3.061(2) (general prohibition), 17-3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17- 3.061(2)(h) (lead), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17-3.121(11) (copper), 17-3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(17) (lead), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121 (19) (nickel), and 17-3.121(26) (selenium) of the Florida Administrative Code for the discharge from this existing slag pond. At the hearing, Tampa Electric Company withdrew its request for variances from the provisions of Rules 17-3.051 (minimum criteria), 17-3.061(2) (general prohibition), and 17-3.061(2)(h) and 17- 3.121(17) (lead). Data collected by Tampa Electric Company during the period of 1970 through 1974, 1980 and 1981 demonstrate that the quality of the ambient intake water in Hillsborough Bay contains concentration of arsenic, chromium, cadmium, copper, iron, mercury, nickel, and selenium in amounts which periodically exceed the applicable Florida water quality standards for that water body as contained in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Water quality data for the Big Bend Units 1, 2 and 3 slag pond discharge collected during the 1980-81 study demonstrate that there will be either minimal or no net increase, or a reduction between the ambient intake and discharge for all metals except iron and selenium. Upon mixing with the flow in the discharge canal, water quality impacts due to these parameters are expected to be minimal. The Department of Environmental Regulation has recommended granting a variance for the parameters cadmium, mercury and nickel based upon the following: mercury concentration decrease upon passing through the slag pond; cadmium and nickel concentrations remain the same passing through the slag pond; and, therefore, the slag pond system does not appear to contribute to the existing water quality violations for cadmium, mercury, or nickel. The Department of Environmental Regulation's analysis of the other parameters indicates that the concentrations of arsenic, chromium, iron and selenium increase in passing through the slag pond system. This increase appears to be due to an increase in suspended metals. Additional treatment of the discharge from the slag pond would be necessary to meet water quality criteria in the effluent for the parameters arsenic, chromium, iron and selenium. Compliance would require further removal of these parameters possibly by the use of a reverse osmosis treatment system. The cost of treating the slag pond discharge pond stream to comply with water quality standards by use of reverse osmosis would be approximately $28.2 million. The $28.2 million expenditure is not justified or practicable in this case. The Department of Environmental Regulation agrees that this expenditure is not justified in this case and has recommended a variance for these parameters as well. The damage or harm resulting or which may result to Tampa Electric Company from compliance with the rules from which the variance relief is sought would be the expenditure of $28.2 million for an additional treatment system with no significant resulting benefit to the environment. The failure of the Department of Environmental Regulation to grant the requested variance could result in Tampa Electric Company being unable to operate this facility. The Department of Environmental Regulation recommends a two-year variance from the surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17- 3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17- 3.121(11) (copper), 17-3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121(19) (nickel), and 17-3.121(26) (selenium) of the Florida Administrative Code for the discharge from the slag pond serving existing Big Bend Station Units 1, 2 and 3. The recommendation is conditioned upon Tampa Electric Company's agreement to monitor the metal content of the slag pond discharge, to evaluate alternative treatment systems and to submit a report describing treatment systems evaluated, including costs and feasibility, within eighteen (18) months of the effective date of the variance relief. Tampa Electric Company has agreed to the recommendation and conditions of the Department of Environmental Regulation. Appropriate public notice of this proceeding has been given. At the conclusion of the hearing, the public was given an opportunity to comment and present evidence on the petition for variance. No public testimony was offered.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Tampa Electric Company be granted a two-year variance from the surface water quality standards contained in Rules 17-3.061(2)(a) (arsenic), 17-3.061(2)(d) (chromium), 17-3.121(9) (cadmium), 17-3.121(11) (copper), 17- 3.121(16) (iron), 17-3.121(18) (mercury), 17-3.121(19) (nickel) and 17-3.121(26) (selenium), Florida Administrative Code, for discharges from the slag pond for existing Big Bend Station Units 1, 2 and 3. The granting of this variance should be conditioned upon Tampa Electric Company's agreement to monitor the metal content of the slag pond discharge during the duration of the variance, evaluate alternative suspended metals removal treatment systems, and submit a report to the Department of Environmental Regulation describing the treatment systems evaluated and the costs and feasibility of those systems within eighteen (18) months of the effective date of the variance. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 5th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland and Knight Post Office Drawer BW Lakeland, Florida 33802 Louis F. Hubener, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hamilton S. Oven, Jr. Administrator, Power Plant Siting Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Victoria Tschinkel Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about July 25, 1989, Stephen G. Thompson, Permitting Engineer with the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), predecessor of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), wrote a memorandum to Howard Rhodes, Deputy Director of DER's Bureau of Water Facilities Planning and Regulation. The memo relayed a question being posed by an engineering consultant working for Pasco County on its Lake Padgett Effluent Disposal System, DER construction Permit No. DC51-159899. The question was whether Special Condition 15 should be deleted from the permit. The Lake Padgett permit was for a rapid rate infiltration (percolation pond) land application system for the disposal, via ground water recharge, of domestic wastewater effluent. Through the question passed along to Rhodes, Rhodes understood that the system included percolation ponds and drainage ditches on the site, which the County's engineer referred to as "perimeter ditches." Rhodes was given to understand that the perimeter ditches were designed to improve the performance of the system by lowering the ground water table at the site and increasing the hydraulic capacity of the ponds. The question posed by the County's engineer indicated to Rhodes that Special Condition 15 to the Lake Padgett permit prohibited discharges from the perimeter ditches into wetlands, citing Section 403.086 of the Florida Statutes. The County's engineer suggested: Since these perimeter ditches are being installed 100 feet from the wetted perimeter of the percolation ponds, I believe it is correct to define the water in said ditches as groundwater rather than wastewater effluent. Therefore, I do not believe that Chapter 403.086 would apply to the water in these perimeter ditches. In passing the question along to Rhodes, Thompson also cast it in his own words: If the permittee designs the project with a perimeter ditch system 100 feet away from the edge of the percolation/evaporation pond wetted area, will the discharge from the ditch system have to meet WQBEL or Grizzle-Figg limits if applicable? According to Chapter 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522, the collection and discharge of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water shall be considered as an effluent disposal system. The question is whether the 100 feet buffer will allow the descrip- tion of the perimeter ditch water to be ground water or a co-mingled ground/reclaimed water. Rhodes reviewed the question and answered by memorandum dated September 15, 1989, which stated in salient part: Based on this review, discharges from perimeter ditch systems of percolation ponds must meet surface water quality requirements of advanced treatment, water quality based effluent limitations, or Grizzle- Figg limitations where applicable. Attached are comments which explain why these surface water quality requirements must be met. * * * COMMENTS Depending on site-specific parameters such as the infiltration rate, existing ground water table, subsurface flow, percolation pond depth, and ditch depth, the content of the water in the ditch may be either ground water or a mixture of ground water and reclaimed water. Because these parameters are site-specific, the content of water in the ditch is site-specific. However, knowledge of whether the water in the ditch is ground water or a mixture of ground water and reclaimed water is not important in determining the effluent limitations of the discharge from the ditch. . . . Because construction of perimeter ditches is associated with the operation of percolation ponds, the ditch should be considered part of the wastewater treatment facility and any discharge from the ditch must meet the applicable requirements of Rule 17-6, F. A. C., or Chapter 403, F.S. Also, because perimeter ditches are constructed around percolation ponds to improve performance, the ditches are located near the percolation ponds and some reclaimed water is normally drained to and collected in the ditch. Rule 17-610.517(2), F.A.C., specifically states discharge from perimeter drainage features that collect reclaimed water after land application are restricted by surface water quality considerations of additional treatment or the WQBEL provisions of Rule 17-6, F.A.C. . . . It was argued that because the zone of discharge is 100-feet from the percolation pond and the ditch is also 100-feet from the percolation pond, the water in the perimeter ditch system is ground water. However, zone of discharge as defined by Rule 17-6.0321(33), F.A.C., does not mean that all water located outside the zone of discharge is ground water. Zone of discharge is more appropriately interpreted as a "mixing zone" for ground water. Waters inside the zone do not have to meet water quality standards. If waters outside the zone do not meet water quality standards, the permit is violated. The following question also was raised: Why do the effluent limitations of Chapter 403.086, F.S., apply for the discharge of a perimeter ditch constructed 100-feet from a percolation pond when they do not apply for the discharge from a percola- tion pond constructed 100-feet away from wetlands? The answer to this question is: The discharge from the ditch is a surface water discharge whereas the discharge from the percolation pond is a ground water discharge. In the case of ground water discharges, ground water quality standards must be met outside the zone of discharge. . . . It seems that [the second sentence of F.A.C. Rule 17-610.517(2)] was interpreted to mean; if more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water is collected in the ditch, the water is considered effluent and if 50 percent or less of the applied reclaimed water is collected, the water is considered ground water. This is not the intent of this rule. The intent is; if more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water is collected in the ditch, the applied reclaimed water is considered an effluent disposal system and if 50 percent or less of the applied reclaimed water is collected, the applied reclaimed water may be considered a reuse system. Therefore, this section of rule is not applicable to the Lake Padgett effluent disposal question. The permittee requested Specific Condition 15 be deleted from the permit. In some cases, this may be done. However, if it is deleted, a condition should be added to the permit that the discharge from the ditch meet surface water quality requirements of advanced treatment, WQBELS, or Grizzle-Figg limitations, where applicable . . ., [and] the permittee should also be required to provide reasonable assurance that the required discharge limitations can be met. On March 15, 1990, another Department employee, named Jim Bottone, prepared a two-page memorandum generally discussing the increasing use of perimeter ditches conjunction with rapid-rate land application systems. The memorandum concluded: "In summary, the use of perimeter ditches in conjunction with rapid-rate systems appears to be a 'force fit' of technology in order to save money on disposal. These systems appear to circumvent the intent of the Department's reuse initiative." The discussion included a statement: "Rule 17- 610.517(2) states that the discharge from a perimeter ditch shall be restricted by surface water quality considerations." On December 13, 1990, the Department's Reuse Coordinator, David W. York, Ph.D., P.E., sent Richard Harvey, Deputy Director of the Department's Division of Water Facilities, a memorandum on the subject of perimeter ditches and rapid-rate land application systems. It referred to the Rhodes and Bottone memos, stating that the Rhodes memo "clearly addresses the applicability of surface water quality considerations for this type of system." It also stated: If perimeter ditches are used in association with land application projects, and if the ditches receive flows containing a portion of the applied reclaimed water, the ditches are subject to surface water quality constraints. Surface water quality constraints may include technology-based effluent limits, water quality-based effluent limits, or Grizzle-Figg limitations, as appropriate. F.A.C. Rule Chapter 17-610 pertains to "Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application." F.A.C. Rule 17-610.517 is entitled "Surface Runoff Control." Paragraph (1) of the rule requires that the land application site be designed to prevent the entrance of surface runoff, if necessary by placement of berms around the application area for this purpose. Paragraph (2) of the rule provides: Discharge from perimeter drainage features that collect reclaimed water after land application, shall be restricted by surface water quality considerations pursuant to additional treatment or WQBEL provisions of Rules 17-600.420(2) and 17-600.430, F.A.C., respectively. Rapid-rate land application systems that result in the collection and discharge of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water shall be considered as effluent disposal systems. Rules 17-600.420(2) and 17-600.430 establish additional levels of wastewater treatment for facilities that discharge to surface waters. The Department is in the process of amending part (2) of Rule 17- 610.517(2) by separating the sentences, making the second sentence a new part (3) of the rule, and explaining that the new part (3) would be used solely to classify projects as "reuse" or "disposal" and would in no way affect the requirements of part (2) of the rule. This amendment explicitly would codify in the rule the explanation in the Rhodes memo that the second sentence of current Rule 17-610.517(2) addresses the classification of disposal systems and, to that end, establishes as a benchmark the "collection and discharge [in the ditches] of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water." F.A.C. Rule 17-610.522, entitled "Subsurface Drainage," provides: Subsurface drain systems, where necessary, shall be designed in accordance with appropriate portions of Rule 17-610.300(4)(f), F.A.C., concerning Soil Conservation Service criteria for subsurface drains. The drainage system shall be designed so that the seasonal high water table is drawn down to a minimum of 36 inches below pond bottoms during resting periods. Pollutant content (including fecal coliforms) of the reclaimed water collected by the underdrains may be further restricted by surface water quality considerations pursuant to additional treatment or WQBEL provisions of Rules 17-600.420(2) or 17-600.430, F.A.C., respectively. Rapid-rate land application systems that result in the collection and discharge of more than 50 percent of the applied reclaimed water shall be considered as effluent disposal systems. The Department also is in the process of amending Rule 17-610.522 by separating the sentences, making the last sentence a new part (2) of the rule, and explaining that the new part (2) would be used solely to classify projects as "reuse" or "disposal" and would in no way affect the requirements of part (1) of the rule. The 50 percent figure in F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522 was chosen based on deliberations by the 1988-89 Reuse Technical Advisory Committee (RTAC). The RTAC offers technical expertise and advice to the Department as revisions to Chapter 17-610 are drafted. A criterion was needed for categorization purposes, and it was determined that 50 percent represented a reasonable break point. The members of the RTAC represent the national leaders in reuse of reclaimed water. F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521(2) establishes a minimum 500-foot setback distance between the wetted areas of a reuse land application site and Class I and II surface waters of the state, reduced to 100 feet if high-level disinfection is provided. F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521(5) provides that setback distances to other classes of surface waters "shall be sufficient to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable water quality standards." F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521(8) provides: The minimum setbacks . . . shall only be used if, based on review of the soils and hydrogeology of the area, the proposed hydraulic loading rate, quality of the reclaimed water, expected travel time of the ground water to the potable water supply wells and surface waters, and similar considerations, there is reasonable assurance that applicable water quality standards will not be violated. There is a valid reason for not establishing the same minimum setback distances between the wetted edge of percolation ponds and perimeter drainage features that collect reclaimed water after land application. Unlike reclaimed water that disperses and diffuses in the ground before a part of it reaches a water body solely through the ground, even though reclaimed water may travel through the ground for 100 feet before reaching perimeter drainage features, those features then collect and concentrate the resulting mixture of reclaimed water and groundwater for discharge into the surface water, typically at a limited number of discharge points and at higher volumes and flow rates. At some point as it migrates through the ground and mixes with other ground water, reclaimed becomes indistinguishable from naturally occurring ground water. It is, of course, difficult to pinpoint precisely how far from the wetted edge of a percolation pond this occurs.
The Issue Whether SFP's revised application for a permit to construct a sewage treatment plant with percolation ponds should be granted or, for failure of SFP to give reasonable assurances that the plant will not cause pollution significantly degrading the waters of Gator Cove, be denied?
Findings Of Fact About 1,500 feet from Santa Fe Lake's Gator Cove, SFP proposes to build an extended aeration package sewage treatment plant to serve a "private club with restaurant and overnight accommodations," SFP's Exhibit No. l, to be built between the plant and the lake, on the western shore of Santa Fe Lake, just south of the strait or pass connecting Santa Fe Lake and Little Santa Fe Lake. The site proposed for the waste water treatment plant lies at approximately 177 or 178 feet above sea level, north of Earleton on county road N.E. 28 near State Road 200A, some three miles north of State Road 26, in unincorporated Alachua County, Section 33, Township 8 South, Range 22 East. SFP's Exhibit No. 1. Santa Fe Lake, also called Lake Santa Fe, and Little Santa Fe Lake, also called Little Lake Santa Fe, are designated outstanding Florida waters by rule. Rule 17-3.041(4)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Lake Santa Fe "is . . . the sixth largest non-eutrophic lake in the State of Florida . . . [and] the last remaining large non-eutrophic lake in Alachua County." (0.367). Recreation is a "beneficial use" of these waters. The Lakes Santa Fe are at an elevation of approximately 140 feet above sea level, and their level varies within a range of four feet. Input The proposed plant is to treat sewage generated by staff, by diners at a 150-seat restaurant, and by inhabitants of 150 lodge or motel rooms, comprising 100 distinct units. On the assumptions that 150 rooms could house 275 persons who would generate 75 gallons of sewage a day for a daily aggregate of 20,625 gallons, and that a 150-seat restaurant would generate 50 gallons of sewage per seat per day, full occupancy is projected to engender 28,125 gallons of sewage per day. This projection is based on unspecified "D.E.R. criteria; (5.35) which the evidence did not show to be unreasonable. Full occupancy is not foreseen except around the Fourth of July, Labor Day and on other special occasions. An annual average flow of between 15 and 20,000 or perhaps as low as 13,000 gallons per day is envisioned. (S.38) The proposed plant is sized at 30,000 gallons per day in order to treat the peak flow forecast and because package plants are designed in 5,000 gallon increments. Sluice-gate valves and baffling are to permit bypassing one or more 5,000 gallon aeration units so plant capacity can be matched to flow. The composition of the sewage would not be unusual for facilities of the kind planned. As far as the evidence showed, there are no plans for a laundry, as such, and "very little laundry" (S.37) is contemplated. The health department would require grease traps to be installed in any restaurant that is built. Gravity would collect sewage introduced into 2,000 feet of pipe connecting lodging, restaurant and a lift station planned (but not yet designed) for construction at a site downhill from the site proposed for the water treatment plant. All sewage reaching the proposed treatment plant would be pumped 3,000 feet from the lift station through a four-inch force main. Influent flow to the treatment plant could be calculated by timing how long the pump was in operation, since it would "pump a relatively constant rate of flow." (S.39) Treatment Wastewater entering the plant would go into aeration units where microorganisms would "convert and dispose of most of the incoming pollutants and organic matter." (S.40) The plant would employ "a bubbler process and not any kind of stirring-type motion . . . [so] there should be very little:; aerosol leaving the plant," (S.42) which is to be encircled by a solid fence. Electric air blowers equipped with mufflers would be the only significant source of noise at the proposed plant, which would ordinarily be unmanned. If one blower failed, the other could run the plant itself. A certified waste water treatment plant operator would be on site a half-hour each week day and for one hour each weekend. SFP has agreed to post a bond to guarantee maintenance of the plant for the six months' operation period a construction permit would authorize. (0.63) The proposed plant would not "create a lot of odor if it's properly maintained." Id. The specifications call for a connection for an emergency portable generator and require that such a generator be "provide[d] for this plant. . . ." (S. 43). The switch to emergency power would not be automatic, however. A settling process is to follow extended aeration, yielding a clear water effluent and sludge. Licensed haulers would truck the sludge elsewhere for disposal. One byproduct of extended aeration is nitrate, which might exceed 12 milligrams per liter of effluent, if not treated, so an anoxic denitrification section has been specified which would reduce nitrate concentrations to below 12 milligrams per liter, possibly to as low as 4 or 5 milligrams per liter. Before leaving the plant, water would be chlorinated with a chlorinator designed to use a powder, calcium hypochlorite, and to provide one half part per million chlorine residual in the effluent entering the percolation ponds. A spare chlorine pump is to be on site. The effluent would meet primary and secondary drinking water standards, would have 20 milligrams or less per liter of biochemical oxygen demand or, if more, no more than ten percent of the influent's biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids would amount to 20 milligrams or less per liter. (5.294- 295). Half the phosphorous entering the plant would become part of the sludge and half would leave in the effluent. Something like ten milligrams per liter of phosphorous would remain in the effluent discharged from the plant into the percolation ponds. (5.202). Although technology for removing more phosphorous is available (S.298, 0.170-171), SFP does not propose to employ it. Allen flocculation treatment followed by filtration could reduce phosphorous in the effluent to .4 milligrams per liter, but this would increase the cost of building the treatment plant by 30 to 40 percent; and operational costs would probably increase, as well, since it would be necessary to dispose of more sludge. (0.170-172). SFP did agree to accept a permit condition requiring it to monitor phosphorous levels in groundwater adjacent to the proposed plant. (0.63). Land Application Three percolation ponds are planned with an aggregate area of 30,000 square feet. At capacity, the plant would be producing a gallon and a half of effluent a day for each square foot of pond bottom in use. The ponds are designed in hopes that any two of them could handle the output of effluent, even with the plant at full capacity, leaving the third free for maintenance. The percolation ponds would stand in the lakes' watershed, in an area "of minimal flooding, (S.30) albeit outside the 100-year flood plain. Santa Fe Lake, including Gator Cove, and Little Santa Fe Lake are fed by groundwater from the surficial aquifer. All effluent not percolating down to levels below the surficial aquifer or entering the atmosphere by evapotranspiration would reach the lake water one way or another sooner or later. If percolation through the soils underneath the percolation ponds can occur at the rate SFP's application assumes, effluent would not travel overland into Lake Santa Fe except under unusually rainy conditions, which would dilute the effluent. Whether the planned percolation ponds would function as intended during ordinary weather conditions was not clear from the evidence, however. In the event the ponds overflowed, which, on SFP's assumptions, could be expected to happen, if peak sewage flaw coincided with weather more severe than a 25-year rainfall, effluent augmented by rainwater would rise to 179.87 NGVD (S.34), then overflow a series of emergency weirs connecting the ponds, flow through an outfall ditch, drain into a depression west of the ponds, enter a grassed roadside ditch, and eventually reach Lake Santa Fe after about a half a mile or so of grass swales. (5.69). Sheet flow and flow through an ungrassed gulley in the direction of Gator Cove (0.154) are other possible routes by which overflowing waters might reach the lake. (0.263). Since the facilities the plant is designed to serve are recreational, wet weather would discourage full use of the facilities and therefore full use of the water treatment system. Effluent traveling over the surface into Gator Cove would wash over vegetation of various kinds. Plants, of course, do take up phosphorous, but they don't do it forever, and if you leave a plant system alone, it will come to a steady state in which there is no net storage of phosphorous in the plant material. (0.166) Whether by sheet flow or by traversing swales, overland flow would reach Gator Cove within hours. Effluent traveling through the surficial aquifer would not reach the lake for at least five years. (S.238-9). It could take as long as 45 years. (0.316). In the course of the effluent's subterranean passage, the soil would take up or adsorb phosphorous until its capacity to do so had been exhausted. In addition, interaction with certain chemicals found in the soil, primarily calcium, precipitates phosphorous dissolved in groundwater. As between adsorption and precipitation, the former is much more significant: "[W]ith a three-meter distance you can expect at least 70 to 80 percent removal of phosphorous just by a a[d] sorption alone." (0.21). Precipitated phosphorous does not return to solution, unless the soil chemistry changes. (0.19) Adsorption, however, is reversible, although not entirely, because of the "hysteresis phenomenon." (0.19) Eventually, a kind of dynamic equilibrium obtains to do with the binding of the phosphorous to soil constituents, binding or precipitation of phosphorous. At some point . all of the binding sites become saturated . [and] the amount of phosphorous leaving, into the lake really, will be equal to the amount of phosphorous going into the the system. When there is no more place to store the phosphorous in the ground, then the output is equal to the input and that is called the steady state. (0.161) Although precipitation of phosphorous would not reach steady state under "conditions that render the phosphorous-containing compound insolu[]ble," (0.168) these conditions were not shown to exist now "much less . . . on into perpetuity." Id. Spring Seep A third possible route by which the effluent might reach lake waters would begin with percolation through the sand, which is to be placed on grade and on top of which the percolation ponds are to be constructed. Underground, the effluent would move along the hydraulic gradient toward the lake unless an impeding geological formation (an aquiclude or aquitard) forced it above ground lakeward of the percolationi ponds. In this event, the effluent would emerge as a man-made spring and complete its trip to Gator Cove, or directly to the lake, overland. The evidence demonstrated that a spring seep of this kind was not unlikely. Relatively impermeable clayey soils occur in the vicinity. A more or less horizontal aquitard lies no deeper than four or five feet below the site proposed for the percolation ponds. Conditions short of an actual outcropping of clayey sand could cause effluent mounding underground to reach the surface. Nor did the evidence show that an actual intersection between horizontal aquitard and sloping ground surface was unlikely. Such a geological impediment in the effluent's path would almost surely give rise to a spring seep between the pond site and the lakes. In the case of the other percolation ponds in this part of the state that do not function properly, the problem is n [U] sually an impermeable layer much too close to the bottom of the pond," (S.179), according to Mr. Frey, manager of DER's Northeast District. Phosphorous in effluent travelling by such a mixed route would be subject to biological uptake as well as adsorption and precipitation, but again a "steady state" would eventually occur. On Dr. Bothcher's assumptions about the conductivity of the clayey sand (or sandy clay) lying underneath the topsoil, the effluent would accumulate as a mound of groundwater atop the clay unit, and seep to the surface in short order; and "after a matter of probably weeks and maybe months, it would be basically of the quality of the water inside of the percolation pond." (0.278). More Phosphorous in Gator Cove The total annual phosphorous load from all existing sources "to the lake" has been estimated at 2,942 kilograms. Assuming an average effluent flow of 17,000 gallons per day from the proposed plant, "the total phosphorous load [from the proposed plant] will be 235 kilograms per annum," (0.16), according to Dr. Pollman, called by SFP as an expert in aquatic chemistry. Even before any steady state condition was reached, 20.75 to 41.5 kilograms of phosphorous, or approximately one percent of the existing total, would reach the lake annually from the proposed plant, on the assumptions stated by Dr. Pollman at 0.22-23 (90 to 95 percent removal of phosphorous in the soils and average daily flow of 30,000 gallons). Santa Fe Lake is more than two miles across and two miles long, and Little Santa Fe Lake, which may be viewed as an arm of Santa Fe Lake, is itself sizeable, with a shoreline exceeding two miles. But Gator Cove is approximately 200 yards by 100 yards with an opening into Santa Fe Lake only some 50 to 75 yards wide. (0.154). On a site visit, Dr. Parks observed "luxuriant growth of submerged plants" (0.154), including hydrilla, in Gator Cove. If a one percent increase in phosphorous were diffused evenly throughout the more than eight square miles Santa Fe Lake covers, there is no reason to believe that it would effect measurable degradation of the quality of the water. Some nutrients are beneficial, and the purpose of classifying a lake is to maintain a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. It's hard to see how 1.4 percent increase would lower the ambient quality. But . . . seepage into Gator Cove, which is a much more confined place [100 by 200 yardsj [would make it] quite probable that there would be a lowering of ambient water quality in the site . R] educed dispersion . . . in this cove would allow . . . phosphorous to build up. (0.156) Overland effluent flow to Gator Cove would increase concentrations of phosphorus there, with a consequent increase in the growth of aquatic plants, and the likely degradation of waters in the Cove, unless rapid and regular exchange of lake and cove waters dispersed the phosphorous widely, promptly upon its introduction Except for testimony that wind-driven waves sometimes stir up phosphorous laden sediments on the bottom, the record is silent on the movement of waters within and between Lake Santa Fe and Gator Cove. The record supports no inference that phosporous reaching Gator Cove would be dispersed without causing eutrophic conditions significantly degrading the water in the Cove. Neither does the record support the inference, however, that effluent moving underground into the lakes would enter Gator Cove. On this point, Dr. Bottcher testified: [T]he further away from the lake that you recharge water the further out under a lake that the water will be recharging into the lake; gives it a longer flow . . . it's going to migrate and come up somewhat out into the lake. (0.281-2) Phosphorous in the quantities the treatment plant would produce, if introduced "somewhat out into the lake" would probably not degrade water quality significantly, notwithstanding testimony to the contrary. (0.349, 354). Sands and Clays DER gave notice of its intent to deny SFP's original application because SFP proposed to place the pond bottoms approximately two and a half feet above an observed groundwater table. Placement in such proximity to groundwater raised questions about the capacity of the ground to accept the effluent. In its revised application, SFP proposes to place sand on the existing grade and construct percolation ponds on top of the sand. By elevating the pond bottoms, SFP would increase the distance between the observed groundwater table and pond bottoms to 5.2 feet. (S.256, 257). This perched water table, which is seasonal, is attributable to clayey sand or sandy clay underlying the site proposed for the percolation ponds. Between January 9, 1985, and January 17, 1985, "following a fairly dry antecedent period," (S.229) Douglas F. Smith, the professional consulting engineer SFP retained to prepare the engineering report submitted in support of SFP's permit applications, conducted six soil borings in the vicinity of the site proposed for the plant. One of the borings (TB 5) is in or on the edge of a proposed percolation pond and another (TB 4) is slightly to the north of the proposed pond site. Three (TB 1, 2 and 3) are east of the proposed pond site at distances ranging up to no more than 250 feet. The sixth is west of the proposed site in a natural depression. Mr. Smith conducted a seventh test boring under wetter conditions more than a year later a few feet north of TB 4. Finally, on September 5, 1986, during the interim between hearing days, Mr. Smith used a Shelby tube to obtain a soil sample four to six feet below grade midway between TB 4 and TB 5. 1/ The sites at which samples were taken are at ground elevations ranging from 173 to 178 feet above sea level. From the original borings and by resort to reference works, Mr. Smith reached certain general conclusions: The top four feet or so at the proposed pond site consists of silty sand, 17 percent silt and 83 percent quartz sand. This topsoil lies above a two-foot layer of clayey sand, 20 percent clay, 6 percent silt and 74 percent sand. Below the clayey sand lies a layer some eight feet thick of dense, silty sand, 23 percent silt, 7 percent clay and 70 percent sand, atop a one and one-half foot layer of clayey sand, separating loose, quartz sands going down 40 feet beneath the surface from what is above. These formations "are very heterogeneous, in the sense of the position and occurrence of the clay layers or the sandy layers . . .," (0.230) and all occur within the surficial aquifer. "There are layers of clay within it, and so perched water tables are rather common." (0.225). In March of 1986, the regional water table was some 17 feet down. SFP Exhibit 1B. Below the surficial aquifer lie the Hawthorne formation and, at a depth of 110 feet, the limestone of the Floridan aquifer. The soils above the Hawthorne formation are not consolidated. (S.254, 255). Conductivity Measurements The applicant offered no test results indicating the composition or conductivity of soils lying between the easternmost test boring and Gator Cove, some 1,200 feet distant. No tests were done to determine the conductivity of the deeper layer of clayey sand beneath the site proposed for the ponds. Tests of a sample of the topsoil in TB 7 indicated horizontal permeability of 38.7 feet per day and vertical permeability of six feet per day. On the basis of an earlier test of topsoil in TB 3, "hydraulic conductivity of the surface soils was measured to be 8.2 feet per day. . . ." SFP's Exhibit No. 1B. From this measurement, vertical hydraulic conductivity was conservatively estimated at .82 feet (9.84 inches) per day. Id. The design application rate, 2.41 inches per day, is approximately 25 percent of 9.84 inches per day. Id. The initial test done on a sample of the clayey sand, which lay beneath the topsoil at depths of 3.5 to 5.5 feet, indicated a permeability of 0.0001 feet per day. Thereafter, Mr. Smith did other testing and "made some general assumptions" (S. 235) and concluded that "an area-wide permeability of this clayey sand would be more on the order of 0.0144 feet per day." (S. 234). Still later a test of the sample taken during the hearing recess indicated hydraulic conductivity of 0.11 feet per day. SFP's Exhibit No. 10. The more than thousandfold increase in measured conductivity between the first laboratory analysis and the second is attributable in some degree to the different proportions of fines found in the two samples. The soil conductivity test results depend not only on the composition of the sample, but also on how wet the sample was before testing began. Vertical Conductivity Inferred On March 6, 1986, ground water was observed on the site about two and a half feet below the surface. SFP's expert, Mr. Smith, concluded that it was "essentially a 1.5 foot water table, perched water table over the clay." (0.422). There was, however, groundwater below, as well as above, the clay. On March 12, 1986, the water table at this point had fallen six inches. In the preceding month rainfall of 5.9 inches had been measured in the vicinity, after 5.1 inches had been measured in January of 1986, but in November and December of 1985 "there was a total of 0.6 inches of rainfall." (0.421). Later in the year, notwithstanding typically wet summer weather, no water table was measured at this point. From this Mr. Smith concluded that, once the clayey sand layer is wetted to the point of saturation, conductivity increases dramatically. If that were the case, a more or less steady stream of effluent could serve to keep the clayey sand wetted and percolation at design rates should not be a problem. But Dr. Bottcher, the hydrologist and soil physicist called as a witness for the Association, testified that the six- inch drop over six days could be attributed, in large part, to evapotranspiration. He rejected the hypothesis that the clayey sand's conductivity increased dramatically with saturation, since "the actual water table was observed . about three weeks after the very heavy rainfall had stopped" (0.290) and had probably been present for at least a month; and because the soil survey for Alachua County reports that perched water tables ordinarily persist for two months (0.227) in this type of soil. Certain soils' hydraulic conductivity does diminish with dessication, but such soils usually regain their accustomed conductivity within hours of rewetting. Dr. Bottcher rejected as unrealistically optimistic the assumption SFP's expert made about the conductivity of the clayey sand on grounds that "the conductivity that . . . [SFP] used, if you went out there you couldn't perch a water table for a month." (0.277). In these respects, Dr. Bottcher's testimony at hearing has been credited. In the opinion of the geologist who testified on behalf of the Association, Dr. Randazzo, a minimum of seven or eight additional augur borings in "definitive patterns to the northeast and to the northwest" (0.240) to depths of 15 to 20 feet, with measurements within each augur boring every two feet, are necessary to determine "how permeable the soils are and how fast the waters would move through them." (0.240). This testimony and the testimony of the soil physicist and others to the same general effect have been credited, and Mr. Smith's testimony that no further testing is indicated has been rejected. Wet Ground In the expert opinion of a geologist who testified at hearing, "it is reasonable to assume that saturation conditions of the surficial aquifer in this area can be achieved," (0.238) even without adding effluent from a wastewater treatment plant. The evidence that soils in the vicinity of the site have a limited capacity to percolate .water came not only from engineers and scientists. Charles S. Humphries, the owner of the property 150 feet from the proposed percolation site, "put a fence post line . . . every ten feet, and every ten feet [he] hit clay." (0.372). Three quarters of an inch of rain results in waters standing overnight in neighboring pastures. In parts of the same pastures, rain from a front moving through "will stay for a week or so." (0.373). It is apparent that the area cannot percolate all the rainfall it receives. This is the explanation for the gully leading down toward Gator Cove. Six-feet deep (0.377), "the gully is a result of natural surface runoff." (0.263).
The Issue Should a permit for a wastewater spray field be granted to the City of St. Cloud?
Findings Of Fact On March 18, 1985, the City of St. Cloud applied to the DER for a permit to construct a 429 acre Phase I effluent disposal site (+ 300 acre wetted area via spray irrigation) including support structures as the existing wastewater treatment plant site. On April 17, 1986, DER issued an intent to issue Permit Number 49- 101256. The major concern of the DER with regard to the proposed project was the hydraulic disposal capacity of the site, i.e., how much water could the site absorb. Boyle Engineering Corporation and their hydrogeologic consultants determined that the site has a disposal capacity of 2 million gallons per day (mgd) based on an area of 300 acres under spray. This equals a spray application rate of 1 inch per week based upon studies, test borings, and test wells in the subject area. (Testimony of Brian McMahan and Susan Metcalfe) The disposal capacity of any land application effluent disposal system is largely a function of the permeability of the soils, the transmissivity of the receiving ground water, aquifer and net precipitation (rainfall). Permeability is a measure of how fast water will move within the soil matrix. Transmissivity indicates how much water will travel through a cross section of the aquifer system with time. Transmissivity is largely a function of the permeability and aquifer thickness at a given location. Net precipitation is the total rainfall for a location less surface runoff, evaporation, and transpiration (plant uptake subsurface percolation). (Testimony of Susan Metcalfe and Dave Twedell). The proposed St. Cloud site has very low permeable soils. In addition the drainage in the vicinity is very poor This results in high water table conditions at the proposed site during periods of heavy rainfall. The low permeability of the soil will restrict the amount of effluent which can be sprayed upon the site, especially during the high water table season. (Testimony of Dave Twedell). The area around the site is subject to poor drainage due to lack of storm drains and the low lying nature of the land. (Testimony of Mr. Brown). Flooding or partial flooding occurs in the vicinity of the Bates and Tyners when there are heavy rains. Their concerns are two fold: (1) the proposed site will increase flooding, and (2) the effluent will pollute their wells. (Testimony of Bates and Tyner). Flooding in the area is the result of already existing poor drainage. When it rains, treated effluent will not be sprayed, but will be retained on site in an artificial impoundment. The impoundment area for the proposed site is planned to hold 70 days operational flow storage. Department rules only require 3 days of operational flow storage for times when precipitation make spray irrigation impossible. (Testimony of Lee Miller). The impoundment will not be lined with a hydraulic barrier system. Instead an alternative system is to be constructed around the pond which will capture ground water that has escaped underneath the pond and pump this water back into the pond. This system is designed to retain water on the site, however, this method has not been used before. Its use in an area subject to flooding and high water tables is not proven. (Testimony of Dave Twedell). Because of variations in the reliability of predicting soil permeability, the site may not have the disposal capacity projected by Boyle during periods of wet weather. The DER proposes that the site be field load tested for a period of one year to more accurately determine the disposal capacity achieved because of the conditions existing in the area and the variability of that results. (Testimony of Lee Miller and Dave Twedell). At the end of the one year proposed testing period, the field disposal capacity test will provide more accurate data from which to determine the average permeability for the 300 acre spray field. At the end of the year's test, the City of St. Cloud will have to apply for an operating permit based on the disposal capacity rate established by the test. (Testimony of Lee Miller and Dade Twedell). The hydraulic retention system is intended to prevent the holding pond and part of the spray field from adversely effecting the ground water levels of the homeowners with property adjacent to the pond. Bacterial content in the treated effluent is so low it would be "drinkable". Biological pollution of the objectors' wells is possible from livestock they have on their own property. Testing is not performed for chemical residues in effluent. (Testimony of Dave Thedell). In its conditions on the proposed permit, DER is requiring a water quality monitoring program which is very stringent. Eight ground water monitoring wells will test the ground water quality around the site. In addition, twelve ground water elevation stations will record ground water levels both on and off site on a continuous basis. Growth water levels will be recorded off site to determine what effect, if any, the operation of the site is having on adjacent, down gradient property. (Testimony of Dave Twedell, DER exhibit #1). No testing for chemical pollution is required to be performed on a periodic basis. Because of surface water quality concerns, the DER is requiring the city to monitor the water quality of any stormwater discharge off the site, flowing into Gator Bay. Three surface water quality stations will be in operation, along with two surface water flow stations. Surface water flow will be monitored continuously to determine the hydraulic impact the site is having on the Gator Bay system. (Testimony of Dave Twedell, DER exhibit #1). Again, testing does not consider chemical pollutants. The City must implement their surface and ground water monitoring program at least 90 days prior to the use of the effluent spray field. This will establish initial background and ambient water quality standards. (Testimony of Dave Twedell, DER exhibit #1). This testing does not establish a background for chemical pollutants. The monitoring systems will provide early warning detection for the wells of nearby residents. (Testimony of Dave Twedell). However, if biological pollution occurs, there will be a controversy about whether it was the spray field or the livestock which caused it. A 500 foot buffer zone to be maintained between the perimeter of the spray field and any existing shallow water supply well was said to prevent any contamination of existing wells. (Testimony of Dave Twedell, DER exhibit #1). However, this opinion was predicated upon non-flood conditions. Osceola County does not have an actual drainage system or a stormwater management plan for the area which would eliminate or reduce the flooding experienced by residents of the area. (Testimony of William C. Whitney).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that DER issue the permit as reflected in the draft permit; That issuance in no way indicates a commitment to issuance of an operating permit; That the petitioners be placed on the DER mailing list at such time as the City of St. Cloud applies for the operating permit of the spray field and thereby be noticed of all further proposed agency action with regard to this project; and the permit be subject to those additional conditions recommended herein which the Department may determine are prudent. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of September 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 15th day of September 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 86-1575 and 86-1576 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Agency submitted proposed findings which were considered as follows: 1-6. Adopted with some minor additions and deletions for clarification. Adopted as paragraph 9 with minor changes. Adopted as paragraph 10 with minor changes. Adopted as paragraph 7 with minor changes. Adopted as paragraph 8 with minor changes. Rewritten substantial as paragraph 11 to better conform to the evidence. Rewritten substantial as paragraph 12 to better conform to the evidence. Adopted as paragraph 13. Adopted as paragraph 14. Adopted as paragraph 15. Adopted as paragraph 16. Adopted as paragraph 17. The Petitioner's, Bates and Fonseca, submitted a letter which is considered primarily argument. Their general and unnumbered comments concerning the low lying nature of the land and potential for contamination are included in the Recommended Order. The remainder of their comments are rejected as contrary to the facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Vivian Feist Garfein, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Melvin and Linda Tyner Post Office Box 1072 Kissimmee, Florida 32742 Al Bates Linda Fonseca 801 Cypress Drive St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Bill and Sharon Hall 601 Cypress Drive St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Fred and Leslie Baker Route 2, Box 2734 St. Cloud, Florida 32769-0245 H. R. Thornton, Jr. City of St. Cloud, Florida 1300 Ninth Street St. Cloud, Florida 32769 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and what, reasonable mitigative conditions are necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment, prior to issuing Petitioner's default permit.
Findings Of Fact Application and Default Petitioner's application is to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing 650 foot-long man-made canal of the same width and depth, normal (perpendicular) to old Central and South Florida Flood Control (now SFWMD) Rim Canal (the L-48 Borrow Canal), which is along the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Petitioner's initial, incomplete application filed in DEP's Port St. Lucie office on August 31, 2000, included: the proposed project's location by County, section, township, and range; its legal description; a sketch of its general location and surrounding landmarks; a SFWMD letter verifying conformity with the requirements of a "No Notice General Permit for Activities in Uplands" of a drawing for a proposed pond expansion (to a size less than half an acre), "which will provide borrow material necessary for a house pad and access drive"; a description of water control Structure 127, together with its purpose, operation, and flood discharge characteristics, which were said to describe water levels in Buckhead Ridge, the name of the subdivision where the project was proposed; two virtually identical copies of a boundary survey for Petitioner's property (one with legal description circled) showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet; two more virtually identical copies of the boundary survey at the same scale showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, and the proposed canal extension and house locations; and a copy of a 1996 aerial photograph of Petitioner's property and existing canal, and vicinity. The application did not describe a proposed method or any other details of construction, include any water quality information, or include a water quality monitoring plan. On September 15, 2000, Petitioner filed an additional page of the application form with DEP's Punta Gorda office. The page added the information: "Digging to be done with trac-hoe." No other specifics of the proposed construction method were included. What happened after the filing of the application is described in Tuten I and Tuten II, which are the law of the case. However, those opinions do not explain the delay between Tuten I and the issuance of DEP's proposed ERP with conditions approximately two years later. The evidence presented at the final hearing explained only that counsel of record for DEP promptly asked district staff to draft a proposed default ERP with conditions that "would probably track the RAI that had been sent out prior to the default." DEP's district staff promptly complied and forwarded the draft to DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee, which did not provide any legal advice as to the draft ERP for almost two years. There was no further explanation for the delay. As reflected in Tuten II and in the Preliminary Statement, it was DEP's position that the proper procedure to follow after its default was to issue a proposed ERP with conditions and that it would be Petitioner's burden to request an administrative hearing to contest any conditions and to prove Petitioner's entitlement to a default ERP with conditions other than those in DEP's proposed ERP. DEP's Proposed General Conditions The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit include general conditions taken from SFWMD's Rule 40E-4.381, which are appropriate, as indicated in the Preliminary Statement and Conclusions of Law, and as conceded by Petitioner's expert. While the Rule 40E-4.381 general conditions are appropriate, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that some of the general permit conditions contained in Rule 62-4.160, as well as Rule 62-4.070(7) (providing that "issuance of a permit does not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of Chapter 403, F.S., or Department rules"), are more appropriate general conditions to attach to Petitioner's default ERP, even if technically inapplicable, because the Chapter 62 Rules govern the operation of a permitted project (whereas the former govern the construction of a permitted project) and are "more protective of the environment." Actually, all of the rules contain general conditions that govern both construction and operation phases of an ERP, and all are "protective of the environment." There is no reason to add general conditions taken from Rules 62-4.160 and 62-4.070(7) to the applicable general conditions contained in Rule 40E-4.381. DEP's Proposed Specific Conditions (i) In General The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit also include specific conditions which essentially require that Petitioner provide the information in the RAI sent in December 2000, together with additional specific conditions thought necessary to protect the environment in light of the lack of detail in the application without the answers to the RAI. Some DEP's proposed specific conditions are designed to ascertain whether the application would provide reasonable assurance that permitting criteria would be met. (They make the requested information subject to DEP "approval" based on whether reasonable assurance is provided.) In general, those specific conditions no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. (Looked at another way, inclusion of those specific conditions effectively would un-do the default, in direct contradiction of the court's opinion Tuten I and Tuten II.) See Conclusion of Law 52, infra. On the other hand, some of the RAI information was designed to ascertain the proposed method and other details of construction. Pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," DEP also wants broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed broad specific conditions. He takes the position that it was incumbent on DEP in this proceeding to use discovery procedures to ascertain Petitioner's intended method of construction and tailor specific conditions to the method of construction revealed through discovery. At the same time, Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed specific conditions requiring RAI-type information, including the details of his proposed construction method. Notwithstanding the positions Petitioner has taken in this case, his expert testified that Petitioner intends to use a steel wall inserted between the water and upland at the end of the existing canal, phased excavation from the upland side, and removal of the steel wall in the final phase of construction. Assuming that method of construction, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner, and which generally prohibit pollution of the environment, are adequate. Even if the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner would be adequate for the method of construction Petitioner now says he will use, Petitioner's application does not in fact commit to a method of construction. All Petitioner's application says is that he intends to dig with a trac-hoe. Without a binding commitment to a method of construction, it was appropriate for DEP to take the position that specific conditions were necessary to ascertain the method of construction Petitioner would use and, pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," and to impose broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. In his PRO, Petitioner committed to use the construction method described by his expert during the hearing, as follows: Excavation of any spoil shall be done by means of a mechanical trac-hoe; Prior to the excavation of any soil, Petitioner shall first install an isolating wall, such as interlocking sheet pile, between the existing man-made canal, and the proposed canal extension; The mechanical excavation shall be done in such a manner such that the excavated soil is not deposited in wetlands or in areas where it might be reasonably contemplated to re-enter the waters of the State of Florida; After the proposed canal extension is excavated to its project limits in the foregoing manner, the side slopes of the canal extension shall be allowed to revegetate prior to removal of the isolating wall. With a condition imposing this method of construction, fewer and narrower specific conditions will be necessary. ii. Seriatim Discussion DEP's proposed Specific Condition 1 requires a perpetual conservation easement prohibiting docking and mooring of water craft on all portions of Petitioner's property within the canal extension in order to "address cumulative impacts." But DEP did not prove that the proposed conservation easement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, DEP did not prove that there would be any cumulative impacts, much less unacceptable cumulative impacts, from Petitioner's project. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b); and BOR § 4.2.8. Second, even if unacceptable cumulative impacts were proven, those could be addressed in other permit cases (assuming no DEP default in those proceedings), since the concept of cumulative impacts essentially requires an applicant to share acceptable cumulative impacts with other similar permittees, applicants, and foreseeable future applicants. See Broward County v. Weiss, et al., DOAH Case No. 01-3373, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298, at ¶¶54-58 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002). As Petitioner points out, the easement further described in Specific Condition 1 appears to be overly broad for its stated purpose in that it would cover "the legal description of the entire property affected by this permit and shown on the attached project drawings," which could be interpreted to include not just the canal extension but the entire extended canal, or even the entirety of Petitioner's 6.6 acres of property. Indeed, the latter might have been the actual intention, since DEP's witness testified that Specific Condition 1 also was intended to address impacts from fertilizer runoff and septic tank leaching from new homes built along the canal. Although some of those impacts (as well as future construction of additional homes and docks) actually are secondary impacts, not cumulative impacts, it is possible that they can be addressed in DEP or SFWMD proceedings on future applications, as well as in Department of Health proceedings on septic tank installations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 2 requires that: spoil material from the dredging to be "used for the sole purpose of constructing a single-family fill pad" on Petitioner's property under a pending permit; spoil "be placed in a manner so as not to affect wetlands or other surface waters"; and the "spoil disposal location shall be shown in the drawings required by Specific Condition #4 below." DEP did not prove that the first requirement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, it is unreasonable since Petitioner already has built the referenced single-family fill pad and a home on top of it. Second, the reason DEP's witness gave for this requirement was that, under an operating agreement with SFWMD (which was officially recognized), DEP only has jurisdiction to take action on single-family uses (which he defined to include duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes) but not on larger multi-family and certain other projects. However, the operating agreement on jurisdiction is not a reason to place Specific Condition 1 on the use of spoil material on Petitioner's default permit. SFWMD can regulate, in permitting proceedings under its jurisdiction, the placement of fill material for multi- family construction or other projects not under DEP jurisdiction. In addition, under the operating agreement, jurisdiction can be "swapped" by written agreement in cases where deviation from the operating agreement would result in more efficient and effective regulation. The second two requirements under Specific Condition 2 are reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 3 requires disclosure of all pending and issued permits for the property from SFWMD, Glades County, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). DEP did not prove that this is reasonable or reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP probably has all such permits and can easily obtain any it does not have. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 4 requires fully dimensional plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the property and area to be dredged, before and after dredging, including a north arrow and the water depths in and adjacent to the dredge area. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this part of the condition is to provide hydrographic information normally provided in an application (or required in an RAI) so that DEP's hydrographic engineer can ascertain flushing characteristics, which are pertinent primarily to the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and to heavy metals from boat use. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding flushing characteristics, combined with other specific conditions, is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. See Finding 27, infra. In addition, the plan view and cross-sectional drawings required by Specific Condition 4 are to include the location of navigational obstructions in the immediate area, any roads, ditches, or utility lines that abut the property; any encumbrances, and any associated structures. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this information is to determine whether Petitioner has provided reasonable assurance that the "public interest" test under Rule 40E-4.302 is met, and make sure that management, placement, and disposal of spoil material do not infringe on property rights or block culverts and cause flooding. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding the location of culverts to assure that management of spoil does not cause flooding is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. In addition to objecting to having to provide RAI information as a "default permittee," Petitioner's expert asserted that the information requested in Specific Condition 4 would be provided as part of the "as-built" drawings required by General Condition 6. But General Condition 6 does not require "as-built" drawings. Rather, it requires an "as-built" certification that can be based on "as-built" drawings or on-site observation. Besides, the purpose of the "as-built" certification is to determine "if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications." Without the information requested in Specific Condition 4, there would only be vague and general permitted plans and specifications and hydrographic information. Finally as to Specific Condition 4, Petitioner objects to the requirement that the drawings be sealed by a registered professional engineer. However, Petitioner cites to General Condition 6, which requires that the "as-built" certification be given by a "registered professional" and cites Rule Form 62- 343.900(5), which makes it clear that "registered professional" in that context means a registered professional engineer. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 5 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that the canal extension will not violate water quality standards due to depth or configuration; that it will not cause a violation of water quality standards in receiving water bodies; and that it will be configured to prevent creation of debris traps or stagnant areas that could result in water quality violations. The reasonable assurance is to include hydrographic information or studies to document flushing time and an evaluation of the maximum desirable flushing time, taking several pertinent factors into consideration. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. In addition, Petitioner's expert testified without dispute that the information requested could take more than 180 days and cost approximately $20,000. However, it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be configured so as have the best practicable flushing characteristics. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 6 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that construction of the canal extension will meet all permit criteria set out in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302 and in BOR § 4.1.1. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 7 requires Petitioner to submit existing water quality information for DEP approval within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction. In this instance, DEP's approval would not be a determination on the provision of reasonable assurance but a determination as to the reliability of the water quality information, which is necessary to establish a baseline for assessing and monitoring the impact of the project. For that reason, the information is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. Petitioner's expert testified that the information could cost $2,000-$3,000 to produce (and more, if DEP rejects the information submitted, and more information is required). He also testified that water quality information already is available, including over 25 years worth of at least monthly information on all pertinent parameters except biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform, at a SFWMD monitoring station in the Rim Canal at Structure 127 (a lock and pump station at the Hoover Levee on Lake Okeechobee) approximately 8,000 feet away from Petitioner's canal. DEP did not prove that the SFWMD information would not serve the purpose of establishing baseline water quality for Petitioner's canal for all but the missing parameters. For that reason, only water quality information for the missing parameters is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment in this case. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 8 requires that, if the water quality information required by Specific Condition 7 shows any violations of state ambient water quality standards, Petitioner must submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, a plan to achieve net improvement for any parameters shown to be in violation, as required by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. See also BOR § and 4.2.4.2. Normally, if applicable, this information would be expected in an application or RAI response. Petitioner's expert testified that this condition would require Petitioner to help "fix Buckhead Ridge" (unfairly) and that it would cost lots of money. But Petitioner did not dispute that the law requires a plan for a "net improvement," which does not necessarily require a complete "fix" of water quality violations, if any. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of a net improvement plan. See Finding 9, supra. But a specific condition that Petitioner implement a plan to achieve net water quality improvement in the event of any water quality violations would be reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 9 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP's approval, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information on how Petitioner intends to prevent sediments and contaminants from being released into jurisdictional waters. DEP asserts that this specific condition asks for a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with various subsections of BOR § 4.2.4.1 that address short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be constructed using adequate turbidity barriers; stabilize newly created slopes or surfaces in or adjacent to wetlands and other surface waters to prevent erosion and turbidity; avoid propeller dredging and rutting from vehicular traffic; maintain construction equipment to ensure that oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are not released into wetlands and other surface waters; and prevent any other discharges during construction that will cause water quality violations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 10 requires Petitioner to submit, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information regarding Petitioner's plans for handling spoil from dredging, including "discharge details, locations retention plans, volumes, and data used to size the disposal cell(s)." It allows this information to be combined with the Specific Condition 2 submittal. It also requires spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP asserts that this specific condition (like Specific Condition 9) is necessary to comply with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition requiring spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 11 requires Petitioner to submit "as-built" drawings to DEP's Punta Gorda office with 30 days after completion of construction, "as required by General Condition #6." Petitioner's expert testified that this condition was unreasonable only because it duplicates General Condition 6 and two statutes. But General Condition 6 actually does not require "as-built" drawings, see Finding 9, supra, and it is not clear what statutes Petitioner's expert was referring to. For these reasons, and because it provides a filing location, Specific Condition 11 is reasonable and reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 12 requires Petitioner to "maintain the permitted canal free of all rafted debris by removal and property upland disposal." DEP asserts that this specific condition is necessary to comply with BOR § by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). Rafted debris, which may be of an organic or inorganic nature, can accumulate at the end of canals due to wind, waves, boats, or other forces. Such organic rafted debris may rot and, by creating a high biological oxygen demand, rob the water of dissolved oxygen. Petitioner's only expressed opposition to this condition is that the conservation easement in Specific Condition 3 might prevent compliance. While it is unclear how the easement would prevent compliance, the issue is eliminated if no conservation easement is required. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 13 requires Petitioner to use turbidity screens during construction for compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The turbidity screen requirements detailed in this specific condition are typical best management practices that contractors use and are a standard condition placed in permits of this nature by DEP. Petitioner contends that turbidity screens are unnecessary given his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient to cover DEP's concerns. However, as indicated, the application does not commit to a method of construction. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 13 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 14 requires Petitioner to "ensure that any discharge or release of pollutants during construction or alteration are not released into wetlands or other surface waters that will cause water quality standards to be violated." Again, this condition is intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). While this specific condition seems general and perhaps duplicates other conditions (which was Petitioner's only point of contention), DEP added it in an attempt to make sure the possible and not uncommon release of pollutants from construction equipment was addressed. As such, the condition is appropriate. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 15 provides details on the use of turbidity screens. Petitioner's primary points of contention are that turbidity screens are not needed for his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 15 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 16 requires Petitioner to used staked filter cloth to contain any turbid run- off and erosion from created slopes of the canal extension. This is the most common best management practice and is a standard condition for ERP permits dealing with side slopes that may affect water quality. Unstable slopes can result in chronic turbidity, which is detrimental to wildlife. Unstable slopes also can lead to upland runoff being deposited into the water along with debris and sediment. Such runoff can bring deleterious substances such as heavy metals and nutrient-loaded substances that might impact dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Petitioner's primary points of contention on Specific Condition 16 are that, like turbidity screens, staked filter cloth is not needed for Petitioner's intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. (Petitioner also questions why the condition gives Petitioner up to 72 hours from "attaining final grade" to stabilize side slopes, but the condition also requires side slope stabilization "as soon as possible," and the 72-hour outside limit seems reasonable.) As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition 13 and 15. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 16 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that staked filter cloth is not needed if he uses the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 17, 18, 19, and 20: details required long-term water quality monitoring and reporting [#17]; establishes sampling intervals and requires Petitioner to submit a "plan to remediate" if monitoring shows water quality violations or "a trend toward future violations of water quality standards directly related to the permitted canal" [#18]; allows "additional water quality treatment methods" to be required if water quality monitoring shows it to be necessary [#19]; and allows water quality monitoring requirements to be modified (which "may include reduction in frequency and parameters . . . or the release of the monitoring process"), "based on long term trends indicate that the permitted canal is not a source to create water quality violations [#20]." These conditions are intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.2 by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The evidence was that these specific conditions are standard for ERP permits where a constructed system may lead to water quality violations in the long term. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, conditions of this kind are not dependent on a post-construction finding of water quality standard violations (even though DEP defaulted on Petitioner's application). Besides contending that monitoring requirements in Specific Conditions 17 and 18 are unnecessary, Petitioner also contends that they are too extensive and not tailored to Petitioner's intended construction, but DEP proved their necessity, even assuming the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. Petitioner complains that Specific Condition 19 is vague and that Petitioner's ERP does not provide for "water quality treatment." But the present absence of post-construction water quality treatment should not preclude the possible future imposition of some kind of water quality treatment if monitoring shows it to be necessary. For this kind of condition, the absence of detail regarding the kind of treatment to be imposed is natural since it would depend on future events. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 21 merely requires that Petitioner's project comply with State water quality standards in Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530. Petitioner contends that this is duplicative and unnecessary. But it certainly is not unreasonable to be specific in this regard. No Improper Purpose As part of his request for attorney's fees under Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, Petitioner necessarily contends that DEP participated in this proceeding "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 litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity." Even assuming that DEP should be considered a "nonprevailing adverse party," Petitioner's evidence did not prove that DEP's participation was for an "improper purpose." To the contrary, DEP "participated" initially because Petitioner filed an application. DEP's denial of Petitioner's application was not proven to be "for an improper purpose" but rather for the purpose of attempting to protect the environment. The propriety of the denial was litigated in Tuten I, which made no finding that the denial was "for an improper purpose" and which ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." The two-year delay between Tuten I and Tuten II was not fully explained, but Tuten II also made no finding that the denial, or the delay, or DEP's proposed ERP with conditions were "for an improper purpose" and again ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." While DEP's views on the nature of the hearing to be conducted for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions" was rejected, it was not proven that DEP argued its views "for an improper purpose" or that its participation, once its views were rejected, was "for an improper purpose," as defined by statute. To the contrary, the evidence was that DEP participated in this proceeding in an attempt to place conditions on Petitioner's permit which DEP thought were necessary to protect the environment, many (although not all) of which are accepted in this Recommended Order. As Petitioner accepts and points out, it remains necessary for Petitioner to construct and operate his project in a manner that does not violate environmental statutes and rules. But without any water quality information or monitoring, DEP's enforcement of those laws and rules will be hamstrung.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Petitioner a default ERP, to expire five years from issuance, to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing man-made canal, as applied for, subject to: DEP's proposed General Conditions 1-19; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 4 and 11-21; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 2, 5, and 7-10, as modified by the Findings of Fact; and the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO (see Finding 14, supra. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 11th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue for consideration at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Roger Harloff, should be issued a consumptive use permit to withdraw and use ground water from the wells on his property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roger Harloff, owns several farms in southeastern Manatee County, Florida which, taken together, make up an irregular 8,500 acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the City of Sarasota's Verna Wellfield. Mr. Harloff grows vegetables on much of this tract, of which approximately 1,500 acres is devoted to tomatoes. This tomato crop is the prime crop produced by Mr. Harloff, and provides the raw material for the Harloff packing plant which is dependent upon the tomato crop in order to stay in business. Mr. Harloff also operates a plant nursery at which he produces many if not most of the seedling plants utilized in his vegetable growing operations. In order to be economically feasible and remain operative, Mr. Harloff must farm approximately 3,800 acres during the Spring growing season and approximately 3,000 acres during the Fall. These acres are made up of tomatoes and other vegetables. The packing plant and the plant nursery are dependent upon the farm operation and without adequate water, the farm operation cannot be successfully carried on. In September 1988, Mr. Harloff applied to the District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from twelve wells located on his property, requesting an annual average rate of 12,995,606 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 47,520,000 gpd. The consumptive use permit application filed by Mr. Harloff was assigned District Number 204467.04. After evaluation of the application in conjunction with its needs and policies, the District issued a staff report and proposed agency action on the application which recommended issuance of the permit authorizing water to be drawn from the 12 wells at a rate approximating that requested in the application. Thereafter, the City of Sarasota, which operates the nearby Verna Wellfield, considering that the proposed withdrawal would have a substantial adverse impact on its wellfield operations, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing objecting to the issuance of the permit to Mr. Harloff. Though Mr. Harloff has owned much of the property which make up the 8,500 acre tract in question here, at the time of his application, he did not own, but had under contract, a substantial portion. He closed on the purchase of that remainder after he received notice of the District's intention to issue the permit in question but prior to the City's filing its Petition For Formal Hearing. The purchase price of the property in question was $9,000,000.00 which carries an interest payment on the financed portion of $52,000.00 per month. The wells pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are as follows: # Cons. Depth Cas. Lin. Diam. Cap. Loc. 1 1978 1185' 200' 220-490' 12" 2000 gpm SE 2. 1988 1320' 210' 210-480' 16" 3000 gpm SE 9. 1974 1130' 390' 16" 3000 gpm C 10. 1976 1232' 231' 283-400' 16" 3000 gpm NW 11. 1979 1120' 210' 260-480' 12" 2000 gpm NW 12. 1976 1180' 480' 12" 2000 gpm SW 3. 1989 1434' 460' 16" 3000 gpm SE 5. 1989 1374' 610' 16" 3000 gpm W 8. 1989 1292' 548' 16" 3000 gpm NW 13. 1989 1310' 635' 16" 2000 gpm NE Well No. 8 was used as the pump test well for the constant rate discharge test and Well No. 13 was the deep observation well for that test. Wells 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have all been previously permitted by the District and No's 1, 2, 9 and 10 are currently permitted under two other permits, while 11 and 12 were permitted under a different permit. Wells No. 3, 5, 8 and 13 have been authorized for construction but not, as yet, to produce water. Wells 4, 6 and 7 have not yet been constructed. The intention is to drill them to a depth of 1,300 feet and case them to 600 feet. Each will have a pump capacity of 3,000 gpm. Number 4 will be in the southeast portion of the tract, number 6 in the central portion, and number 7 will be located just north of number 6. Wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 currently have a combined permitted maximum daily rate of 13,680,000 gallons under permits number 204467.03 for 1 and 2, and 204630 for 9 and 10. The former was issued on December 29, 1987 and will expire on December 29, 1993, and the latter, issued on October 7, 1981, will expire on that same day in 1991. The permit previously issued for wells 11 and 12 authorized withdrawal at a maximum daily rate of 2,160,000 gallons. That permit, number 204374, expired on September 9, 1986 and was not renewed. After the City filed its Petition challenging Mr. Harloff's proposed permit, Mr. Harloff, on June 26, 1989, filed an amended application to withdraw water at an average annual rate of 10.99 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 48.96 million gallons. This amended application refers to an additional proposed well, Number 13. The District, however, had previously approved wells 3 - 8 and 13, and pursuant to this authorization, wells 3, 5, 8, and 13 were built. Mr. Harloff submitted additional amendments to his application on August 7 and 9, 1989. The former requests a seasonal average daily rate of 25.34 mgd and a seasonal maximum daily rate of 32.79 mgd. The latter requests a seasonal average rate of 26.18 mgd, an annual average rate of 15.18 mgd, and a seasonal maximum rate of 31.56 mgd. In that regard, a seasonal rate is the same as an annual rate, (average or maximum) when applied to a growing season as opposed to a year. The additional amendments to the application were evaluated by District staff who, on August 18, 1989, issued a revised staff report and a proposal to issue to Mr. Harloff a consumptive use permit authorizing an average annual withdrawal of 11.1. mgd, an average seasonal withdrawal of 15.6 mgd, and a seasonal maximum withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. The proposed permit also contains terms and conditions which, the District contends, will, inter alia, permit Mr. Harloff to withdraw more water than he is currently authorized without additional adverse impact on the City's Verna Wellfield. It is to some of these terms and conditions that Mr. Harloff objects. Since the issuance of the revised staff report and intent to issue, the parties have negotiated on the various terms and conditions in question and have agreed to some and the amendment of others. Mr. Harloff has no objection to conditions number 1, 2, 3, 7 - 14, 23, 24, 26, 28 - 30, 32, and 34 & 35. The parties agree that other conditions, as indicated herein, should be amended as follows: Condition 19, on the third line, should be changed to read, " up to 20 inches tapering to 12 inches." Condition 22, on the second line, should be changed from "30 days" to "10 days". Condition 25, on the first line, should be changed from "within 60 days" to within 120 days". Condition 31, on the third line, starting with "following month" should be changed to "following months: January, April, July and October". Also, under Sampling Frequency, "Monthly" should be changed to "Quarterly". Condition 33, on the ninth line, insert the work "economically" before the word "feasible" in the phrase "specific operation and irrigation improvements are feasible". Mr. Harloff objects to conditions 4, 5, 15 - 17, 20 & 27. He does not object to the proposed new standards for new wells. Taken together, the parties then disagree only on the requirement for abandonment or refurbishment of existing wells and the quantities of water Mr. Harloff will be allowed to draw. The City supports the District's position on both issues. The City of Sarasota owns and operates a public water system to serve between 50 to 75 thousand people located in Sarasota County. The primary source of water for this system is the Verna Well field which is also owned by the City and which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the City's water needs. The City also operates a reverse osmosis, (R.O.) water desalinization facility, and has back-up wells at St. Armond Key and at the Bobby Jones Wellfield. The Verna Wellfield is located about 17 miles east of the Sarasota city limits on approximately 2,000 acres of land in northeastern Sarasota County. It consists of two tracts of land: Part "A", which is approximately 1/2 mile wide by 4 miles long; and Part "B", which is approximately 1 mile square located about 500 feet southeast of Part "A". The Verna Wellfield's permitted allocation is based on whether the R.O. facility is producing at capacity. If it is, the Verna daily allocation is 7 mgd, and if not, 9.5 mgd. The R.O. facility's capacity is 4.5 mgd and the backup wells have a capacity of 1.7 mgd. The wellfield contains 39 permitted production wells, 30 of which are in Part "A" and 9 of which are in Part "B." One of them, well 30, is currently inactive. The wellfield has been in operation as a part of the City's public water system since September 1966. When the Verna Wellfield was constructed in 1965-1966, its original design specified casing on most wells down to 140 feet with pump bowl settings at 125 feet. Each pump was to have a total dynamic head, (TDH) of 200 feet. Over the years, the City has decreased the TDH of the pumps at Verna from 200 feet to 175 feet. This has resulted in a reduction of the pumps' ability to produce water with sufficient pressure to carry it to the discharge point. This decline has been caused by an increase in withdrawal of water regionally, and not solely because of withdrawals from the Verna Well field. Verna is impacted by the use of water outside the boundaries of the wellfield. The City has an ongoing program calling for the refurbishment of 2 to 3 wells per year at the Verna Wellfield. It is the City's intent to convert the pumps to 200 feet TDH on all well refurbishments in the future. In August 1977, a program requiring permits for the consumptive use of water was implemented in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties. At that time, the Verna Wellfield had a production rate of 6.9 mgd annual average daily rate. On January 6, 1978, the City applied for a permit for Verna and on April 3, 1979, the District issued permit number 27804318 to allow the City to draw water from the Verna Wellfield. The City applied for a renewal of that permit in October 1983 and thereafter, in January 1985, the District authorized the continued withdrawal of water from Verna by the issuance of permit 204318 which, at Condition 18, placed limitations on the City's use of water from the wellfield. Specifically, the permit limited withdrawals from Verna to: ...6,000,000 gallons per day average and 7,000,000 gallons per day maximum, except during those times when ... [the R.O. process is reduced or to facilitate maintenance or repairs]. At such times, ... [withdrawals) may be increased to provide additional supplies not to exceed 8,000,000 gallons per day average annual and 9,500,000 gallons per day maximum. This condition clearly provides for additional supplies to be drawn to increase the Verna Well field production to a total of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 mgd, respectively, not in addition to the regular permitted amount, by those quantities. The City's permit has been neither suspended nor revoked nor is any violation enforcement action currently under way. The current permit expires January 9, 1991. The water pumped from the Verna wells is held in a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at the wellfield. This reservoir, which is topped at approximately 22 to 23 feet, electronically controls the pumping activity at the well field by turning on and shutting off pumps, in series, as the water level in the reservoir rises and falls. The water, when needed, is transmitted to another reservoir near the City's treatment plant in downtown Sarasota by gravity flow through a 30" diameter, 92,000 foot long pipe. The flow rate is approximately 5,000 gpm normally. When the treatment plant needs more water, a pump at the well field forces the flow at a rate of between 7,200 to 8,200 gpm, depending upon the level of water in the receiving reservoir. A flow of 8,200 gpm would draw 11.8 mgd from the wellfield. The operating capacity of the Verna Wellfield, in August 1988, was 17.9 mgd. Harloff's experts assert, and there is no concrete evidence to rebut it, that if all wells at Verna were pumping during a 24 hour period in May 1989, the reservoir could have been maintained at full level. However, though there is a manual override of the automatic reservoir/pump control system, it is unrealistic and unwise to expect full production on a 24 hour basis for any lengthy time period. Water under both Mr. Harloff's property and the Verna Well field is found at various levels known by different names. These include, in order of descent, the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer extends from the surface down to between 20 and 60 feet below the surface. A 20 foot thick bed of clay separates the water in this aquifer from that in the aquifer immediately below it, the Intermediate Aquifer, which extends from approximately 80 feet down to approximately 420 feet below the surface. In the lower part of the Intermediate Aquifer, permeability decreases until a confining unit separating the bottom of the Intermediate Aquifer from the top of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is formed. There is such a confining unit between 420 and 500 feet. There is no well-defined confining unit between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. There is, however, a substantial difference in the transmissivity in each zone. "Transmissivity" is defined as the amount of water that will exist through a section of the aquifer that is the same width from the top to the bottom. The lower the transmissivity rate, the deeper the cone and the narrower the radius of effect. The higher the rate, the shallower the cone and the broader the radius. The Lower Floridan Aquifer has an extremely high transmissivity. Its top is found at a range of from 1,050 to 1,200 feet below the surface on Mr. Harloff's property. The water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is of higher quality than that in the Lower. It is more readily usable for drinking than that in the Lower, but the Lower water is quite acceptable for agricultural purposes. What confining layer exists between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers is made up of relatively impermeable anhydrides and gypsum. Because of this, there is little likelihood of the highly mineralized water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer rising into the better quality water in the Upper. If, therefore, water for agricultural purposes is drawn from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, with its high transmissivity and narrower cone radius, and if the wells utilized to procure this water are cased down to within the Lower aquifer, there is little chance of a negative impact on the better quality water, used for drinking by the City, within the Upper Floridan and Intermediate Aquifers. Mr. Hardin, an expert geologist and hydrogeologist testifying for Mr. Harloff, concluded, utilizing certain commonly accepted computer models, that Mr. Harloff's requested additional withdrawals would not have a significant effect on the Verna Wellfield's ability to produce water sufficient for the City's needs. This conclusion was based on 1989 seasonal use figures including an average rate of 21.95 mgd, a maximum rate of 27.04 mgd, and a maximum rate of 29 mgd under a "run time" calculation and the fact that during that period, the City was able to pump at least its permitted quantity from its wells at Verna. The City and the District do not accept this conclusion as reasonable, however, because, they claim, the withdrawal figures cited are not meter readouts but estimates based on the number of acres farmed and the number of pump operating hours during the period in question. The City's experts contend the data used by Hardin and Prochaska in their opinions is not that which other experts in the field would reasonably rely upon. They do not appear to be unrealistic, however, and, therefore, Mr. Hardin's opinion is accepted as but one factor to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson, also a Harloff expert hydrogeologist, claims the requested withdrawals would result in only an additional 1.7 foot drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying the Northeast corner of the Verna Well field. To be sure, this is only one small portion of the wellfield in issue. There has, however, been a continuing history of declining groundwater levels in this area over the past several years. After the 1975 drought, the City started to experience declining water levels at Verna which, because of the reduction in ability to produce water, required a lowering of the pump elements in some wells, and also caused the City to develop an R.O. facility in an effort to reduce dependence on well water. This drop in capability occurred again during the 1985 drought and this time the City modified the pump motors to shut off prior to cavitation and initiated a schedule of operating times for wells, so that water is drawn from different and geographically separated areas in a sequence designed to allow periodic regeneration of an area's supply. Nevertheless, water supply remains a concern at Verna, and the problems previously experienced continue to occur during periods of drought. In May 1989, the Verna Wellfield was periodically "unable" to meet it's short term peak demands at times even though all operating wells were pumping. This means that at the times in question, more water was being drawn from the Verna reservoir than could be replaced by pumping activities. It does not mean that the reservoir ran dry and water could not be furnished to the treatment plant. However, this condition is serious and indicative of a more serious shortage in the future unless appropriate safeguards are instituted. Mr. Balleau, the City's expert in hydrology and hydrogeology, and the District's experts all believe the Verna Wellfield is in trouble. It is operating well beyond its design range and the imposition of additional demands on it would seriously and adversely affect its ability to produce water. This position is supported by the facts and found to be accurate. There appear to be several options open to the City to contend with the Verna problem potential. These include: drill deeper wells at Verna to tap the Lower Floridan Aquifer. (This will produce the lower quality water found there and require additional treatment facilities. construct a linear wellfield along the pipeline from Verna to the treatment facility. (This will require additional permitting to draw the water, high construction and operating costs, and still result in low quality water requiring treatment. redevelop the downtown wells currently supplying the R.O. facility. (This will require satisfaction of regulatory issues, adversely impact on the users of the upper aquifers, possibly result in poor water quality and in contamination from nearby landfills.) develop a new well field southeast of Verna. (This will experience regulatory issues and high construction costs, with an unknown water quality result.) buy water from Manatee County. (This is expensive, may result in transmission and compatibility problems, and would be only a short term solution. lower pump assemblies; replace existing pumps and modify the pump circuits. (These are all unreliable, short term solutions of minimal benefit.) Mr. Harloff and the City/District disagree on the appropriate amount of water needed for the successful growing of the crops produced by his operations. Both agree, however, that the heaviest demands for water come in the spring growing season including April and May. Tomatoes require the most water. Peppers require nearly as much. This is because the short root systems require a higher water table in the soil to supply needed moisture. In its analysis of Mr. Harloff's application, the District, referring to tables developed for the purpose of allocation and relating to Harloff's watering history during the period from August 15, 1988 to June 7, 1989, subtracted the fall season recorded application of 20.7 acre-inches from the total 10 month figure of 50.92 acre-inches and concluded he would need 30.22 acre-inches for peppers during the spring, 1989 season. Unless shown to be totally unreasonable, however, (not the case here), the applicant's water need figures should be accepted. Mr. Harloff's operation constitutes an important part of Manatee County's agricultural economy, and agriculture utilizes 68.9 percent of the land in the county. Agricultural products sold in Manatee County in 1987 were valued at $145,655,000.00, which ranked Manatee County third among all Florida counties in vegetable production. Agriculture is the fourth largest employer in Manatee County, employing an average of 4,692 people per month. Through his farm operation alone, Harloff employes as many as 1,050 people, with 200 employed on a full-time basis. Experts estimate that the loss of the Harloff operation would cause a reduction of between 16 and 18 million dollars in agricultural sales in the county with an additional loss in jobs and income to his suppliers. This estimate is not at all unreasonable. Florida produces approximately 95 percent of all tomatoes grown in this country for the fresh tomato market during the winter growing season. Tomatoes are the single largest vegetable crop grown in the state and accounted for 39.7 percent of the total value of vegetables produced in Florida during the 1987-1988 growing season. Mr. Harloff produced 4.8 percent of the total shipment of tomatoes from this state during that period. Water, primarily through irrigation, is an indispensable portion of the farming operation for this crop. Mr. Harloff currently irrigates the majority of his non-citrus crops by use of a "semi-closed ditch irrigation system", as opposed to a "drip system." The drip system is considerably more efficient than the semi-closed system having an efficiency rating, (amount of water actually used by the plants) of between 80 to 90 percent, as opposed to 40 to 60 percent for the other. While Mr. Harloff could reduce his water needs considerably and achieve substantial savings on pump fuel by conversion to a drip system for all or a part of his crops, such an undertaking would be quite costly. One of the conditions proposed by the District for the approval of Harloff's permit, as amended, is the refurbishment of several of the existing wells utilized by Mr. Harloff to make them more efficient and to promote the withdrawal of water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, in which there appears to be adequate water and from which the Verna Well field does not draw. Currently, Mr. Harloff has seven wells which do not meet the standards of this proposed condition. They are not drilled to 1,300 feet below mean sea level and are not cased to 600 feet. To bring these wells into compliance, they would have to be drilled to the 1,300 foot level, or to a level which has a specific capacity of 400 gpm, and the casings in each would have to be extended to 600 feet. Extending the casings would be a complicated procedure and Harloff's experts in the area cannot guarantee the procedure would successfully achieve the desired end. Assuming the retrofit was successful, the cost of the entire process would be approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 per well. In addition, the process would, perforce, require reducing the diameter of the well from 10 to 8 inches, thereby necessitating increasing the pump capacity to produce sufficient water. The cost of this is substantial with an appropriate new pump costing somewhere between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each. Consequently, the anticipated cost of bringing the existing wells up to condition standards would be between $25,000.00 to $31,000.00 per well, while the cost of constructing a new well is between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 per well. Mr. Harloff feels it would be more prudent for him to replace the existing wells rather than to retrofit them. This may be correct. Harloff experts also claim that extending the casings on the existing wells down to 600 feet would not provide a significant benefit to the aquifer nor cause any significant reduction in drawdown impact at Verna. The District and City experts disagree and, taken on balance, caution and the interests of the public indicate that a conservative approach is more appropriate. While Mr. Harloff proposes to convert the areas served by wells 1, 9, 11, and 12 to the growing of citrus which requires much less water than tomatoes, this would not be sufficient mitigation to offset the need for some modification if large amounts of water will still be drawn. The entire area under the District's jurisdiction has been experiencing a water shortage due to a lack of rainfall. As a result, in June 1989, the District adopted a resolution identifying an area, including the area in question here, as a "water use caution area." This was done because the Floridan Aquifer has been subjected to large seasonable drawdowns of the potientiometric surface, the level to which water in a confined aquifer can rise in a well which penetrates that acquifer. This drawdown is directly related to increased water use in the area, much of which is for agricultural purposes. As a result of the District's action, special conditions on well construction for consumptive use applicants have been imposed on a permit by permit basis to insure, as much as possible, that the applicant uses the lowest quality water appropriate for his intended purpose. These conditions are not unreasonable. While accepting the District's and City's conclusion that his wells, if permitted, would have some impact on the Verna Wellfield, Mr. Harloff does not concede that the impact is significant. Specifically, the difference in impact resulting from an increase from his currently permitted use of 13.68 mgd seasonal maximum and his requested use of 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum for wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 would be a maximum increased drawdown of 1.1 feet at the Intermediate aquifer and 1.8 feet at the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Both figures relate to that portion of the wellfield found in the northeast corner of Part A. If the anticipated usage for crops predicted by Mr. Harloff's experts for the spring of 1989 is accurate, the drawdown would be 0.2 feet for the intermediate aquifer and 0.4 feet for the Upper Floridan Aquifer measured at the northeast corner of Part B of the Verna We1lfield. Harloff's experts contend that additional impacts for the spring of 1989 included, the increased usage will not have a significant effect on Verna's ability to produce its permitted daily maximum withdrawal of 9.5 mgd. While this is an educated speculation, it should be noted that during May 1989, the Verna field was able to produce up to 8.3 mgd without using all wells during any 24 hour period. This does not consider, however, the problems encountered by the City as indicated by the wellfield personnel, and the fact that some of the City wells are not pumping water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Roger Harloff be issued a consumptive use permit, No. 204467.04, as modified, to reflect authorization to draw 15.18 mgd annual average, not to exceed 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum, conditioned upon compliance with the conditions found in the conditions portion of the permit, as modified to conform to the quantities as stated herein, and to include those requirements as to acre-inch and crop-acre limitations, well usage and abandonment schedules, well modification standards, and record keeping, as are contained therein. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 5th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-0574 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: City of Sarasota, joined by the District 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29-33. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. & 36. Accepted. 37. & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on opponent's satisfaction of its burden of proof. 42-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misstatement of fact. Water service was never interrupted. The deficiency was in the City's inability to keep its wellfield reservoir filled. 47-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 57-62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 64-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. Rejected. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Rejected. Accepted. Irrelevant. 81-84. Rejected. 85. & 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87 & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90 & 91. Accepted and incorporated herein. 92. & 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Roger Harloff 1-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14 & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 & 30. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not proven. 35 & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39-41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 & 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted. 45 & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Accepted. 50 & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. & 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58-60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61 & 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 67-68. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but an interpretation of party po Accepted. Rejected. 72 & 73. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert and Gramovot, P.A. 705 East Kennedy- Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent’s license as a water well contractor should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint and Order entered herein by the District.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) was the state agency responsible for the conservation, protection, management, and control of water resources within its boundaries, and consistent therewith, the licensing of water wells therein; and for the licensing and regulation of water wells and water well contractors within the district. The three wells in issue herein were within the jurisdiction of the Petitioner, and Respondent was a water well contractor licensed by the District. On June 4, 1998, Respondent signed a contract with Karen Anne Grant, to drill a four-inch domestic water well on her property located at 33442 Larkin Road, Dade City, Florida. The property, on which Ms. Grant was building a residence, was a part of a pre-existing citrus grove. After application by the Respondent, SWFWMD issued WCP No. 606175.01 to him on June 1, 1998, and Respondent began construction of the well on June 15, 1998. His application reflected the well was to be drilled using the cable-tool method. Construction was completed on the well on or about July 7, 1998, but because the well was vandalized during construction by the dropping of an unknown substance (probably a piece of casing) down the well, the well was unsatisfactory and was not used. Respondent attempted to repair the well but was unable to do so. Respondent claimed the well was unusable and he would have to drill another one. Although he did not obtain a permit to close the well, he subsequently did so. He was paid $5,375.00 to dig this Well (No. 1). Because of the failure of Well No. 1, Respondent applied to the District for and received WCP No. 613349.01 on December 9, 1998, to construct a second four-inch water well on Ms. Grant's property. This was Well No. 2. He began construction that day and completed it on January 27, 1999. From the time of its initial use, Well No. 2 produced water which contained unacceptable amounts of sediment, debris, and sand. In addition to the unsatisfactory quality of the water it produced, Well No. 2 also failed to produce a sufficient quantity of water for domestic potable water use or grove irrigation. Respondent admitted to Ms. Grant that Well No. 2 was not satisfactory for grove irrigation, and in an effort to fix the water quality problem, installed a sand filter and sedimentation tank. Well No. 2 was not properly closed. It was covered with a PVC cap instead of a tamper-resistant watertight cap or valve as required, and Respondent did not properly seal the upper terminus of the well. Without obtaining a third WCP, on February 25, 1999, Respondent started construction of a third well on the Grant property. Respondent contends WCP No. 613349.01, pulled for Well No. 2, was not for that well but for Well No. 3. He argues that the second well was so close to the first well that he did not feel another permit was required. Though Well No. 3 was completed and produces water, the water quality is poor. It contains sand, sediment, debris, and rock, which results in clogging of plumbing fixtures at the Grant home. In addition, the volume of water produced is insufficient for comfortable home use. Well No. 3 is open down to 178 feet below land surface, beyond which point it is obstructed by sand. Use of a diagnostic tool available to the District reveals that the sand seems to be coming from around the well casing. Ms. Grant initially contracted with Respondent to dig her well in June 1998. Although Petitioner disputes it, the location of the well near the new house she was building was, she claims, by mutual agreement. Respondent did not express any dissatisfaction with the location of this or either of the other wells, He said he was familiar with the area and had worked all around there. Respondent started work on Well No. 1 on June 15, 1998 and it was completed on July 2, 1998. The house was not yet completed, and electric service had not been installed, though it was being arranged for. Before the well could be put in operation, however, Respondent claimed it was vandalized and his equipment, which he had left at the site, stolen. At this point, Respondent told Ms. Grant that he had run into an obstruction which he believed was pipe which had been dropped into the well at more than 100 feet. He said he had tried to get it out, but could not, and had to drill another well. The casing of Well No. 1 was not cut off at that time. Ms. Grant later discovered it had been cut off and plugged, but she does not know who did that. Ms. Grant used Well No. 2, which was located about 20 to 30 feet west of Well No. 1, for just about two months but was never satisfied with the amount or quality of the water it produced. Not only was the water quality low, but there was also insufficient volume for grove irrigation, one of the intended uses of which she had advised Respondent. When Grant complained to Respondent about the water quality, he suggested she run hoses constantly to clear the sand out. In February, 1999, just after Ms. Grant contacted the District to complain, Respondent said he would come by to cap Well Nos. 1 and 2, and start Well No. 3. On February 25, 1999, Respondent started Well No. 3 at a site about 200 feet north of Well Nos. 1 and 2, agreed upon by the parties after some discussion, and on March 5, 1999, he completed it. Respondent billed Ms. Grant $3,271 for this well, in addition to the $5,375 paid for Well No. 1 and the $4,585 paid for Well No. 2. Whereas the builder paid for the first two wells, Ms. Grant paid for Well No. 3, but she had the same problems with Well No. 3 that she had had with the prior two wells. An irrigation company called in to see what could be done to get water to the citrus grove indicated there was too much sediment in the water and not enough flow. About a year after Well No. 3 was completed, the Grants noticed the water pressure was dropping, and when they went to the well site, they noticed the pump was constantly running. As a result, they called another well driller who pulled the pump and replaced the impellers. After that, Ms. Grant contacted Respondent about the fact that the wells he had drilled had never worked properly. All he would recommend was to keep the hoses running. He indicated he would try to develop the well to rid it of debris but when he tried, he was unsuccessful. As a result of the situation with the three wells, the Grants had no water to their home; the pumps they installed were destroyed; they were unable to irrigate their 8-acre citrus grove; they suffered a resultant loss of income; and, they were forced to drill a fourth well. When Well No. 1 was closed, the casing was cut off at or below ground level. It did not extend one foot above the land surface, nor was the casing capped or sealed with a tamper- resistant watertight cap or valve. Examination of the well site by Sharon Lee Vance, then a technician IV for the District, on May 25, 1999, based on a complaint filed by Ms. Grant, revealed that the water quality was poor - cloudy with excessive sand and rock particles. Ms. Vance tried to contact Respondent, whose name appeared on the permit as contact, by phone but always got his voice mail. Though she left messages requesting him to call back, he never did. Ms. Vance went back to the Grant site in July 1999 in the company of other District personnel. At this visit, Ms. Vance learned there were two wells. She located both and found that Well No. 1 was buried. When she first saw that well, she noted that it had been cut off below the surface, a fence post had been driven into the top, and the well had been buried. In Ms. Vance's discussions with Ms. Grant about this well, Ms. Grant categorically denied she was the one who cut off the top of Well No. 1 or buried it. She does not have access to the cutting equipment used to cut off the top of the well. Such equipment, however, is commonly used by well contractors. It was obvious to Ms. Vance that Well No. 1 had several problems. It was clearly not suitable for its intended use because it was cut off below ground level and was obstructed. It had not been properly abandoned. Though she dug down approximately one-and-a-half feet all the way around the casing, she could find no evidence of bentonite or any other approved closing medium. Even though Respondent now claims the second permit he pulled was not for Well No. 2 but for Well No. 3 instead, the permit itself appears to authorize the construction of Well No. Ms. Vance found several problems with this well, also. It was not properly sealed with bentonite or any other properly approved closure medium; a PVC cap had been applied to the top instead of a waterproof or tamperproof cap, and the PVC cap was cracked; the well was not suitable for its intended purpose because it was obstructed and produced both insufficient and poor quality water; and it was not properly abandoned. Ms. Vance observed a metal plate placed around the well top. She does not know what purpose it was to serve, but based on her experience and her examination of the site, she believes it was placed there to keep the casing from falling into the well. Notwithstanding, Ms. Vance's opinion that the second permit was for Well No. 2, Respondent contends he believed the permit for Well No. 1 was adequate to permit drilling of Well No. 2 without a new permit. Though his belief is incorrect, he admitted to obtaining a permit for Well No. 3. Therefore, it is found that Well No. 2 was not properly permitted. Well No. 3 was permitted. The water in Well No. 3 was not of good quality. She examined the sand filter which had been installed by the Respondent and found it to be full of sand. So was the settling tank. She also noted debris and unusual sediment around the well head. Based on water samples taken at the well, and the observations made, it was clear to Ms. Vance that the well was not properly seated and was pumping sand. Further, the well casing did not extend down to the static water level, and the well was not properly permitted. Ms. Vance further noted that the water from Well No. 3, in addition to the excessive sand, also had large pieces of rock and chunks of clay in it. This was unusual and indicated to her that there was a problem with the well's construction. The casing integrity as not good, which permitted an infusion of contaminant into the well. This condition is not unusual during the first day or so of a well's operation, but it usually clears up after that. In this case, it did not. Ms. Vance admits she does not know who cut Well No. 1 off below ground level. She knows the well was not properly abandoned as required by rule, however, because it was not properly grouted with neat cement grout or bentonite. She dug down beside the well for a total of two and a half feet without seeing any evidence of grout or bentonite. The fact that the well had pipe dropped into it, and the existence of the cutting off of the pipe below ground, made it inappropriate for the intended purpose of providing water for the home. Ms. Vance she does not know who cut off the pump; Ms. Grant does not know who cut off the pipe; and Respondent denies having done it. Though the work was clearly done by someone with access to well drilling tools, Respondent was not the only driller to work at the site. Therefore, it cannot be found that Respondent cut the pipe off below ground. It is clear, however, that Respondent failed to properly abandon and close Well No. 1, when he found it unusable, and it was his responsibility to do so. Well No. 2 also was not properly sealed by Respondent, according to Ms. Vance. A proper seal would include a good cap, not a cracked PVC cap, which would suffice only as a temporary cap. A proper cap would be one that is water tight and could not be readily removed. Ms. Vance admits she does not know who cracked the existing cap - only that it is cracked. This well, too, did not produce water fit for its intended purpose because of the existence of the tools which had been dropped into it. A permit was not obtained to abandon it. Under all these circumstances, Ms. Vance did not attempt to determine if it would produce sufficient water. Finally, Ms. Vance concluded that Well No. 3 was not properly seated. According to rule, the casing has to seat to or below the static water level. Based on the debris in the water drawn from this well, she was satisfied this well was not properly cased. Mack Pike, a water resources technician III for the District, does much of the well logging for the District. The equipment he uses goes to the bottom of the well and shows the diameter up to the point where the casing usually starts. Among other items, he uses a camera, which is what he used on the wells in issue here. On July 22, 1999, he went to the Grant property to look at Well Nos. 1 and 2. His first efforts to get into these wells were unsuccessful, so he stopped his effort and returned on May 10, 2000 with the camera. On May 17, 2000, he also ran the camera down all three wells. In Well No. 3 he found the pump at 176 feet. He found Well No. 1 cut off about one and a- half feet below ground level, with a log jammed into the casing top down to the level of the casing. The pipe had been cut with a torch, but the casing had not been properly sealed with bentonite. Use of the log to stuff the pipe was an improper seal. He found the well open below the log down to 128 feet, but obstructed below that. There was no water in the well. Respondent adamantly insists he used bentonite in all three wells, but since no trace of it was found in any of the wells by Mr. Pike or Ms. Vance, it is found that he did not. At Well No. 2, Mr. Pike found a welded slab around the pipe to keep the casing from falling in. The cap was cracked and was no good. The camera showed the well was closed off. He hit sand at 158 feet. The presence of sand indicated to Mr. Pike that the casing was not properly sealed. The well was unusable. Mr. Pike did not examine Well No. 3 until after he opened the sediment tank and found sand which appeared to have come from the surface. If the casing had been properly sealed, there should have been no surface sand. This means that the well was not properly seated. Respondent has been a licensed well contractor since 1989 and has drilled approximately 300 wells since that time. Though he claims he suggested alternate locations for the wells to Ms. Grant, she insisted the well be placed near her irrigation line. Respondent claims he was against this because the site was a transition area which raised the possibility of the pipe bending. Notwithstanding the advice he got from others regarding the siting of the wells, he agreed to place the well where Ms. Grant wanted it. Respondent claims he dug the first well and installed the pump, but the power was insufficient to run it. As a result, he pulled out the pump and told Ms. Grant that when she got the proper power to run it, he'd come back and reinstall the pump. It was when he returned to the site in response to her call that he found that the site of Well No. 1 had been vandalized. Though he recommended the well be abandoned, Ms. Grant did not want to do that, so he moved over 20 feet and started to drill again. He categorically denies having cut off the casing of Well No. 1 below ground level. It has been found that the evidence shows Respondent that cut the pipe on Well No. 1, is insufficient. Mr. Holt admits he did not seek a permit for this second well because his understanding was that one could drill like wells on the same premises without abandoning the pre- existing wells. He drilled the second well which, he claims, produced water for five to six months. However, it was impossible to stop the sand from infiltrating the well, and the well was not producing sufficient water to irrigate the grove. Because the water produced by Well No. 2 was insufficient in quantity to use the 5-horsepower pump called for in the contract, Respondent replaced it with a one and a-half horsepower pump. According to Respondent, he and Ms. Grant discussed where to site Well No. 3. Finally, Ms. Grant agreed to move it up the hill on which Respondent wanted to site it, as this would accommodate her irrigation system. Respondent was not comfortable with this because it was on the slope too close to the others, but he went along with it. As Well No. 3 was being constructed, Respondent discussed with Ms. Grant the need to close Well Nos. 1 and 2. She did not want to pay for the closings, so he decided to cap the existing wells. As a result, Well No. 2 is still a viable well, and though it will not irrigate the grove, it will, Respondent claims, provide sufficient water for the house. He admits placing the PVC cap on Well No. 2, but claims it was not cracked when installed. He also admits to placing the plate around the top of Well No. 2 because the drive shoe was bent. It broke off, and he was afraid if he did not reinforce the area as he had the casing would collapse when he tried to ream out the drive shoe to recover it. At the 126-foot mark of Well No. 3, Respondent hit a boulder through which the drill would not go. At that time, the hole below the casing was still good with no infusion. Respondent installed a pump and drew water, but, the pump soon began to pull sand. Respondent installed a filter, but it was insufficient. He ultimately drilled through the rock and placed the pump at 178 feet. That well is currently being used. Respondent claims that all wells in that area pull sand to some degree. He insists that Ms. Grant's wells just pull too much. He claims he could have quit, but because of his relationship with the builder, he felt obligated to drill a working well for Ms. Grant. Anthony Gilboy, who has been with the District for 20 years, is currently the District's manager of well construction. He is familiar with the statutes and the rules of the District relating to water well construction and abandonment. According to Mr. Gilboy, they are loose enough to permit some latitude in their application. There is a freedom to amend methodology where circumstances so dictate. A licensed water well contractor is required to obtain a permit to construct a water well. Once a permit is drawn, if the well needs to be changed, the permittee must apply for an amendment and then plug the old well consistent with District guidelines. Plugging is critical to prevent potential contamination of water and to preserve it. Rule 40D-3.042, Florida Administrative Code, permits multiple (up to 8) wells under a single permit for similar types of wells that have diameters of 4 inches or less, but not domestic water wells. There are different ways to drill a water well. One is by cable-tool drill in which a bit is hammered into the rock. As the casing is being driven down into the ground, it holds back the sediment. Another method involves the use of a rotary drill which employs water and bentonite to hold back sediment. It is possible to tell whether bentonite was used in the drilling process just by looking at the well. The bentonite adheres to the well casing and looks different from the surrounding soil. In fact, there is no soil appearing naturally in Florida that looks like bentonite. In the instant case, Respondent applied to use the cable-tool method. Bentonite traces were not found at the sites. When a well is drilled, the casing is to be poured in segments as drilling progresses. When a well is to be abandoned, one approved method of doing so involves the use of bentonite, a type of clay which swells to about 10 to 15 times its volume in dry form. Studies done by the District in conjunction with the University of Florida show that over all, bentonite is a better seal than natural soil, and it prevents surface water from settling down the side of the casing. Rule 40D-3.517(3), Florida Administrative Code, requires bentonite's use for this purpose, and a rule of the Department of Environmental Protection, though not specifically mentioning bentonite, requires that casings be sealed. The casing of a water well is used to seal off any unconsolidated materials. Rule 62-532, Florida Administrative Code, requires the casing be extended into the static water level at the time the well is drawn. If a well is not sealed, debris and sand can slide into the well and damage the pump and other equipment. If debris is seen, it usually means the casing was not sealed properly. After a well is completed, the rules of the District and the Department, Rules 40D-3.521(2) and 62-532.500(3)(a)4, Florida Administrative Code, respectively, require the upper part of the well to be sealed off to prevent infusion of contaminants. The seal must be tamper-proof and permanent. A fence post is not acceptable, nor is a cracked PVC cap. In addition, the upper terminus of a private well must extend at least 1 foot above the land surface. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the well to be found, and to prevent infusion of contaminant. (Rule 40D-3.53(2), Florida Administrative Code) According to Rule 62-532-500(4), Florida Administrative Code, all abandoned or incomplete wells must be plugged from top to bottom with grout (neat cement). The Rule and Stipulation 39 of the permit provide that the well drilling contractor is responsible for proper abandonment of a well. This is not conditioned on the willingness of the owner to pay. The contractor has the responsibility to do it. An abandoned well is one which the use of which has been permanently discontinued or which is so in need of repair as to be useless. These determinations must be made by the District, hence the need for the permit. In the instant case it was determined that Well Nos. 1 and 2 were not suited for their intended purpose, and they should have been properly abandoned. The process for well abandonment is not complex, but it does require the obtaining of a permit. At least 24 hours in advance of initiation of the plugging process, the contractor must advise the District that the process will be implemented. Thereafter, the well hole is filled with neat cement or bentonite grout. To abandon a well by any other method would require a variance from the District. Neither permit nor variance was sought as to Well Nos. 1 and 2. The standards adopted by the Department and the Water Management Districts are statewide in application. Construction of a water well without first obtaining a permit is classified as a major violation. The failure to properly abandon a well or the failure to use bentonite or neat cement in well closure are also major violations. Failure to construct a well so that the casing extends below the static water level is a major violation. Failure to seat or seal a casing into rock formation is a major violation. Failure to place a water-tight seal and failure to extend well casing at least one foot above the ground level are both major violations. Penalties may be assessed for these violations according to a schedule set out in the Department rules. However, these penalties may be adjusted based on such factors as the economic benefit to the contractor of his non-compliance; his history of non-compliance; the negligence or willfulness of his actions; and whether he acted in good faith. Under the circumstances of this case, Mr. Gilboy is of the opinion that the actions proposed by the District are appropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Fletcher Holt be ordered to pay an administrative fine of $4,600; that 46 points be assessed against his water well contractor's license; and that he be required to properly abandon Well Nos. 1, 2, and 3, which he drilled on the Grant property. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 18th day of July, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Onofre Cintron, Esquire 305 North Parson Avenue Brandon, Florida 33510 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 E. D. "Sonny" Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
