Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Southwest Florida Water Management District had permitting authority for the issuance of consumptive use permits in the area in which Respondent, El Jobean, proposes to sink its irrigation well. On December 12, 1988, El Jobean submitted a consumptive use permit application to sink a new well for the purpose of irrigation of a golf course to be developed on the property it owns in Sarasota County. The well is to be located in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 32, Township 365, Range 20R, in Sarasota County, Florida near the southern boundary of an irregularly shaped piece of property consisting of approximately 855 acres, owned by the applicant, which extends over Sections 28, 29, 32 and 33, Township 365, Range 20E. Respondent proposed to sink a 10 inch diameter well to a total depth of approximately 900 feet with casing in the well now to extend down to 300 feet, with a pump capacity of 1,000 GPM. The golf course to be irrigated is to encompass approximately 190 acres. The applicant requested authority to withdraw an average of 600,000 GPD with a limitation of a maximum of 1,440,000 GPD. The application was properly staffed by the District. In the staff report on the application, the average daily use limitation was expanded to 707,000 GPD; consumptive use was raised from 0 to 139,000 GPD; and maximum daily consumption was reduced from 1,440,000 GPD to 1,240,000 GPD. These changes were due to correction of arithmetic errors in the application and were accepted by the applicant. The ultimate recommendation of the staff was for approval of a 6 year permit, subject to certain conditions outlined in subparagraph I of the staff report. These special conditions require the provision and use of flow measuring devices to maintain an accurate record of the water withdrawn; the maintenance of flow records and the providing of periodic reports to the District; the collection and analyzing of water quality of samples taken from the well to measure the appropriate parameters for chlorides, sulfates, and total dissolved solids; the reporting of the results of these samplings and a description of the sampling and analytical methodologies employed; and a requirement that the permittee investigate the feasibility of supplementing and/or substituting drawn water with treated sewage affluent. After the staff report was submitted, proper notice of the District's intent to issue the permit was published. Based on that notice, protests were filed both by Miakka and Mr. Bishop. The area in question is located within the Manasota Basin which, itself, is located within the Southern West-Central Florida Ground Water Basin, (SWCFGWB), which encompasses all of Pasco, Hillsborough, Manatee, Sarasota, Polk, Hardee, and DeSoto Counties, and parts of Lee, Glades, Charlotte and Highlands Counties. The SWCFGWB sits atop several aquifers which include the Floridian Aquifer, two Intermediate aquifers, and the Surficial Aquifer. The Floridian Aquifer is the deepest and the Surficial Aquifer is on the top. The Miakka Community Club is a Florida corporation made up of residents of the pertinent area whose primary function is to preserve and conserve the rural nature and spirit of the Northeast section of Sarasota County. The club performs this function through educational programs, community activities, and participation in the legislative process. Miakka urges denial of the permit sought by El Jobean based on its membership's belief that the property owners whose property is in the immediate vicinity of the proposed well will be adversely affected if El Jobean is permitted to sink its well and withdraw water from it. The club membership believes that approval of El Jobean's well will result in contamination of existing personal water wells due to excessive use by El Jobean; potential contamination of Sarasota County's future drinking water sources which include the capital Ringling,/MacArthur tract and the Myakka River; reduction of property values; and destruction of personal resources. Petitioner also urges that since the proposed golf course will be a part of a private club for the use of members only, in which membership will be limited, there is no public benefit derived from the approval of and sinking of the well in question. Petitioner also contends that during the periods of severe water shortage as are being currently experienced, permission to sink a well of this size to draw water in of the magnitude expressed in the application, would be counterproductive and detrimental to the interests of the other property owners in the area. In support of its claim, Petitioner presented the testimony of two homeowners from the area, Mr. Richardson and Ms. Mustico. Mr. Richardson, whose well is 183 feet deep, has had several problems with his well even without the instant drilling. In 1974, and subsequent thereto, he has had to go deeper with a suction pipe because the water has dropped below the level of the tail pipe. Ms. Mustico's 160 foot deep well, with 80 feet of casing, is used to supply water for the home. She also has other wells for watering her lawn and for livestock, one of which goes down 500 feet. She is concerned that the well proposed by El Jobean will adversely impact her ability to draw water from her wells because, she believes, the water level from which her water is drawn will drop. In the past, her primary well has gone dry and the wells of several neighbors have gone dry as well. Through maps and other documentation taken from the Ground Water Resource Availability Inventory for Sarasota County, Florida, prepared by the District in March 1988, Petitioner has established that areas of significant groundwater withdrawal within the SWCFGWB occur in Hillsborough, Manatee, Polk, Hardee, DeSoto and Highlands Counties. With the exception of an extremely small portion of Sarasota County located contiguous to Manatee County, there appear to be no areas of major ground water withdrawal currently existing in Sarasota County. The majority of the major municipal well fields within the pertinent basin that are located within Sarasota County, extend down to the Intermediate and Surficial Aquifers with only 3 extending through the lower Intermediate into the Floridan Aquifer. These include the Verna well field located in the northeast corner of Sarasota County where it abuts Manatee County; the Sarasota County well field located in northwest Sarasota County near the Manatee County line; and the Sorrento Utility, Inc., well field which is located near the Gulf Coast, approximately two-fifths of the way down between the Manatee and Charlotte County lines. With the exception of the Verna well field, all the municipal well fields in Sarasota County appear to be reverse osmosis systems and as of 1987, there were 28 reverse osmosis systems located within Sarasota County. Most are relatively small in their output measured in millions of gallons per day. With the exception of 3 public supply wells, 2 of which are permitted an average annual pumpage greater than 100,000 GPD and 1 of which is permitted less, all of the permitted public supply well fields in Sarasota County are located west and south of 1-75 as it extends from the Manatee County line in the north to the Charlotte County line in the south. The El Jobean well would be located east of the line, in that area occupied by the 3 public supply wells. Generalized recharge areas for the upper Floridan Aquifer in the groundwater basin in issue here have been categorized from "high", with a rate of more than 10 inches per year, to "Generally none", with a recharge rate at 0. In 1980, the high recharge rates existed in the north-central part of Pasco, the eastern part of Polk County, and the northeastern part of Highlands County. Sarasota County is in an area wherein the recharge rate was either very low or generally none. In September 1986, the high recharge rate was found in a very small area of northeastern Pasco County, and small areas in both Polk and Highlands Counties. Sarasota County, for the most part, was classified as having no recharge. In May 1987, the high recharge rates were, again, a small area in eastern Pasco County, a small area in northeastern Hillsborough County, a small area in southeastern Polk and northwestern Highlands Counties, and a minuscule area in central Pinellas County. Again, Sarasota County had a recharge rate of 0. Generalized estimated, calibrated, model-derived recharge and discharge values for the upper Floridan Aquifer in the ground water basin in issue here, as they pertain to Sarasota County, reflect positive 2 recharge to negative 1 discharge inches per year. Historically, however, the northeast portion of Sarasota County, where the El Jobean well in question would be located, evaluated by various individuals or agencies periodically from 1980 through 1988, reflects a recharge of anywhere from 0 to 2 inches per year. None of this documentation was supplemented, however, by direct testimony by an individual knowledgeable in this area, and Petitioner's main thrust appears to be an unsubstantiated fear that the sinking of El Jobean's well will have a negative impact on its membership's wells. Admittedly, the residents in the area in question all rely on private wells for the majority of their water supply, other than through the catchment of rainwater, which is insignificant. It was also established that the area has been undergoing a severe water shortage and that conservation measures have been mandated. On the other hand, El Jobean presented the testimony of a hydrogeologist, Mr. Moresi, who has extensive experience with the modeling process used to determine water consumption and recharge in southwest Florida and Sarasota County. The aquifer system in Florida is made up of water bearing limestone layers below the surficial sand base. This aquifer system underlays the various zones throughout the state and reflects a surficial aquifer extending from ground level down approximately 70 feet to a confining bed which separates it from the lower strata. This top confining bed is approximately 20 feet thick, and below it is the Tamiami-Upper Hawthorn Aquifer, which is between 100 and 200 feet deep and which rests on another confining bed somewhat thicker than the upper one. Below the second confining bed is the Lower Hawthorn-Upper Tampa Aquifer which extends approximately from the 250 foot to the 450 foot level at the Manatee County line, and between the 320 foot and the 710 foot level at the Charlotte County line. Another confining bed lays between this aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer which starts at the 500 foot level and goes down well below the 900 foot level in the north and extends from the 730 foot level down in the south. The confining bed below the surficial aquifer is made up of a clay material which retards the movement of water from one aquifer to another. The surficial aquifer is porous and saturated with water from the water table down. Since the confining beds are far less porous than the aquifers they separate, water moves much more slowly through them. The lower aquifers are made up of limestone and are also porous and contain water. The Tamiami-Upper Hawthorn formation consists of limestone and clay, but is water bearing. The Lower Hawthorn-Upper Tampa formation is similar and both make up the intermediate aquifer below which is the lower confining bed followed by the Floridan aquifer. Respondent's well would be cased in steel down to an area approximately 100 feet into the Floridan Aquifer, through the Lower Hawthorn- Upper Tampa Aquifer and through the lower confining bed. Since the well would be cased to well below the lower confining bed, water existing in the upper aquifers, would be prevented from being drawn down by operation, of the Respondent's well either directly or by settling down to replace the water drawn out. Generally, the deeper a well is drilled, the worse the quality of the water, and it becomes less potable. The Floridan Aquifer produces far more copious quantities of water than do the intermediate aquifers. However, since it is cheaper to drill to the intermediate zones as the wells need not be so deep, and since the water there is better, most domestic wells go no deeper than these aquifers. They go down approximately 150 to 180 feet. The pressure in each level is separate from and different from that in the other aquifers. The upper intermediate system generally has a lower pressure than the lower intermediate system. As a result, water from the lower intermediate system tends to leak upward toward the upper intermediate aquifer, rather than the reverse. In addition, a recent survey tends to show that the Floridan aquifer also tends to leak upward into the lower intermediate level. It also shows that leakage through the confining beds amounts to .002 GPD per cubic foot of aquifer. Petitioner claims that since the lower water is of lesser quality, and since withdrawal of water from the upper layers would promote leakage upward, thereby adding lower grade water to the better grade upper water, there could be a diminishment in upper level water quality as a result of water being drawn from the upper levels. However, according to Mr. Moresi, the .002 figure is so small it would result in an infinitesimally small drawdown of water level from the upper intermediate level aquifer and the potential for compromise of the water quality therein is remote. Clearly, this is not the result of drawing water from the Floridan Aquifer as the well in question would do but more the result of the residential wells extending into the upper levels. The District ran a model for the proposed El Jobean well (a Jacob- Hantush model) which showed that drawdown at the wellhead would be just over 2 feet. This means that use of the Respondent's well would reduce the water level in the Floridan Aquifer at the well head by 2 feet. However, this drawdown is shown to decrease rapidly out to where, at distance, it is almost immeasurable. In fact, drawdown of the Floridan Aquifer at 24,000 feet from the well head (approximately 4.5 miles) would be .1 feet, slightly or 1 inch. The .1 foot drawdown relates to the lowest (Floridan) aquifer and the resultant drawdown in the upper intermediate aquifer, into which the majority of residential wells are sunk, would be relatively undetectable. Since the Petitioner's wells, at their deepest, go only into the upper intermediate level, and would be separated by 2 confining beds from the Floridan Aquifer, the impact on the domestic wells at 2 miles from the El Jobean wellhead would be immeasurable. Even at 1 mile, there would be minimal drawdown in the Floridan Aquifer and almost none in the upper intermediate aquifer. The potentiometric surface of the intermediate layer would not be adversely affected, nor would that of the surface water. Recognizing the potential for saltwater intrusion which occurs all along the coast, based on his studies, Mr. Moresi concluded that the well in question here would not induce significant saltwater intrusion. He concluded as well that the permit is consistent with the requirements of the District rule; that the amount permitted for the use of irrigation of the golf course is reasonable, assuming a golf course is a reasonable and appropriate use of water; that the withdrawal by the well in issue would not have an adverse impact on users outside the property on which the well was located; that it would not impact existing users; that there is no other water available for the purpose intended; that the water taken from the Floridan Aquifer under this permit may be potable but is of poor quality; and that the applicant met rule standards. Mr. Moresi also discussed the possible cumulative impact of the proposed well when operated along with the currently existing wells. If there are other drawdowns from the same cone into which El Jobean's well would be sunk, the withdrawals would be cumulative. However, as best he can determine, the only other significant drawdown from the cone pertinent here is that of the Verna well field. In his opinion, that well field's drawdown, which is from the northeast, would not be significant even when considered with the El Jobean well. Mr. Moresi was also satisfied that while the confining bed separating the surficial aquifer from the next lower level might be disturbed, the deeper one goes, the less likely there is to be mixing of aquifers. The only instance where water could move from one level to another as a result of the well is where there is no casing on the bore hole. In the instant case, plans call for, and permit conditions require, the well to be cased to below the lowest confining bed. Consequently, there should be no upward or downward flow of water as a result of the bore. Mr. Tyson, who worked on the evaluation of El Jobean's application for permit, was of the opinion that the amount of water requested by El Jobean in its application was appropriate for a golf course. This does not mean that a golf course is an appropriate use of the property. The special conditions imposed on the granting of the permit by the District are designed to reduce any impact possibly caused by the permitted activity. The Jacob-Hantush model used in analysis of the instant application is considered to be a conservative tool and showed minimal drawdown at all property boundaries. The use of other models in this case was considered neither necessary nor appropriate. Mr. Tyson considers the proposed permit a reasonable beneficial use as defined in the Florida Administrative Code and statutes because it proposes use of reasonable amounts of water and the models indicate no unfavorable impact. Based on the past practice of permitting golf courses with subdivisions, he feels the proposed use is reasonable. He concludes, therefore, that it is in the public interest to grant this permit. In his opinion, the permit will not interfere with legal existing uses and meets all statute and rule requirements. Considering the evidence as a whole, it is found that petitioner has presented insufficient evidence to support its claim that approval and operation of El Jobean's well as proposed would have an adverse impact on the property owners. It's concerns are no doubt sincere, but these concerns are not sufficiently confirmed by evidence of record. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that if the permit were granted, it would be modified by the addition of two conditions: The proposed well shall be constructed with a minimum of 600 feet of casing so as to prevent the unauthorized interchange of water between water bearing zones in order to prevent the deterioration of water quality in the shallower zones. If the well cannot be properly completed to prevent such an unauthorized interchange of water, the well shall be abandoned and plugged in accordance with Rule 17-21.10(2)(c), F.A.C.. Upon completion of the well, a copy of the well construction completion report shall be sent to the District. The permittee shall line the bottom of the pond that will be used as the irrigation source, with clay to a thickness equal to 1.5 feet.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order issuing Consumptive Use Permit Number 209458, as modified by the conditions stipulated to at the hearing held herein on June 7, 1989, and outlined in Finding of Fact Number 27 herein, to El Jobean Philharmonic Group, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of August, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-1176 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. For the Petitioner: Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of the ultimate issue of fact. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted as indicating original conditions. The parties stipulated to additional conditions at the hearing. Accepted. 15 & 16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17-33. Accepted and incorporated herein as pertinent. 34 & 35. Accepted. 36 & 37. Accepted. 38 & 39. Redundant. 40-43. Accepted. 44. Accepted. 45-51. Accepted. 52 & 53. Accepted. 54-56. Accepted. 57 & 58. Accepted and incorporated herein. 59-66. Accepted. 67-75. Accepted and incorporated herein. 76 & 77. Accepted and incorporated herein. 78. Accepted. 79-84. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected. 87 & 88. Accepted. 89-93. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted in the natural source sense suggested by Petitioner. 96-99. Accepted and incorporated herein. 100 & 101. Accepted and incorporated herein. 102-105. Accepted and incorporated herein. 106. Accepted. 107 & 108. Accepted. 109 & 110. Accepted. For the Respondents: 1 & 2. Stipulation between the parties accepted and incorporated herein. 3-6. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence except for the second sentence which is incorporated herein as a Finding of Fact. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. 9-11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted. 13-16. Accepted and incorporated herein. 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18 & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 22-26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29. Accepted. 30-32. Accepted and incorporated herein. 33-40. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a Conclusion of Law. COPIES FURNISHED: Becky Ayech Personal Representative Miakka Community Club 421 Verna Rd. Sarasota, Florida 34240 Douglas Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609 6899
The Issue Schofield Corporation of Orlando has applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for a permit to construct and operate a Class III trash/yard trash landfill in Orange County, Florida. The issues are whether the applicant is entitled to the permit and, if so, what conditions should attach. Also at issue is Schofield Corporation's motion for attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to Section 403.412(2)(f), F.S.
Findings Of Fact The applicant, Schofield Corporation of Orlando (Schofield), owns the proposed landfill site and existing permits for the site. The proposed site is located in West Orange County, southwest of the intersection of State Road 545 and Schofield Road on the west half of the northwest quarter of section 32, township 23 south, range 27 east, comprising approximately sixty acres within a larger eighty-acre parcel. In some undetermined distant past the site was cultivated in citrus. It is currently being excavated as a borrow pit. The materials proposed to be placed in the landfill include trash, yard trash, construction and demolition debris and clean debris, as defined in DER Rule 17-701.020, F.A.C. The northern half of the site is flat and will be used first for the composting operation. The southern excavated portion of the site will receive the permitted fill material until it is flattened. Then, the two functions will alternate; the composting will occur on the south, and the north end will be excavated to receive fill. The proposed facility will be operated by Chambers Corporation, a nationally recognized waste management company with approximately 20 years of experience in solid waste management. The landfill site will be completely fenced, with a gate entrance mid-site between the landfill and compost area. The gate will be locked when the facility is not in operation, and will be patrolled by security personnel 24 hours a day. "Spotters", or inspectors will be employed to examine incoming waste loads at the gate, from a high gantry, and at the place where the waste is deposited. The loads will be monitored by a television camera, and all haulers will be under contract. The landfill will not accept loads from trucks coming off the road looking for a place to dump. Receptacles will be maintained on site to receive errant non-permitted waste that is found in a load, and that waste will be properly disposed of elsewhere. Schofield has several permits related to its proposed operation. These include a type III landfill permit from Orange County, a compost facility permit from DER, a general construction and demolition debris landfill permit from DER, a surface water management permit from the South Florida Water Management District, and a permit to excavate or mine from the Florida Department of Natural Resources. Schofield also has a contract to receive yard waste from Orange County. The initial term of contract requires at least ten percent of the yard waste to be composted or recycled, with the percentage amount to be renegotiated in subsequent contract renewals. In the hierarchy of landfills, DER considers Class III the least environmentally sensitive. Problems with unauthorized waste and with water quality occur more frequently with Class I landfills, defined as accommodating more than twenty tons a day of residential garbage. In this case DER has proposed to grant Schofield its Class III permit without the requirement of a bottom liner or a leachate or gas control system because of the nature of the waste that will be accepted and because of the rigorous controls, described above, to avoid receiving unauthorized or hazardous waste. The Petitioners are an individual and a homeowners' association representing a residential area approximately a half mile south of the proposed site. Petitioners contend that the applicant's data is insufficient to provide reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Petitioners contend that the landfill, if approved, should be required to have a liner to prevent leachate from polluting the groundwater. They further contend that the groundwater monitoring plan submitted by the applicant is inadequate to detect vertical movement of contaminated leachate into the Floridan aquifer, a major source of water supply in Orange County. Hydrogeology The site of the proposed landfill is within a high recharge area. Water percolates rapidly though the soil, moving downward into the aquifer, and laterally off site. The site is considered Karst terrain, underlined with limerock. There is evidence of relic sinkholes, thousands of years old, but there is a low probability of future open sinkhole development. The geology in the area of the site provides adequate structural support for the proposed facility. An aquifer is generally defined as a unit of material which contains water and can give up a sufficient amount of yield to provide some productive flow for pumpage. Below the site there are two aquifers: the shallow water table, or surficial aquifer, containing clean well-drained fine sands, about 70 feet down; and the Floridan, primarily limestone, encountered at a depth of approximately 115 feet. The two are separated by a confining layer of less permeable sands and clay. Flow in the Floridan at the site is primarily from the west to east. Flow in the surficial is also generally from west to east, but the Petitioners theorize, and have presented competent supporting evidence, that there are fissures in the confining layer, allowing some internal drainage within the site, causing surficial water to flow vertically into the Floridan, rather than laterally off-site in an eastward direction. Based on recent data taken from two piezometers installed near the middle of the site, the applicant's hydrogeologist, James Golden, concedes that "mounding" exists along the eastern boundary of the site, reflecting some flow westerly back into the interior of the site. Petitioners' theory regarding internal draining of the site is based in part on data as to groundwater elevation. Groundwater elevation or high groundwater table is the elevation at which water stands on a continuous surface under the site. Jammal and Associates is a consultant firm which has done field studies of this and neighboring sites in the past, for various purposes. Some open bore readings taken by Jammal and Associates in a 1983 study for the Orange County Rapid Infiltration Basin project indicate groundwater table levels on site up to 126 feet, National Geodetic Vertical Data (NGVD). Open bore readings are less reliable than cased hole readings; due to collapses within the hole, artificially high readings are sometimes obtained. Data from the applicant's consultants reveals groundwater tables at 96-98 NGVD. This data was most recently obtained in December 1991 from sealed and surveyed piezometer casings, but not from the area of the site where Jammal's higher readings were obtained. Although it may be conjectured that Jammal's high readings are anomalous, additional sealed borings need to be obtained before the anomaly is confirmed. Groundwater elevations are significant also to determine the depth to which the landfill may be excavated. Based on its December 1991 readings, obtained after the application for permit was filed, the applicant agreed to raise the proposed bottom of the landfill to approximately five feet above the level of the estimated high (wet weather) groundwater table in the area. Water Quality and Monitoring Specific conditions of the proposed permit include DER's requirements that Class GII water quality standards be met at the boundary of the zone of discharge, in accordance with Rule 17-3, F.A.C. The zone of discharge for this facility is a three-dimensional volume defined in the vertical plane as the top of the ground to the base of the most surficial aquifer, and horizontally 100 feet from the edge of the waste-filled area, or the property boundary, whichever is less. The groundwater monitoring plan proposed by the applicant includes one upstream monitoring well on the west side of the site and five wells along the east side of the site, with an additional well at the south, between the project and the Petitioners' residential area. The wells extend down into the upper zone of the surficial aquifer, but not into the deeper limestone Floridan. The downstream wells should detect any contamination in the surficial aquifer flowing from west to east at the zone of discharge. However, they will not pick up contamination draining internally within the site and into the Floridan. Such contamination is possible, even though leachate from Class III- type wastes is expected to be relatively benign. Volatile organic carbons (VOCs) have not typically been a problem in Class III landfills, unless those landfills were previously operated as Class I sites. Secondary drinking water standards for certain metals have been violated at some Class III sites, but such violations are often related to the problem of sampling newly-installed wells. From DER records, Petitioners presented evidence of consistent drinking water quality standard violations in Class III landfills. That such violations can occur in Class III landfills is clearly established. It is not so clear that such violations will occur in this facility, given the proposed controls on load content. However, even acceptable materials will not avoid the production of leachate or gas. Within demolition waste there are chemically bound components which are inseparable, for example, creosote and other preservatives, glues, paints, resins, varnishes and stains. The lignin, tannins and volatile organic acids which are produced when wood decomposes alter the pH of the groundwater. As the water becomes more acidic, heavy metals that were typically bound up in the waste or in the soil, are released in soluble form and travel with the water. The decomposition process occurring in the construction and demolition waste is enhanced by the addition of yard trash which becomes the food source for the biodegradation. Summary of Findings and Proposed Permit Conditions If, as applicant suggests, all groundwater moves primarily from west to east within the site, given the proposed operational controls and the proposed monitoring plan, reasonable assurances have been provided that water quality standards will not be violated beyond the zone of discharge. That is, any contamination likely to occur will be contained within the surficial aquifer and within the 100 feet or property line horizontal boundary. Transmissivity of the surficial aquifer is low enough to allow mixing of the leachate before it reaches the zone of discharge. The Petitioners, however, have presented credible evidence sufficient to question the groundwater flow premise and sufficient to require additional conditions on the permit. If leachate reaches the Floridan through fissures in the confining layer, it will move rapidly off site. In its proposed recommended order DER has suggested additional permit conditions and in its adoption of the proposed recommended order, the applicant has accepted those additional permit conditions. Those permit conditions recognize the fact that data presently provided by the applicant is insufficient to overcome the evidence by Petitioners as to the hydrogeological characteristics of the site with the possibility of internal drainage and vertical intrusion of contaminated water into the Floridan aquifer. The proposed recommended order provides this finding: ...that the ground water monitoring plan as proposed in this proceeding is adequate, provided that there be added to the permit conditions that the permittee conduct appropriate water table testing with cased piezometers during the next wet season to determine whether ground water flow is internal within the site and therefore not intercepted by the present ground water monitoring wells. The permittee shall consult with DER and get approval for the location and construction of these wells prior to their installation. The results shall be immediately submitted to the DER. The ground water monitoring requirements should be modified if necessary at that time pursuant to Rule 17-28.700(5) to assure proper monitoring at this site. (DER proposed Recommended Order, p. 17) The ground water monitoring plan modification suggested by DER is that deeper monitoring wells, into the Floridan aquifer, be required if the additional testing reveals the likelihood of internal on-site ground water drainage. These conditions are still inadequate since they lack specificity with regard to the extent of testing, the location and construction of the wells, and the amendments to the monitoring program to be required if internal drainage is confirmed. Moreover, the proposed conditions fail to address the possibility that the permit should require a liner for the landfill if the data to be obtained reveals the likelihood that contaminates will penetrate into the groundwater of the Floridan. Monitoring programs, however effective, only predict or detect problems; they do not remediate them. Groundwater contamination by landfills is not quickly and easily reversed. Unlike discharges from other facilities such as spray application or deep well injection, the leachate from a landfill is not "turned off". Without the additional data which all parties agree is needed, it is impossible to determine what additional conditions, if any, should be required or what amendments, if any, need to be made to the applicant's proposed monitoring plan.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue its Final Order denying the application for Class III land fill permit. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in paragraph 1. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10. 3.-11. Rejected as unnecessary. 12.-23. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 24. Rejected as unnecessary. 25.-30. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. 31. Rejected as unnecessary. 32.-41. Rejected as argument or summary of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance throughout the recommended findings. 44.-50. Adopted in Preliminary Statement and paragraph 4. 51. Rejected as unnecessary. 52.-53. Adopted in paragraph 2. 54.-55. Rejected as statement of testimony rather than finding of fact. Adopted in paragraph 3. Rejected as unnecessary. 58.-97. Rejected as argument or statement of testimony, rather than findings of fact. Subparts a), b), c) and e) are rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. The evidence suggests that violations might occur and that insufficient data has been produced. Subpart d) is adopted, by implication in paragraph 18. 99.-101. Adopted in summary in paragraph 20. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Addressed in Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraphs 1, 2 and 5. 3.-4. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in summary in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 13. Rejected as unnecessary or irrelevant, given the stipulation related to Section 403.412, F.S. standing. Rejected as cumulative. Adopted in paragraph 10. Adopted in paragraph 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. 12.-13. Adopted in paragraph 13. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. If internal drainage is shown to exist, conditions other than additional monitoring wells may be required. Adopted in paragraph 17. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19.-21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 4. Adopted in paragraph 12. 24.-26. Adopted in general in paragraph 14. 27. The unlikelihood that unauthorized waste will be dumped is adopted in paragraph 3. Whether there will be a violation of ground water quality standards at the zone of discharge was not established, given the need for additional data on internal draining. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas B. Drage, Jr., Esquire P.O. Box 87 Orlando, FL 32802 Irby G. Pugh, Esquire 218 Annie Street Orlando, FL 32806 Douglas H. MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Carol Browner, Secretary DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel DER-Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should issue a permit to Out of Bounds, Inc. (Out of Bounds, or applicant), to construct, operate, and close a construction and demolition debris disposal facility (C&D facility) in Hernando County.
Findings Of Fact On September 8, 2008, Out of Bounds applied to DEP for a permit to construct, operate, and close an unlined C&D facility on 26 acres located at 29251 Wildlife Lane, Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida, to be known as the Croom C&D Debris Landfill and Recycling Facility. There were four requests by DEP for additional information, which was provided, and the application was complete on September 3, 2009. In 1994, a previous owner of the property was issued a permit to construct, operate, and close an unlined C&D facility on the property. That owner did not proceed with construction, and the permit expired in 1999. The Out of Bounds application was for a new permit, not for the renewal of an existing permit. Robert McCune owns property adjacent to the proposed C&D facility. He and his wife reside on the property, keep horses in stables on the property, and use the property for horseback riding business, which includes hosting public horseback riding events. Hernando SSK was formed by David Belcher and one or more others to continue the business being operated by Paige Cool when she died during this proceeding. The business is conducted on ten acres of property Cool owned approximately one mile west of the proposed C&D facility. Belcher is one of two co-personal representatives of Cool’s estate. Belcher and his wife hold a mortgage on the property. When the estate is finalized, the Belchers plan to assign their mortgage to Hernando SSK. It is not clear who will own the property after the estate is finalized, or how Hernando SSK will be authorized to continue the business on the property. Western pleasure and trail-riding horses are boarded on the Cool property, which is known as At Home Acres. The business also has access to 20 adjoining acres to the east, which are used for grazing. Access to the horseback riding trails in the Withlacoochee State Forest is conveniently located just across Wildlife Lane from the property, to the north. A manager resides in a double-wide trailer on the property, and another trailer and a barn to the east of it are leased out. There is a potable water well on the property, which is the source of drinking water for the manager and lessees. Well Setback In the application process, Out of Bounds disclosed two potable water wells within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area. The application provided that those wells would be converted to non-potable use. Out of Bounds did not disclose the existence of a third potable water well, on property owned by Daniel Knox, which is within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area. When the Knox well was brought to the attention of DEP, Out of Bounds admitted that the well was permitted for potable use but took the position that it was not for potable use because it was not in use, was not connected to a source of electricity, and appeared to be abandoned. Daniel Knox and his brother, Robert Knox, had the Knox well dug and permitted in 1979 in anticipation of using it as the source of potable water for a residence to be built on the property for their parents and sister. The Knoxes have not yet built a residence on the property, but it still is their intention to do so and to use the well as the source of potable water. Since its construction, the well had been maintained and operated periodically using a gasoline-powered generator so that it will be ready for use when needed. During the application process, Out of Bounds also did not disclose the existence of a fourth potable water well within 500 feet of the proposed landfill disposal area on property once owned by Larry Fannin and now owned by his daughter and son-in- law, Robert McCune. The McCune well was permitted and installed in mid-2005 while the sale of the land from Fannin to the McCunes was pending. The intended purpose of the well was to provide potable water for the use of the McCunes when they started to reside on the property. Despite this intent, and unbeknownst to the McCunes, Fannin had the well permitted as an irrigation well. In mid-2008, the McCunes began to reside on their property. At first, they resided in a mobile home. They ran pipes from the well to the mobile home to provide drinking water. Eventually, later in 2008, they began construction of a residence on the property and ran pipes from the well to the house to provide drinking water to the house. The well was being used for drinking water before the Out of Bounds application was complete. (They also use water from the well from time to time for irrigation purposes--i.e., when they host horseback-riding events on weekends, they truck water from the well to their horseback-riding arena to apply to the ground to control dust.) Groundwater flows from the disposal area of the proposed landfill to the west and southwest. The Knox and McCune wells are down-gradient of the groundwater flow from the proposed disposal area. Out of Bounds represented at the hearing that it would accept a permit condition that no C&D debris, but only clean debris, would be disposed within 500 feet of the Knox and McCune wells. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(15)-(16) and (24). However, there was no evidence of new designs, plans, or operations that would be used to meet such a permit condition. Liner and Leachate Collection Existing unlined C&D facilities in the Southwest District report various parameters that exceed groundwater quality standards and criteria. These include arsenic, benzene, iron, aluminum, nitrate, ammonia, vinyl chloride, methylene chloride, 3- and 4-methyl phenols, sulfate, and total dissolved solids (TDS). Arsenic and benzene are primary (health-based) groundwater quality standards. The others are secondary standards that relate to taste, odor, and aesthetics. The likely source of the reported arsenic violations in the Southwest District is wood treated with chromate copper arsenate (CCA). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.200(11). Out of Bounds proposes to not accept CCA-treated wood and to use a trained “spotter” to exclude CCA-treated wood from the landfill. This is an appropriate measure to prevent arsenic violations, and is now required for C&D facilities. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(7)(d), (8), and (20). It was not clear from the evidence whether the C&D facilities in the Southwest District with arsenic violations accepted CCA-treated wood. Even if they did, the operational plan proposed by Out of Bounds to exclude CCA-treated wood and to use a trained spotter is not a guarantee that no CCA-treated wood will enter the landfill. A C&D facility would not be expected to dispose of material that would result in benzene contamination. The reported benzene violations suggest that unauthorized material contaminated with benzene nonetheless makes its way into C&D facilities in the Southwest District. The evidence was not clear whether a trained spotter was used at those facilities. Whether or not a spotter was used at those facilities, having a trained spotter would not guarantee that no benzene-contaminated material will enter the landfill proposed by Out of Bounds. Out of Bounds suggested that ammonia violations result from C&D facilities accepting yard trash. However, there was no evidence of a connection between acceptance of yard trash and ammonia violations. The operational plan proposed by Out of Bounds to “cover as you go” is the accepted best practice to control hydrogen sulfide odor, which comes from wet drywall. Out of Bounds suggested that its cover plan would prevent any sulfate violations, but there was no evidence to prove it. There was no evidence as to whether the C&D facility proposed by Out of Bounds would be substantially different from the other existing C&D facilities in DEP’s Southwest District. Absent such evidence, Out of Bounds did not provide reasonable assurances that its proposed facility would not cause groundwater quality violations. The site for the C&D facility proposed by Out of Bounds is internally drained. There are no surface waters onsite or within a mile of the site. There was no evidence of a surficial aquifer above the Floridan aquifer. Rainfall entering the Out of Bounds property migrates downward into the Floridan aquifer. Once in the aquifer, there is a horizontal component of groundwater water flow in a generally southwest direction, towards the Knox and McCune wells. Contaminated leachate from the proposed C&D facility would migrate with the groundwater. Out of Bounds suggests that a thick clay layer under the site of its proposed facility would prevent the downward migration of groundwater into the Floridan aquifer. There are several reasons why the clay layer does not provide the reasonable assurance of a liner that contamination from the proposed landfill would not reach the Floridan aquifer. Clay is much more permeable than a geomembrane meeting DEP’s specifications for use as a liner. The clay on the proposed site is on the order of at least a thousand times more permeable. (Out of Bounds appeared to confuse the permeability of such a geomembrane with the allowable permeability of the geosynthetic clay layer or compacted clay layer underlying the geomembrane. Cf. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.730(4)(f).) In the application process, Out of Bounds relied on the clay layer for purposes of sinkhole prevention and mitigation, not for reasonable assurance that no liner was needed. The limestone formation underlying the site is highly variable, with numerous pinnacles; for that reason, the thickness of the clay layer also is highly variable, making it difficult to excavate the proposed landfill with complete assurance that the clay layer would not be penetrated. To provide reasonable assurance for purposes of sinkhole prevention and mitigation, Out of Bounds proposed to leave or create a clay layer at least six feet thick underlying the bottom of the proposed landfill. Because the site is in an area of high recharge to the Floridan aquifer and drains entirely internally, the clay layer alone does not provide reasonable assurance that there will be no downward migration of contaminated groundwater to the Floridan aquifer. Reasonable assurance requires a liner and leachate collection system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP deny the application for a C&D facility made by Out of Bounds. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of December, 2011, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of December, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronda L. Moore, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 John R. Thomas, Esquire Law Office of John R. Thomas, P.A. 233 Third Street North, Suite 101 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-3818 Timothy W. Weber, Esquire Battaglia, Ross, Dicus & Wein, P.A. Post Office Box 41100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743-1100 Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Thomas Beason, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Stop 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Petitioners and Intervenors challenge the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 0142476-003 to IMC Phosphates Company (IMC) for proposed mining of phosphate at the Manson Jenkins Property (Property) located in Manatee County, Florida. The ultimate issue is whether IMC has provided reasonable assurance that the applicable requirements of Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and relevant rules promulgated thereunder, have been satisfied justifying entitlement to an ERP.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, IMC, is a general partnership authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is the applicant in these proceedings. IMC has applied for an ERP to mine, reclaim, and conduct associated activities on the Property in Manatee County, Florida. These activities shall be referred to as the "Manson Jenkins Project." The Department administers the ERP program for various activities including phosphate mining and reviewed the ERP application for the Manson Jenkins Project. Petitioner, DCAP, is a not-for-profit corporation. Alan Behrens and Joe Fernandez reside in DeSoto County and joined in the DCAP Petition. Petitioner, Charlotte County, and Intervenors, Sarasota County and Lee County, are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Intervenor, the Authority, is a regional water supply authority established under Section 373.196, Florida Statutes, and created by interlocal agreement to supply wholesale drinking water to its member governments and to approximately 100,000 residents of Charlotte, DeSoto, and Sarasota counties, most of whom reside in Charlotte County. Intervenors, ECOSWF and Manasota-88, are not-for-profit environmental organizations. IMC and the Department agreed to the standing of the Petitioners and Intervenors to participate in these proceedings. Environmental Resource Application General In 1993, the Legislature directed the Department and the water management districts to combine the Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) program, administered by the water management districts pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Dredge and Fill Program, administered by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, into a single permitting program, the ERP Program. The Department and the water management districts worked jointly to merge the two programs. The process was completed in 1995, when the rules implementing the ERP Program took effect. The MSSW permits were issued by the water management districts for construction activities that would significantly alter surface water flow or otherwise affect surface water management systems. The dredge and fill permits were issued by the Department for activities proposed in surface waters and wetlands. The ERPs are now issued by the Department pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, which requires the issuance of an ERP for any construction activities in or seeking to alter certain waters and wetlands. ERP applications for phosphate mining are submitted to, processed and evaluated by, the Department's Bureau of Mine Reclamation (Bureau) pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and specific rules. By law and interagency agreement, the Department issues ERPs for proposed phosphate mining operations. The Bureau conducts an initial review and may request additional information. Upon review of the initial application and responses, the Bureau determines whether the application is complete. Unless waived by the applicant, the Bureau has 90 days within which to take agency action, i.e., either grant or deny the application. ERPs are divided into the construction and operation phases. During the construction phase of a phosphate mining operation, an applicant conducts the mining and related activities, including the actual preparation and mining of the land. After mining, an applicant pumps sand tailings back into the mine cuts, re-contours the land and plants the appropriate vegetation, also known as the reclamation process. After reclamation, the Department inspects the site and determines whether on-site wetlands can be properly reconnected to waters of the state. Reconnection typically occurs when the Department determines that the site functions as a self-sustaining natural system, and water quality standards are met. Following reconnection, the operational stage of the ERP begins because the property is then a natural site and self-sustained. Throughout the construction and operation phases, the Department continually inspects the property. A site will not be released from permit requirements until all permit conditions have been met. For ERP permits issued within the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the Department incorporated by reference certain sections of Chapters 40D-1, 40D-4, 40D-40, and 40D-45, Florida Administrative Code, and specific provisions of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (1995) (ERP BOR), as its permitting criteria. See Rule 62-330.200(3)(a)-(e), Florida Administrative Code. The main permitting criteria followed by the Department in issuing ERP permits for activities within the SWFWMD are contained in Rule 40D-4.301, Florida Administrative Code (Conditions for Issuance of Permits), and Rule 40D-4.302, Florida Administrative Code (Additional Conditions for Issuance of Permits). Both rules became effective in 1995. Prior to the merger of the Department and the water management districts' functions under the Department's regulatory umbrella, the various districts had slightly different conditions for the issuance of permits. The Department and all of the districts developed one version of these rules, which were then adopted by the four districts (without the Northwest Water Management District, which does not implement the program) to promote uniformity. In turn, the Department incorporated the above-mentioned rules by reference. Thus, for example, Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302 are a blending of the previous MSSW rules with the previous dredge and fill rules. In evaluating ERP permit applications, the Department considers the SWFWMD's (as well as other water management districts) historical interpretation of the rules which have been adopted by the Department, although the Department is not bound to adopt former SWFWMD interpretations nor does the Department defer to the SWFWMD's interpretation of these rules. Until this proceeding, the Bureau evaluated adverse water quantity and flow impacts based on a standard that limited post-mining flows and mass volume to 105 percent and 85 percent of the pre-mining flows and volumes, respectively. As a direct result of the filing of a challenge to this policy, the Department will not rely on this policy as a basis for decision in this proceeding. See Charlotte County, Florida, and Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority v. Department of Environmental Protection and IMC Phosphates Company, DOAH Case Nos. 01-2399RU and 01-2412RU (Settlement Agreement July 6, 2001). In this de novo proceeding, IMC has the burden to establish reasonable assurances in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302, Florida Administrative Code. 2. The Manson Jenkins ERP Application Review Process On October 1, 1999, IMC submitted to the Department an application for an ERP for authorization to mine phosphate, reclaim, and conduct associated activities on the Property. The Manson Jenkins Project is an extension of the existing Fort Green Mine, which is contiguous to the Property. The Department reviewed the information contained in the initial application and issued a series of requests for additional information. IMC provided responses to these requests on February 7, June 5, July 15, September 6, and October 11, 2000. Thereafter, the Department determined that the application was complete and issued a Notice of Intent to Issue (NOI) an ERP to IMC on February 8, 2001. This NOI was published in the Bradenton Herald on February 12, 2001. The parties stipulated that "Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto are the applicable law in this proceeding." However, the parties disagree regarding which specific statutes and rules apply here. 3. Draft Environmental Resource Permit The Department's NOI includes a draft ERP. This permit is issued under the authority of Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. The draft ERP authorizes IMC, in part, "to mine or disturb approximately 361 acres of wetlands for phosphate mining and associated activities . . . . The mitigation/reclamation will consist of approximately 537.8 acres of wetlands . . . . The project will also disturb 1988.1 acres of uplands for phosphate mining and associated activities [and t]he reclamation will consist of 1811.3 acres of uplands . . ." in a variety of land formations. IMC voluntarily agreed to provide a two-phased Conservation Easement consisting of not less than 521 acres, consisting "of [during phase one] not less than 182 acres associated with the no-mine area of the West Fork of Horse Creek, which shall be preserved from mining associated disturbance" and, during phase two, "an additional 339 acres of created wetlands and encompassed stream associated with the West Fork of Horse" Creek. The Conservation Easement is not considered part of the mitigation offered by IMC. The Conservation Easement authorizes the Property owners to use these areas after reclamation and release of the Property. The draft ERP contains general conditions, and specific conditions requiring, in part, monitoring to assure that the proposed mitigation of waters and wetlands is completed in accordance with success criteria contained in the draft ERP; monitoring to assure that groundwater levels are maintained at appropriate levels in areas undisturbed by mining or mining related activities; and numerous other legally enforceable conditions of approval. Phosphate Mining Geological Background and Phosphate Mining Process Millions of years ago, the oceans were rich in phosphorous. At that time, central Florida was under water. Over geological time, certain organisms decayed and settled to the bottom of the ocean. After the waters receded, deposits of phosphate were covered by land. Essentially, phosphate is the product of marine deposits. Although deposits are located in other states, such as Idaho and North Carolina, the largest phosphate rock deposit in the United States is in Central Florida, including the Manson Jenkins Property. The deposits of phosphate-bearing material are referred to as the "matrix," which consists of one-third phosphate, one-third sand, and one-third clay. On the Manson Jenkins Property, the entire matrix or ore body is approximately 15 to 18 feet thick. This phosphate matrix layer is buried under a layer of soils, rocks, sand, and clay, known as the "overburden," which is up to approximately 33 feet thick. There is a layer beneath the matrix which is 150 to 200 feet thick which is a confining layer of dense clay and separates the surficial aquifer from the intermediate aquifer. The phosphate to be mined on the Property is above the bed clay and the top of the intermediate aquifer system. Because the matrix is overlain by the overburden, the only way that it can be accessed and removed is through a surface mining operation. The first step prior to any land disturbance associated with phosphate mining is the installation of a "ditch and berm" system around the proposed mining area. The ditch and berm system is referred to by the Department and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "best management practice" (BMP). The ditch and berm system for the Property will be designed and installed pursuant to specific criteria. This system is designed to preclude a direct release of impacted water from the mining area to adjacent land, and wetlands or waters, such as streams. The ditch and berm system can be expected to operate appropriately and efficiently if it is constructed, operated, and inspected in accordance with the design criteria described by IMC engineers. A properly designed, constructed, and operated ditch and berm recharge system will effectively maintain water levels outside of the mine areas. A berm is a small embankment which has an inspection roadway on top which is typically 12 to 15 feet wide and has a fairly flat downstream slope. The berm is designed to be flat and stable. The primary purpose of the berm is to prevent water that is collected in the ditch from overflowing into the preserved areas and other undisturbed areas and creating, among other things, potential water quality problems. This system is also designed to prevent water that may be associated with the mining activity from moving off-site to adjacent, undisturbed areas, including wetlands or waters and to protect the ecology of the area outside of the berm. Another function of the system, including the recharge ditches, is to maintain groundwater along the boundaries of the property line so that undisturbed areas outside the mining area will remain at pre-mining conditions. Water levels are actively maintained in the ditches surrounding mining areas to assure that the mining excavations do not drain groundwater from adjacent areas. Preserved areas are also surrounded by ditch and berm and recharge systems that hydrate the area so that, for example, existing wetlands are not degraded. Prior to mining a to-be-disturbed area, the ditch portion of the ditch and berm system acts to collect water and carry it to an area where it is pumped into a recirculation system. The ditch and berm system also typically acts as a recharge system. IMC will design, construct, and operate a recharge system that will maintain the water level in the area immediately adjacent to the mine cuts. The water that is in the recirculation system consists of rainfall, water from the deeper aquifer systems, water from the surficial aquifer system that drains into the mine cuts, and runoff that is captured behind the ditch and berm systems. Prior to mining, IMC will install monitor wells at regular intervals along the recharge ditches, which will be located adjacent to either preserved areas or adjacent to property owned by someone else other than IMC, who would be concerned about drawing the water level down beneath his property. The monitor well gauges will give an indication as to the baseline water levels, the fluctuations of the water level, and the high water levels along the preserved areas. The monitor well gauges can also be read to ensure that the water in the recharge ditch is getting into the ground and maintaining the water table at the same level it was prior to mining. Water can also be drawn from nearby wells which can be used to make up the water that seeps out of the recharge system. IMC currently operates approximately 75 miles of perimeter ditches and berms at various mining operations. IMC has resolved compliance issues relating to recharge ditches (because of dewatering concerns) on the Fort Green Mine. Compliance issues, including the Four Corners Mine, have been reported by IMC to the SWFWMD. Also, IMC has had other unpermitted discharges related to its ditches and berms, which have been resolved by consent orders. Compliance issues regarding the East Fork of the Manatee River have not been resolved completely, as the SWFWMD has not closed its enforcement files. IMC will continue to act to resolve these issues until reclamation is completed around the East Fork. Notwithstanding these compliance issues and the related problems, the weight of the evidence indicates that IMC is capable of designing, constructing, and maintaining the proposed ditch and berm system, including the recharge ditches, on the Property in order to avoid past problems which resulted in, for example, dewatering of property. These problems can be significant and, if left undetected and unremedied, can cause serious consequences. Careful and timely monitoring, and continued self-reporting of non-compliance by IMC is imperative. The SWFWMD has issued a consolidated water use permit for the Property. Under this permit, IMC has reduced its daily permitted pumping by an average of over 50 percent. Prior to mining, an alternate flow way (AFW) will also be constructed to carry water that was previously flowing from the northwestern portion (boundary) of the Property to the preserved area to the south of the Property. The AFW will temporarily replace the conveyance and storage of the portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined. The AFW is likely to be removed in years 5 to 6 of mining. See Findings of Fact 87-94. Once the ditch and berm system is in place, the land is cleared to prepare for mining. The area is mined in strips or rows. After clearing, large electrically powered draglines remove the overburden layer to expose the phosphate-bearing matrix. The overburden is cast into an open adjacent mine cut, exposing the matrix for mining. These same draglines then extract the matrix and place it in depressions created at the mine which are called "slurry wells" or "pits." The matrix is then mixed with water in the pits to form a slurry which is conveyed hydraulically through a series of pipes and pumps to a "beneficiation" plant to remove the phosphate rock product from the matrix. The recovered phosphate matrix contains phosphate rock, clay, and sand. At the beneficiation plant, the phosphate rock, sand, and clay are physically separated. The phosphate rock is stored prior to additional processing required to convert it to fertilizer at off-site facilities. The sand is hydraulically transported back to the mining areas for use in land reclamation. The clays are generated from the beneficiation process and hydraulically transported to a clay settling area (CSA) where they are dewatered prior to reclamation. IMC plans to construct and operate two CSAs on the Property. However, the weight of the evidence indicates that approval of the ERP application at issue here, does not approve these CSAs because they have to be permitted and operated under separate Department regulations. See Findings of Fact 244-247 and 268. CSAs are a repository for the clay material. They are generally built in mined-out areas and built with the overburden material that is dragline cast in the mine cut. CSAs are necessary because, unlike sand which readily drains through water, clay materials are very light; and it takes time for the clays to settle out of the water, so the water can be reused in the re-circulation system. IMC expects that the two CSAs on the Property will ultimately be designed to handle the equivalent amounts of clays that will be mined from the Manson Jenkins Project. There will also be two CSAs immediately to the east of the Property on the Fort Green Mine, which will be operating as a result of the mining on the Property. Specifically, the CSAs proposed for the Property are expected to be constructed in mined-out areas (the northeast portion of the Property) and are expected to be surrounded by engineered dams approximately 40 feet above the surrounding land surface grade. One of the CSAs will encompass approximately 540 acres and the other 520 acres. After the clay is initially settled, specialized equipment will be used to dig drainage ditches and take other steps to expedite the settling process. This will allow a "crust" to form on the top of the clay surface. Thereafter, the dams surrounding the CSA (which are composed of overburden material) will be pushed in to cover a portion of the settled clays. The area will then be primarily uplands with relatively small wetland systems present. Years ago, settling areas would be reclaimed in 10 to 15 years. Today, with special mobile equipment, CSAs can be reclaimed within 3 to 5 years. Reclamation of the CSAs on the Property is expected to be completed within the 15 year timeframe contemplated for mining and reclamation activities. Once the matrix has been removed from a mining area segment, land reclamation commences. IMC expects to use four, different land reclamation techniques, including but not limited to, crustal development reclamation and land and lakes reclamation. These methods were described in detail during the hearing. Manson Jenkins Project Pre-Mining Conditions (Historical and Current Conditions of the Property) The Property encompasses approximately 2,808 acres in northeast Manatee County, Florida, which is largely owned by FP- 1 and FP-2 Corporations. IMC has a lease to mine the Property, having obtained these rights in 1993 when IMC entered into a partnership with Agrico Chemical Company, who, in turn, acquired the mining lease in 1986. The lease prohibits the owners from using the Property during mining, until it is released from reclamation. The owners have the right to use the Property prior to mining and after reclamation. The Parties stipulated that there are no archeological or historical resources located at the Property. The Peace River starts in Polk County, north of Bartow, and flows through Wauchula and Arcadia, and southwesterly to Charlotte Harbor. Horse Creek begins in the southern portion of Polk and Hillsborough Counties and flows south through Hardee County, approximately 40 miles to the confluence of Horse Creek and the Peace River in DeSoto County. The eastern boundary of the Property is the Manatee County-Hardee County boundary line. The Property abuts land to the east that is being mined and reclaimed by IMC as part of its Fort Green Mine, and the Manson Jenkins Project is an extension of that mining operation. According to a 1940 composite aerial, as interpreted, the Property contained wetlands that had not been ditched or drained. At the time, the West Fork of Horse Creek had not been channelized. The aerial indicates that there was a line of wetlands and a series of elongated marshes strung together, like a string of sausages, running south along the West Fork, and a distinct, yet not continuous, channel running southeast toward the southern boundary of the Property. The 1940 aerial, as interpreted, also indicates that the upland areas of pines had been cut. Cattle grazing is also apparent. The upland, however, consisted of very dense and rich undergrowth of range grasses, palmettos, low shrubs, and other assorted species. As of 1950, herbaceous wetlands existed at the north end of the Property and a vegetative cover existed between that wetland and the forested portion of the Property at the southern end. At that time, there was no channelization. As of 1965, the West Fork of Horse Creek, in or around the middle of the Property, had been channelized and heavily ditched. The area in the northeastern portion of the Property had been impacted by agriculture and row crops. The wetlands had been drained and tied into these ditches. The native range had been removed. IMC and its predecessors did not participate in the drainage of the Property for agricultural purposes. The present condition of the Property is very similar to the condition as of 1965. There is an approximately 3-square-mile area north of the Property which drains through a marsh, down to the West Fork of Horse Creek. The West Fork of Horse Creek, which enters the northwest portion of the Property, bisects the entire length of the Property in a north-south direction, and is channelized. The West Fork of Horse Creek is a first order stream because of its location in the watershed. See Findings of Fact 234-236. There is a headwater marsh area which leads into the northwestern portion of the Property and is part of West Fork of Horse Creek. The uppermost portion of the West Fork on the Property, which will be mined, has been referred to as "a channelized or ditch portion" or a "wide ditch." This includes the headwater marsh area. There is a "complex of wetlands" in the northwest corner of the Property which contribute water flow down the West Fork. There is a large ditch in the middle of the headwater marsh which conveys most of the water through the system and down the center of the Property. This portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek does not have the upland vegetation that is usually associated with a stream bank. Its ecological value is less than what is generally found in other first order stream or headwater systems. While the experts diverge on this issue, the weight of the evidence indicates that while the headwater marsh area to the north of the Property and in the northern portion of the Property has hydrological importance, the West Fork of Horse Creek is not a regionally significant stream. The weight of the evidence indicates that the West Fork of Horse Creek is a tributary of Horse Creek which, in turn, is a tributary of the Peace River. However, it is unclear whether the West Fork of Horse Creek is a work of SWFWMD. Assuming that it is, reasonable assurances have been provided that this project will not cause adverse impacts to the West Fork of Horse Creek in light of the mitigation offered by IMC and the proposed reclamation of the area and the reasonable expectation that this area will be improved from its current state. See Finding of Fact 257. There is also an area on the West Fork of Horse Creek and to the southeast of the Property (Section 13) which will be preserved and not mined, which is a combination of a channel system and forested uplands and wetlands. Walker Road runs north and south and is located in the middle and west of the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property. Walker Road follows the proposed AFW. There is also a dirt or shell road which runs west to east across the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property and a spillway structure at this location. The spillway structure was used by the landowner in agricultural practices to control the flow of water to irrigate the crops in the northeastern portion of the Property. The Property is located in the West Fork of Horse Creek, Manatee River, and Myakka River Basins, and in the far western part of the Peace River Basin. IMC's ERP Application contains approximately 300 acres, west of Walker Road (part of Sections 2 and 11) and in the northwestern portion of the Property in the Manatee River Basin. (Approximately 17 acres of wetlands in this area will be mined and will be replaced with approximately 51 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 95-96 and 211.) This area is not part of the Development of Regional Impact approved by Manatee County, although IMC plans to request permission from Manatee County to mine this area, and if approved, IMC would mine less than 200 acres. This portion essentially drains into the Manatee River. Further, IMC has included the southwest triangle of these 300 acres as a preservation area. This area contains, among other land covers, mixed wetland hardwoods and freshwater marshes. There is another portion of the Property in the Myakka River Basin, approximately 32 acres, located in the southwest corner of the site. (There is also a small wetland in this area consisting of approximately 4 acres of wetlands which will be replaced with approximately 12 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 95-96.) This portion drains through a drainage ditch and eventually enters Wingate Creek and the Myakka River. The balance, and by far the largest portion of the Property, is located in the Peace River Basin. After leaving the Property boundary to the south, the West Fork of Horse Creek joins the main branch of Horse Creek approximately 3 to 3.5 miles south of the Property line. Horse Creek then joins the Peace River approximately 30 miles from the Property boundary. The Peace River then empties into Charlotte Harbor approximately 40 miles from the Property. Today, the predominant land use on the Property are improved pasture and agricultural ditches. In order to achieve this cover and use, an extensive surface drainage system was constructed to drain isolated marshes into the West Fork of Horse Creek and to reduce the flood stage elevations within the creek itself. In areas with less extensive ditching, the existing vegetative communities more closely approximate natural systems. The improved pasture has been planted with bahia grass and other exotic pasture grasses. In recent years, a large portion of the pasture area has been converted into a sod farm and the sod has been stripped from that area leaving a large area of bare semi-vegetative soil. The Property is not pristine or close to its original condition, although, as argued by Charlotte County and others, portions of the Property do provide ecological functions. The wetlands on the Property have been subjected to extensive agricultural ditching. The main ditch is quite wide and deep, and there are many side ditches that proceed into smaller wetlands. There are also some lands that have not experienced conversion to improved pasture which, for the most part, are scheduled for preservation. IMC plans to mine, in part, the channelized portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek from north to south to the preserved area where the more heavily vegetated and forested portion of the natural stream channel of the West Fork of Horse Creek is located. This area will be blocked off during mining by a ditch and berm system. IMC will construct an AFW to carry the water that was previously flowing from the northern area (that is not part of this project and is not owned by IMC) around the area to be mined in the stream channel, which will be reconnected into the preserved area to the south. See Findings of Fact 87-94. From a hydrological standpoint, the to-be-mined marsh and channelized stream segment will be replaced with a flow- through marsh and recreated stream segment that connects the area to the north with the preserved portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The uplands will be placed back to the same elevations existing pre-mining and additional wetlands added. The marsh and the vegetative part of the stream will be slightly bigger. Proposed Mining Activities (Mine Sequence for the Property) IMC proposes to mine 2,348 acres of the 2,808 acres on the Property in approximately 6 to 9 years. The mining activities at the Property will follow the general sequence outlined above. Reclamation is expected to begin within 3 to 4 years after the commencement of mining operations, except for the CSAs. The mining and reclamation activities are expected to completed within 15 years. IMC will construct an AFW in year one (and prior to mining) of the mining activities. The AFW should be tied into the preserved area in the southern portion of the Property as soon as feasible in order to minimize the impacts to this area and downstream. The AFW is necessary because IMC intends to mine approximately 1.6 miles of the channelized or ditched marsh and stream portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek located in the northwest to middle portion of the Property. The AFW is designed to temporarily replace the conveyance and storage of the portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined north of the preserved area. The AFW will carry water that was previously flowing from the northwestern boundary of the Property to the preserved areas to the southern portion of the Property. In this manner, if constructed and operated properly, it is expected that the proposed mining and related activities at the project area will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Further, the AFW and downstream areas will not be expected to suffer from erosion as a result of the installation of the AFW. The slopes and bottom of the AFW will be a vegetated channel designed to receive surface water runoff from the area north of the Property and convey it southward and then eastward back into that portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property which is part of the area being preserved in the southern portion of the Property. The bottom of the AFW will be vegetated with wetland type vegetation and will provide a habitat for fish and other wildlife. The AFW will not be used until the vegetation has become established. Vegetation is an effective method for minimizing erosion in a flow way or stream as described here. The design recommendations also require that the ends of the access corridor be stabilized so if they are subjected to overflow during the 25-year or 100-year storm event, they will be protected from erosion. Any sharp bends in the AFW will be stabilized prior to being put into service. The size of the AFW (50 feet wide) was revised and adjusted so it could carry the expected flows without backing the water up and causing water elevation to be above that which existed historically. The actual design of the AFW has been modified in accordance with the ERP conditions. The Draft ERP, "Specific Condition 4. c." provides: An alternate flow way shall replace the headwater marsh and wetlands of the West Fork of Horse Creek during site preparation, mining, and until the reclamation is re- connected. The alternate flowway will begin south of the north project boundary and end at the north end of the preserved wetlands, as shown on Figure IV F. The alternate flowway will convey water from areas north of the north project boundary south into the unmined portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The AFW shall be constructed as a trapezoidal channel with a minimum bottom of with [sic] of 50 feet and side slopes no steeper than 3 ft horizontal to 1 foot vertical, (3H to 1V). A recharge ditch and associated berms shall be placed along the entire east side and portions of the west side of the alternate flowway as noted in Figures IV F and IV F(a). To ensure maximum water quality treatment, the flowway will be planted with a variety of herbaceous wetland species such as pickerel weed Peak level recording devices will be placed at the north end, south end, and just north of the half Section line of Section 11. The top of the recording tube and the cross section elevations of the alternate flowway will be surveyed at the time of installation. This data will be submitted with the first monitoring report. Stream flows will be measured in conjunction with the quarterly mine inspection at each peak level station until the reclamation is reconnected to the West Fork unmined area. IMC-Phosphates shall submit monthly flow data and rainfall data to the bureau for review and approval. IMC-Phosphates shall not conduct any activities that result in a violation of Class III water quality standards within the West Fork [of] Horse Creek flowway. If at any time the water quality fails to meet [C]lass III standards, the bureau shall be immediately notified and corrective measures implemented. The reconstructed stream channel, like the AFW, will be vegetated and not placed into service until the vegetation is established. IMC proposes to disturb 361 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the Property. This acreage comprises approximately 4, 17, and 330 (approximately 351 acres according to Dr. Durbin) acres in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins, respectively. The balance of the Property will be reclaimed as uplands. See Findings of Fact 218-219. IMC will reclaim 538 acres of wetlands for the 361 acres of disturbed wetlands, consisting of approximately 12, 51, 475 acres of wetland mitigation in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins, respectively. IMC proposes to preserve approximately 316 acres (approximately 45 percent of the wetlands on-site) of jurisdictional wetlands on the Property, including over 70 percent of the forested wetlands on-site. By eliminating existing agricultural ditching and providing appropriate mitigation, and by providing upland buffers around the wetlands, the post-reclamation condition of the Property is expected to be better than the current condition of the Property. Conditions for Issuance Water Quantity Impacts Surface Water General During the final hearing, substantial evidence was presented concerning the potential impact of mining on surface water flows across the Property and downstream. Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. Dr. Garlanger is an expert in hydrology and hydrologic modeling with special expertise in surface and ground water systems associated with phosphate mining operations and reclaimed mined lands. IMC requested Dr. Garlanger to assess the potential impacts of the proposed mining and reclamation on the hydrology of the Property, and also to assess the potential hydrological or hydrogeological impacts downstream from the site to wetlands or waters of the state. Dr. Garlanger used models to assist him in assessing the nature, scope, and the extent of any future impacts resulting from the phosphate mining. Modeling requires the making of calculations relating one variable to another. Scientists, such as Dr. Garlanger and others who testified during this final hearing, who run comparative water balance models to calculate the differences in daily stream flow leaving a project site at the project boundary, must take into account several factors associated with the hydrological cycle, including the following: 1) the typography of the site; 2) the hydraulic conductivity or permeability of different soil levels; 3) the transmissivity of the different aquifer systems; 4) the geometry of the stream channel; 5) the amount and timing of rainfall on-site; 6) the amount of surface runoff; 7) the amount of evapotranspiration (ET); 8) the amount of deep recharge to the Floridan aquifer system; 9) the amount of groundwater outflow, including that portion of which makes it to the stream and becomes base flow; and 10) the temperature, wind speed, and amount of solar radiation, because they control ET. Each of these issues was reasonably evaluated by Dr. Garlanger. The weight of the evidence supports the accuracy, completeness, and conclusions of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work. Dr. Garlanger has been reviewing hydrological aspects of mining projects since 1974 for phosphate mining projects that require hydrological and hydrogeological analysis reflecting the unique aspects of mining operations. Dr. Garlanger explained how professional judgment was applied in his engineering calculations and how his model input data are reasonable. He also explained that he used reasonable information estimates to conduct this particular modeling work, which are consistent with measured data. Surface water flows are dependent on two sources: rainfall runoff from adjacent areas and groundwater that enters surface water streams and is sometimes referred to as "base flow." The weight of the evidence demonstrated that during mining activities the act of confining mining areas by the ditch and berm system would capture the rainfall runoff on these areas and thus reduce that rainfall runoff contribution to the ditched segment of the West Fork of Horse Creek (prior to the time that it is mined), the AFW during its operation, and the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek (during the time that mining continues to occur in the vicinity). During the active mining and reclamation activities, the ditch and berm system operates to maintain groundwater levels in areas undisturbed by mining at pre-mining conditions. Water levels are actively maintained in the ditches surrounding mining areas to assure that the mining excavations do not drain groundwater from adjacent areas. Thus, during the active mining and reclamation activities, the base flow component of surface water is not likely to be affected. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the base flow contribution to surface water flows through the AFW, when operational, will be somewhat higher than is present in the West Fork of Horse Creek during pre- mining conditions. After mining and reclamation are complete, the ditch and berm systems will no longer be needed and present at the Property, and thus rainfall runoff is not expected to be captured thereby. More wetlands, however, will be present at the Property after reclamation is completed than are now present. These wetlands tend to "use," through ET, more water than a comparably sized upland area. Thus, after reclamation is completed, there will be a reduction in the amount of water contributed from the Property to the flow of water in the reclaimed and preserved portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The weight of the evidence indicates that the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Property will not cause any adverse impacts on surface water quantity at the Property during active mining and reclamation or thereafter, and that there will be no adverse impacts at downstream locations. 2. Rainfall Predictive modeling was carried out by Dr. Garlanger to assess the potential significance of rainfall runoff capture and base flow reductions anticipated during mining and after reclamation of the Property. The model efforts simulated stream flow conditions on a daily basis, assuming that the Property experienced rainfall of the same frequency and duration as had occurred during a 19-year period from 1980 to 1998 at the Wauchula rainfall gauge. The amount of rainfall drives the hydrological model because it determines the amount of groundwater outflow, the amount of surface water runoff, and basically determines the amount of stream flow. The volume and timing of rainfall are important factors to consider; information regarding the variability of rainfall is a critical input into any model. In mining operations, discharge volumes correspond directly to rainfall. When rainfall volumes increase, mining operations' discharges increase. When rainfall volumes decrease, mining operations' discharges decrease. Thus, rainfall is the primary controlling factor in the volume of water discharge from a phosphate mine. The Property is located in the Peace River Basin. See Finding of Fact 75. Information is available from the National Climatic Data Center (Center), the government archive for climatic data, which indicates the occurrences of annual rainfall in the Peace River Basin between 1933 and 2000. The Center is a reasonable source of rainfall data. From 1933 through 2000, the arithmetic average of the rainfall in the Peace River Basin was 52.3 inches. (The average rainfall was collected from five stations throughout the Peace River Basin and then averaged.) However, within this period, there is significant variation in rainfall between the high and low rainfalls. There have only been four occurrences when the rainfall has been between 51 and 54 inches during this time frame. The record low rainfall of 35.9 inches occurred in 2000 in a significant drought year. The highest rainfalls have been in the 72 to 75-inch range and near 75 inches on two occasions; thus, a model must be based on more than one year of data. Dr. Garlanger examined the daily rainfall for a 19- year period between January 1980 and December 1998. This rainfall was measured at Wauchula, which is a town in the Peace River Basin almost due east of the Property and located on the Peace River. The weather station collects daily rainfall data and the Center is the source of this information. The average rainfall at Wauchula for this 19-year period is 52.17 inches, similar to the 1933 through 2000 period mentioned above, and also indicates that there is significant daily variability of rainfall. The claim that the accuracy of Dr. Garlanger's modeling is questionable because IMC's modeling "only uses rainfall information from the Wauchula rain gauge" is not persuasive. Dr. Garlanger reasonably chose this particular period of time, 1980 to 1998, and the location for several reasons. First, the data was available from the Center and is reliable. Second, the average rainfall that he used in the Peace River Basin is the average from five stations in the Basin, not just from one station. Third, Dr. Garlanger also considered the data from a rain gauging station approximately 3 miles downstream from the Property where Horse Creek crosses State Road 64, and the average rainfall was about 52.2 inches, which is similar to the 19-year period of data for the Peace River Basin. It is also argued that Dr. Garlanger "fabricated certain rainfall data." In rebuttal, Dr. Garlanger agreed that a data gap of approximately 7 months existed in the rainfall record at the Wauchula station, which he used. He described the efforts made by his assistant in supplying data for the missing period of record, which included an examination of the average rainfall for the other 18 years, for a particular day which was missing from the original data set. The weight of the evidence shows the calculations for these missing months out of the entire 19-year record did not adversely affect the overall conclusions of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work, including the predicted impacts. It is also suggested that Dr. Garlanger's modeling work improperly "omits a 3 square mile of the West Fork of Horse Creek watershed . . . that is critical to judging environmental impacts and changes in flow on the Manson Jenkins Property." While the entire Horse Creek watershed exceeds 200 square miles, an area of approximately 10 square miles composes the Horse Creek watershed upstream of the Property. A portion of IMC's Fort Green Mine is located in the West Fork of Horse Creek watershed. This portion of the Fort Green Mine includes approximately 3 square miles of catchment area. While IMC's Fort Green Mine is not currently contributing surface runoff to the West Fork of Horse Creek, the 3 square miles lying in the Fort Green Mine catchment area still comprise part of the overall Horse Creek Basin. In order to properly evaluate any impact on existing flow expected from Manson Jenkins activities, Dr. Garlanger reasonably did not select the 10-square mile historic basin, which would include the 3 square miles of Fort Green Mine catchment area and which, if included in the modeling assumptions as part of the watershed, would produce more favorable, higher flows. Rather, Dr. Garlanger reasonably used the current condition or baseline condition, which is the approximately 10 square miles of the historic basin minus the 3- square mile catchment area of the Fort Green Mine, approximately 6.2 square miles, in order for a valid comparison to be made of the potential effects that Manson Jenkins activities would have on existing flow. Dr. Garlanger's exclusion of this 3-square mile area in his modeling for the project was prudent to predicting what, if any, flow impacts would occur on a daily basis and under existing conditions. Dr. Garlanger's modeling work reasonably predicted both (1) the runoff that would occur on a daily basis over the next twenty years if no mining were to occur and (2) the runoff that would occur given the same rainfall record during mining and post-reclamation conditions at the Property. It was reasonable to use the same rainfall record in comparing these two scenarios in order to get a model comparison that accounted for pre-mining, during-mining, and post-reclamation conditions. 3. Evapotranspiration The reasonableness of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work is illustrated by the predictive accuracy of Dr. Garlanger's ET data as compared to measured data. Dr. Garlanger's model estimated ET on a daily basis, and the same ET values were used by Dr. Garlanger for the same types of vegetation cover. Dr. Garlanger compared the predicted daily ET with the ET calculated on actual, measured stream flow data along with the estimate of the rainfall in the Horse Creek Basin for the period from 1980 through 1998. Dr. Garlanger's predicted ET for the Property was 39.2 inches per year. The ET data from Horse Creek at State Road 64 is 40.3 and at State Road 72 is 39.9. Thus, Dr. Garlanger's predicted ET was within 2 percent or 3 percent of the data from these stations where the stream flow was measured. 4. Flow Impacts Using the reasonable meteorological data assumptions noted above and applying accepted hydrological and other physical laws, Dr. Garlanger used the model to predict anticipated flow conditions at the Property and downstream. The modeling results demonstrate that flow in stream segments which receive rainfall runoff and base flow contribution from the Property would be reduced only during the relatively small percentage of time that the streams would normally exhibit high flow conditions. For example, at the southern Property boundary line, the flow in the West Fork of Horse Creek during active mining and reclamation activities is predicted to be reduced only during the higher flow periods which exist for 10-20 percent of the time during the year. For the remaining 80-90 percent of the year flow reductions are not anticipated. After reclamation is completed, flow in the West Fork of Horse Creek at the Property line is predicted to be reduced only during approximately 5 percent of the time during the year when high flows are experienced in the stream. The only impact of the anticipated flow reductions during high flow periods at the Property boundary will be to reduce the depth of the water within the channel of the stream at that point. At the southern boundary of the West Fork of Horse Creek as it leaves the Property boundary, during the operation of the AFW, there should be no decrease in average stream flow, and there may even be a net increase in stream flow. During years 6 through 13 of the mining/reclamation sequence, or the mine life, Dr. Garlanger calculated there would be a decreased stream flow leaving the Property boundary of approximately 1.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) on an annual average basis as a result of mining activity, assuming the average rainfall during that period is 52 inches and the area has the same rainfall distribution as in Wauchula from 1980-1998. (The 1.4 cfs decrease applies downstream as well, but reflects Dr. Garlanger's worst case assumption.) Dr. Garlanger further testified that the slight decrease in flow in the Horse Creek, corresponding to a decrease in flow depth of a few inches when the flow depth in the Horse Creek is between 7.5 feet and 12.8 feet, will not cause adverse water quantity impacts. Dr. Garlanger compared on a daily basis the predicted reduction in stream flow resulting from mining to the baseline pre-mining condition. This allowed Dr. Garlanger to predict the effect on the depth of water in the stream channel at various points in time during both high flows and low flows. Significantly, Dr. Garlanger's modeling work indicates that during higher rainfall events, that is, high flows, when most of the runoff would occur, the greatest effect as a result of mining occurs. Predictably, during the period when there are no rain events or small rain events, that is, when there is low flow, Dr. Garlanger's calculations show the Manson Jenkins activities have virtually no impact on flow. Consequently, the effects of IMC's proposed mining and reclamation activities are consistent with the permitting rules because IMC's mining activities will reduce rather than cause adverse flooding. Water leaving the Property travels downstream to Horse Creek and the Peace River and ultimately to Charlotte Harbor, about 40 miles downstream from the Property's southern boundary. Dr. Garlanger also assessed the timing and magnitude of flow reduction impacts at several points in these downstream locations. Once again, slight flow reductions during high flow conditions were predicted for downstream segments of Horse Creek and the Peace River with the magnitude of the flow reductions decreasing significantly as one moves farther downstream from the Property. It is expected that such reductions in depth will have no ecological significance. During low flow periods, no flow reduction impacts were predicted at these downstream locations. The flow in the Peace River at Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor over the next 19-year period is not expected to be lower than the measured flow existing during the previous, historic 19-year period, such that any change will have an adverse water quantity impact. Water flowing from the Property ultimately enters the Peace River at a point downstream from the Arcadia gauging station where measurements are taken to control the ability of the Authority to withdraw water for municipal water supply purposes. Accordingly, the predicted reduction in flow during high flow conditions resulting from the permitted activities at the Property cannot be reasonably expected to adversely affect the Authority's legal rights to withdraw such water. See Findings of Fact 248-249. The Authority's water intake structure is located upstream (on the Peace River) of the confluence of Horse Creek and the Peace River. The predicted small reduction in flow during high flow conditions attributed to activities at the property, will have little or no impact on the Authority's capacity to withdraw water at that point. Furthermore, the freshwater-saltwater interface in the Peace River will be well downstream of the intake structure and cannot be expected to be impacted by any reasonably predicted reduction in freshwater flow caused by activities at the Property. The persuasive evidence in the record indicates that the predicted impacts calculated by permit opponents on the Peace River flow resulting from mining were not accurate. For example, pre-mining flow from both the wet season and the dry season is not identical and the calculation of average annual flow does not properly match wet and dry season flows. Additionally, the water quantity calculation errors included using the wrong number of days for both wet and dry season average flows, which overestimated the impact by 50 percent for the dry season and 100 percent for the wet season. Certain assumptions made by permit opponents concerning flow reductions due to industry-wide mining are not reliable. The assumptions concerning the amount of land that would be mined after 2025 exceeded actual available land to be mined by a significant percentage. It was assumed the area to be mined after 2025 is approximately 161,000 acres, when the amount of land that could be added to mining is less than 20,000 acres. (A high-side number might result in another 40,000 acres mined after 2025, which is approximately 25 percent of the estimates.) The overestimate of these assumptions resulted in a 100 percent higher reduction in flow in the Peace River at the Authority's water withdrawal point than would modeling estimates using reasonable assumptions. 5. "No-Flow Days" Analysis The record does not support the claim of an increase in the number of no-flow days in West Fork of Horse Creek at the Property boundary. The record shows there was no accounting (by party opponents) for the fact that flow from direct runoff is actually distributed over a period of time. The model incorrectly had runoff from a storm occur all on the day of the storm, rather than over a period of days. Contributing stream flow from the undisturbed area located upstream of the Property was also not considered. Dr. Garlanger's modeling data was not accurately transferred, and there is evidence that had the correct flow data from Dr. Garlanger's work been used, the increase in no-flow days would not have been calculated as they were and relied upon. Further, in rebuttal, and contrary to permit opponent's suggestion that Dr. Garlanger did not estimate no-flow days, Dr. Garlanger reevaluated his calculations and reconfirmed that, while there is an expected reduction in the flow, there is no increase expected in the number of no-flow days. Dr. Garlanger's modeling work is both professionally competent and reasonable in predicting Manson Jenkins activity flow impacts. 6. Model Calibration It is also argued that Dr. Garlanger's modeling work was "not calibrated." However, this argument is rejected based on the weight of the evidence. Dr. Garlanger explained that the model used for the Manson Jenkins Project was calibrated by the models used at another phosphate mine (the Ona Mine tract) located a few miles east of the Property. He also used the same input parameters for the Farmland-Hydro Mine in Hardee County. In this light, the model provided Dr. Garlanger with a reasonable estimate of both pre-mining or baseline condition and the post-reclamation condition, and also furnished him with a basis to estimate impacts during mining. In Dr. Garlanger's professional judgment, every input parameter used for the project's modeling work was reasonable and is accepted. Additionally, Dr. Garlanger compared the project groundwater outflow for the different sub-basins and found the outflow averaged 7.5 to 7.8 inches per year for all basins. Dr. Garlanger testified the measured groundwater outflows reported by W. Llewellyn, United States Geological Survey, averaged 7.7 to 8.9 inches per year in the Horse Creek Basin. Thus, Dr. Garlanger's modeling work, as to the groundwater component, was reasonably good predictive work. Furthermore, as discussed herein, the ET rate is one of the most important factors in determining the amount of water available to be discharged through the stream system. There is persuasive evidence that Dr. Garlanger calibrated the IMC model for ET. When referring to calibration, Dr. Garlanger referred to estimated ET from the different vegetative types on the Property. In this manner, Dr. Garlanger used the estimate of the average annual ET for the upland and for the upland wetlands. ET cannot be directly measured. Rather, it must be determined indirectly. Thus, estimates of the average annual ET are made by the modeler exercising professional judgment. The average daily ET value used in the modeling was determined based on total ET from the entire 218-square mile Horse Creek Basin down to the gauging site at Arcadia. Dr. Garlanger then determined what portion of the basin was upland, wetlands, or riverine wetlands, and what the ET values were for each of those systems. In disagreeing with Dr. Garlanger's model, permit opponents imply that Dr. Garlanger's ET numbers are unreliable as they "came from information . . . that indirectly measured ET for wetlands in the Everglades." Dr. Garlanger's initial ET used 50 inches per year for both riverine and upland wetlands. However, Dr. Garlanger knew that total ET rates for the system-types on the Property range between 36 and 39 inches per year. Thus, he had discussions with other hydrologic experts about his concern of using 50 inches of ET per year for both riverine and upland wetlands. In order to evaluate the appropriate ET rate for the Property, Dr. Garlanger also reviewed data from a study containing indirectly measured ET for wetlands in the Everglades, which systems can be compared to the wetlands at the Property. The Everglades data was contained in a scientific paper concerning a study performed in the Everglades by ecologists, limnologists, and physicists where they indirectly measured ET under various conditions. The Everglades professional study assisted Dr. Garlanger and other experts in determining, based on their professional judgment, what would be the appropriate and reasonable ET rate to use in the IMC model. 7. The Department's Review of the Models The Department, by and through the Bureau, reviewed the ERP Application for, among other things, comparison of pre- mining with post-mining conditions, the use of the AFW, and the best management practices of IMC, and concluded that reasonable assurances to issue the permit were provided under the permitting rules. Furthermore, the Department will continually evaluate the project's effects by the ongoing monitoring for impacts to site conditions, and the Department will perform quarterly inspections. It is typical for the Department to rely on the models and permit information that is submitted by the permit applicant's professional engineer. While Mr. Partney did not necessarily agree with portions of Dr. Garlanger's model analysis, he stated that "this approach is fine for planning and checking the feasibility of a plan." Mr. Partney maintained that, in his professional opinion, because the reclamation activity would result in a net improvement of the environment on the Property, an approximate 5 percent annual average decline in flow was not a concern. (Dr. Garlanger stated that a 5 percent or greater reduction of annual average flow is significant. However, for the reasons stated herein, Dr. Garlanger felt that the impacts would not be adverse.) Groundwater In the vicinity of the Property, groundwater is present in the unconfined surficial aquifer within the overburden and matrix and in the underlying confined intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems. Surficial groundwater levels in areas not disturbed by mining will be maintained by use of the ditch and berm system. Dr. Garlanger presented credible evidence that after reclamation, groundwater levels return to pre-mining elevations. Credible evidence was presented that in some cases, slightly more groundwater outflow to the streams and preserved areas is expected than to the same areas prior to mining. During active mining operations, there will be a short-term reduction in recharge of groundwater to the deeper aquifer systems in the immediate area of mining. This short- term reduction has no adverse impact upon water supply availability in the underlying aquifer systems and is largely offset by the increase referred to above. Underlying the CSAs, deep groundwater recharge will be increased over that experienced normally during the timeframe that the clays are settling. Once the clays are fully settled, deep recharge in these areas will be within the range that occurs naturally in the vicinity of the Property. Flooding 1. General Modeling submitted by IMC as part of the ERP application demonstrated that off-site flows after mining and reclamation would be in compliance with design requirements set forth in the 1995 SWFWMD Basis of Review adopted by reference by the Department. The AFW is specifically designed to assure that during its operation it had the capacity to carry anticipated flows from the drainage area north of the Property during high peak flow conditions without causing water to back up and flood that area or to cause flooding at downstream locations. After mining and reclamation, the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek will have sufficient capacity to handle anticipated storm events without causing flooding. The increased wetland acreage after reclamation will provide additional storage and attenuation of flood flows and, therefore, may actually reduce the possibility of flooding. It is asserted that IMC "did not evaluate the impact of long-duration flooding events." But, the ERP permitting criteria did not require long-duration flooding analysis of the natural systems as a condition for issuance of the permit. Even if IMC were obligated under the rules to specifically address long-duration flooding, the record shows there are no predicted adverse impacts from Manson Jenkins activities concerning long- duration flooding because the modeling shows any "event flooding" is likely to drain off before an adverse impact to a natural system would occur. 2. Recharge Ditches There is no substantial evidence to support permit opponents' claim that the flood analysis needs to be "redone" because of IMC's failure to account for the effects of seepage from the recharge ditches on the AFW. Dr. Garlanger predicted that the recharge ditches would result in an additional 3.26 cfs of flow in the AFW. Opponents' expert Mr. Zarbock testified that this additional increase was a reasonable calculation. Adding 3.2 cfs to the peak flow in the AFW predicted by the HEC-RAS model for the 100-year storm event results in a relatively small percent increase in the peak flow. This small increase in peak flow is an insignificant increase with no meaningful effect on the flood analysis and on actual water levels either upstream or downstream of the Property. Adding an additional 3.2 cfs of groundwater outflow to the West Fork of Horse Creek’s average annual flow of 5.5 cfs resulted in a 59 percent increase (not 99 percent as asserted by opponents) in the average annual flow, and is not expected to have a detrimental effect on the average flow in West Fork of Horse Creek, Horse Creek, Peace River, or Charlotte Harbor. 3. Integrity of Clay Settling Areas The weight of the evidence indicates that this ERP permit is not intended to address dam construction or to evaluate the sufficiency of dam design, both of which will be considered under other permitting processes. However, the record shows the proposed Manson Jenkins CSAs must be engineered dams designed, built, and operated to achieve full compliance with the stringent requirements of Rule 62-672, Florida Administrative Code, according to exacting standards concerning site investigation, soil testing, cross-section design work, stability analysis, and design safety factors. After construction, the dam will be inspected weekly. The Department does not require flood inundation studies for the type of dam proposed by IMC, although it is characterized by Mr. Partney as a significant hazard dam. These studies are only required by the Department for high-hazard dams, which the IMC dams are not. Additionally, Mr. Partney, Florida’s Dam Safety Engineer, advised that the Department has made recent changes that ensure that construction of the CSAs is improving. See Findings of Fact 244-247. Dr. Dunn admitted that "the probability of failure is low" for a CSA. IMC has been issued its Federal Clean Water Act NPDES Permit which authorizes IMC to conduct its operations, involving the use of water. The NPDES Permit also regulates the discharge of waters to the surface and ground. The NPDES permit has specific conditions to assure the safety of dams that IMC must comply with related to the construction and operation of the CSAs. Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Capabilities General Rule 40D-4.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. These issues are addressed in the prior section. However, additional issues are addressed below. 2. Depressional Storage Dr. Garlanger provided a reasonable explanation regarding whether an increase in depressional storage can be expected. Dr. Garlanger performed calculations based on the average thickness of phosphate matrix being mined. The removal of the phosphate rock from the matrix generally reduces the depth of the soil profile components by 1.7 feet. The overburden that is removed in order to access the phosphate matrix is "cast" back into the adjacent mine cuts and occupies a greater volume after it is removed for mining than it will prior to mining. In other words, the overburden "swells" after it is removed to expose the phosphate matrix. This "swelling" results in an increase in volume of the overburden somewhere between 10 percent and 15 percent. Thus, based on the measurements of the density of spoil piles performed by Dr. Garlanger, the overburden actually increases in thickness by about 3.3 feet, which would more than make up for the 1.7 feet reduction in thickness of the soil profile components resulting from the removal of the phosphate rock. Additionally, the sand and clay components of the matrix also increase in thickness after having been mined, processed at the beneficiation plant, and through the reclamation processes, which further increase the average thickness of the soil profile components. If there is an increase in the average thickness of the soil profile components, even though most of the increase is associated with the reclaimed clay areas, there cannot be an increase in depressional storage. 3. Reclaimed Land Forms and Reestablishing Hydrologic Regimes The storage and conveyance capabilities provided by the flow-through marsh and the stream segment that are proposed to replace the existing ditched segment will greatly enhance the surface water conveyance and storage capabilities on the Property. Specifically as to the AFW, IMC's engineers and consultants from Ardaman & Associates reasonably designed the AFW to adequately replace the conveyance and storage capabilities of the portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined. Also, a Storm Water Management Plan, which is a required document by the Bureau, analyzed surface water discharges under both historic conditions and under post- reclamation conditions and determined sufficient storage and conveyance capabilities will exist during mining and post- reclamation. A primary purpose of the reclamation plan developed by IMC is to create a land use topography on the Property that will allow runoff to occur as it did under the pre-mining condition prior to the ditching that was completed decades ago. Even though land surface on average is higher due to the "swelling" of the materials used in reclamation, the reclamation is contoured so that there is no storage except for the storage that is purposefully left in the recreated wetlands. Party opponents claim that a review of other mine permit applications shows a hydrologic characteristic of "reduced runoff from storm events by approximately 15 percent of the pre-mining condition." However, Mr. Zarbock, in reviewing approved phosphate mine applications, did not see any such phosphate mine applications that showed a 15 percent (not higher than 12 percent) reduction in flow, nor could he identify any mine that experienced the percentage reduction in flow that he assumed in performing his calculations. Water Quality Impacts Surface Water Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that enumerated water quality standards will be violated. The waters and associated wetlands of the West Fork of Horse Creek located on or downstream from the Property are Class III waters. Downstream from the Property, the West Fork meets Horse Creek and both Creeks continue as Class III waters until Horse Creek becomes Class I waters in DeSoto County. The Myakka River is Class III waters through Manatee County. (Approximately 4 acres of wetlands will be mined on the Property located in the Myakka River Basin, to be replaced with approximately 12 acres of wetlands. See Finding of Fact 77.) The Manatee River to the west of the Property, including the North and East Forks of the Manatee River, are Class I waters. See Rule 62-302.400(12)41, Florida Administrative Code (The Manatee River is a Class I river from "[f]rom Rye Ridge Road to the sources thereof ") The far northwestern portion of the Property is in the Manatee River Basin. (Approximately 17 acres of wetlands in this area are proposed for mining and will be replaced with approximately 51 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 76 and 211.) These wetlands have a ditched connection between the these wetlands and other wetlands, which ultimately lead to the East Fork of the Manatee River. As a limnologist, Dr. Durbin agreed that these existing wetlands, even after reclamation, are part of the water source for the Manatee River watershed. Dr. Dunn stated that if the "[BMPs] operate as designed [he assumed], that there will not be water quality impacts" to the East Fork of the Manatee River during actual mining. Rather, he was concerned about (after mining and reclamation and before release) "potential water quality problems for those areas that contribute flow to the East Fork of the Manatee River," as Class I waters. Dr. Durbin reasonably explained that after mining and reclamation, the existing wetlands will be severed from the Manatee River because the agricultural ditching will be removed, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that the replaced wetlands will not have a surface water discharge into other wetlands which are ultimately tributaries to the East Fork of the Manatee River. Thus, the wetlands will not flow to surface waters that then enter Class I waters. Further, there are no expected measurable decreases in depth of flow to the Manatee and Myakka Rivers resulting from mining and reclamation activity on the Property, which might reasonably be expected to adversely impact the water quality of these rivers. There are no measurable impacts to any Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW)(no OFWs are located on the Property), including aquatic preserves, or to Class I or II waters, which are likely to result from this project. See Findings of Fact 193-195. The ditch and berm system around active mining and reclamation areas will preclude the direct release of waters impacted by mining to surface water bodies on the Property. The system is designed to isolate the unmined areas from surface water runoff that may be present in the mine area and to maintain water levels in undisturbed wetlands. See Findings of Fact 31-42. Waters collected in the ditch and berm system will be reused and recycled by IMC in the mining operations. Some portion of that water will be discharged through permitted discharge outfalls not located on the Property in accordance with IMC's currently valid Department NPDES Permit. Such discharges must comply with discharge water quality criteria set forth in the NPDES Permit. Permitted water discharges from these outfalls is necessary because IMC will need the ability to release water from the mine into nearby waters and streams. The activities on the Property are regulated pursuant to the Fort Green Mine NPDES Permit, and, in particular, outfalls 3 and 4 which discharge water into Horse Creek. (Outfalls number 1 and 2 discharge water into Payne Creek.) Over the past 5 years, in measuring the water quality of the water leaving the permitted outfalls, IMC is unaware of any violations of permit limits, including surface water quality standards at the Fort Green Mine site based on samples taken at the outfalls. In the event there is a concern regarding water quality at an outfall, a gate constructed at the outfall can be quickly closed to stop off-site flows. Water quality data from Payne Creek, where over two- thirds of the watershed has been mined and a good portion reclaimed, demonstrate that phosphate mining has not adversely impacted dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the receiving stream, i.e., the concentrations are comparable to other streams. Payne Creek has had lower nitrogen concentrations in most years than other measured streams, such as Joshua Creek, which has had no mining. Water used to recharge the ditch and berm system and maintain groundwater levels will be of high quality and is not expected to cause or contribute to adverse water quality impacts should they reach area surface waters as a part of base flow. The predicted reductions in stream flow, either during active mining and reclamation or after reclamation is complete, are not expected to have an adverse impact on the water quality of surface waters flowing through the Property or at any point downstream. Freshwater flows have a major role in determining the salinity in an estuary. The small reduction in fresh water flow during high-flow conditions predicted during mining and after reclamation of the Property is not expected to cause adverse impacts to salinity levels in the Charlotte Harbor Estuary. The small predicted impact is of insufficient magnitude to be measurable and, therefore, to warrant a reasonable concern. During active mining and reclamation activities at the Property, off-site drainage entering the Property will be unaffected by mining operations. Augmented base flow will be of high quality and runoff from undisturbed areas that reach surface waters on the Property will be the same as prior to the time mining commenced. Evidence presented at the final hearing demonstrated that, once mining and reclamation activities have been completed and the West Fork of Horse Creek has been reclaimed, surface water bodies on the Property or downstream in the Horse Creek and Myakka River are expected to achieve all applicable Class III surface water quality criteria. The proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Property are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of Class I standards in the Manatee River. Charlotte County's expert witness, Dr. Janicki, opined that the proposed mining and reclamation project will not cause a violation of any currently applicable numerical water quality standards. Water quality sampling at the Property indicates that DO levels lower than the Class III standards currently occur in the West Fork of Horse Creek and in wetland systems at the Property. This is not an uncommon occurrence in natural systems. The DO levels in reclaimed wetlands at the Property will essentially mimic conditions in naturally occurring wetlands, and it is not anticipated that DO levels in the reclaimed wetlands will be depressed any more than occurs in a natural system. With regard to the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek, the reclaimed stream will be at least equivalent to the current ditched segment with regard to DO levels, and it is likely that DO levels will be improved overall since the design of the system will provide for a meandering channel and for the placement of logs or other obstructions in the channel which should increase aeration and thus potentially elevate DO. Opponents' expert Dr. Dunn agreed the existing water quality in the West Fork of Horse Creek is not as good as it is in the main channel of Horse Creek. Water quality monitoring carried out by IMC on reclaimed areas demonstrates that water leaving the reclaimed areas and entering surface water bodies meets applicable water quality standards. IMC will be required to monitor the quality of water in the reclaimed wetlands areas on the Property and will not be authorized by the Department to connect the reclaimed areas to the surface water system unless monitoring data demonstrate that water quality criteria are met. Under IMC's ERP Application, prior to any reclaimed wetland being reconnected to the off-site surface waters, there is one full year of water quality sampling required in order to demonstrate that water quality standards are met before the wetland is connected to the natural system, which is an extra safeguard not required in non-mining ERP applications. Moreover, there is credible evidence in the record of IMC's historical and successful use of AFWs and their effect on water quality. A study done by the Department in 1994 stated that the water quality indicators in an operational AFW were better than those same indicators at a natural site that did not have alternate flow-way characteristics. The weight of the evidence indicated that the water quality and biological integrity of the AFW will be in full compliance with the permitting requirements and with the state water quality standards. The weight of the evidence in the record does not indicate that the mining and restoration of the West Fork of Horse Creek will result in violations of water quality standards, as the water quality leaving the site during mining and after reclamation will be similar to the water quality that currently exists on-site. There are several reasons why water quality will not be adversely impacted: (1) a substantial portion of the watershed for the West Fork of Horse Creek lies north of the Property, and the water coming from this area will still move through the Property into the preserve area and off- site; (2) IMC will use best management practice berms to keep any runoff from active mine areas or cleared areas from entering the wetlands and streams associated with the flow way over the reclaimed wetlands precluding degradation of the water quality from those areas; and (3) IMC will use clean water in the recharge ditch system which will be seeping into the surrounding wetlands and the stream that is essentially feeding the wetlands with clean water augmenting the flow downstream. Groundwater Groundwater quality monitoring in the vicinity of the phosphate mining operations has demonstrated that such operations will not adversely impact the quality of groundwater in the vertical aquifer adjacent to mining operations or in the deeper intermediate or Florida aquifer systems. Impacts to Wetlands and Other Surface Waters Functions Provided to Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface water, and other water-related resources of SWFWMD. Prior to mining, pedestrian-type surveys of the Property will be conducted of the Property to determine the listed wildlife in order to avoid impacting particular species. Some species, including gopher tortoises, would be relocated to an unmined area. The weight of the evidence shows that IMC will minimize impacts to fish and wildlife through (a) a Conservation Easement, which preserves those areas with an abundance of habitat diversity, (b) through best management practice berms, which protect water quality of adjacent systems, and (c) through the AFW, which will allow continuous movement of fish and wildlife from areas north and south of the Property as well as creation of additional habitats. IMC's efforts to avoid and minimize the potential for impacts to fish and wildlife during mining and reclamation satisfy permitting rule requirements. Fish and wildlife functions in areas to be mined or disturbed at the Manson Jenkins Project will be temporarily impacted. The areas to be impacted typically are of lower ecological value while IMC has agreed to preserve a substantial amount of the higher quality wetlands on the Property together with, in some cases, important adjacent upland habitats. The impacts that do occur will be mitigated by the replacement of the impacted systems by more and higher quality systems than existed prior to mining. This includes the enhancement of the project with the wildlife corridor through the middle of the Property and improvements to the stream system. The Conservation Easement can be expected to protect the "habitat mosaic of the corridor." (The Conservation Easement on the Property includes approximately 521 acres.) Credible evidence also shows that IMC will satisfy permitting rule requirements after mining. Under the reclamation plan there will be diverse, connected habitats instead of the existing pre-mining single ditch and, primarily, agricultural land cover. There is also empirical data in the record concerning reclamation indicating that reclaimed areas were equal to or better for fish and invertebrate use when compared to natural systems, and similar results are also expected for IMC's reclamation. Both state and federal agencies approved the work plan of IMC used to survey wildlife at the Property. IMC's wildlife surveys are reasonable, which enabled the preparation of a comprehensive wildlife management plan. Avoidance and Mitigation Avoidance Phosphate ore underlies the land surface beneath waters and wetlands. Thus, it is not possible to avoid disturbance of these systems and still mine the valuable resource. See generally Section 378.201, Florida Statutes. IMC and the Department evaluated the quality of the waters and wetlands proposed for disturbance at the Property as part of the permit application process. Most of the wetlands systems deemed to be of higher quality through the application of the WRAP (Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure) analysis are being preserved. (The WRAP Procedure is an accepted procedure to evaluate wetland functions and assign a value based on several criteria. The first WRAP was developed by South Florida Water Management District. WRAP scores generally are numerical values that can be assigned on a per-unit-acre basis to wetlands that are an index of their functional value.) For all areas that are not avoided, IMC is required to take steps as part of its land reclamation process to mitigate the unavoidable impacts associated with mining the Property. It was suggested that IMC did not avoid impacts due to IMC's determination to mine approximately 17 acres of wetlands in the Manatee River Basin. This suggestion is not persuasive because over 316 acres of wetlands will be left unmined on the entire Property, which equates to approximately 45 percent of the wetlands on the Property, including over 70 percent of the forested wetlands on the Property. The weight of the evidence shows that IMC was prudent in balancing between avoidance of appropriate environmentally significant areas, such as some wetland systems, and the operational needs to reach the phosphate matrix that is underlying the Property. Also, approximately 3.7 tons of phosphate rock reserves underlie the preserved areas with a projected loss of total income of over $55 million. 2. Mitigation In the ERP Program, the term "mitigation ratio" refers to the wetlands or other surface waters and areas the applicant is proposing to, for example, create, restore, enhance, donate in kind, or preserve, versus the impacted wetlands. For example, a mitigation ratio of two to one means the applicant is proposing to mitigate or recreate two acres of wetlands for every acre that is being disturbed or impacted. Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that wetlands reclamation activities for, in part, phosphate mining undertaken "pursuant to chapter 378 shall be considered appropriate mitigation for [Part IV of Chapter 373] if they maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities." See also Section 3.3.1.6., Basis of Review. Mining, reclamation, and revegetation on the Property is expected to be completed within 15 years, including reclamation of the CSAs. The conceptual reclamation plan, which includes the Property, was approved by Department final agency action on March 20, 2001, pursuant to Chapter 378, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62C-16, Florida Administrative Code. However, this approval does not mean that IMC is not required to prove reasonable assurances regarding its mitigation plan, which is discussed herein. Rule 62C-16.0051(4), Florida Administrative Code, requires the restoration of impacted wetlands on at least an acre-for-acre and type-for-type basis. Compliance with this provision is mandatory for phosphate mines. IMC's mitigation plan satisfies this acre-for-acre, type-for-type mitigation requirement. In addition to satisfying the mitigation guidelines contained in the permitting requirements, other factors such as (a) the low quality of the wetlands that are being disturbed due to historical ditching and draining to accommodate historical agricultural land uses, (b) the significant on-site preservation effort, and (c) the Integrated Habitat Network (IHN) that provides a regional benefit to wildlife and their habitats and to water quality and which represents mitigation beyond applicable requirements, all taken together demonstrate the appropriateness of IMC's mitigation plan. The total cost to IMC for wetlands mitigation at the Property is approximately $3.6 million. The number of acres of wetlands affected by the Manson Jenkins activities in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins total approximately 361 acres. See Findings of Fact 76-77 and 95-96. IMC will reclaim 538 acres of wetlands as mitigation for the 361 acres of generally low quality wetlands that will be disturbed at the Property. The reclamation area wetlands will be designed to provide a diversity of habitat and function that does not presently exist at the Property. IMC's reclamation plan adequately mitigates for any impacts by creating approximately 538 total wetland acres distributed among these three basins. Additionally, those wetlands that are created will have associated upland buffers, which the existing wetlands do not, and these newly created buffers will provide additional, enhanced wildlife and water quality benefits at each created wetland. In the reclaimed landscape, a forested buffer is expected which will provide some wildlife and water quality benefits to each wetland. The created wetlands will be hydrated by the groundwater outflow from the recharge system. IMC has had experience in the reclamation of wetland systems in Florida. Since 1975, IMC and its predecessor company, Agrico Chemical Company, have reclaimed approximately 6,850 acres of wetlands. Biologists and reclamation experts Dr. Durbin and Dr. Clewell presented persuasive evidence that IMC is capable of successfully completing the proposed reclamation activity and that the ultimately reclaimed wetlands systems will restore long-term ecological value to the Property and adjacent areas. Nevertheless, restoration and reclamation of wetlands is not a perfect science; mistakes have been made, e.g., Dog Leg Branch, and are documented in this record. To his credit, Dr. Clewell agreed. However, several studies, including Charlotte Exhibits 29 and 31 and others, do not persuasively indicate that IMC's proposed reclamation and restoration proposal for the Manson Jenkins Project will not be successful or that IMC does not have the wherewithal and overall professional expertise to accomplish the desired result. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that IMC can effectively carry out the proposed reclamation plan as set forth in the ERP and that, with regard to waters and wetlands impacted by mining operations at the Property, it will effectively mitigate the unavoidable ecological losses associated with mining those areas. The ERP contains detailed success criteria for the required wetlands reclamation. Extensive monitoring is required and Department personnel carry out regular inspections of reclamation sites. Only after reclamation success criteria are achieved, including attainment of necessary water quality criteria, will the reclaimed wetlands be approved by the Department and reconnected to the natural system. Stated differently, the project will only be deemed to be officially successful after release by the Department. This does not mean, however, that reclaimed wetlands, including wetlands reclaimed by IMC, have not been or are not functional before release. This includes the Big Marsh. (It appears that the existence of nuisance species currently precludes the release of Big Marsh. Dr. Clewell advised that Big Marsh is very close to meeting all criteria for release right now. See Findings of Fact 231 and 265.) 3. Acre-for-Acre/Type-for-Type As noted above, Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, contains an acre-for-acre, type-for-type mitigation strategy for phosphate mining reclamation, and IMC's reclamation plan exceeds the one-to-one mitigation ratio contained in the mine reclamation rules of Chapter 378, Florida Statutes. Substantial evidence in the record exists to support the claim that the ecological value of the wetlands proposed to be reclaimed will be higher than the current ecological value of the wetlands that will be disturbed and are currently existing at the Property. There are two types of reclamation: herbaceous and forested reclamation. IMC has reclamation experience, and based on IMC's experts' evaluation of many reclaimed sites, the average WRAP value assigned to herbaceous systems is .64 and for forested systems is .73. The wetlands proposed to be disturbed at the Property have an average pre-mining score for herbaceous systems of .54 and for forested systems of .51. Once reclamation occurs, the reclaimed herbaceous systems at the Property will score 1.19 times the existing the value, or an approximate 20 percent improvement from the existing wetland systems at the Property. Significant ecological improvement is also evidenced for the Property's reclaimed forested wetlands that will have an improved value of approximately 43 percent. The evidence shows IMC used the WRAP procedure to value wetlands and the functions wetlands provide to fish and wildlife as well as the accompanying water quality and quantity issues at the Property. WRAP was used for the Manson Jenkins Project because it was required by similar permitting under the Clean Water Act for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Department participated in the evaluation of the methodology used, including auditing the results in the field and on paper. But the Department did not accept or reject the methodology per se. On the other hand, the "King Formula" used by permit opponents' expert Dr. Dunn to critique IMC's reclamation proposal is a "completely different approach" from the regulatory requirement of acre-for-acre, type-for-type that is applicable to this ERP application. Further, the "King Formula" has not been accepted by the Department as an appropriate methodology for ERP evaluations, nor has Dr. Dunn ever before relied on the "King Formula" to support any ERP permit that he assisted in obtaining. There is credible evidence that even if the permit opponents' mitigation calculation (or "King's Formula") is applied, IMC would need 1.15 to 1 replacement for herbaceous systems and 1.27 to 1 replacement for forested systems. The record reflects IMC is required under the proposed ERP permit to have 1.38 to 1 replacement for herbaceous systems and 2.28 to 1 replacement for forested systems. Thus, IMC is committed to a more functionally equivalent mitigation objective than is calculated using the opponents' method for evaluating mitigation ratios. 4. Restoration of the West Fork of Horse Creek and Headwater Marsh The record shows that IMC has a successful history of restoration generally and, specifically, reclaiming headwater marshes as part of their overall mitigation experience. IMC's reclamation efforts have been recognized with both state and federal awards. Two examples of reclamation projects which appear to be functionally successful, although not yet released by the Department, are Big Marsh, which is a 229-acre headwater marsh flowing into Horse Creek, and the approximately 200-acre, P-20 Marsh, which is a headwater of Horse Creek, and next to Big Marsh. Both Big Marsh and P-20 Marsh show comparable features, placement, and functions when compared to their pre-mining condition and their current post-reclamation condition. The restoration efforts at the P-20 Marsh are relevant because it is similar to the Property in that it too was cleared of vegetation and ditched. Testimony shows that the benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are important to the successful functioning of a headwater marsh, are reasonably expected to be recolonized in the reclaimed system at the Property in a variety of permit- required habitats, which habitats are ecologically better than the existing habitat conditions on the Property. Further, the benthic invertebrate populations existing in the area north of the Property will be connected to the reclaimed Property enabling recolonization of the reclaimed marsh. IMC presented credible evidence that the excavated portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek will have ongoing, functional value and the reclaimed headwater marsh and stream system will at least maintain, but likely improve the water quality and function of the excavated portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. IMC's reclamation plan is to recreate West Fork of Horse Creek to more resemble a natural Florida stream with a meandering flow-away with trees that shade the stream and provide improved habitats for fish and wildlife. Moreover, the existing West Fork of Horse Creek, though properly identified as a "first order stream," is a very small system with intermittent flow. The stream ordering system is a method of classifying the size of streams in terms of watershed basins and sub-basins. A "first order stream" is the smallest of the set of streams making up an entire drainage basin and is more a landscape or hydrologic indicator and does not necessarily indicate a stream's ecological value. The West Fork of Horse Creek is not a regionally- significant stream because the existing conditions at the West Fork of Horse Creek are degraded as a result of agricultural ditching, the ecologically poor uplands surrounding the area, and the overall presence of agricultural land. More specifically, the area proposed for mining in the West Fork of Horse Creek is of "very low ecological value, relative to what another first-order or headwater system might be." 5. Temporal Lag It has been asserted that there will be some temporal lag of ecological function at the Property because certain reclaimed systems will take some time to become mature. (Temporal lag is the phrase given to a lag time between the impact to a wetland system and the replacement of the functions once offered by the wetland system. Chapter 62C, Florida Administrative Code, does not require consideration of temporal lag in determining reclamation requirements. The weight of the evidence presented, however, shows that more acres of wetlands will be reclaimed than are being disturbed and the reclaimed systems will be of higher ecological value than the stressed systems proposed for mining. Furthermore, the evidence at hearing demonstrated that the total amount of wetland acreage at the Property is not significantly reduced. Also, fairly early in the mining and reclamation sequence, the total number of wetland acres on the Property are reasonably expected to exceed pre-mining conditions. Even using the worst-case scenario as proposed by opponents to the permit application with longer temporal lag (6 years instead of 3 years for herbaceous systems and 40 years instead of 20 years for forested systems), the resulting calculated required herbaceous system ratio of 1.21 to 1 is still less than the permit's requirement of 1.38 to 1. Similarly, the forested system's worst-case calculated ratio using permit opponents' unwarranted temporal lag assumptions is 1.74 to 1, which is still less than the 2.28 to 1 permit requirement. Further, the evidence shows that doubling the time between the removal of the systems and mitigation, from 4 to 8 years, results in a herbaceous ratio of 1.39 to 1 and a forested ratio of 2.04 to 1, which indicates that even if the time between impacts and mitigation were doubled, IMC's reclamation plan would still be adequately mitigating for any impacts. 6. Iron and Manganese IMC's expert explained the scientific research performed on behalf of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research involving 11 phosphate mines and more than 40 exploratory wells and borings to evaluate the water quality of mined lands. There were no exceedances of standards with the exception of iron and manganese, which were expected to exceed standards because Florida has high background concentrations of iron manganese oxide in the soil. There is no reason to believe Manson Jenkins’ activities will cause adverse impacts to wetlands due to "groundwater perturbations." 7. "Flocculation" (Iron Bacteria) There is credible evidence that iron bacteria is a naturally-occurring substance and is common in Florida soils. Dr. Durbin testified that iron bacteria is not a reasonable concern for the Manson Jenkins Project. A benefit provided by the proposed reclaimed streams, wetlands, and lakes is that these are natural treatment systems that, in the case of iron bacteria, will remove iron from the water and will not cause any off-site concerns. Secondary Impacts 1. General Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. IMC presented credible evidence that the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Project will not cause any adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. 2. Stability of CSA's and Associated Dams Mr. Partney, the Department's dam safety engineer, has been involved with the state of Florida's current dam safety program since its inception approximately six years ago, and has been in charge of the dam safety program since its inception. He testified that no inundation studies are necessary for the clay-settling ponds and their associated dams in this project because these are not high hazard dams. The record does not support permit opponents' statement that the proposed Manson Jenkins CSAs are considered high hazard dams. As a result, inundation studies are not required to be performed to determine the risk and consequences of a discharge. The Department's dam safety program rules are contained in Rule 62-672, Florida Administrative Code, and regulate the construction of the dams surrounding CSAs by specifically requiring soil testing, cross-section design work, and stability analysis, among other design safety factors that incorporate engineering practices employed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under their dam construction rules. The dam failures that have occurred in the past were dams constructed prior to the implementation of this rule except for one, IMC's Hopewell Mine dam. This dam failure was investigated by a "blue ribbon panel," including Mr. Partney. The cause of the failure was determined, and the problem with that failure corrected in the current version of the rule. The weight of the evidence also supports IMC's commitment to dam safety as evidenced by IMC's response to this dam failure. IMC voluntarily agreed to remove all pre-rule, non-engineered dams from operations, and within one and a-half years, IMC had categorized, inventoried, and taken out of service all non-engineered structures. Also, IMC has a Site Preparedness Plan, otherwise called an emergency plan, that prescribes actions should the signs of a potential failure be detected. Weekly inspections are required and documented. The testimony of permit opponents' expert Dr. Dunn supports the fact that the probability of a failure of a CSA and its associated dam is low. Mr. Partney shares this view, i.e., CSAs are "extremely safe" and there is about a "one in two million chance or so of one of them failing." 3. Authority's Withdrawals from the Peace River The weight of the evidence indicates that the Manson Jenkins Project will not adversely affect the Authority's permitted limits on the withdrawal of water from the Peace River because the activities at the Property will not physically affect the flow of the Peace River, upstream of its confluence with Horse Creek at the Arcadia gauge station, which is the station that determines the Authority's permitted allowance to withdraw water. IMC's expert in environmental hydrodynamics and estuarine physics, credibly testified that the slight potential reduction in freshwater flow due to Manson Jenkins’ activities has little or no potential to negatively impact salinity concerns in downstream water bodies. 4. Ditch and Berm Protection of Wetlands There was credible testimony that the ditch and berm system is a best management practice to ensure the protection of the hydrologic systems adjoining the Property. See Findings of Fact 31-42. IMC's expert, Dr. Garlanger, is one of the co-authors of the criteria used by IMC to engineer these BMPs ditch and berm systems, and the weight of the evidence indicates that the proposed ditch and berm system will protect the water quality of the surrounding wetlands systems as well as maintain the hydrologic regime of the off-site systems. Minimum Flows and Levels Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. This subsection references minimum flows and levels. The Department has not established minimum flows and levels. The water management districts establish minimum levels for aquifers and surface waters and minimum flows for surface water courses pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The Department is "very involved with the districts in developing those minimum flows and levels as part of [the Department's] supervisory authority." In the case of ERP applications filed with the Department for facilities located within SWFWMD's jurisdiction, it is the minimum flows and levels established by SWFWMD that are protected from adverse impact pursuant to Subsection 40D-4.301(1)(g). However, the weight of the evidence, especially the testimony of Department witnesses, indicates that minimum flow and levels adopted pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, must be established by rule, and not a permit condition that only applies to one permittee, such as the Authority. SWFWMD has not established, by rule, a minimum flow or level pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, for any water body impacted or potentially impacted by the proposed mining or reclamation at the Property, including the Peace River. The proposed mining and reclamation activity, therefore, will not adversely impact the maintenance of any minimum flows and levels established by law. Works of the District Rule 40D-4.301(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, provides that reasonable assurance be given that a project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the district, here SWFWMD, established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statues. The weight of the evidence indicates there will be no adverse impact to any surface water body on or downstream of the Property either from a water quality standpoint or from a water quantity standpoint. Accordingly, there will be no adverse impacts to a "work of the district" established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. See also Finding of Fact 72. This proceeding is to determine IMC's entitlement to an ERP, not a "work of the district" permit. It has been the practice of the Department, that if an ERP is issued by the Department, the permittee does not need to also obtain a separate "work of the district" permit. However, SWFWMD's "work of the district" rule has not been adopted by the Department. Effective Performance and Function Engineering and Scientific Capability The mining and reclamation activities proposed for the Property are capable, based upon generally acceptable scientific principals, of being effectively performed and functioning as proposed, including the AFW, ditch and berm systems, the reclaimed wetland areas, and the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek Stream Channel. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Financial, Legal and Administrative Capability IMC has all necessary legal property rights to mine and reclaim the Property as lessee under a mining lease issued by the Property owners. IMC has demonstrated by the weight of the evidence that it is an entity with financial, legal and administrative capability of ensuring that the activities proposed at the Property will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ultimately issued ERP, including the additional agreed permit condition referenced below. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code. IMC is a large business with assets in excess of $1.6 billion. IMC also presented credible evidence that it has provided Manatee County with a reclamation bond in the amount of $17 million to cover all reclamation liability existing in Manatee County at that time, including the upcoming year that IMC plans to mine. IMC has agreed to provide Manatee County with a general surety bond of $1 million and an environmental risk insurance policy in the amount of $10 million. At hearing, the Department requested and IMC agreed to have the following permit condition added to the ERP upon issuance: At least thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of mining operations, the final version of the financial responsibility mechanism required by Section 3.3.7.6 of the Basis of Review shall be provided to and approved by the Department as required by Rule 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code (October 1995) and Rule 62-330.200(3), Florida Administrative Code. After reclamation of the Property, IMC has in place a Conservation Easement that places restrictions, such as requiring all regulatory approvals to be obtained, and imposes required management practices in the event that agricultural operations are initiated by a third party. Credible evidence in the record supports IMC's historical efforts in reclaiming wetland systems such as Big Marsh despite suggestions that IMC has not demonstrated the capability to restore marsh systems because, e.g., Big Marsh has not been "released" by the Department. Although this system has not been "released," this system is ecologically valuable. See Findings of Fact 225 and 231. Public Interest Test Several statutory and rule criteria must be considered and balanced to determine whether IMC's proposed activity's on the Property are not contrary to the public interest. See Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes; Rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)1-5, and 7, Florida Administrative Code. Public Health Safety or Welfare or the Property of Others As noted elsewhere in this Recommended Order, the proposed project will not cause adverse water quality, water quantity or flooding on the Property or at any point off the Property. The mining and reclamation activities will be carried out within private property subject to security and control by IMC. The CSAs proposed to be constructed at the Property will be designed and constructed in accordance with strict regulatory requirements. A separate Department permit must be applied for and issued before construction of a CSA may commence. The weight of the evidence indicates that the chance of failure of any dam designed and constructed in accordance with current rule provisions is remote, e.g., one in two million according to Mr. Partney. See Findings of Fact 50-57, 161-165, and 244-247. 2. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The proposed activity at the Property will not cause adverse impacts to natural systems that are not directly subject to disturbance. The ditch and berm system will protect adjacent areas from direct surface water impacts and will maintain groundwater conditions so that preserved wetland systems will continue to function during mining activities. The mining activities will be conducted in a sequence designed to minimize impacts on mobile wildlife species. By mining in the area farthest away from the preserved wetlands in the south and moving in that direction, these wildlife will be able to relocate into the preserved areas. During active mining operations, the mining areas provide value to wildlife. Many bird species use CSAs and active mine cuts during mine activities. Other animals, including raccoons, deer, possums, armadillos, snakes, and frogs use the mine areas while mining is being conducted. IMC has surveyed the Property to identify plant and animal species present at the site and developed a wildlife management plan which was included as part of the application with the ERP. This plan addresses potentially listed threatened or endangered species that could be found on the Property now or in the future and prescribes measures for protecting those listed species. The wildlife management plan comports with good scientific practice. The proposed reclamation will enhance conservation of fish and wildlife values over that currently present at the Property. Currently the site contains several small wetland systems spread out over the site connected by ditches. These wetlands are generally surrounded by pasture. The proposed reclamation plan will consolidate the wetlands into a larger contiguous mass along the West Fork of Horse Creek and will provide for an adjacent upland corridor. The upland corridor will provide additional habitats for species that may use it as a transitional zone between a wetland and an upland. IMC's voluntary establishment of a Conservation Easement over the preserved wetlands in the south portion of the Property and the reclaimed wetland system within and adjacent to the West Fork of Horse Creek in the north provide reasonable assurance that the fish and wildlife values inherent in these areas will be protected. (The Conservation Easement covers approximately 521 acres of wetlands on-site.) In addition, this system upon completion will act as a wildlife corridor of approximately 2.5 miles in length along the West Fork of Horse Creek and will connect to a larger network of habitat corridors known as the IHN. See Finding of Fact 216. IHN is a regional conceptual plan developed by the Department in 1992 for the entire Southern Phosphate District of Florida (1.3 million acres in Polk, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and DeSoto Counties) and is intended to link existing wildlife habitats, thereby allowing wildlife populations the ability to travel throughout reclaimed areas and publicly owned lands. 3. Navigation, Flow or Harmful Erosion or Shoaling The West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property is not a navigable waterway. The AFW will be vegetated before it is put into operation. It is specifically designed to handle high flow stream events, including the 100-year flood event, and will not erode or cause downstream erosion. Any sharp bends in the AFW way will be stabilized prior to use. The reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek will be reclaimed as a natural system and will be able to manage high flows without experiencing erosion in the reclaimed stream channel or causing erosion downstream. 4. Fishing, Recreational Values or Marine Productivity The Property is privately owned and does not support public recreation or fishing activities. Following completion of mining reclamation activities, fish and wildlife values in the reclaimed wetlands and waters will be enhanced. 5. Temporary or Permanent Nature Phosphate mining, by its very nature, strips and deprives the land of existing resources, and its effects cannot be underestimated. Dr. Dunn characterizes phosphate mining as destroying the land. Nevertheless, phosphate mining is considered a temporary disturbance of the land, see Section 378.201, Florida Statutes, when compared to other types of activities. Unlike other types of activities, such as commercial or residential development, mining is completed within a finite period of time, and land reclamation follows thereafter resulting in the return of the land to other valuable land forms. 6. Current Conditions and Relative Value of Functions Performed by Affected Areas The proposed activity on the Property will not have an adverse effect on the condition and relative value of functions currently being performed at the Property in areas that will not be disturbed by mining. The areas to be disturbed by mining reflect man-induced changes over the years and provide relatively limited ecological value on the whole. Cumulative Impacts General The Department's method for evaluating the potential impacts from individual ERPs satisfies regulatory consideration of cumulative impacts of a project because so long as phosphate mines mitigate in the same drainage basin as the impacts of the proposed activity and meet the statutory and rule requirements, there will be no cumulative impacts. See Section 373.414(8)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department's evaluation includes the conceptual reclamation plan, which is mandated by Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, that describes the complete mining plan and activities for a site as well as the site's reclamation plans and the Integrated Habitat Network plan. Further, the Department's policy of analyzing similar projects (in the case of IMC's permit application that means other phosphate mines) is reasonable because phosphate mining is a temporary activity that reclaims the land to an enhanced natural system. Other types of development, such as residential and industrial, are not temporary in nature. Additionally, the Manson Jenkins Project received regional review and approval as part of IMC's Development of Regional Impact process from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, which distributed information concerning the Manson Jenkins Project to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council and Manatee County. The weight of the evidence indicates that there will be no adverse water quality impacts on undisturbed areas at the Property or at any downstream location. There are no adverse water quantity impacts on or off the Property. Implementation of the reclamation plan approved by the Department pursuant to Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, and the mitigation which will be provided, as proven in this proceeding, will maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities and thus constitute appropriate mitigation. Such mitigation will occur on the Property and will be in the same drainage basins where the activities are proposed. 2. IMC's Cumulative Impact Calculations Although the Department does not require the type of cumulative impact analysis permit opponents suggest is needed, Dr. Garlanger testified that IMC performed an analysis on the Horse Creek Watershed Basin involving the existing Ft. Green and Four Corners Mines and the future Ona Mine. IMC assessed the impact of past, current, and future mining activities in the Peace River Basin on the flow in the Peace River Basin and on Horse Creek on a cumulative basis. The predictive cumulative impact assessment modeling performed by Dr. Garlanger analyzed the future long-term potential impacts on stream flow by determining the capture during previous mining activities as a baseline period and the resulting impact from the reclamation activities for that baseline. This was then compared with the potential decreases in runoff due to the capture in the areas that are planned to be mined and reclaimed in the future. The cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC made a predictive assessment through the year 2020, which includes mining at the Property as well as mining proposed for three new mines (Ona Mine, Pine Level Mine, and Farmland-Hydro Hardee County Mine) that are in the Horse Creek Basin and existing mines that would be mining at times up to the year 2020. In order to ensure a worst-case prediction, Dr. Garlanger in his analysis assumed that all the direct surface runoff from all of the mining areas would be captured within the mine recirculation systems and consumed in the process and not available to contribute to stream flow in the area. The analysis then assumed that to the extent an area was captured, it would reduce stream flow by that amount in the areas that normally would have flowed to the natural surface water systems. A cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC concluded that for approximately 70 to 80 percent of the time there is essentially no impact on the flow in Horse Creek. Further, reduction in flow during high-flow periods, which is approximately 10 percent of the time, would reduce the flow depth from 7.46 feet to approximately 7.18 feet or less than .3 of a foot and for one percent of the time the reduction in the flow would be from 12.8 to 12.6 feet. These are the predicted impacts if all the potential capture for Horse Creek occurred. The changes in the depths of these waters, during high-flow periods, will likely have a positive impact on decreasing the amount of flooding during a high-flow period. During other times there is no adverse impact from decreasing water by just a few inches out of several feet of water. The same type of cumulative analysis was performed for the entire Peace River Basin. The areas mined and the areas reclaimed were determined using the same maximum potential capture and decreased runoff due to reclamation. Calculations were performed as to the potential decreased stream flow in the Peace River above Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor due to past, current, and future mining activities. Similar to the Horse Creek Basin analysis, Dr. Garlanger used the maximum potential capture and maximum decrease in the stream flow resulting from reclamation and calculated the maximum expected decrease in stream flow in the Peace River Basin above Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor for both the baseline condition and the future mining period through the year 2020. This analysis determined that for approximately 80 percent of the time there will be no impact on the Peace River. The only impact is a small increase in flows during high-flow periods at the Arcadia station. Similarly, at the point where the Peace River empties into Charlotte Harbor, the differences in stream flow are practically immeasurable and, if anything, there is predicted a slight increase in flow. The flow will increase slightly because the average area that was captured during the baseline period decreases over time, meaning there is less area for rainfall capture within mining recirculation systems. Though the cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC does show a slight reduction in flow in the Horse Creek, the impact will be a decrease in the stream flow depth of less than 3 or 4 inches in water that is already 7.5 feet and 12.8 feet deep, respectively, which few inches will not cause any adverse impact. Further, the analysis showed that for the same rainfall the overall flow in the Peace River at Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor through the period 2020 will actually be greater than during the past 19-year period. Furthermore, phosphate mining operations do pump water from the Floridan aquifer system to use in their operations. Deep groundwater pumping can contribute to reduced flow in the Peace River, but phosphate mine operators have substantially reduced their withdrawal of deep well groundwater over the last decade, and it is not anticipated that any substantial increase in use will occur in the future. IMC's withdrawals of groundwater for mining activities conducted at the company's mines, including the Property, have been authorized by the issuance of Water Use Permit No. 20114000 by SWFWMD. 3. Flow Impacts There is significant testimony concerning an analysis of the impacts of phosphate mining and reclamation on a watershed. IMC's expert Peter Schreuder performed an analysis involving the Peace River, Alafia, and Withlacoochee River Basins. Phosphate mining activities take place in the Peace River and Alafia River Basins and no phosphate mining activities taken place in the Withlacoochee River Basin. Each of these watersheds has a gauging station (a place where flows are electronically measured on a continual basis going out of a watershed) maintained by the United States Geological Survey. The analysis performed by IMC's expert compared the pattern of flow in watersheds where no phosphate mining was taking place with flow patterns in watersheds where phosphate mining was occurring. IMC's expert gathered data from the farthest downstream gauging station at each of these three watersheds; the data dated back to nearly 1935. This data provided actual measured flow data, with rainfall as the driving variable. The purpose of the analysis was to determine if phosphate mining was having an influence on flow. It is alleged that phosphate mining reduces flow. If the allegation is correct, the trend would be downward because less flow in the river would be expected. However, the weight of the evidence showed that under normal flow conditions, mined basins have more flow than unmined basins and in storm events the mined basins moderate the runoff to some minor degree by attenuating runoff and allowing for a slower and later release as beneficial, normal, base flow instead of flood flows. 4. Non-Mining Impacts There is convincing evidence in the record that other types of developments expected in the Peace River Basin, which include commercial and residential development as well as agricultural development, do not have the potential to capture surface runoff to the extent of mining activities. Additionally, residential and commercial development, because they result in lower evaporation due to the abundant impervious areas, result in an increased runoff in the basin. Thus, if these types of developments were included in the impact analysis, there would be an additional increase in runoff. G. Specific Conditions The draft ERP sets forth numerous general and specific conditions. Petitioners and Intervenors question the sufficiency of several specific conditions. In particular, Specific Condition 4.c. requires IMC to collect and report flow data from the AFW, but does not identify a reference stream or indicate what the Department is do with the data and how the data is to be evaluated. Mr. Partney convincingly suggested that these issues should be included in Specific Condition 4.c. On this record, it is difficult to conclusively determine which stream should be used as a reference stream. Pursuant to its special expertise, the Department should consider adding supplemental language to clarify these issues. See generally Reedy Creek Improvement District v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 486 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Specific Condition 12.b.i. requires that "[t]he created replacement stream for the West Fork of Horse Creek shall have a similar hydroperiod to the upper reaches of the preserved area of Horse Creek." Mr. Partney suggested that while "there may be some impacts going on," "they're not as significant in terms of the ratio of the impact to the ratio of the project area at that point. There would be--certain to be significant area of watershed that was not experiencing impacts. And a substantial portion of the Horse Creek in this area is preserved. So there is some assurance at that point that there will be sufficient natural conditions to give [the Department] the data [the Department] needs." Nevertheless, the monitoring of flow patterns is critical to the success of this project. In this light, the Department should endeavor to assure itself that the portion of the Horse Creek to be used for comparison is suitable for the purposes reflected in Specific Condition 12.b.i.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: Petitioners and Intervenors have standing to challenge the issuance of ERP No. FL 0142476-003; IMC provided reasonable assurance that it has the ability to comply with the conditions of draft ERP No. FL 0142476-003; IMC has complied with all conditions for final issuance of draft ERP No. FL 0142476-003; ERP No. FL 0142476-003 be issued with the following additional permit condition: At least thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of mining operations, the final version of the financial responsibility mechanism required by Section 3.3.7.6 of the Basis of Review shall be provided to and approved by the Department as required by Rule 40D-4.301(l)(j), Florida Administrative Code (October 1995), and Rule 62-330.200(3), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Aliki Moncrief, Esquire Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Post Office Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Vivian Arenas, Esquire De la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. Post Office Box 2350 Tampa, Florida 33601-2350 Martha Y. Burton, Esquire Charlotte County Attorney's Office 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Alan Behrens 4070 Southwest Armadillo Trail Arcadia, Florida 34266 Douglas Manson, Esquire David M. Pearce, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 John R. Thomas, Esquire Thomas & Associates, P.A. 233 3rd Street, North, Suite 302 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street Post Office Box 398 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Sarasota County Attorney's Office 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 Roger W. Sims, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire Jeff Donner, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert L. Rhodes, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20006 Susan L. Stephens, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Petruff & St. Paul, P.L. 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The 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.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is currently engaged in widening State Road (SR) 5, the Overseas Highway, to four lanes on Marathon Key. To handle surface water runoff from a portion of the project, DOT received approval from the South Florida Water Management District for a surface water management system which included two retention ponds (west pond and east pond) to be located on Marathon Airport.1 On May 23, 1985, DOT filed an application with DER for authorization to construct four Class V, group five stormwater drainage wells within the retention ponds on Marathon Airport. DOT proposed to locate three wells within the west pond and one well within the east pond to comply with a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) request that water levels be minimized to deter the attraction of birds which could present a hazard to aircraft navigation. By letter dated August 12, 1985, DER forwarded to DOT permit number US44-104852, dated July 26, 1985, for construction of the subject wells. Upon its receipt of the permit, DOT let the contracts for the widening of SR 5; however, neither DER nor DOT published notice of DER's intent to issue the requested permit. On November 29, 1985, a few days after he received actual notice that the permit had been issued, Robert C. Ernst filed a request for hearing with DER contesting its issuance. Mr. Ernst owns a home which lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the subject permit and which abuts Dodge Lake, a Class III surface water body; Mr. Ernst uses the waters of Dodge Lake for swimming, fishing, and other recreational pursuits. On December 20, 1985, Mr. Ernst and others, on behalf of Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), filed a request for hearing challenging the same permit. NCC was alleged to be a neighborhood association, formed December 17, 1985, to represent the interests of property owners affected by the proposed project; however, no such proof was offered at hearing. The retention ponds proposed by DOT are designed to accommodate the first inch of stormwater runoff.2 Significantly, the first 1/2" of runoff from a highway system contains the bulk of pollutants. By retaining this runoff, and permitting it to evaporate or percolate through the soils underlying the retention ponds, any adverse impact to the ground waters is minimized. DOT's proposal to install four injection wells within the ponds will deprive them of their retention capability. These wells will, within a 12-20 hour period, inject the first 1/2" of runoff (over 1 million gallons) directly into the groundwaters. Therefore, evidence of the nature of the pollutants, the quality of the receiving waters, and the geologic and hydrologic qualities of the area are significant. Highway runoff contains high concentrations of pollutants ranging from toxic mutagenic and carcinogenic substances such as heavy metals (primarily lead and zinc), pesticides, and herbicides to oxygen consuming materials and solids which cause damages such as siltation and eutrophication. These pollutants, including oils, greases, and copper, can have significant adverse effects upon the quality of the receiving waters and the life forms it supports. Underlying the proposed retention ponds is an aquaclude which extends from the surface to a depth of 30-40 feet. This aquaclude, a hard layer formation with very poor percolation qualities, will preclude any waters injected below it from returning to the surface and will direct their flow laterally. Since the maximum depths of Dodge Lake and the 100th Street Canal are 13' and 21' respectively, injection of the stormwater runoff at 50', well below the existing aquaclude, provides reasonable assurances that these water bodies will not be adversely impacted by the proposed project. However, the impacts to the groundwater and other water bodies is not so clear. Other than sampling the groundwater to establish its character as Class III groundwater,3 DOT and DER did not perform any water quality analysis. Accordingly, the existing quality of the receiving groundwaters was not shown. Further, there was no showing of the hydrologic characteristics of the area. Therefore, there was no evidence of the mixing or dilution of the contaminants which would be injected, or of their ultimate point(s) of discharge into the surface waters surrounding Marathon Key.4 DOT and DER assert that "specific conditions" #4 and #5 attached to the subject permit will provide assurances that injection of the stormwater runoff will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. Those conditions provide: The following parameters shall be sampled at Well W-2 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 3 of 5 and Well E-1 Florida Department of Transportation drawing sheet 4 of 5 and reported quarterly to the Department ninety (90) days following certification and placement of this facility in operation. The parameters to be sampled are: Napthalene, Lead and volatile organic compounds including: Trichloroethylene, Tetrachloroethylene, Carbon Tetrachloride, Vinyl Chloride, 1,1,1,-Trichloroethane, 1,2- Dichloroethane, Benzene, and Ethylene Dibromide. The discharge authorized by this permit shall be consistent at all times with the water quality standards set forth in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code. Should conditions in the receiving stream warrant, the Permittee may be required by the Department to upgrade, reduce, or cease the discharge approved by this permit and adopt an alternative method of disposal within a reasonable period of time. Under specific condition #4, the ground waters will be sampled at one injection well within each of the retention ponds. Without evidence of the mixing and flow characteristics of the groundwater, the reliability of the proposed monitoring program is questionable since it was not shown where, transitionally or ultimately, the pollutants would settle. Absent such proof, there is no evidence that the wells are sited so as to detect any water quality violations. Therefore, specific conditions #4 and #5 do not provide reasonable assurances that the proposed project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards.
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Petitioners, Robert C. Ernst and Neighbors for Clean Canals (NCC), pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, contest the decision of DER to issue a permit to DOT to construct four Class v, group five-stormwater drainage wells. Pertinent to this proceeding, Section 120.57 provides: The provisions of this section apply in all proceedings in which the substantial interests of a party are determined by an agency. When standing is resisted, as it is in this proceeding, the burden is on the protestant to prove standing. State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, v. Alice P., 367 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, does not attempt to define substantially affected persons. The Florida courts have, however, adopted the federal "injury-in-fact" and "zone of interest" tests governing standing. Montgomery v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 1014 (Fla. 1st DCA) 1985). Under this two-prong test, a person is substantially affected if he can demonstrate that he will suffer "injury-in- fact" which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle him to relief and the injury is of a type or nature which the proceeding is designed to protect (the "zone of interest"). Where, as here, an association institutes a proceeding on behalf of its members, it can be accorded standing only when it demonstrates that a substantial number of its members, although not necessarily a majority, are substantially affected by the proposed agency action, the nature of the injury is of a type which the proceeding is designed to protect: and, the relief requested is of a type appropriate for an association to receive on behalf of its members. See Florida Home Builders Assoc. v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). Mr. Ernst has demonstrated his standing to maintain this action. His home lies atop the groundwaters to be impacted by the proposed project and he uses the waters proximate to the proposed wells which could be adversely impacted if the wells were not properly constructed or sited. NCC failed, however, to demonstrate its standing since it failed to offer any evidence that a substantial number of its members could be substantially affected by the proposed project or that the interest sought to be protected was within the association's general scope of interest and purpose. Although Mr. Ernst has demonstrated standing, DOT asserts that his petition was untimely since it was filed more than three months after DOT received its permit. DOT's assertion is without merit. It is established law that persons whose substantial interests may be affected by proposed agency action must be accorded a point of entry into the proceedings. See Capeletti Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 362 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Until accorded notice, actual or constructive, such person has not been offered a point of entry. Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., provides a method to assure constructive notice is given to all substantially affected persons, and to limit the time within which a request for an administrative hearing may be filed. That rule provides that each person who filed an application for a DER permit may publish a notice of proposed agency action in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the activity will be located. If notice is published, a person whose substantial interests might be affected by the proposed action must file his request for hearing within 14 days of the date of publication. Significantly, the rule also provides: Since persons whose substantial interests are affected by a Department decision on a permit application may petition for an administrative proceeding within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice and since, unless notice is given or published as prescribed in this rule, receipt of notice can occur at any time, the applicant or persons benefiting from the Department's action cannot justifiably rely on the finality of the Department's decision without the notice having been duly given or published. DOT elected not to publish notice under the provisions of Rule 17-103.150, F.A.C., and cannot justifiably rely on the finality of DER's decision. Mr. Ernst's petition for hearing, filed within a few days of his receipt of notice, was timely. 5 DER has jurisdiction over the permitting of the proposed four Class V, group five-stormwater drainage wells pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-4 and 17-28, F.A.C. A party seeking approval to inject stormwater drainage into Class G-III water must provide reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), F.A.C. That rule provides: All ground water shall at all places and at all times be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non- thermal components of discharges in concentrations which, alone or in combination with other substances, or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Are harmful to plants, animals, or organisms that are native to the soil and responsible for treatment or stabilization of the discharge relied upon by Department permits or Are carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or toxic to human beings, unless specific criteria are established for such components in Rule 17-3.404: or Are acutely toxic to indigenous species of significance to the aquatic community within surface waters affected by the ground water at the point of contact with surface waters or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; or Create or constitute a nuisance or Impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. DOT has failed to provide reasonable assurances that the proposed stormwater discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of the groundwater standards set forth in Rule 17-3.402(1), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order: Dismissing the petition for hearing filed by Neighbors for Clean Canals, and Denying the issuance of permit number US44-104852 to the Department of Transportation. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1986.
The Issue There are two issues in this case: whether the Petitioner, Thomas M. Parham, is maintaining an unpermitted stationary installation that is reasonably expected to be a source of air or water pollution; and whether installations on Mr. Parham's property are discharging into groundwater, and whether he should therefore be required to obtain a groundwater monitoring permit and conduct groundwater monitoring as ordered in the Department's Final Order, DEP OGC File No. 08-0521 (the Order).
Findings Of Fact Thomas Parham purchased the property at 5401 Pickettville Road, Jacksonville, Florida (the Property), in a tax sale on November 21, 2007. His intention was to use it to park and store trucks and heavy equipment. At the time of purchase, there were no signs posted on the Property indicating that it was hazardous or toxic or otherwise compromised environmentally. At the time, there was no statute or rule requiring the Property to be posted to give the public notice of any of those conditions. Parham drove past the Property before buying it, but it was fenced, and the gates were locked, and he was unable to get in to inspect it. From the fence, he saw no indication that the Property was hazardous or toxic or otherwise compromised environmentally. However, Parham knew that there was fill material on the Property. He states that he did not know the Property was toxic or hazardous, but he did no due diligence to determine what kind of fill was on the Property. Parham has bought and sold property in tax sales for a living for the past 11 years. He owns 115 different properties, and has been involved in 795 property transactions. Once, he accidentally bought a contaminated property, which the City of Jacksonville bought back from him after the contamination was discovered. Based on his experience, Parham knew or should have known to conduct due diligence on the Property before buying it. After purchasing the Property, Parham saw that part of it had a significant amount of a black material. He testified that he believed it was charcoal or bituminous coal, which he called "black beauty." Instead of determining what it was, Parham decided to cover it with dirt. He had 124 truckloads of fill delivered to the Property and covered all of the supposed "black beauty." Someone saw the activity on the Property and contacted the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). DEP inspected and entered a Final Order, DEP OGC File No. 08-0521 (the Order) to require Parham to install monitoring wells and implement a monitoring program to determine whether the Property was causing pollution and contamination offsite. Parham challenged the Order, which resulted in this proceeding. Actually, the black material on the Property was not charcoal or bituminous coal. It was sandblasting grit material used by Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (Jacksonville Shipyards), in its shipyard operations to sandblast old paint coatings and rust from ships before re-painting. It would be expected that the used grit would be contaminated with metals and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The used grit was trucked to and deposited on the Property when it was owned by Jacksonville Shipyards in the 1970's and early 1980's. Prior to Jacksonville Shipyards' purchase of the Property in 1972, it was used as a sand mine. In the process, two large pits, each 20 to 25 feet deep, were excavated on the Property. Later, waste was dumped into the pits, including concrete, asphalt, metal pipes, wire, and wooden demolition material. When Jacksonville Shipyards purchased the Property in 1972, sandblasting grit was added to the waste placed into the pits. Initially, these activities were not regulated, and the pits were not lined before being used for waste disposal. By July 1980, leachate generated when waste material (including the sandblasting grit, which was being delivered to the Property daily) came in contact with water was running off the Property towards Six Mile Creek, which flows east to where it is joined by Little Six Mile Creek, from which the combined flow towards the east becomes the headwater of the tidal Ribault River. In addition, leachate was entering the groundwater on the Property, which also flowed generally to the north towards Six Mile Creek. When DEP's predecessor, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) began to regulate land fills, it required Jacksonville Shipyards to submit a groundwater monitoring plan, which DER approved. Monitoring wells were installed, and the groundwater on the Property was sampled once in 1984 and showed groundwater contamination. DER groundwater standards and criteria for arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, chlorides, copper, iron, manganese, total dissolved solids (TDS), and zinc were exceeded. DER attempted to negotiate a consent order with Jacksonville Shipyards to address the contamination, but those efforts failed, and then Jacksonville Shipyards and related business entities went into bankruptcy proceedings. After the bankruptcy proceeding was initiated, Jacksonville Shipyards conducted no further groundwater monitoring at the Property. Neither DER nor DEP issued a solid waste permit or a groundwater monitoring permit for the Property. No waste has been removed the Property, and no liner has been installed. Leachate has continued to run off the Property and infiltrate the groundwater on the Property and flowed towards Six Mile Creek. After bankruptcy proceedings were initiated, representatives of DER and DEP checked from time to time to see if overdue property taxes had been paid, reasoning that payment of the taxes would be an indication that the bankruptcy proceedings had progressed to the point that a financially viable owner of the Property could be required to implement an appropriate monitoring program for the Property. In fact, unbeknownst to DEP, title to the Property was conveyed to Picketsville Realty Holdings, LLC, in 1998. In 1998 DEP contracted with a consultant to conduct sampling at the Property to identify the source of the groundwater contamination detected in the onsite monitoring wells in 1984. Groundwater, soil, and surface water samples were collected and analyzed, as were reports on assessments conducted at the Pickettville Road Landfill, a federal Superfund site located across Pickettville Road from the Property. The consultant reported in 1999 that lead in groundwater samples exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) in shallow well 11 and in deep well 2. In shallow well 9, N-nitrosodiphenylamine also exceeded the MCL. Lead was detected in all twelve soil samples collected in areas where sandblasting grit was found on the surface although none of the soil samples exceeded DEP's residential direct exposure Soil Cleanup Target Level (SCTL) of 400 mg/kg. The report concluded that the Property was the source of most if not all of the contamination detected in the monitoring wells on the Property. The Pickettville Road Superfund site was not considered to be contributing to the groundwater contamination on the Property because groundwater data indicated that the Superfund site is not up-gradient of the Property. Groundwater flow from the Property was found to be generally westerly towards Six Mile Creek. In approximately 2003, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contracted with a consultant to perform an Expanded Site Inspection (ESI) on the Property to determine whether it should be placed on the federal National Priorities List (NPL) of sites at which a release, or potential release, of hazardous substances poses a serious enough risk to the public health or the environment to warrant further investigation and possible remediation under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. In this assessment, surface and subsurface soils and groundwater were collected from the Property, sampled, and analyzed. In addition, surface water and sediment samples from Six Mile Creek and from the Ribault River were collected, sampled, and analyzed. The federal ESI report was issued in 2004. It found arsenic, copper, benzo(a)pyrene equivalents in the surface soil samples that exceeded the default levels of concern for direct exposure, as provided in Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-777. It also found arsenic, copper, iron, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and benzo(a)pyrene equivalents in the subsurface soil samples that exceeded the default levels of concern for direct exposure, as provided in Rule Chapter 62- 777. It also found chromium, iron, and lead in one groundwater sample at concentrations exceeding DEP's groundwater standards. Aluminum, arsenic, barium, chromium, copper, nickel, vanadium, acenaphthene, fluorine, and phenanthrene levels in various groundwater samples were elevated but did not exceed DEP's groundwater standards. It also found that surface water samples from Six Mile Creek contained barium, copper, manganese, and vanadium at elevated concentrations. Sediment samples from Six Mile Creek and the Ribault River contained numerous metals, bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, several polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and PCB-1260 at concentrations exceeding EPA Region 4 guidance values. It was concluded that from the elevated concentrations in the surface water samples that contamination of the surface water pathways continues to occur from inorganic contaminants from the Property. The number of impacted groundwater monitoring wells decreased from 1984 to 2004. However, arsenic concentrations increased in shallow well 9, and barium concentrations increased in shallow well 8, during that time. Also, acenapthene, which is a semi-volatile compound associated with PAHs, was reported in two wells in the 2004 ESI report but no detection was reported in the 1985 report. The 1985, 1999, and 2004 reports indicate that the waste-filled pits on the Property are discharging to groundwater. This is not surprising since there is no liner beneath the waste that has been placed in the pits. Rain and runoff on the Property would percolate through the waste and leaches contaminants out of the waste. The leachate enters the groundwater on the Property. Parham contends that contamination found on the Property is from the 53-acre Pickettville Landfill, which was operated by the City of Jacksonville. He contends that a large number of lead batteries were placed in the Pickettville Landfill from extensive lead battery disposal. The evidence proved that the Pickettville Landfill is a Superfund site but did not prove composition or amount of the waste placed in the Pickettville Landfill over the years. Even if the Pickettville Landfill was used extensively for lead battery disposal over the years, the evidence was that little or none of the contamination on the Property is attributable to the Pickettville Landfill. Besides groundwater flow from the Pickettville Landfill likely being away from the Property, lead contamination was found in the surface and subsurface soils of the Property, making it very unlikely that the contamination on the Property came from the Pickettville Landfill. Parham also questions the estimate in the three contamination reports on the Property that 200,000 cubic yards of sandblasting grit were dumped on the property. He estimated that would amount to 13,000 truckloads, which would not fit on the 4-acre Property. But a witness for DEP estimated that two- acres of 20-25 foot deep pits would hold that quantity of sandblasting grit. Even if the actual quantity of sandblasting grit dumped on the Property was less, the evidence was that it was the likely source of the metal contamination found in the soils and groundwater on and under the Property. Similarly, Parham suggests that waste oil and other waste in the Pickettville Landfill could be the source of PAH or PCB contamination on the Property. Besides groundwater flow from the Pickettville Landfill likely being away from the Property, those contaminants move very slowly and do not move large distances, making it very unlikely that the contamination on the Property came from the Pickettville Landfill. Even if some did, the Pickettville Landfill would not account for much of the contamination on the Property. Parham contends that, even if the Property is contaminated, his placement of 124 truckloads of dirt on the Property will prevent any further groundwater contamination. But dirt is not impervious and will not prevent rain and runoff from percolating through the waste on the Property and leaching contamination into the groundwater on the Property. Eventually, this groundwater leaves the Property and enters Six Mile Creek.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order requiring Thomas Parham to: Submit a complete application for monitoring plan approval on Form 62-520.900(1) to the Department of Environmental Protection, Northeast District, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite B200, Jacksonville, Florida 32256-7590 within 90 days of entry of the Final Order; Implement the approved monitoring program within 90 days after Department approval; and Install monitoring wells in accordance with the approved monitoring program and Rule 62-520.600(6). DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2008, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner and developer of a parcel of land located on the eastern side of the northern end of Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida. Located in the middle of that parcel is a dead-end east-west canal approximately two feet deep at its eastern end where it opens to the Atlantic Ocean and approximately twenty feet deep at its western dead-end. The canal is approximately fifty feet wide. A plug at the mouth of the canal previously prevented boat traffic from entering and exiting the canal. Petitioner's predecessor in title permitted the plug to partially erode, and Petitioner's president had some of the boulders which helped form the plug removed. The digging of the canal, the placement of the plug, and the partial removal of the plug were performed without benefit of state and federal permits. Petitioner's development plan is that twenty single-family homes will surround the canal, with each home being serviced by a septic tank and a boat dock. On the oceanside of the partial plug is a small depressed area which was dredged at the same time that the canal itself was dredged. Surrounding that depressed area is very shallow water. Petitioner proposes to remove the plug from the existing canal and shallow the canal to a uniform depth of -10 feet and two years later to a uniform depth of -6 feet. Petitioner further proposes to dredge an access channel from the mouth of the canal northward for a distance of approximately 480 feet where it would join with an existing channel. The access channel proposed to be dredged would be approximately fifty feet wide and six feet deep at low tide. The area to be dredged to create the access channel is classified as Class III waters, is within the Florida Keys Special Waters, and is also classified as Outstanding Florida Waters. The waters outside the existing canal where Petitioner proposes to dredge the access channel are also located within John Pennekamp State Park, the site of a natural coral reef. Due to the disparity in depths between the shallow waters outside the existing canal which are only one or two feet deep and the depth of the existing canal which is as deep as twenty feet, the canal itself experiences a very long flushing time. The lengthy flushing time causes the waters in the existing canal to fall below minimum state water quality standards The area proposed to be dredged for the navigational access channel is thickly vegetated by a productive seagrass and algae community. The area is in excellent condition, and the seagrass and algae community is very healthy. The seagrass and algae communities serve as habitat for thousands of organisms, including juvenile lobster and other small plants and animals; serve as a food source for animals; stabilize sediments through their root structures; reduce pollution by filtering pollutants from the water; are a natural feature of the John Pennekamp State Park, and are part of the ecological unit that is important for the survival of reef corals. The proposed dredging of the access channel would destroy an area of approximately one-half acre. Excessive turbidity is often a problem with dredge and fill activities, and reef coral need clear water for survival. Once dredged, the proposed access channel would not be expected to revegetate. Further, the proposed dredged channel will violate state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. The proposed navigational access channel would connect the mouth of the existing canal with the Post channel to the north of Petitioner's property. The Post channel dug in approximately 1971 is also six feet deep, violates state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, and has never revegetated even though replanting of vegetation has been attempted. The destruction of the one-half acre area of healthy productive habitat would adversely affect fish and other marine wildlife, resulting in a decrease in fishery production and marine productivity. The residential subdivision will be a source of pollutants from, among other things, septic tanks, fertilizers, stormwater run-off from paved areas, boats, and boat engines, into the existing canal in violation of state water quality standards for Class III waters and would lower the ambient water quality of the adjacent Outstanding Florida Waters. The long flushing time of the canal, even if shallowed as proposed, will result in the waters of the canal failing to meet state water quality standards. Any pollutants or organic material entering or blown into the canal will remain in the canal to be broken down by bacteria which consume oxygen, resulting in low dissolved oxygen in violation of state water quality standards. Further, pollutants will be exported periodically into the receding waters outside the canal, resulting in degradation of those Outstanding Florida Waters. The project is not in the public interest since the project will result in water quality violations and in the destruction of an area of highly productive shallow water habitat. The adverse cumulative impacts of allowing riparian landowners along the Florida Keys to dredge access channels are overwhelming.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered: Denying Petitioner's application for a permit for its proposed project, and Dismissing Intervenor Izaak Walton League, Mangrove Chapter, as a party to this proceeding. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of November, 1989. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 88-1813 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 and 2(a) have been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2(b) and 2(d) have been rejected as not being Supported by the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2(c) has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. The Department's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10 and 12-22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. The Department's proposed finding of fact numbered 11 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Intervenor's proposed findings of fact numbered 1- 13, 16, 18, 20, and 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in Substance in this Recommended Order. Intervenor's proposed finding of fact numbered 15 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues in this cause. Intervenor's proposed finding of fact numbered 19 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela P. Garvin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cayetano F. Alfonso, President Sunland Estates, Inc. 17400 Northwest 17th Avenue Miami, Florida 33056 Maureen B. Harwitz, Esquire 2390 Bayview Lane North Miami, Florida 33181 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue There are two issues in these cases: (1) whether Tampa Bay Desal, LLC ("TBD") provided reasonable assurances that its permit application to discharge wastewater from a proposed seawater desalination plant, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") Permit Application No. FL0186813- 001-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards for industrial wastewater facilities; and (2) whether Tampa Electric Company, Inc. (TEC) provided reasonable assurances that its proposed modification to an existing industrial wastewater facility permit, NPDES Permit Modification No. FL0000817-003-IWIS, meets all applicable state permitting standards.
Findings Of Fact Parties other than SOBAC Poseidon Resources, LLC wholly owns TBD as one of Poseidon Resources' subsidiaries. Poseidon Resources formed TBD, the successor to S&W Water, LLC, as a special purpose project company to properly staff and finance the desalination project. TBW entered into a 30-year purchase agreement with TBD (then known as S & W Water, LLC) in 1999 to build, own and operate the desalination facility. Poseidon Resources operates as a privately-held company and all stockholders are major corporations. Poseidon Resources opened for business in 1995 and has over $300 million in water processing assets under management. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida. The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") delegated its NPDES permitting program to the State of Florida and is run by DEP. TEC is an investor-owned electric utility serving Hillsborough, Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. TEC owns and operates the Big Bend generating station, an electric plant consisting of four coal-fired steam units having a combined capacity of approximately 1800 megawatts. SWFWMD is a water management district in the State of Florida. SWFWMD reviews and acts upon water use permit applications and protects and manages the water and water- related resources within its boundaries. TBW and all of its Member Governments are within the geographical and legal jurisdiction of SWFWMD. Pasco County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, a member government of TBW, and is located within the jurisdiction of SWFWMD. Pasco County is a major source of the groundwater used by TBW. TBW is a regional public water supply authority. TBW is the sole and exclusive wholesale supplier of potable water for all its member governments of TBW, which are Hillsborough County, Pasco County, Pinellas County, the City of New Port Richey, the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Tampa. TBW serves approximately 2 million customers. SOBAC SOBAC was incorporated as a Florida not-for-profit corporation in February 2000. The stated mission of SOBAC is to protect the environmental quality of the bays, canals, and waterways of the Tampa Bay area, and to ensure drinking water for SOBAC members in the Tampa Bay area. SOBAC was formed by a group of people residing primarily in the area of Apollo Beach. Apollo Beach is a waterfront residential community that was created by dredge and fill of wetlands, estuary, and bay bottom bordering the "Big Bend" area of Tampa Bay, where the community terminates in a "hammerhead" of fill over what was once a seagrass bed. Across the North Apollo Beach "Embayment," formed by the "hammerhead," is the discharge canal of TEC's Big Bend power plant. A corrugated metal barrier partially separates the embayment from the discharge canal. This discharge canal also will receive TBD's discharge after re-mixing with TEC's discharge. SOBAC initially was formed out of concern for the environment in the Big Bend area of Tampa Bay. However, there is no requirement that SOBAC members live in the Apollo Beach area, or even in the vicinity of Tampa Bay, and SOBAC's geographic area of concern has broadened somewhat beyond the Apollo Beach area. In order to become a member of SOBAC, one need only sign a card. Prospective members are asked to donate $5 on signing up. Most members donate $5 or more. However, the donation is not mandatory. There is no requirement that members attend any meetings, or participate in any SOBAC activities. Section 3.1 of SOBAC's Constitution and Corporate By-Laws makes "active" membership contingent on payment of "the prescribed [annual] dues." Section 3.2 of SOBAC's Constitution and Corporate By- Laws requires SOBAC to establish annual dues, but no annual dues have been paid because no annual dues structure has ever been established. As a result, no annual dues have been "prescribed," and "active" membership does not require payment of annual dues. SOBAC claims to have approximately 1,000 members. These include all those who have ever become members. Approximately 700 live in the Appollo Beach area; approximately 50-75 of these members form the "core" of active members. Approximately 50-100 members live outside the Tampa Bay area; some of these outsiders probably are among the approximately 100 who are members by virtue of SOBAC's reciprocity agreement with another association called "Friends of the River." SOBAC has never surveyed its membership to determine how its members actually use Tampa Bay. However, the evidence was sufficient to prove that a substantial number of its members, especially among those who reside in the Apollo Beach area, enjoy use of the waters and wetlands of the Big Bend area for recreational activities such as boating and fishing. For that reason, if the activities to be permitted by DEP in these proceedings were to cause environmental damage, a substantial number of SOBAC's members would be affected substantially and more than most residents of distant reaches of the Tampa Bay area. Background of Desalination Project In 1998, the predecessor agency to TBW (the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority), the six Member Governments and SWFWMD entered into an agreement specifically addressing impacts to natural systems through the development of new, non- groundwater sources, and the reduction of permitted groundwater withdrawal capacity from TBW's eleven existing wellfields from the then permitted capacity of 192 million gallons per day (mgd) to 121 mgd by December 31, 2002 (the "Partnership Agreement"). Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the existing water use permits for TBW's 11 specified wellfields were consolidated into a single permit under which TBW is the sole permittee. Prior to execution of the Partnership Agreement, the existing permits for these 11 wellfields allowed for cumulative withdrawals totaling approximately 192 mgd. Upon execution of the Partnership Agreement, the consolidated permit immediately reduced allowed withdrawals to no more than 158 mgd and required that wellfield pumping from the 11 wellfields be further reduced to no more than 121 mgd by December 31, 2002, and then to no more than 90 mgd by December 31, 2007. These withdrawal reductions are necessary to reduce the adverse environmental impacts caused by excessive withdrawals from the 11 wellfields, the majority of which are located in Pasco County. In order to replace the reduction of groundwater withdrawals, TBW adopted a Master Water Plan that provides for the development of specified new, alternative sources of potable water. The seawater desalination facility ("Desal Facility") is one of the cornerstone components of the Master Water Plan. This Facility will furnish 25 mgd of new water resources for the Tampa Bay area and must be in service by December 31, 2002, in order to meet the potable water needs of the residents of the Tampa Bay area. In exchange for the groundwater withdrawal reductions, SWFWMD agreed to contribute up to $183 million towards the development of new water sources that are diverse, reliable and cost-effective. SWFWMD has agreed to co-fund up to 90 percent of the capital cost of the Desal Facility. To comply with the terms and conditions of water use permits it has received from SWFWMD for other water withdrawals in the region, TBW must increase the water sources from which it withdraws water for distribution to its Member Governments in a timely manner. The Desal Facility is the essential means by which these permitting requirements can be met. For the past two years, the Tampa Bay area has been experiencing historic low rainfall and drought conditions. The Desal Facility is supported not only by TBW and its Member Governments, but also by SWFWMD since it is a drought-proof source of supply which has the greatest ability of any new water supply source to allow TBW to meet its members' potable water supply needs while also reducing pumpage from the existing 11 wellfields. In addition to its being a drought-proof source of potable water supply, the Facility will also provide diversity and reliability for TBW's sources of supply, and is a source that is easily expandable to provide additional potable supply that may be necessary in the future. Prior to deciding to proceed with a desalination project, TBW conducted four separate studies to look at the potential individual and cumulative impacts of a desalination facility on Tampa Bay and the surrounding areas, and in particular to evaluate the changes in baywide salinity due to the desalination discharge alone and in combination with the river withdrawals occasioned by other projects. Commencing in 1997, TBW conducted a procurement process that culminated in the award in July 1999 of a contract to S & W Water, LLC, now known as Tampa Bay Desal, LLC, to design, build, own, operate, and eventually transfer to TBW a seawater desalination plant to provide potable water to Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties and to the Cities of Tampa and St. Petersburg for 30 years. TBD's Desal Facility is co-located with the Big Bend Power Station owned and operated by TEC on the northeast side of Hillsborough Bay, in Hillsborough County, Florida. By discharging the concentrate from the Desal Facility to the power plant cooling water prior to its discharge to the power plant discharge canal, environmental impacts from the concentrate are minimized, and disturbance of the discharge canal is avoided. The costs avoided by utilizing the existing intake and outflow from the TEC power plant are reflected in the lower cost of the water to Tampa Bay Water, and ultimately its Member Governments. TBW is contractually bound to TBD to purchase all of the potable water that is produced by the Desal Facility for distribution to its Member Governments and to purchase the entire Facility in the future. With the exception of the NPDES permit at issue, TBD has obtained all of the over 20 other permits which are required for the construction and operation of the desalination facility. TBD has already invested approximately $20 million in this project. The total estimated capital cost of the desalination facility is $110 million. TBD has obtained financing of $42 million and expects to acquire permanent financing in the month of October 2001. SWFWMD agreed to subsidize up to 90 percent of the capital cost of the desalination facility payable to TBW over the term of agreement with TBD. TBD is contractually bound to TBW to complete and fully operate the desalination facility by December 2002. TBD Desalination Process Overview of Process In the instant case, desalination is performed through reverse osmosis ("RO"), a mechanical process wherein pretreated water under very high pressure is pressed against a very fine membrane such that only pure water can pass through it. The vast majority of salt molecules and other substance are eliminated from the water. The RO process is not heat or chemical driven. No additional heat load is being added as a result of the desalination discharge, and the desalination plant will actually result in a reduced heat load to the bay. The desalination facility will withdraw approximately 44.5 mgd of raw water from Units 3 and 4 of TEC's Big Bend cooling water system, produce approximately 25 mgd of product water for transmission to the regional water supply system, and discharge approximately 19.5 mgd of clarified backwash and concentrate water equally into each of the power plant cooling water tunnels for dilution and release into the discharge canal. During abnormal power plant operations including times when Units 3 or 4 are not in operation and during the summer months when the normal supply water intake temperature exceeds the operating temperature range of the RO membranes, a portion of the source water will be withdrawn from an auxiliary supply water system. The auxiliary supply water system consists of a supply pump and pipeline that withdraws water from a location downstream of the fine-mesh screens for Units 3 and 4. The total combined bay withdrawal flow for the power plant and the desalination facility cannot exceed 1.40 billion gallons per day ("bgd"). This limitation ensures that entrainment does not exceed the levels previously permitted for the site, and a new entrainment study pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act is not required. Pretreatment Process The desalination intake water is pretreated in a two- stage gravity filtration process with chemical additives. During pretreatment, ferric sulfates will be added to the desalination intake water to coagulate and capture suspended solids, organic material, and metals that exist in the raw water supply. In this first stage of the pretreatment process, the intake water runs through an aerated course sand filter. Aeration enhances the coagulative process and assists in the capture of organics, suspended solids, and metals. Aeration also occurs in stage two, which uses a fine sand filter pretreatment process. The backwash water from stage two recirculates to the stage one treatment process. The pretreated waters exits through a five micron cartridge filtration prior to entering the RO process. The aerated pretreatment filter backwash water from the pretreatment stage one pretreatment will be sent to a discharge sump for initial settling and then to a clarifier and filter press to remove excess water. Approximately 14 wet tons a day which includes organics, suspended solids, and metals that are removed through the coagulative process and captured from the gravity filters are removed off-site to a landfill. The desal concentrate and clarified backwash water will be combined in a discharge sump or wet well prior to entering into a discharge line manifolded to equally distribute the concentrate discharge into all of the available cooling water outflow tunnels or conduits of the power plant discharge. Reverse Osmosis Membrane Treatment The RO desalination process consists of a two-stage pass of the pretreated water through the reverse osmosis membranes. The RO pumps will force the water through the RO membranes at pressures ranging from 600 to 1000 pounds per square inch (psi). As a result of the RO process, approximately 25 mgd of purified water, also known as permeate, will be produced for delivery to TBW. TBD anticipates cleaning its membranes twice per year, perhaps less, due to the high level of pretreatment. Periodic cleaning removes silt and scale from the membrane surface. Dilute solutions of citric acid, sodium hydroxide, sulfuric acid, sodium tripolyphosphate, or sodium dodecyclbenzene compromise the constituents of various cleaning solutions, with the actual cleaning solution used dependent upon the actual performance of the system once it is placed in operation. Once the cleaning cycle is complete, the spent cleaning solution will be purged from the feed tank, membrane vessels, and piping and diverted into a scavenger tank for off- site disposal. Clean product water (permeate) will be fed to the feed tank and pumped into the RO membrane vessels. This process will continue until the pH of the purge water meets the Class III marine water quality criteria. The membranes will be rinsed with brine concentrate and permeate, and the rinse water will be directed to the wet well for discharge, with the concentrate into the TEC cooling water stream. TBD determined the chemical characterization of the membrane cleaning solution discharge. Cleaning solutions are not discharged in detectable concentrations. As further assurance, the permit requires toxicity testing immediately after membrane cleaning. Dilution of Discharge Water Co-locating the desalination facility with TEC's Big Bend power station allows the desalination concentrate to be diluted with TEC's cooling water prior to discharge into Tampa Bay. The point of injection of the desalination discharge will be located approximately 72 feet upstream of the point of discharge to the discharge canal to ensure complete mixing of the desalination concentrate with TEC's cooling water. This provides reasonable assurance that the desalination discharge will be completely mixed within the cooling water conduits. If all four TEC units are in operation and TBD is producing 25 mgd of finished water, the approximate dilution ratio of the desalination concentrate with TEC cooling water is 70:1. Historical TEC data indicates that a dilution ration of greater than 20:1 will occur more than 99.6 percent of the time, and a dilution ration of greater than 28:1 will occur more than 95 percent of the time. The dilution limitations in the proposed permit are more stringent than those required in Rule 62-302.530(18). The permitted dilution ratio complies with Rule 62- 660.400(2)(d) because it takes into account the nature, volume, and frequency of the proposed discharge, including any possible synergistic effects with other pollutants which may be present in the receiving water body. Comparisons of the Antigua, Key West, and Cyprus facilities are not applicable because those desalination facilities lack the initial dilution that will exist at TEC's Big Bend site. The proposed permit requires a 20:1 minimum dilution ratio at any given time, which may occur for no more than 384 hours per calendar year, and with the further limitation that the discharge at the 20:1 minimum dilution ratio shall not exceed 384 hours in any given 60-day period. At all other times, a minimum dilution ratio of 28:1 must be maintained. To ensure proper dilution and system operation, computer instrumentation in the desal facility will interface with TEC to continuously monitor the operations of TEC's four cooling tower condenser units. If any of the pumps shut down, an alarm will sound at the desalination facility and the computer system will automatically shut down the concentrate discharge to that specific condenser unit discharge tunnel. Further, the desalination plant will employ approximately 12 employees, with a minimum of two employees on duty at all times. TEC Permit Modification Big Bend power station has four coal-fired steam electric generating units. The power station is cooled by water that is taken in from Tampa Bay through two intake structures which are located along TEC's intake canal. One intake structure feeds cooling water to electrical power units 1 and 2 and the other feeds units 3 and 4. After flowing through the condensers, the cooling flows are combined into four separate discharge tunnels which outfall into TEC's discharge canal. The intake structure for Units 3 and 4 is equipped with fine-mesh screens and an organismal collection and return system that has been approved for use by DEP. The purpose of TEC's permit modification is to alter the internal piping in the facility to accommodate the desalination plant at the Big Bend site. TEC's permit modification allows for placement of an intake pipe from TEC's cooling water pipes to the desalination plant and a return pipe downstream from the intake pipe for the return of the desalination concentrate to TEC's cooling water discharge tunnels prior to outfall in the discharge canal. TEC's permit modification also allows for the placement of an auxiliary intake line by TBD to take additional water from behind the intake of units 3 and 4 up to TEC's maximum permitted limit of 1.4 billion gallons a day. The TEC proposed permit is conditioned to require TEC to maintain the structural integrity of both the steel sheet pile wall on the discharge canal and the breakwater barrier North of the discharge canal. TEC's permit modification does not request any changes to the operations of the Big Bend Generating Station. SOBAC Issues and Concerns SOBAC raised numerous issues and concerns in its petitions in these cases and in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation. However, some issues were elimination by rulings adverse to SOBAC during prehearing proceedings and final hearing. Based on the evidence SOBAC sought to elicit at final hearing and issues raised in its Proposed Recommended Order, other, earlier SOBAC issues and concerns appear to have been dropped. Remaining are essentially the following: increased salinity due to TBD discharge; alleged decreased dissolved oxygen (DO) from higher salinity; impacts of higher salinity and alleged decreased DO on marine plants and animals; alleged release of metals from sediments due to higher salinity and alleged lower DO, and effects on marine plants and animals; alleged monitoring deficiencies; alleged failure to utilize available technologies to lower salinity and raise DO; alleged deficient financial assurances; and various alleged resulting DEP rule violations. Description of Tampa Bay: Physical Properties The portion of Tampa Bay and Hillsborough Bay near the Big Bend facility is classified a Class III water body. Tampa Bay is a naturally drowned river valley, meaning that a deep channel exists as a result of natural forces. However, the channel has been deepened to 45 feet or greater to allow large ships to navigate the bay. This deepening of the channel increases the water flow of the head of the bay with the open gulf waters and allows this residual circulation to move more new water from the open Gulf of Mexico up into the bay. Ordinarily, circulation moves salt water up Tampa Bay and spreads it out onto the flanks of the bay where it then mixes with the freshwater. To complete this circulation, the water then flows back out towards the mouth of the bay, primarily along its flanks and shallower parts in the upper part of the water column. The water in Tampa Bay tends to flow faster in its deeper parts, both coming in and going out, and relatively slower in the shallow areas. The majority of flow of freshwater inflow occurs at the bay's flanks as can be seen very clearly in the salinity distributions. Mixing and Stratification Since the development of Tampa Bay from the 1880 condition to the 1972 and 1985 conditions, there is more mixing and exchange of water. Due to shoreline fills for development, such as Apollo Beach, there is less water that now comes in the bay than in the predevelopment condition. Tampa Bay is a fairly well mixed system from top to bottom. This is because the action of the tides basically acts like a big mix master. The bay is fairly shallow, less than four meters in depth on average. The tidal velocities can be as strong as two knots or about a meter per second. When the strong velocity pushes through shallow water, there is extensive overturning, where the bottom water is churned to the top and gets mixed very efficiently. That is very well seen in the observations during dry periods. Over 100 points in Tampa Bay were measured for temperature and salinity top, middle and bottom, and showed that they were very uniform throughout the bay. During periods of large volumes of freshwater input into Tampa Bay, freshwater is pumping into the bay faster than the tidal mixing can mix it from top to bottom. Therefore, in parts of Tampa Bay significant stratification is seen during many times in the wet season. During those times when rainfall is not as prevalent, tidal mixing once again dominates and the bay returns to a more well mixed system. The average tidal fluctuation for Tampa Bay is a range of two to three feet. Salinity As the tide in Tampa Bay comes in, it brings saltier water from the mouth of the bay toward the head of the bay, causing salinities to rise. As the tide recedes, bringing out fresher water from farther up the bay, salinities decrease. Over an individual tidal cycle, particularly during the wet season, a four or five part per thousand ("ppt") change in salinity will occur between a rising tide and a falling tide. During the dry season, tidal flushing is not as significant to salinity levels because not much difference exists in salinity from the head of the bay to the mouth of the bay. Even during the dry season, there is a one to two ppt change over a six to twelve-hour period in any given day. During the dry periods in 1990, salinities elevated up to about 33 ppt, with very little stratification. During the rainy periods, in June and July, salinities dropped rather drastically. In some areas, salinity dropped as low as to 20 to 22 ppt. However, in spite of these drastic seasonal differences, significant variation in salinity occurs as a result of tidal exchange. The Big Bend area is split by the dividing line between Hillsborough Bay and what has been classified Middle Tampa Bay. The salinity for Hillsborough Bay from 1974 through June 2001 at the surface ranges from 0.4 ppt to 38.2 ppt. The middle portion of the same water column contained a range from 2.5 ppt to 39.2 ppt, and the bottom portion showed a range from 3.9 ppt to 37.2 ppt. The average salinities during this time frame were as follows: top 24.2 ppt, middle 24.3 ppt and bottom 25.3 ppt. In the portion of Tampa Bay called Middle Tampa Bay, the surface level salinity ranged from 6.8 ppt to 38.2 ppt. At middle depth, salinities ranged from 7.4 ppt to 38.8 ppt. The bottom level salinities ranged from 11.9 ppt to 39.6 ppt. This is a large range of salinities. Tampa Bay near the Big Bend Area In the area near the Big Bend facility, the Mote Marine Laboratory survey data reflects that the salinity during May and June 2000 reached 33.4 ppt. Further, Mote Marine Laboratory data showed that the North Apollo Embayment area salinities were well mixed vertically throughout the system. The total volume of water exchanged into the North Apollo Embayment and associated canals during a mean tide is approximately 35 percent of the total volume of all water contained in that area. This tidal exchange occurs twice per day. The double diffusion process does not create high salinity in the bottom of the water column in the North Apollo Embayment. The double diffusion process, without any external influence, would lead to both surface and bottom layers of the water column reaching salinity equilibrium. Further, the turbulent mixing that occurs due to tidal processes and wind- induced mixing dominates over the double diffusion process. The Mote Marine Laboratory study conducted between May and early June 2000 did not detect any significant salinity stratification in the area near the Big Bend facility. Vertical stratification of salinity does occur but typically only during the periods of significant freshwater inflow and not in extreme drought or dry conditions. None of the Mote Marine Laboratory data detected any pockets of high salinity water or significant density stratification in the North Apollo Embayment. Estuarine Characteristics Tampa Bay is an estuary. Estuaries are semi-enclosed bodies of saltwater that receive freshwater runoff from drainage or riverine inflow, which measurably dilutes the salinity levels in the estuary. As a result, salinity levels in estuaries typically are highly variable, ranging from 0 ppt where rivers flow into estuaries, to as high as 40 ppt under conditions of low freshwater input or at estuarine mouths where they connect to the sea. There are naturally occurring dissolved oxygen levels below 4.0 mg/l in parts of Tampa Bay, including at Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission ("EPC") monitoring stations 9, 80, and 81, which are the closest stations to the proposed discharge. Dissolved oxygen in the bay decreases at night because photosynthesis ceases and respiration exceeds production. Other environmental parameters are also highly variable in estuaries. Therefore, the organisms that inhabit estuaries have adapted to tolerate these highly variable conditions. Estuarine organisms have adaptive means for tolerating changing salinity levels, either by conforming their internal salinity levels to the ambient salinity levels, or by actively regulating their internal salinity levels by intake or excretion of salt. Organisms that are adapted to tolerate a wide range of salinities within the estuary are termed euryhaline organisms. Essentially all of the common organisms in estuaries, including the Tampa Bay estuary, are euryhaline organisms, and therefore are capable of tolerating and living in a wide range of salinities and salinity changes that occur due to tidal, meteorological, and other natural forces in the estuarine environment. Extensive baseline biological studies performed on Tampa Bay reveal that the most common species in the Tampa Bay estuary tolerate salinity levels ranging from 5 ppt to 40 ppt. Seagrasses Five species of seagrass inhabit Tampa Bay. Seagrasses are photosynthetic underwater flowering plants that are typically limited in occurrence and distribution by the water clarity. This limits the depth at which seagrasses can grow. In Tampa Bay, seagrasses are limited to the fringes of the Bay, and are largely limited to depths of approximately three feet, although they can live in depths of up to six feet in clearer parts of the Bay. Seagrasses are very sensitive to increases in nutrients, like nitrogen and phosphorus. These nutrients encourage algae growth, resulting in competitive stress in seagrasses. Due to poor water quality caused by sewage discharge, dredging and filling, and other activities in the Bay, seagrass distribution in Tampa Bay decreased from an historic coverage of approximately 80,000 acres in 1950 to approximately 20,000 acres by 1982. Improvements in water quality, largely due to sewage treatment improvements, have allowed seagrasses to naturally recolonize to approximately 27,000 acres coverage, as of 1994. Wave energy affects seagrass distribution. Seagrasses cannot colonize and survive in areas subject to significant wave energy. For example, the portion of Tampa Bay dredged and filled to create the Apollo Beach "hammerhead" area was once comprised of a broad shallow-water shelf that diminished wave energy, allowing dense seagrass flats to cover the shelf area. Destruction of the broad shallow-water shelf with fill to create the Apollo Beach hammerhead has converted the area to a high wave energy system that is unsuitable for seagrass colonization and growth. Consequently, the only seagrasses inhabiting the Big Bend area are found approximately one kilometer north of the Big Bend power plant, in an area known as "The Kitchen," and approximately one kilometer south of the Apollo Beach hammerhead area. Additionally, there are ephemeral patches of seagrass inhabiting some limited areas of the North Apollo Embayment. Seagrasses are adapted to tolerate a wide range of salinities. They have specialized cells that enable them to deal with salt stress and with broad ranges of and fluctuations in salinity. These adaptations enable them to survive and thrive in estuarine environments. Of the seagrass species that live in Tampa Bay, one species, Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass), occurs in salinity ranges from zero to 40 ppt. Manatee grass, Syringodium filiforme, is most productive in salinities between 5 ppt and 45 ppt. The other three species, Halodule wrightii (shoal grass), Halophila engelmannii (star grass), and Thalassia testudinum (turtle grass), tolerate salinity ranges from approximately 5 ppt to 60 ppt. Seagrasses better tolerate higher salinity levels than lower salinity levels. Lower salinity levels are usually indicative of increased stream and land freshwater runoff, which usually is accompanied by increased turbidity and lower water clarity. Four of the five seagrass species that inhabit Tampa Bay typically reproduce asexually by producing rhizomes, rather than by flowering and producing seeds. It is not completely clear why seagrasses in Tampa Bay reproduce asexually rather than by flowering and seed production. However, recent research indicates that climatic temperature is the controlling factor for flower and seed production. In South Florida, where the climate is warmer, seagrasses reproduce by flowering and seed production. In Tampa Bay, the lower winter temperatures appear to be the limiting factor with respect to successful flower and seed production in seagrasses. Recent studies by the University of South Florida ("USF") marine laboratory indicate that naturally occurring fungal diseases may also limit successful flowering and seed production in seagrasses in Tampa Bay. Since most seagrass species that live in Tampa Bay tolerate and thrive in salinities of up to 60 ppt, the higher salinity levels in the estuary do not appear to adversely affect the ability of seagrasses to reproduce. In fact, the lower salinity levels, below 5 ppt, stress seagrasses and are more likely to adversely affect reproduction than do higher salinity levels. Mangroves Three major species of mangrove inhabit the Tampa Bay area: the red mangrove, black mangrove, and white mangrove. Mangroves inhabit the intertidal area, so they are subjected to daily tidal flooding and drying. Consequently, they must tolerate a wide range of variability in salinity levels and in water availability. Most mangroves tolerate soil salinity levels up to 60 ppt, close to twice the salinity of Tampa Bay. Mangrove mortality due to salinity does not occur until soil levels approach and exceed 70 ppt salinity. Mangroves are also adaptable to, and inhabit, freshwater environments. Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Plankton are life stages or forms of larger organisms, or organisms that have no ability for major locomotion, so they spend their entire life spans floating and drifting with the currents. Plankton are extremely productive in that they reproduce in very large numbers within very short life spans. Holoplankton are planktonic organisms that spend their entire lives in planktonic form. Examples include diatoms, which are a type of phytoplankton, and copepods, which are a type of zooplankton. Meroplankton are "temporary" plankton that drift with the currents in juvenile or larval stages, then either settle out of the water column and metamorphose into an attached form (such as barnacles) or metamorphose into mobile life forms (such as crabs, shrimp, and fish species). Phytoplankton are planktonic plant species and life forms. Zooplankton are planktonic animal species and life forms. Zooplankton feed on phytoplankton. There are approximately 300 species of phytoplankton, and numerous species and forms of zooplankton, found in Tampa Bay. Most phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic species inhabiting Tampa Bay are euryhaline species capable of tolerating the wide range of salinity levels and abrupt salinity changes that occur naturally in the estuarine system. Most phytoplanktonic and zooplanktonic species and life forms in Tampa Bay tolerate salinity levels ranging from zero to 40 ppt. They appear to be more tolerant of the higher end than the lower end of this salinity range. Manatee The manatee is the only endangered or threatened species identified by the Florida Natural Areas Inventory as inhabiting the area where the desalination plant is proposed to be located. Manatees congregate at the Big Bend Power Station during colder months because they are attracted to the power plant's warmer water discharge. Manatees are considered to be estuarine species, but they have very broad salinity tolerance ranges. They migrate into and out of freshwater springs, through estuaries, into the Gulf of Mexico, and down to the Ten Thousand Islands, where hypersaline conditions frequently exist. Manatees routinely expose themselves to and tolerate salinities ranging from zero to more than 40 ppt. Fish The fish populations in Tampa Bay are comprised of a large number of marine euryhaline species. Due to their ability to osmoregulate their internal salinity levels, these fish species can inhabit salinity ranges from 5 ppt to as high as 40 ppt. Extremely extensive monitoring and sampling programs are currently being conducted in Tampa Bay and specifically in the vicinity of the Big Bend Power Station. The Hillsborough County EPC, SWFWMD, TBW, the United States Geological Survey ("USGS"), the Florida Marine Research Institute, USF, and Mote Marine Laboratory conduct separate biological monitoring programs that sample and monitor numerous biological parameters, including invertebrate infaunal and epifaunal species composition, abundance, and distribution; zooplankton and phytoplankton species composition, abundance, and distribution; emergent and submerged vegetation species composition, abundance, and distribution; and fish species composition, abundance, and distribution. These monitoring programs, which collect and analyze biological data from many areas in the Tampa Bay estuarine system, extensively monitor numerous biological parameters in the Big Bend area. Testing and Modeling Pilot Plant Although DEP's rules do not require the use of a pilot plant to demonstrate reasonable assurances, TBD installed a desalination pilot plant at the Big Bend site in November 1999. The pilot plant matched the hydraulics and configuration of the full-scale facility on a 1/1000 scale. The pilot plant used water from the Big Bend power plant discharge as its source water. The purpose of the pilot plant was to confirm design requirements for the desalination facility and to provide samples of intake water, filtered water, pretreated water, concentrate, and finished water to use for chemical characterization and analysis. Using a pilot plant is superior to using data from engineering projections or data from a different desalination facility because the pilot plant provides data specific to the Big Bend site. Data from the pilot plant were used to establish various effluent and other limits in the permit. Chemical Characterization Intake water, filtered water, pretreated water, concentrate, and finished water from the pilot plant were analyzed for over 350 parameters chosen by DEP to determine chemical characterizations and water quality. The pilot plant operation provides extensive chemical characterization of intake and discharge water composition and mass loading. This information was key in providing accurate information on the chemical composition and mass loading of the desalination discharge concentrate. With this accurate information on the components in the discharge water, DEP was provided more than sufficient reasonable assurance on the potential effect of the chemical components of the discharge. TBD tested the pilot plant discharge water for copper, nickel, other heavy metals, and those chemical constituents specified on the DEP chemical characterization form. The chemical characterization tested for concentrations of constituents based on a 12.8 to 1 dilution ratio, and even at that dilution ratio, did not exceed any of the state water quality parameters. However, to provide additional assurance that there will not be an exceedance of state water quality standards, the permit requires a minimum 20 to 1 dilution ratio. Dissolved Oxygen Saturation Testing Temperature and salinity affect the saturation point of dissolved oxygen ("DO") which is lowest when temperature and salinity are highest. DO saturation charts, which are typically used to determine DO saturation points, are not applicable because those charts do not contain the saturation point of DO at a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit and a salinity of 79 ppt, which represents the worst case conditions for the proposed desalination facility. Bench-scale testing was performed on the undiluted desalination discharge from the pilot plant by heating discharge concentrate samples to 109 degrees Fahrenheit and aerating the samples until the DO stabilized and reached saturation point. The pilot plant bench-scale testing determined that the saturation point of DO in the worst case desalination concentrate using a temperature of 109 degrees Fahrenheit and salinity of 79 ppt was 5.7 mg/l. Toxicity Testing TBD conducted acute toxicity testing using a worst case scenario assuming a diluted effluent of one part desalination concentrate to 12.8 parts of power plant cooling water. Acute toxicity testing evidenced no mortalities, showing that the proposed discharge will not be a source of acute toxicity. TBD conducted chronic toxicity testing on raw concentrate from the pilot plant using a worst case scenario diluted effluent of one part desalination concentrate to 12.8 parts of power plant cooling water. The No Observed Effect Concentration (NOEC) for raw concentrate was determined to be 100 percent and the NOEC for diluted effluent was determined to be greater than 100 percent. The evidence did not explain these concepts, but it was clear from the tests that the proposed discharge will not be a source of chronic toxicity. TBD conducted its acute and chronic toxicity testing using protocols reviewed and approved by DEP. TBD's toxicity testing was also consistent with accepted EPA standards. Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts TBD prepared an Assessment of Potential Environmental Impacts and Appendices ("Assessment") to analyze the potential biological impacts of the desalination plant discharge into the Tampa Bay estuary. The Assessment examined numerous physical parameters to determine the baseline environmental conditions in the portion of Tampa Bay proximate to the proposed desalination plant site. Among the physical parameters examined in determining the baseline environmental conditions were: salinity; sediment size and composition; metal content in sediments; and numerous water quality parameters such as transparency, biochemical oxygen demand, pesticides, dissolved metals, and pH. Consistency with SWIM Plan As part of the permitting process, TBD was required to demonstrate consistency of the proposed desalination discharge with the SWFWMD's Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) plan, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242. TBD submitted an extensive SWIM consistency analysis, which is sufficient to meet the consistency requirement. Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation Level II Study TBD performed a Water Quality Based Effluent Limitation (WQBEL) Level II study pursuant to Rule Chapter 62- 650 for the purpose of determining the effect of the desalination plant discharge on salinity levels in the vicinity of the desalination plant discharge. TBD had the Danish Hydrologic Institute ("DHI") use the data collected through the WQBEL Level II study in its near-field model of the Big Bend area. See Findings 105-117, infra. DEP also used the data and the DHI model results to establish the salinity and chloride effluent limitations in the permit. The USF Far-Field Model The far-field model was prepared utilizing the Princeton model code. The Princeton model is well recognized and is generally accepted in the scientific community. The goals of the TBD far-field model performed through USF by Dr. Luther and his team were to evaluate the change in bay-wide salinity due to the desalination plant discharge, both alone and in combination with changes in salinity due to enhanced surface water system withdrawals under new consumptive water use permits issued to TBW by SWFWMD to provide other, additional sources of needed potable water supply. The primary goal was to provide DEP with the best science possible of the potential real effects of this desalination discharge into Tampa Bay. The modeling system of Tampa Bay utilized in this analysis was developed beginning in 1989. Dr. Luther and his team have continued to make refinements to the model over the last 12 years. Dr. Luther took the modeling system he had developed over the years for Tampa Bay and did three primary model scenarios. The baseline case reproduced the observed conditions during the 1990 and 1991 years--a very dry period in 1990 and a fairly wet period for 1991--as accurately as possible with all the boundary conditions estimated from observations. This was to capture an entire range of conditions in Tampa Bay. The baseline was then compared with validation data and other observations to ensure it was approximating reality. The second simulated scenario included the same effects as the baseline with the added effect of the desalination intake and discharge at the Big Bend facility. The third case approximated cumulative effects from the TBW enhanced surface water system river withdrawals according to the proposed permit withdrawal schedules. For each test case, it was assumed that only two of the four cooling units at the TEC Big Bend plant were in operation for an entire two-year period, a worst-case scenario expected to occur less than four percent of the time in any given year. The model included data on water levels, temperature, and salinity throughout Tampa Bay. In addition, it takes into account wind blowing across the surface of Tampa Bay, rainfall, freshwater inflow from rivers, and other surface water and groundwater sources. The model was calibrated and validated against actual data to verify simulation of reality as closely as possible. The model was calibrated and validated utilizing Hillsborough County EPC and Tampa Oceanographic Project ("TOP") salinity data. Physical Oceanographic Real Time System ("PORTS") and TOP data on current flow velocity and water levels were utilized to calibrate and validate water levels and current. The acoustic doppler current profilers used in the model study are able to measure the speed at which the water is traveling and the direction at various levels above the bottom within the water column. The TBD far-field model very accurately reproduces the observed tidal residual velocities observed with the acoustic doppler current profilers. The far-field model reflects any stratification that would occur during the model simulations. The far-field model simulates recirculation that occurs between the discharge and intake water. Recirculation is small due to the model's use of the actual bathymetry of Tampa Bay. There are significant shoals and other features that separate the water from the discharge and the intake canal that preclude significant recirculation most of the time. After submitting the far-field model report to DEP, further study was performed on the far-field model that calculated residence time for Tampa Bay. One study dealt with "residence" or "flushing" time. The concept of "residence time" is not well-defined; put another way, there are many different accepted ways of defining it. It may be defined in a simplified manner as the time it takes a patch of dye to flush out of the bay. However, for purposes of the studies performed on the far-field model, theoretical "particles" in model grids were tracked, and "residence time" was defined as the time it would take for the number of particles initially in a grid cell to decrease to 34 percent of the initial number. Using this approach and definition, residence time in the vicinity of the Big Bend facility on the south side where the discharge canal is located was less than 30 days. Immediately offshore of the area of the discharge, the residence time reduced to less than 15 days. The study indicated that the area of the Big Bend facility has a relatively low residence time. In the model's baseline run (for the desalination plant impacts only), maximum differences in salinity occurred during the month of April 1991. Throughout the two-year time period, the maximum concentration of salinities did not increase from this point, and in fact decreased. The maximum average value for salinity difference is 1.3 ppt at the grid cell located directly at the mouth of the TEC Big Bend discharge canal. More than two grid boxes away in any direction and the value falls to less than 0.5 ppt increase in salinity. The maximum salinity of any given day for the far- field model was in the range of 2.1 to 2.2 ppt, which compares favorably with the DHI near-field model which showed an increase of 2.5 ppt. The salinity changes caused by the cumulative effects scenario are smaller than the natural variability during the wetter months in Hillsborough Bay in cells immediately adjacent to the concentrate discharge. Increases in salinity will occur in the vicinity of the discharge canal but will be very localized and small relative to the natural variability in salinity observed in Tampa Bay. At a distance of more than a few hundred meters from the mouth of the discharge canal, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to determine statistically that there would be any increase in salinity from the desalination concentrate discharge. Over the two years modeled, there is no trend of increasing salinity. No long-term accumulation of salt is evidenced within the model. Further, no physical mechanism exists within the real world that would allow for such a long- term accumulation of salinity in Tampa Bay. Dr. Blumberg's independent work verified the conclusions in the far-field model constructed by USF. Dr. Blumberg's estimated flushing times are consistent with those found in the far-field model. DHI Near-Field Model The TBD near-field model was prepared by DHI. DHI prepared a three-dimensional near-field model to describe the potential salinity impacts from the discharge of the proposed desalination plant. The DHI model is a state-of-the-art model whose physics are well documented. By model standards, the DHI near-field model is a high resolution model. The DHI model essentially "nests" within TBD's far-field model. The near-field area includes those areas that would be directly influenced by the combined power and desalination discharges, the North Apollo Embayment and the residential canal system adjacent to the discharge canal. The near-field model was designed to determine whether or not the desalination plant would cause continuous increases in salinity and to predict any increase in salinity in the North Apollo Embayment and the associated canal system. In addition, DHI evaluated the potential for saline recirculation between the discharge and the intake via short circuiting due to overtopping of the existing break water. In order to construct the near-field model, existing data on bathymetry, wind sources, meteorology and other parameters were examined and analyzed. In addition, the information from an intensive data collection effort by Mote Marine Laboratories on current velocities, temperatures, and salinities was incorporated into the model. TBD conducted bathymetric surveys in the residential canal areas, the North Apollo Embayment, and the area between the discharge canal and the intake canal. The model has a vertical structure of six grids and reflects vertical stratification that would occur in the system being modeled. The vertical grids in the model can detect a thermal plume one meter in depth (the size of the thermal plume from TEC's discharge). Information about the TEC thermal plume was incorporated into the model and utilized to calibrate the model's predictive capabilities. The model took into account interactions between the temperature plume and the salinity plume. The model predictions matched the measured temperature plume created by the TEC discharges quite well. The near-field model conservatively assumed a scenario in which only the two TEC units with the smallest total through-flow of 691.2 million gallons a day cooling water were active. DHI then assumed production of a maximum 29 mgd in product water. A salinity level of 32.3 ppt at the intake was utilized in the simulation. The model assumed a conservative wind condition which results in less mixing and dispersion of the plume. Further, wind direction tended to be from the southwest or west during the simulation, which tends to push the plume against the TEC break water which tends to reinforce recirculation. SOBAC witness Dr. Parsons agreed that these simulations for April and May 2000 constituted extreme conditions. DHI ran its model for a total time period of six weeks. The "warm up" for the simulation took place from April 15 to May 7, followed by the "calibration" simulation from May 8 to May 22. An additional validation sequence was run from May 25 to June 8. The production run was defined as the three weeks from May 8 to May 29, 2000. The intensity of the calculations performed in the near-field model due to its high spacial resolution and numeric restrictions make it computationally demanding. The calibration runs took approximately a week to 10 days to run on a state-of-the-art computer. From a computational standpoint, it is not practical to run the near-field model for a two-year time period. The model shows good agreement between its water levels and current velocity to observed data. The model reflects the recirculation of the discharge water that would occur in the system. The maximum salinity for the extreme case scenario in the near-field model is an increase in salinity of 2.5 ppt. With three condensers running, under the modeling scenario comparing the base condition to the desal discharge, there is a maximum difference of only 2.0 ppt. Further, there is no indication of any continuous build up of salinity in the near- field area due to the desalination plant discharge. DHI performed many sensitivity runs on the model, including one which examined rainfall conditions. The results of a two-inch rainfall analysis show that rainfall profoundly freshens the water in the near-field area. Since the modeling was done in a time period of extreme drought, with no freshwater inputs, the ambient or background salinity trended up over the time frame of May through June. As with any estuary, if freshwater inflow is removed, the estuary will get saltier until freshening occurs. Even with the model simulation period extended an additional 10 days beyond that reflected in TBD Ex. 1-O, the model results did not show any increase of salinity differences caused by the desal facility above 2.5 ppt. Based on data from field collections, the operation of the desal plant under worst case conditions did not exceed the assimilative capacity of the near-field environment. A 10 percent salinity change (3.23 ppt) was not reached in any grid cell. The Blumberg Study The "Environmental Impact Assessment for a Seawater Desalination Facility Proposed for Co-Location with the Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Power Generation Facility Located on Tampa Bay, Florida" authored by Norman Blake and Alan F. Blumberg ("Blumberg Study") is a hydrodynamic model study combined with an analysis of potential biological effects. The Blumberg Study was performed at the request of and presented to the Board of County Commissioners of Hillsborough County, Florida. Dr. Blumberg's model used 1998 and 1999 as its baseline, which consisted of an extremely wet year followed by an extremely dry year. The model assumed a scenario of two cooling units in operation pumping 656 mgd of discharge flow. The results of the Blumberg Study are very similar to the results of TBD's far-field model. In addition, the model ran for a 9-year period without any sign of ongoing build-up of salinity. After the two-year model run, the second year ran for an additional 7 simulated years for total model simulation period of 9 years. The Blumberg Study found salinity only increased by 1.4 ppt in the North Apollo Beach Embayment. In fact, the Blumberg Study showed no salinity build-up after the second year of the 7-year portion of the model simulation. The Blumberg Study found that the flushing time for the area near the Big Bend facility ranges from 4 to 10 days. The Blumberg Study applied a formula to predict potential DO saturation level changes. The analysis concluded a small change to DO saturation assuming full saturation on average of 7 mg/l. The Blumberg Study predicted that the desalination discharge would not lower actual DO levels below 5 mg/l. The Blumberg Study concluded that the marine ecology will not be affected by the desalination facility operation. Older Two-Dimensional Models of Tampa Bay Significant strides have been made in hydrodynamic modeling over the last 10 years, with the standard changing from two-dimensional models to three-dimensional models. Three-dimensional models provide more complete results than two-dimensional models. In the late 1970's through the late 1980's, modeling was constrained by the computing limitations of the time and could not examine the difference in water layers in a bay and potentials for currents going in different directions or speeds in different layers of the bay, as now done by state-of-the-art three-dimensional models. A two-dimensional model cannot accurately represent the tidal residual circulation in an estuary such as Tampa Bay, because it omits some of the critical physical forces that drive this type of flow. As the acoustic doppler current profiler showed, water flows in the top of the water column in one direction and flows in the bottom of the water column in a different direction. A two-dimensional model would average these flows over the entire vertical water column. In doing so, it would show much slower residual flow (and, therefore, longer residence time and a longer time to flush the system). SOBAC offered the testimony of Dr. Carl Goodwin, a civil engineer with the USGS. Dr. Goodwin provided testimony on two-dimensional model studies he did for the USGS in the late 1980's to assess the effects of dredging the shipping channel in Tampa Bay. Dr. Goodwin's studies, contained in SOBAC Exs. 69 and 70, suggested the existence of "gyres" in Tampa Bay. But no "gyres" have been observed, and it now appears that these gyres actually do not exist but are two- dimensional modeling artifacts, as shown by state-of-the-art three-dimensional modeling of Tampa Bay. In an earlier version of Dr. Luther's Tampa Bay model, an experiment was performed running the model in a vertically average mode to mimic the two-dimensional model. In this mode, the model was able to reproduce the "gyres" that Dr. Goodwin observed in his two- dimensional model. When the physical equations that related to pressure forces (baroclines) were reactivated in the three- dimensional model, the "gyres" disappeared. In addition, this experiment showed that the two- dimensional model simulation showed residence times an order of magnitude longer as compared to the full three-dimensional simulation. This means that residence time would be 10 times longer in the two-dimensional model than in the three- dimensional model, which takes into account baroclinic forces. Subsequent to the publication of his modeling studies (SOBAC Exs. 69 and 70), Dr. Goodwin found that it would take approximately 110 days for water to travel from the mouth of the Hillsborough Bay to the mouth of Tampa Bay in 1985. This calculation by Dr. Goodwin was not subjected to peer review or the USGS process. However, dividing the 110-day time period with correction factor of 10 discussed above, Dr. Goodwin's corrected estimate would predict an 11-day period for transport of water from Hillsborough Bay to the mouth of Tampa Bay--similar to the Blumberg Study and far-field model results. Opinions of Other SOBAC Experts Besides Dr. Goodwin, SOBAC also elicited some general opinions regarding the combined thermal and salinity plume from Dr. Mike Champ, called as an expert in the areas of environmental biology and chemistry, and from Dr. Wayne Isphording, called as an expert in sedimentology and geochemistry. In part, Dr. Champ based his opinion on a misunderstanding that Tampa Bay is not well-mixed or well- circulated at the location of the Big Bend power plant. In this respect, Dr. Champ's testimony was contrary to all the evidence. Even the "gyres" suggested by Dr. Goodwin's two- dimensional model studies would suggest a great deal of mixing in Middle Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend plant. To the extent that the opinions of Dr. Champ and Dr. Isphording differed from the modeling results, they are rejected as being far less persuasive than the expert opinions of the modelers called by TBD, who spent far more time and effort studying the issue. Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Standard Oxygen is a gas which can dissolve in water to some degree. There are two measurements of DO in water: saturation point and actual level. The saturation point of DO in water equates to the maximum amount of DO that water will hold. The actual level of DO is a measurement of the oxygen in the water. Since the saturation point is the maximum amount of DO that water will hold in equilibrium, the actual level of DO in water is typically equal to or lower than the saturation point. Desalination will affect the saturation point of DO to the extent that it increases salinity. Increased salinity decreases the saturation point of DO because it lowers the potential for water to hold oxygen. But desalination would not affect the actual level of DO in the water if the saturation point remains above the actual level of DO in the water. TBD determined that in the worst case scenario using undiluted desalination discharge, the lowest possible saturation point of DO would be 5.7 mg/l. If the actual level of DO is above 5.7 mg/l, desalination may lower that actual level of DO to 5.7 mg/l. If the actual level of DO is below 5.7 mg/l, desalination will not lower the DO. Since TBD will aerate the water in the pretreatment process, if the actual level of DO is below 5.7 mg/l, the actual level of DO in the discharge water will be increased. The permit DEP proposes to issue to TBD requires that DO at the point of discharge from the RO plant meet the following: that instantaneous DO readings not depress the intake DO when intake DO is at or below 4.0 mg/l, and that they be greater than or equal to 4.0 mg/l when intake DO is greater than 4.0 mg/l; that 24-hour average readings not depress the 24-hour average intake DO when the 24-hour average intake DO is at or below 5.0 mg/l, and that they be greater than or equal to 5.0 mg/l when the 24-hour average intake DO is greater than 5.0 mg/l. The evidentiary basis for SOBAC's argument that the proposed permit's DO limitation allowed violations of state water quality standards was the testimony of Dr. Champ. But it was evident from his testimony that Dr. Champ was not even aware of the effluent limitations until they were pointed out to him at final hearing. Nonetheless, and although Dr. Champ barely had time to read the DO limitations, Dr. Champ immediately opined that the proposed DO limitations virtually invited water quality violations. He dismissed the permit language out-of-hand as being "loosey-goosey," "fuzzy-wuzzy," and "weasel-like." Actually, there is no conflict between the proposed permit's DO limitations and the water quality standards and water quality criteria in DEP's rules. Other witnesses, particularly Tim Parker of DEP, properly compared the language in the permit with DEP's rules containing water quality standards and water quality criteria. Mr. Parker pointed out that the rules must be read in harmony with each other. Rule 62-302.530(31) contains DO water quality criteria and requires that the "actual DO shall not average less than 5.0 in a 24 hour period and shall never be less than 4.0." Rule 62-302.300(15), a water quality standard, states: Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having a water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. Mr. Parker testified that the "natural conditions" referred to in Rule 62-302.300(15) are those found in the intake water to the desalination facility. TBD will not violate either the water quality criteria or the water quality standard for DO. If the actual level of DO in the intake water is less than 5.0 mg/l, TBD will not decrease the actual level of DO in the water below 5.0 mg/l because the actual level of DO is below the worst case saturation point of 5.7 mg/l. The water quality standard in Rule 62-302.300(15) does not prohibit discharges having DO levels below 4.0 mg/l when that discharge does not cause or contribute to existing DO violations. TBD will not cause or contribute to existing DO violations because if the level of DO in the intake water which is the natural condition is less than 4.0 mg/l, TBD will not decrease the actual level of DO in the water. To the contrary, the desalination process will increase the actual level of DO whenever it is below 5.0 mg/l. TBD has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed desalination discharge will not violate the DO water quality standards and criteria in Rules 62-302.530(31) and 62- 302.300(15) because the desalination process will not decrease the actual level of DO below 5.0 mg/l. SOBAC argued that DO levels will drop between intake and discharge as a result of desalination. Some of this argument was based on the testimony of Dr. Mike Champ, one of SOBAC's expert witnesses. But Dr. Champ's testimony on this point (and several others) is rejected as being far less persuasive than the testimony of the expert witnesses for TBD and the other parties. See Finding 196, infra. SOBAC's argument apparently also was based on a fundamental misapprehension of the results of the Blumberg Study, which SOBAC cited as additional support for its argument that desalination will decrease DO at the discharge point. The Blumberg Study only spoke to desalination's effect on DO saturation concentrations, not to its effect on actual DO levels. (In addition, contrary to SOBAC's assertions, the Blumberg Study did not model DO saturation concentrations but only inferred them.) pH The pilot plant measured and analyzed the potential for pH changes in the desalination process and demonstrated that the desalination process reduced pH by no more than a tenth of a pH unit. pH ranges in natural seawater from top to bottom change over one full pH unit; a tenth of a pH unit change would be well within the natural variation of the system. TBD has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed desalination discharge will not violate Rule 62- 302.530(52)(c), which requires that pH shall not vary more than one unit above or below natural background of coastal waters, provided that the pH is not lowered to less than 6.5 units or raised above 8.5 units. Limitations for pH in the permit ensure compliance with Rule 62-302.530(52)(c) at the point of discharge to waters of the state. Temperature Nothing in the desalination process adds heat to the discharged water. To the contrary, the desalination process may dissipate heat due to the interface of the intake water with the air surface in the pretreatment process. Further, the effect of removing 25 mgd of heated cooling water as desal product water reduces the heat load coming out of the TEC plant cooling water discharge by that same 25 mgd. Temperature readings taken as part of the pilot plant study confirm a slight decrease in temperature across the desalination process. Metals The pretreatment process employed by TBD will result in a reduction in metals in the treated water. Ferric sulfate is added to the intake water upstream of the sand filters in the pretreatment process to precipitate metals into solid material which can be captured by the sand filters. Adding ferric sulfate in the pretreatment process results in a net reduction in the total mass load of metals in the discharge water. Initial calculations in the permit application that 104 pounds of ferric sulfate were being discharged in the desalination concentrate were based on using 20 mg/l of ferric sulfate and a conservative estimate of 95 percent settling of solids, with 5 percent of the ferric sulfate being discharged in the desalination concentrate. Further testing through the pilot plant revealed that coagulation optimizes at 9 to 14 mg/l of ferric sulfate with 97.5 percent of the solids settling, resulting in only 2.5 percent (52 pounds) of the ferric sulfate being discharged per day. The desal facility discharge of iron is minute in comparison to naturally occurring metals within the surface water flowing into Tampa Bay from the Hillsborough and Alafia Rivers. Increases in iron due to ferric sulfate addition are predicted to result in a diluted discharge in which the iron level is still below Class III marine surface water limitation of 0.30 mg/l. Even SOBAC witness Dr. Isphording confirmed that there are no concerns caused by metals that TBD is adding during the process. Discharge Effect on Metal Absorption/Desorption Dr. Isphording limited his concerns to the reaction of higher salinity, DO, and redox to the sediments already contained within the area beyond the discharge point. Dr. Isphording admits that he cannot quantify what the potential release of heavy metals would be due to these factors. Absorption of metals occurs when an organic or clay particle attracts to its surface a metal. Biota do not obtain metals if the metal is held in sand or silt size particles. Biota, be they plant or animal, in most cases obtain the metals they receive from tiny particles that are suspended in the water called microparticulate material. Microparticulate material is generally referred to as colloidal phase. Typically, this phase is on the order of a tenth of a micron in size. Biota obtain metals only if they are present at clay- size particles. Only 10 percent of the quantity of metals that are theoretically available to the biota in a given environment is actually absorbed in tissues. Salinity Has Little Effect on Metals Salinity does not exert a controlling influence on absorption/desorption reactions except at very low salinities. If the salinity is zero, which is essentially a pure freshwater environment, and the salinity level then rises 3 ppt, there would be profound changes in the metal loads, for example, where rivers meet estuaries or seawater. When salinity levels in the water are on the order of 25 ppt, small salinity perturbations such as 2.5 ppt will have a very small effect on absorption/desorption reactions. In fact, the influence can be either positive or negative, but in general they are going to be quite small. Potential releases or gains of metal from salinity changes of 2.5 ppt, at the area of the discharge canal, would be difficult to predict, and it is uncertain whether the change would be positive or negative. pH Will Have Virtually No Effect on Metals Although SOBAC witness Dr. Isphording knew of no change to pH caused by the desalination process, he testified to the alleged effect of lowered pH on the metal in the sediments and water column. Only large pH differences can have a significant influence on absorption or desorption of metals. Any effect on absorption from a decrease in pH on the order of a tenth of a pH unit will be hidden within the natural variations of the estuarine system. See Finding 140, supra. Effect of Lower Oxygen Levels on Metals Redox is basically an oxidation-reduction phenomenon. In order for the low levels of oxygen to have a reducing effect resulting in a release of metals from sediments, virtually all of the oxygen would have to be removed from the water. Basically, the environment would have to reach anoxic conditions. Even then, some metals such as copper would remain within the sediments. In an oxygen-buffered system, redox perturbations will not significantly or measurably mobilize metals. Sediments can be oxidizing in the upper part and then generally become more reducing at depth. The area near the desal discharge does not have organic-rich deep sediment. Proposed Discharge Effect on Bioavailability of Metals The proposed desalination plant's discharge will not increase the bioavailability on metals above that of natural variations and any changes would be hard to discern or measure. Nor will there be any appreciable accumulation of metals in sediments in the receiving water resulting from the proposed desalination discharge. DEP has not established any sediment quality standard and monitoring of sediments is not a NPDES requirement. The desalination plant does not result in violations of Class III marine surface water criteria and standards. No Synergistic Effects Caused by Discharge There are no synergistic effects from the proposed discharge wherein the combination of two elements such as temperature and salinity together would create a new effect. Instead, pH, redox, salinity, and temperature may have small, immeasurable effects that may offset each other. No Adverse Impacts to Biota Comprehensive species lists of phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, aquatic flora (including seagrasses and mangrove species), and threatened or endangered species inhabiting the area were prepared based on extensive review of applicable scientific literature on Tampa Bay. The salinity tolerance ranges of these species were determined through extensive review of information on salinity ranges associated with species capture, laboratory studies, review of studies addressing species types and salinity tolerances in hypersaline estuaries, and species salinity tolerances determined for other desalination projects. When background salinity is above 10 ppt, changes in salinity of a few ppt have no effect on most organisms. Lower salinities are more detrimental than high salinities to most marine organisms, as long as the upper limit does not exceed a value of approximately 40 ppt salinity. Most planktonic species and life forms can tolerate salinities of up to 40 ppt. Mangrove and seagrass species living in the area can tolerate salinity levels as high as 60 ppt. Benthic macroinvertebrates in the area routinely experience, tolerate and survive in salinity levels ranging from approximately 6 ppt to over 39 ppt under natural environmental conditions. Fish species in the area routinely experience and tolerate salinity levels as high as 39 to 40 ppt under natural environmental conditions. Estuaries serve as fish nurseries because fish species lay their eggs in estuaries, and the larval and juvenile life stages live and mature in estuaries. Due to extreme range of conditions that naturally occur in estuaries, fish reproductive strategies have adapted to enable fish eggs and larval and juvenile life stages to tolerate the wide range of natural conditions, including ranges in salinity levels, that are endemic to estuaries. Egg, larval, and juvenile fish stages may be better able to tolerate extreme range of salinities than adults life stages. A 2.5 ppt increase in salinity and the permitted maximum increase of 10 percent above the intake chloride level is within the range of tolerance and variability that seagrasses, mangrove species, benthic macroinvertebrates, biota, fishes, manatees, zooplanktonic and phytoplanktonic species, and other organisms and life forms living in Tampa Bay routinely encounter and tolerate in the natural environment. A 2.5 ppt increase in salinity with the maximum permitted salinity discharge limit of 35.8 ppt of salinity and the permitted maximum increase of 10 percent above the intake chloride level will not adversely affect the survival or propagation of seagrasses, mangroves, benthic macroinvertebrates, biota, zooplankton, phytoplankton, fish, fish eggs, or juvenile life stages of fish species, or other organisms or life forms in Tampa Bay, and specifically the portion of Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the desalination plant discharge. The Shannon-Weiner Index, which is a biological integrity index codified at Rule 62-302.530(11), requires that the index for benthic macroinvertebrates not be reduced to less than 75 percent of established background levels. Since there will be no adverse impacts to benthic macroinvertebrates due to the desalination discharge and since the level of salinity increases anticipated will tend to benefit benthic macroinvertebrates population, TBD has met the criterion in Rule 62-302.530(11). The Mote Marine Laboratory data showed that Tampa Bay experienced a 2.0 ppt change in salinity over the course of one month. No fish kill or observable die-offs of species were observed or reported from this natural occurrence of elevated salinity. The desalination discharge will (1) not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitats, (2) not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge, (3) not violate any Class III marine water quality standards, and (4) maintain water quality for the propagation or wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life. The desalination discharge meets the antidegradation standards and policy set forth in Rules 62-4.242 and 62- 302.300. Discharge Disposal Options Analyzed As part of the permitting process, TBD demonstrated that the use of land application of the discharge, other discharge locations, or reuse of the discharge was not economically and technologically reasonable, pursuant to Rule 62-4.242. TBD submitted a sufficient analysis of these options as part of its Antidegradation Analysis. (TBD Ex. 1G; TBD Ex. 200, Fact Sheet, p. 16). Further Protection in the Permit The permit review of the desalination permit application is one of the most thorough ever conducted by DEP. The proposed permit has conditions which create and provide a wide margin of environmental protection. The permit sets effluent limitations of various constituents which are reasonably expected to be in the desal facility discharge and provides for monitoring programs to ensure compliance with those effluent limitations. The monitoring requirements of the proposed permit exceed the monitoring requirement imposed on other facilities in the Tampa Bay area. Effluent Limitations DEP established effluent limitations using the Class III marine state water quality standards, data provided from the pilot plant regarding the chemical characterization, the modeling conducted by DHI and the University of South Florida, and the water quality data collection by Mote Marine Laboratory in connection with the establishment of the WQBEL. The effluent limitations contained in the permit are consistent with DEP rules. The proposed permit restricts TBD to the lesser of either the chloride limit of 10 percent above intake or the salinity limit of 35.8 ppt. There is no state water quality standard for salinity. The permit limit for chlorides complies with Rule 62- 302.530(18). The permit's additional requirement of a minimum dilution ratio has the effect of limiting chlorides to 7 percent above intake for 384 hours per year and 5 percent above intake for the remainder of the year and thus provides extraordinary assurance that the state water quality standard for chlorides will be met. Dr. Champ was SOBAC's primary witness in support of its argument that the proposed permit allows a discharge with excessive salinity. But it was apparent from his testimony that Dr. Champ misinterpreted the permit limitations for salinity. See Finding 196, infra. Dr. Champ conceded that the chloride limit of 10 percent above intake was appropriate but focused on the 35.8 ppt maximum, as if it overrode the chloride limitation. As found, the opposite is true. TBD will be limited to 10 percent above intake for chlorides even if the result is salinity far less than the daily maximum of 35.8 ppt. Dr. Champ also had concerns about comparing the discharge to intake chloride levels as not being representative of "normal background." He argued (as does SOBAC) for comparing discharge to chloride levels somewhere else in Middle Tampa Bay, nearby but far enough away to insure no influence from the discharge. But the modeling evidence provided reasonable assurance that there will not be a great deal of recirculation of discharge to intake and that the recirculation expected will not cause salinity to build-up continuously over time. The modeling evidence is accepted as far more persuasive than Dr. Champ's testimony. See Finding 196, infra. The only metals for which effluent limitations were established in the permit are copper, nickel, and iron because these were the only metals determined to be close to the state water quality standard levels by the pilot plant studies. The actual levels of such metals in the desalination discharge will be less than those in the pilot plant testing because the dilution ratio (12.8 to 1) used in the pilot testing is much higher than the minimum dilution ratio required by the permit (20 to 1). The permit effluent limitations for copper, nickel, and iron are based on, and comply with, DEP Rules 62- 302.500(2)(d) and 62-302.530(24), (39) and (45). The permit effluent limitations for Gross Alpha are based on and comply with the requirements in Rule 62- 302.530(58). Biological treatment of the desalination plant discharge concentrate is not required because it consists of seawater. Monitoring for Effluent Limitations DEP is able to separately determine TEC's compliance with its permit from TBD's compliance with the effluent limitations in the proposed desalination permit because of how the facility is designed and the monitoring is constructed. Monitoring requirements in the proposed permit were determined with reference to the probability of desal facility discharge exceeding specific water quality standards. DEP rules do not require monitoring for each and every constituent detected above background concentrations, only those which would probably exceed state water quality standards. The permit requires monitoring of effluent limitations at the intake to and discharge from the desalination facility and the calculation of the diluted effluent levels in the co-mingled discharge water. In order to calculate the effluent components in the diluted discharge water, continuous monitoring is performed on the TEC cooling water discharge rate of flow. Parameters of DO, conductivity, salinity, chlorides, copper, iron, nickel, radium, gross alpha, and effluent toxicity are measured at both intake and discharge pursuant to proposed permit. Monitoring of Intake Monitoring of the intake will be located, after interception off TEC Units 3 and 4, prior to entering the desalination plant. Using a sampling location of the intake to the desalination facility prior to filtering or chemical addition for background samples is consistent with the definition of "background" in DEP Rule 62-302.200(3). EPC Stations 11, 80, 81, 13, and 14 are not proper locations for background samples because salinity varies with tides and depth and those stations are too distant from the actual intake point. EPC station 9 is not a good location because it is closer to the discharge than the permit sample point. Monitoring of Discharge Monitoring of the discharge will take place in the wet well prior to discharge into TEC's cooling water discharge tunnels. This monitoring location is in compliance with Rule 62-620.620(2)(i) which provides for monitoring of effluent limitations in internal waste streams. Monitoring of the desal facility discharge concentrate in each of the four cooling water discharge tunnels is impractical due to the high volume of dilution and addition of four potential discharge locations. Once the desal facility concentrate is diluted by the TEC cooling water discharge, it is much more difficult to obtain accurate water quality testing for constituents at such minute levels. Monitoring of the Combined Discharge Concentrations Calculations determine the mixing ratios of the desalination concentrate with TEC's cooling water. Using the flow data from TEC, the calculations will accurately determine the water quality of the co-mingled discharge water. Compliance with Permit Effluent Limitations The proposed permit requires TBD to monitor constituents for which there are effluent limitations on either a daily, weekly or monthly basis, depending on the constituent. The frequency of monitoring for each constituent is based on comparing the expected levels of the constituent to the water quality standard and analyzing the probability of the desal facility discharge exceeding that standard. The monitoring provides additional assurances beyond the pilot plant studies, testing and modeling that no water quality standard will be violated. Continuous monitoring is not necessary to successfully monitor discharges. Monthly measurements are sufficient to determine compliance even for a daily permit level because the chemical characterization studies provide reasonable assurances that the desalination concentrate will not exceed the effluent limitations. Monthly monitoring provides further checks and balances to assure that the desalination discharge is in conformance with the effluent limitations and DEP rules. The EPA only requires that monitoring occur at least once a year. Conductivity provides a direct correlation to salinity and chlorides. Measuring conductivity provides salinity and chloride levels by basis of calculations and is typically used as a surrogate for monitoring chloride and salinity continuously. Salinity and chloride cannot themselves be measured continuously because they are measured by lab tests. The permit requires conductivity to be monitored continuously, not because DEP believed the desalination discharge would be near the chloride limitation, but rather to be extremely conservative. The permit conditions treat an exceedance of salinity or chlorides based on conductivity readings to be a violation of the permit effluent limitations for salinity and chlorides. TBD provided reasonable assurance to DEP that the proposed desalination discharge would not violate the DO water quality standards and criteria in Rules 62-302.530(31) and 62- 302.300(15). The permit condition requiring monitoring of DO provides verification that desal facility discharge will meet the DO water quality standards. Even SOBAC's witness Dr. Champ admitted that a continuous measurement for DO is not as valuable as random weekly samples. External Monitoring Programs The proposed permit requires TBD to develop and submit to DEP a Biological Monitoring Program to monitor seagrasses, benthic macroninvertebrates and fish populations to be consistent with existing Tampa Bay monitoring programs. This program will provide an effective means of monitoring the potential impacts of the desalination discharge. The proposed permit also requires TBD to implement a Water Quality Monitoring Program for three monitoring stations located proximal to the intake, the discharge and the North Apollo Beach Embayment which will monitor conductivity, salinity, DO and temperature continuously. These monitoring programs will provide additional ambient data to DEP. If the data indicate an exceedance or reasonable potential for an exceedance of water quality standards, DEP may reopen the permit in accordance with the reopener clause contained in the permit. These monitoring programs go beyond the requirements in DEP rules. Additionally, DEP does independent monitoring of NPDES discharges without notice and on a purposely unpredictable basis. Proof of Financial Responsibility Rule 62-620.301(6) addresses when DEP may require a permit applicant to submit proof of financial responsibility to guarantee compliance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. TBD's compliance history was taken into consideration during the permitting process. Adequate financial assurance were provided in the permit application. (TBD Ex. 1I). Further, the permit conditions added by the settlement agreement (TBD Ex. 470) provide for additional financial assurance beyond those that can be required by the NPDES program and DEP rules. Additional Comment on SOBAC's Evidence As already indicated, SOBAC elicited the testimony of several expert witnesses at final hearing to support its contentions. But none of SOBAC's experts spent a great deal of time studying TBD's desal project, especially compared to witnesses for the other parties. Mostly, SOBAC experts expressed general scientific principles that were not directly tied to specifics of the desal project or were very general expressions of concern. Often, SOBAC's experts were not familiar with all the efforts of experts offered by the other parties to address those very concerns. Except for Dr. Champ, no SOBAC expert opined that the proposed permits would result in violations of DEP statutes and rules. Some SOBAC experts expressed opinions that only would be relevant if there were insufficient assurances in proposed permits that DEP statutes and rules would not be violated. Statistical evidence presented was not particularly relevant. Dr. Goodwin As previously mentioned, Dr. Carl Goodwin was willing to provide testimony on work he did for the USGS, but he gave no expert opinions on the permits which are the subject of these proceedings. As also previously discussed, his two- dimensional model studies were constrained by computational limitations. Even so, his studies indicated that flushing in Tampa Bay was becoming more rapid in recent years. In addition, even if the "gyres" suggested by his two-dimensional studies actually existed, they would tend to promote mixing in Tampa Bay in area of the Big Bend power plant. Dr. Champ Dr. Champ's first opinion was that 35.8 ppt is too high a salinity limit and would result in "oceanic" conditions. He attempted to compare this result to results of diversion of substantial amounts of freshwater inputs to the Black Sea for agricultural purposes--a totally different situation not suitable for comparison to Tampa Bay. Initially, Dr. Champ suggested a limitation of a 10 percent increase above "background" or "ambient" conditions; it was apparent that initially Dr. Champ was not cognizant of the 10 percent over intake chloride limitation in the proposed permit. When he was made aware of the chloride limit, he misinterpreted the two limits, saying that TBD would not be limited to the lower of the two. When it was suggested that he might have misinterpreted the two salinity limits, Dr. Champ testified that chlorides should be compared to a "natural" or "environmental" control site somewhere nearby but outside the influence of the combined TEC/TBD discharge; he said it was a "farce" to compare chlorides to a control site "inside the plant." In so doing, he seemed not to recognize the purpose of the comparison made in the proposed permit--to isolate and identify the impacts of TBD's desal process. In addition, dismissing without much consideration the contrary results of extensive and sophisticated modeling, Dr. Champ opined off- handedly that DO would decrease due to higher salinity that would recirculate and build-up over time. In part, Dr. Champ based this opinion on his misunderstanding that Tampa Bay is not well-mixed or well-circulated at the location of the Big Bend power plant. This was contrary to all the evidence; even if the "gyres" predicted by Dr. Goodwin's two-dimensional model existed, they would suggest a great deal of mixing in Middle Tampa Bay in the vicinity of the Big Bend plant. Dr. Champ next misinterpreted the DO limits in the proposed permit. See Finding 133, supra. Dr. Champ then predicted a decrease in species diversity as a result of higher salinity and lower DO. (To the contrary, salinity increases in the amounts predicted by the far greater weight of the evidence probably would result in somewhat of an increase in species diversity.) Ultimately, Dr. Champ testified that consequences to marine organisms would be dire, even if salinity increased only by 2.5 ppt, because a "salinity barrier" would form across Middle Tampa Bay in contrast to more gradual natural changes in salinity. The far greater weight of the evidence was to the contrary. Dr. Champ made several suggestions to avoid the calamitous results he predicted: require use of a cooling tower to reduce the temperature of the combined TEC/TBD discharge; collect the desal brine concentrate and barge it to the Gulf of Mexico; require intake and discharge pipes extending into the shipping channel in Middle Tampa Bay. But Dr. Champ did not study or give a great deal of thought to implementation of these suggestions. Besides, the other parties proved that these measures were not needed for reasonable assurances. In an attempt to buttress his opinion testimony, Dr. Champ also testified (along with SOBAC's President, B.J. Lower) that the TEC intake canal is virtually devoid of life and that biodiversity in the discharge canal is very low. This testimony was conclusively refuted by the rebuttal testimony of Charles Courtney, who made a site visit after SOBAC's testimony and described in detail a significant number of healthy species in the intake canal, including oyster communities, xanthid crabs, porcellanid crabs, snook, anemones, bivalves, polychaete, and mangroves with seedlings. Of the one and one- half pounds of oysters that Mr. Courtney sampled, he estimated that approximately fifty percent of those oysters were living, which represents a very healthy community. Mr. Courtney further noted that some of the crabs were carrying eggs, which indicates an active life cycle for those species. As to the TEC permit modification, Dr. Champ testified that it was “in-house stuff” which would not affect the environment outside the TEC plant. No other SOBAC witness addressed the TEC permit modification. Dr. Isphording SOBAC called Dr. Wayne Isphording as an expert in sedimentology and geochemistry. Dr. Isphording expressed no concern that the desal process would add metals to Tampa Bay. Essentially, he gave opinion testimony concerning general principles of sedimentology and geochemistry. He testified that heavy metals bound in sediments are released naturally with increases in salinity, but that salinity levels would have to be extreme to result in the release of abnormal quantities of such metals. He admitted that he had performed no studies of sediments in Tampa Bay and declined to offer specific opinions that metals in fact would be released as a result of predicted salinity increases. Dr. Isphording admitted that he knew of no condition in the proposed Desal Facility permit which would cause or allow a violation of state water quality standards. He was aware of no statute or rule requiring more monitoring and testing than is required in the proposed permit. Dr. Parsons SOBAC offered the testimony of Dr. Arthur Rost Parsons, an assistant professor of oceanography at the Naval Postgraduate School, in an attempt to raise questions regarding the near-field and far-field modeling which were provided by TBD to DEP during the course of the permitting process. However, not only had Dr. Parsons not done any modeling in Tampa Bay himself, he was not provided numerous reports and clarifications relating to the studies he was called to critique. He only reviewed an interim report dated November 1, 2000, regarding the near-field model. Dr. Parsons testified that the DHI model used for the near-field study was an excellent shallow water model. He found nothing scientifically wrong with it and testified that the "physics and the model itself is . . . well–documented." Dr. Parsons also did not contradict the results of the DHI model. Instead, he noted that the modeling task was difficult and complex, he described some of the model's limitations, and he testified to things that could have been done to increase his confidence in the model results. One of Dr. Parson's suggestions was to run the model longer. But the evidence was that, due to the model's complexity and high computational demands, it would have been extremely expensive to run the model for longer periods of time. Another of Dr. Parson's suggestions was to use salinity data would be to use the information that the model itself generated with regard to salinity distributions instead of a homogeneous set of salinity data. Dr. Parsons was concerned that use of homogeneous salinity data would not reflect the effect of "double diffusion" of heat and salinity, which would result in sinking of the combined heat. But engineer Andrew Driscoll testified in rebuttal that the effects of "double diffusion" would cease once equilibrium was reached and would not result in a hypersaline plum sinking to the bottom. In addition, he testified that turbulent mixing from tide and wind would dominate over the effect of "double diffusion" at the molecular level so as to thoroughly mix the water, especially in the shallow North Apollo Beach Embayment. Dr. Parsons also suggested that the model be run for rainy season conditions to see if the effects of vertical stratification would increase. But even if vertical stratification increased as a result of rain, salinity also would be expected to decrease. The scenario modeled was "worst case." Dr. Parsons also suggested the use of a range of temperatures for the combined heat/salinity plume instead of an average temperature. However, he conceded that it was not inappropriate to use average temperature. Instead, he would have liked to have seen the model run for a range of temperatures to see if the model was sensitive to temperature differences so as to increase his confidence in the results. Dr. Parson's testimony focused on the near-field model. His only comment on the far-field model was that he thought it should have used the out-puts from the near-field model (as the near-field used the outputs). Scott Herber SOBAC offered no direct testimony on the impact of the Desal Facility discharge on seagrasses in Tampa Bay. The testimony of Steve Herber, a doctoral student at the Florida Institute of Technology, related to the vulnerability of seagrasses, in general, to changes in salinity. However, Mr. Herber had no specific knowledge of the seagrasses present in Tampa Bay and had not performed or reviewed any scientific studies upon which his opinion could be based. He reached no conclusions about the specific permits at issue in this proceeding, nor about the effect of the Desal Facility on seagrasses in Tampa Bay. In contrast to Mr. Herber, the testimony of TBD's expert, Robin Lewis, and SWFWMD's expert, Dr. David Tomasko, provided detailed information about the seagrasses located in Tampa Bay. Both have studied seagrasses in Tampa Bay for many years and have been involved in mapping seagrass distribution in a variety of bays and estuaries along the west coast of Florida. Dr. Tomasko criticized witnesses for SOBAC who attempted to draw conclusions about Tampa Bay based on studies of other bays and estuaries because each bay has unique characteristics that cannot be extrapolated from studies of other bays. Dr. Tomasko and Lewis testified that seagrasses in Tampa Bay are becoming more abundant, that dissolved oxygen levels are increasing, and that water clarity in Tampa Bay is also improving. Dr. Mishra Dr. Satya Mishra was called by SOBAC as an expert in statistics. He is not an expert in the discrete field of environmental statistics. He has never been involved in the development of a biological monitoring program and could not provide an opinion regarding what would be an adequate sample size for this permit. He essentially expressed the general opinions that for purposes of predictive statistical analysis: random sampling is preferred; statistical reliability increases with the number of samples; and 95 percent reliability is acceptable. Dr. Mishra performed no statistical analysis in this case and could not conclude that the sampling provided in the proposed permit would not be random. Ron Chandler Ron Chandler, a marketing representative for Yellow Springs Instrument Corporation (YSI), simply testified for SOBAC regarding the availability of certain types of continuous monitoring devices. He did not offer any opinions regarding whether or not reasonable assurance required continuous monitoring of any specific parameter or any monitoring different from or in addition to what is proposed in TBD's proposed permit. John Yoho SOBAC called John Yoho as a financial and insurance expert to criticize the terms of an agreement by TBD, TBW, and DEP to settle Hillsborough County's request for an administrative hearing (DOAH Case No. 01-1950). This agreement is contained in TBD Ex. 470. But Yoho admitted that he had no knowledge regarding what is required to obtain an NPDES permit in terms of financial assurances. He also indicated that none of his testimony should be understood as relating in any way to financial assurances required for such a permit to be issued. Alleged Improper Purpose The evidence did not prove that SOBAC participated in DOAH Case No. 01-2720 for an improper purpose--i.e., primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of licensing or securing the approval of TEC's permit modification applications. To the contrary, the evidence was that SOBAC participated in this proceeding in an attempt to raise justifiable issues arising from the peculiarities of the relationship of TEC's permit modification application to TBD's permit application. Although SOBAC suffered adverse legal rulings that prevented it from pursuing many of the issues it sought to have adjudicated on TEC's permit modification application, it continued to pursue issues as to the TBD permit application which, if successful, could require action to be taken on property controlled by TEC and, arguably, could require further modification of TEC's permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: (1) issuing the proposed permit number FL0186813-001-IWIS, as set forth in TBD Ex. 203 with the addition of the two permit conditions specified in TBD Ex. 470; (2) issuing proposed permit modification number FL0000817-003-IWIS, as set forth in TBD Ex. 225; and (3) denying TEC's request for attorney's fees and costs from SOBAC under Section 120.595(1). Jurisdiction is reserved to enter an order on TBD's Motion for Sanctions filed on August 13, 2001, regarding SOBAC expert Ralph Huddleston. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. __________________________________ J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 William S. Bilenky, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire Morgan & Hendrick 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway Suite 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9604 Donald D. Conn, General Counsel Tampa Bay Water 2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211 Clearwater, Florida 33761-3930 Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 810 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0810 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606-2543 E. A. Seth Mills, Jr., Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1700 Post Office Box 1438 Tampa, Florida 33601-1438 Joseph D. Richards, Esquire Pasco County Attorney's Office 7530 Little Road, Suite 340 New Port Richey, Florida 34654-5598 Cathy M. Sellers, Esquire Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Raymond & Sheehan, P.A. 118 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1508 Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P.A. Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 David B. Struhs, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard The Douglas Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns property adjacent to Sims Creek located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Petitioner is undertaking a development on the property. The development was initiated by the Great American Anvil Corporation, the previous owner of the property. The development as originally conceived included construction of a dock in Sims Creek. The Great American Anvil Corporation applied for a permit to the State Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund. On February 5, 1975, a permit was issued to allow Great American Anvil Corporation "to construct eight (8) finger piers each twenty feet long by two feet wide, and three triangular piers twenty feet long by five feet wide at the base and two feet wide at the top" in Sims Creek. The permit was issued for construction of the docking facility and by its terms expired on a specified date. The permit was never assigned or transferred to Petitioner. The permit has expired, and is no longer effective. A bulkhead has already been constructed along Petitioner's property. Petitioner is seeking a permit which would authorize it to construct a perimeter dock which would run along the approximately three hundred foot border of Petitioner's property and Sims Creek, and extend four feet over Sims Creek. Petitioner is also seeking to construct ten piers out from the perimeter dock, each of which would be twenty-five feet long and two feet wide. Mooring spaces would be provided for sixteen or more boats The perimeter dock and the ten piers would be supported by pilings which would be placed in the creek bottom. The permit application provides that the pilings would be installed by a process called "jetting". Sims Creek is a natural, navigable tributary of the Loxahatchee River. The mouth of Sims Creek on the Loxahatchee River is located in fairly close proximity to where a canal known as the "C-18 Canal" empties into the river. Sims Creek is a winding stream which has been relatively undisturbed by development. Petitioner's project is located approximately one thousand to fourteen hundred linear feet upland from the mouth of the creek. Approximately five hundred feet upland from the proposed docks, the creek veers sharply to the south and becomes significantly more shallow. The creek is influenced by both estuarine and tidal flows. During high tides, water flows from the Loxahatchee River upland into the creek. During low tides the water flows out of the creek into the Loxahatchee River. In addition, water generally drains through the creek into the river. The creek has good flushing characteristics. The "residence time" for water in the creek is typically one day, except in isolated pockets along the shoreline, and in deeper basins which occur in the creek. The area of the creek where the proposed docks would be constructed is a basin area. Waters reach a depth of eight feet. This area of the creek is stressed in water quality terms. Dissolved oxygen values measured at the site are in excess of Department standards. This is the result of the depth at the location; the oozy, organic bottom soils; and the fact that a storm water outfall and a sewage outfall enter the creek on the opposite side from Petitioner's property. The creek is generally more shallow than in this basin area. Near to the mouth of the creek, water depths are as shallow as 2.25 feet during high tide. The deepest continuous channel from the proposed docks to the mouth of the river is approximately three feet at high tide, and from one to one and one-half feet at low tide. The shallower areas of the creek are characterized by sandy bottoms, good water quality, and a rather high level of plant and animal activity which is diverse. Shorelines along most of the creek are dominated by mangrove vegetation. There is presently a limited amount of boating activity that occurs in the creek. Persons who testified at the hearing witnessed at various times from one to seven small motor craft in the creek. Construction of the perimeter dock and piers in the manner proposed by Petitioner in its application would have significant adverse short term water quality impacts. The "jetting process" for installing pilings would result in considerable turbidity which would be likely to violate state standards within the area of construction, and downstream to the mouth of the creek. These short term adverse impacts could be alleviated by installing the pilings through a "driving technique" and by use of turbidity screens. Petitioner has expressed a willingness to utilize these construction techniques. The proposed docking facility is likely to have an adverse impact upon water quality in Sims Creek. The project, if completed, is likely to cause violations of the Department's water quality standards. Dissolved oxygen levels in the area of the proposed project already exceed the Department's standards. The Petitioner's proposed docks would cover a significant portion of the water surface with docks, and this would exacerbate dissolved oxygen levels. Furthermore, increased boating activity in the area would, due to the interjection of greases and oils, further adversely impact dissolved oxygen levels, and can reasonably be expected to lead to violations of the Department's standards for biologic oxygen demand and oils and greases. Petitioner's proposed docking facility includes mooring spaces for approximately sixteen boats. The dock would serve therefore to increase boating activity in Sims Creek by three times or more Sims Creek is difficult to navigate without disturbing the productive shallow bottom areas. Increased boating activity is likely to disturb these areas and to lead to the destruction of a natural marine habitat. Sims Creek is too shallow a water body to sustain the sort of boating traffic that would be generated through construction of a docking facility such as Petitioner has proposed. Sims Creek is sovereignty land of the State of Florida. Petitioner has not received approval from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the Department of Natural Resources to use Sims Creek in the manner proposed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation denying the application submitted by Landin Ltd, for a dredge and fill permit to construct a docking facility in Sims Creek, West Palm Beach, Florida. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis R. Johnson, Esquire 308 Tequesta Drive Tequesta, Florida 33458 Alfred J. Malefatto, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
