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 Respondent, International Paper Realty Corporation, ("IPR" hereafter) is the developer of a proposed residential development located In Panama City. As part of this development, IPR proposed to do some dredge and fill work on its property requiring a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER hereafter). On November 5, 1976, IPR submitted an application for approval of a construction, dredge and fill permit to DER. On December 7, 1976 DER requested further information regarding (a) cross-sectional areas and volumes to be dredged; (b) details of Proposed drainage structures; and (c) data regarding the retention of runoff. On January 4, 1977 IPR submitted to DER the information requested by Its letter of December 7, 1976. On January 7, 1977 DER requested further information from IPR pertaining to the overall topography of the area and information pertaining to the dominant vegetation. On January 20th and January 24th, 1977 IPR submitted the information requested by DER on January 7, 1977. On February 9, 1977 DER requested from IPR further information regarding clarification of the computation of 1.6 inches of rainfall volume and a request regarding pollutional loads that could be discharged to the state waters of Robison Bayou or North Bay. On February 17, 1977 and on March 8, 1977 conferences were held by DER with IPR, and representatives from other affected state and local regulatory agencies to review the concern of DER relative to the original permit application. On April 29, 1977 IPR submitted to DER the first modification of its original application of November 1976 which incorporated all of the recommended changes suggested by the regulatory agencies at the conference meetings. Included with this submission were charts, figures and diagrams indicating the proposed work and a hydrological design report dealing with the overall project. On May 16, 1977 IPR met with DER to discuss In detail the permit application as modified on April 29, 1977. On May 18, 1977 DER requested further information from IPR regarding water quality background, a monitoring program, computation of the anticipated dredge material and clarification of slide slopes of the proposed lakes and pond construction. On May 23, 1977 IPR submitted to DER its response to the requested information of May 18, 1977. This response dealt with the anticipated volumes of excavation; anticipated water pollutant load; and the clarification regarding slide slopes of the ponds and lakes. On June 8, 1977 IPR received from DER a request for further information regarding the slide slopes, a recommended monitoring program and specific information regarding background water quality data. On July 5, 1977 IPR responded to DER's request of June 8, 1977 and submitted with that response the water quality data taken from locations in Robison Bayou and North Bay. On August 5 and August 31, 1977 conferences were held by DER with IPR, as well as other involved state and regulatory agencies, and as a result of this meeting it was determined that the permit application should be further modified. On September 14, 1977 IPR submitted to DER a second modification to the original application; and the application as modified, provided for dredging approximately 43,500 cubic yards in an area adjacent to North Hay and Robison Bayou, in order to create an approximately 6 acre residential lake connected via culverts to Robison Bayou and to deepen an existing lake and pond connecting to North Bay. All dredging would be to -3 feet mean sea level. Approximately 40 cubic yards would be dredged in North Bay to increase water circulation into the existing lake. Approximately 1000 cubic yards would be removed to deepen the existing 2 acre pond, with the remaining material removed from the two lakes. Drainage has been designed to maximize detention and thereby discourage direct discharge of stormwater runoff into these lakes. The existing lake will provide both freshwater and saltwater systems by means of a berm across the middle of the lake, with only the North portion open to North Bay via the existing pond. The project area, approximately 90 acres in size, will accommodate proposed construction of up to 534 dwellings, including streets, recreational facilities, and electrical, water and sewer systems. On September 20, 1977 DER requested that IPR publish the required public notice in the local newspaper in that the application was now deemed complete by DER. The application, as modified, was filed herein as Joint Exhibit 1. The testimony concerning the various requests for information from IPR by DER and the response by IPR to DER were submitted by DER's witness Jean Tolman and the exhibits of DER accepted into evidence in this proceeding. Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, promulgated thereunder, set forth the procedural requirements and standards applicable to a construction, dredge and fill permit. DER is charged with the responsibility of determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurance that the activity to be permitted will not violate the provisions of Chapter 403 or the rules promulgated thereunder. Upon making this determination DER issues the applicant a permit and, if applicable, issues a certification to the Corp. of Engineers pursuant to Public Law 92-500. As outlined above, extensive proceedings were held by DER which ultimately resulted in DER determining that IPR's application met the applicable environmental standards and a permit should issue. (DER's memorandum of January 30, 1978 filed herein and the testimony of Jean Tolman) . However, prior to the actual issuance of the permit, Petitioner, Joe Tannenhill, and petitioners Mark E. Jones and Charles E. Whitehead filed petitions to intervene herein. DER requested that a hearing officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct the necessary proceedings involving both petitions and a hearing officer was so assigned pursuant to Chapter 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Petitioner Joe Tannenhill's petition alleged that the proposed DER action of issuing a permit to IPR would affect his personal property rights. Petitioners Mark E. Jones and Charles E. Whitehead filed petitions which alleged that IPR's application failed to comply with the requirements of Chapter 380 and Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and certain noted provisions of Chapter 17-4 Florida Administrative Code. During a prehearing conference on February 10, 1978, IPR and DER moved to dismiss Tannenhill from the proceedings. Grounds offered in support of the motion were that his allegation that the permitted activity would affect his personal property rights did not involve an issue over which DER has jurisdiction and therefore if true would not be material to the issue of whether the permit should be issued to IPR by DER. These grounds were accepted and by oral order of February 10, 1978 Tannenhill was dismissed from the proceeding. Also during the same prehearing conference IPR and DER moved to strike all allegations in the petition filed by Mark E. Jones and Charles A. Whitehead pertaining to Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes. Grounds offered in support of the motion were that the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, had no application to and in no way pertained to a construction, dredge and fill permit filed with DER. These grounds were accepted and by oral order entered on February 10, 1978 the provisions of Chapter 380 were deemed immaterial to this proceeding and all allegations pertaining thereto were stricken from the pleading filed. Petitioners Mark E. Jones and Charles A. Whitehead presented their cases jointly at the final hearing. They called the following witnesses: James Walters (T16-36); Charles A. Whitehead (T37-43); Mark E. Jones (43-52); Miss Carol Daugherty (T52-74) Dr. John Taylor (T75-135); and Ed McKay (T135-140). Respondent DER called as its only witness Jean Tolman (T140-281). Respondent IPR did not present any witnesses. Mr. Walters presented a series of slides (Exhibits 1-12) of the subject property, adjacent property and adjoining water bodies. Mr. Whitehead testified that he owns his home adjoining Robison Bayou and that it was in his best interests to keep the quality of the water therein good. He specifically stated, however, that he had no knowledge as to how IPR's proposed project would affect the water quality of Robison Bayou. (P 41) Mr. Jones testified that he owns a home near Robison Bayou and that it was in his best interest to prevent the water therein from getting polluted. He did not testify that IPR's project would affect Robison Bayou but only if it did that it would affect his financial interest in his property. The testimony of Mr. Walters, Mr. Whitehead, and Mr. Jones did not relate in any probative way to the issue in this proceeding. Miss Carol Daugherty was qualified as an expert to make chemical analysis of water. She testified that Dr. Jack Taylor brought some water samples to her and she performed a chemical analysis of same. The results of her test (Exhibit 13) indicated that the water contained a high count of fecal coliform bacteria which indicated to her that improperly treated sewage was in the water. (T 67) She did not testify that IPR was responsible for the bacteria found in the water she analyzed or that the permit which is the subject of this proceeding would authorize an activity which would increase the bacteria in the waters involved. Simply put, Miss Daugherty's testimony proved, if anything, that on the day the samples were taken, improperly treated sewage had been discharged into the waters involved. As to the issue in this proceeding - whether DER has been reasonably assured the the activity to be permitted will not violate water quality standards - the testimony of Miss Daugherty has no probative value. Dr. Taylor was qualified as an expert in marine ecology. He testified that he obtained water samples at high and low tides from five locations In Robison Bayou on February 16. (P 84-85) To determine its water quality for that day he delivered the samples to Miss Daugherty (P 88). As a result of the testing done by Miss Daugherty, Dr. Taylor testified that he was concerned with the level of total nitrogen and phosphorus in the samples but admitted that DER has no prescribed limit for either. (T 89) He further stated that he was concerned with the fecal strep levels found in the samples tested by Miss Daugherty but admitted "there is no standard as yet established for fecal strep" (T 98). Based solely on samples taken on one day, Dr. Taylor testified that he believes that Robison Bayou is overautrified and contaminated with harmful bacteria. (P 99) It was his opinion that this condition of Robison Bayou was caused by improperly treated sewage being discharged therein from a trailer park and drainage from a hospital and an industrial park nearby. (T 114-115) He did not testify that IPR was in any way responsible for the condition of Robison Bayou as he found it on February 16, 1978. Although Dr. Taylor expressed concern respecting the runoff from IPR's proposed development, he admitted that any analysis of drainage from the development "would be a matter of conjecture." (T 101) He further admitted that IPR's method for treating stormwater runoff "probably addressed it in as good a way as you can." (P117) His only exception to this admission was that he would have planned the project to have all runoff going into North Bay rather than Robison Bayou. It is obvious from this statement that Dr. Taylor is not concerned with the quality of the waters that might runoff the proposed project into waters of the state but is really only concerned with the existing quality of the body of water to receive the runoff, Robison Bayou. The testimony of Dr. Taylor might have some value in an enforcement proceeding involving parties who are in fact degrading Robison Bayou. Here, however, the issue is whether DER has been provided reasonable assurance that the activity to be permitted will not violate water quality standards. As to this Issue, Dr. Taylor's testimony has no probative value. DER is charged with the responsibility of evaluating the impact of a proposed construction, dredge and fill permit on waters of the State. Section 403.021(2), Florida Statutes. The major considerations in this evaluation are whether the quality of water will be degraded by (1) the destruction of resources which maintain water quality, and (2) the discharging of harmful materials into the environment. No testimony was offered by Petitioners that the activity of IPR proposed to be permitted by DER would destroy resources which maintain water quality or that the runoff from the project will discharge harmful materials into the waters of the State. Petitioners appeared to support its position in this proceeding solely on the basis of the water quality of Robison Bayou. However, the standards to be applied to IPR's permit do not concern themselves with the water quality of Robison Bayou but apply only to the quality of the water to be discharged to Robison Bayou. The testimony of DER's witness, Jean Tolman, was uncontradicted that IPR's application, as modified, affirmatively provided reasonable assurance to DER that the short-term and long-term effects of the permitted activity will not violate water quality standards of the State. Ms. Tolman is presently head of DER's program on water resource restoration and preservation. Prior to that, however, she was head of the standard permitting section involving dredge and fill permitting for DER and testified that she personally reviewed the application in question in that capacity. Ms. Tolman was accepted as an expert qualified to answer the questions and express the opinions which were propounded to her and expressed by her. She testified in great detail concerning the original application on November 5, 1976; the many requests by DER for additional information and the submission of same by IPR; the many meetings with the applicant, DER and other affected state and federal agencies; and the modifications to the original application submitted on April 29, 1977, and September 14, 1977. Her uncontradicted testimony was that the application, subsequent submittals and subsequent modifications were adequate and complete to form the basis for a determination by DER. Based on all of this information, and the expertise of DER, Ms. Tolman testified that the application as revised would in fact meet the water quality standards pertaining thereto. She did state that DER would require as a condition to issuance of the permit that IPR submit a detailed drainage plan prior to actual construction.
Conclusions IPR's application for a construction, dredge and fill permit originally submitted to DER on November 5, 1976, and subsequently modified on April 29, 1977, and September 4, 1977, was an adequate and complete application sufficient to form the basis for a determination by DER on whether or not the permit should issue. Testimony presented at the hearing by the witnesses for Petitioners related primarily to the water quality of Robison Bayou on February 16, 1978. Admittedly on the day in question the level of fecal coliform bacteria found in the waters of Robison Bayou exceeded that established by DFR for Class II waters. However, no testimony presented at the hearing indicated that Respondent IPR was responsible for this fact nor did any testimony presented at this hearing Indicate that the activity to be permitted will increase the focal coliform bacteria level in Robison Bayou. There was no testimony presented at the hearing to indicate that the dredge and fill activity proposed would in fact violate the water quality standards established by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated by DER thereunder. Although is is clear that there will be some stormwater runoff from IPR's proposed residential development once constructed, there was no testimony offered to indicate that this stormwater runoff would violate the water quality standards of Chapter 403 or the rules promulgated by DER thereunder. There was testimony offered by Ms. Tolman that it was her personal opinion and the determination by DER that in fact the stormwater runoff would not violate the water quality standards.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent KW Resort Utilities Corp. ("KWRU") is entitled to issuance, by Respondent Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), of Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit FLA014951-012-DWIP and UIC Permits 18490-020 and 18490-021 (collectively, the "Permit at Issue"), authorizing the major modification of KWRU's existing permit to operate a domestic wastewater facility located at 6630 Front Street, Stock Island, Florida 33040. The Permit at Issue would authorize the expansion of KWRU's existing domestic wastewater facility and the installation of two additional underground injection wells.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Last Stand is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Florida law. Last Stand has challenged the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Petitioner George Halloran is a natural person residing in Key West, Florida, and is a member of Last Stand. Halloran has challenged the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Respondent KWRU is a Florida corporation. KWRU is the wastewater utility service provider that owns and operates the Existing Wastewater Facility2/ and is responsible for its design, construction, operation, and maintenance. It is the applicant for the Permit at Issue in this proceeding. Respondent DEP is the state agency charged with administering the domestic wastewater program in Florida pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes, implementing, as applicable, rules codified at Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-4, 62-302, 62-303, 62-520, 62-528, 62-600, and 62-620, and various industry standards and manuals incorporated by reference into DEP rules. DEP's proposed agency action to grant the Permit at Issue is the subject of this proceeding. Background and Overview Domestic Wastewater Regulation in the Florida Keys The State of Florida has recognized the need to protect the Florida Keys' unique, sensitive environmental resources. To that end, portions of the Florida Keys are designated, pursuant to statute and by DEP rule, as an Outstanding Florida Water ("OFW"). § 403.061(27), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(9). The Florida Legislature also designated the Florida Keys an Area of Critical State Concern. § 380.0552, Fla. Stat. A stated purpose of this designation is to protect and improve the Florida Keys nearshore water quality through construction and operation of wastewater facilities that meet the requirements of section 403.086(10). Additionally, the Florida Legislature has enacted section 403.086(10), which addresses the discharge of domestic wastewater in the Florida Keys. That statute finds that the discharge of inadequately treated and managed domestic wastewater from small wastewater facilities and septic tanks and other onsite systems in the Florida Keys compromises the coastal environment, including the nearshore and offshore waters, and threatens the quality of life and local economies that depend on these resources. Section 403.086(10) directs that after December 31, 2015, all new or expanded domestic wastewater discharges must comply with the treatment and disposal requirements of the statute and DEP rules. Specifically, domestic wastewater treatment facilities having design capacities greater than or equal to 100,000 gallons per day must provide basic disinfection of the wastewater pursuant to DEP rule and must treat the wastewater to a level of treatment, which, on a permitted annual average basis, produces an effluent that contains no more than the following concentrations of the specified constituents: Biochemical Oxygen Demand ("CBOD5") of 5 milligrams per liter ("mg/L"); Suspended Solids of 5 mg/L; Total Nitrogen, expressed as N of 3 mg/L; and Total Phosphorus, expressed as P of 1 mg/L. Collectively, these effluent standards constitute the "advanced wastewater treatment" ("AWT") standards. Section 403.086(10)(e) also imposes requirements regarding disposal of treated domestic wastewater effluent through underground injection. Section 403.086(10)(e)1. requires Class V injection wells serving domestic wastewater treatment facilities having design capacities of less than one million gallons per day (hereafter "MGD") to be at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet, or to such greater cased depth and total well depth as may be required by DEP rule. Section 403.086(10)(e)2. requires Class V injection wells serving wastewater treatment facilities with design capacities greater than or equal to 1 MGD, excluding backup wells, to be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet or to such greater depth as may be required by DEP rule. The Existing Wastewater Facility KWRU currently is permitted, pursuant to Permit FLA014591 (the "Existing Permit"), to operate a domestic wastewater facility (the "Existing Wastewater Facility" or "Facility")3/ located at 6630 Front Street, Stock Island, Florida. Stock Island is located immediately east and slightly north of Key West. By way of background, KWRU's domestic wastewater system currently consists of three elements: a collection system, which collects wastewater from serviced properties; a transmission system, which transmits wastewater from the collection system to the treatment plant; and the Existing Wastewater Facility, which treats the wastewater and then sends it either as reclaimed water for reuse as irrigation water at the Key West Golf Club, or for toilet flushing or air conditioning makeup water at other facilities specified in the Existing Permit,4/ or disposes of it as treated effluent through two underground injection wells. No modifications to the collection or transmission systems have been proposed or challenged. Thus, only the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility are at issue in this proceeding. The Existing Wastewater Facility serves residential and commercial properties located on Stock Island, Florida, immediately adjacent to Key West in the lower Florida Keys. Specifically, the Facility treats domestic wastewater originating from approximately 1,416 existing residential connections and 216 commercial connections. The commercial connections consist of a convalescent center, a college, restaurants, recreational vehicle parks, an animal clinic, and a hospital. There are no industrial wastewater contributors to the Facility. The Facility includes a Category III, Class C wastewater treatment facility operating under the Existing Permit. It is staffed by a Class C or higher operator for six hours a day, seven days per week, in accordance with the Existing Permit and applicable DEP rules. The Facility has a design capacity and a permitted capacity5/ of .499 MGD annual average daily flow ("AADF") and consists of two treatment trains having capacities of .249 MGD and .250 MGD AADF. These treatment trains are piped together to allow operation of the Facility as a single plant. The Facility was upgraded in the mid-2000s and is capable of treating influent wastewater to AWT. However, as authorized under the Existing Permit, the Facility currently treats domestic wastewater to secondary standards, which do not impose nitrogen or phosphorous limits. Under the Existing Permit and in accordance with section 403.086(10), the Facility is not required to meet AWT standards until January 1, 2016. Vacuum and gravity collection systems collect the domestic wastewater from the properties that KWRU services. Wastewater influent from the collection systems flows through the transmission system to a splitter box at the KWRU property, where it is sent to the Facility for treatment. The Facility contains two treatment trains, each consisting of a bar screen, an equalization tank, an aeration tank, an anoxic zone, a post-aeration basin, a clarifier, a silica sand/river rock filter, and a chlorine contact chamber. The bar screens, which constitute the first step in the treatment trains, remove floatables from the wastewater stream. After passing through the bar screens, the wastewater drops into two equalization tanks. As their name indicates, the equalization tanks smooth out the peaks in wastewater flow to the Existing Wastewater Facility. Specifically, wastewater flows to the Facility in large volumes during two periods each day, morning and evening, corresponding with peak water use by the serviced properties. During these large flow volume periods, the equalization tanks fill up with sewage influent, which is meted out during lower-flow periods for treatment by the Facility. In this manner, the Facility treats roughly the same amount of wastewater per hour, which is key to the steady state operation of, and the reliable treatment of the wastewater by, the Facility. From the equalization tanks, the wastewater is directed to the three-stage bioreactor portion of the treatment process. Microorganisms are utilized at each stage to break down the waste. The first stage of the bioreactor process occurs in the aeration basins. Here, wastewater enters the fine-air zone, where it and the microbes used in this stage of the treatment process come into contact with tiny oxygen bubbles. The microorganisms use the oxygen to oxidize the waste and complete the ammonification of the wastewater. The wastewater then passes through bulkheads to the anoxic zones, where the oxygen level is extremely low. In the anoxic zones, bacteria denitrify, or remove nitrogen from, the wastewater. The wastewater is then sent to the post-aeration basins, where excess carbon is removed through oxidation. Thereafter, the wastewater is sent to the clarifiers, where the microorganisms settle out of the wastewater to form a solid precipitate on the bottom of the tank. The precipitate is plowed into a sump and returned by pump to the bioreactors, where the microorganisms are reused in the activated treatment process. When the microorganisms cease to optimally function in treating the waste, they are culled from the treatment process and sent to a digester, where they oxidize, through the endogenous decay process, to the point that they die and only their endoskeletons remain. Sludge, consisting of the endoskeletons and water, is pumped to a sand filter drying bed. The filtrate water is pumped back through the Wastewater Facility to be reused in the wastewater treatment process, while the dried endoskeletons, which are termed "biosolids," are transported offsite for disposal in a Class I landfill. The treated, clarified wastewater is pumped through sand/rock filters, then to the chlorine contact chambers where it is exposed to a minimum of 15 minutes of chlorine disinfection. As noted above, the Existing Permit authorizes the reuse of reclaimed water for, among other uses, irrigation by land application at the 100.27-acre Key West Golf Club golf course. The golf course irrigation system consists, in part, of two unlined interconnected ponds that do not directly discharge to surface waters6/ and that have a storage capacity exceeding one million gallons. KWRU sends reclaimed water to the golf course through its reclaimed water reuse system only in the quantity required to meet the course's irrigation needs. The Existing Permit imposes a minimum residual chlorine level of 1 mg/L and a maximum of 5 mg/L turbidity for the treated wastewater to be considered reclaimed water that can be reused as irrigation at the golf course or as otherwise authorized in the Existing Permit. If the treated wastewater does not meet these standards, switchover/interlock equipment at the Facility disables the power to the pumps that send the reclaimed water offsite for reuse.7/ At that point, the treated wastewater is considered treated effluent.8/ The effluent fills the effluent wet well and is piped directly to the existing underground injection wells for disposal. Pursuant to the Existing Permit, the effluent is disposed of by gravity flow through two Class V, Group 3, ten- inch underground injection wells bored to a depth of 110 feet and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet. Collectively, the two injection wells have a maximum permitted capacity of .499 MGD AADF. As authorized by the Existing Permit, the underground injection wells discharge the effluent to Class G-III ground water within the Key Largo Limestone.9/ The underground injection wells are not the primary means of disposal for the treated wastewater, in the sense that they are used to remove effluent from the Facility only if and when reclaimed water is not needed by the golf course or the other receiving facilities, or when the treated wastewater does not meet the required residual chlorine and turbidity limits discussed above. The Existing Permit and the activities authorized thereunder are not at issue in this proceeding. Activities Authorized by the Permit at Issue The Permit at Issue proposes to authorize the construction of a new .350 MGD treatment train, which will increase the design capacity and permitted capacity of the plant from .499 MGD to .849 MGD AADF. The proposed modification of the Existing Wastewater Facility entails the addition of a 90-foot diameter tank containing an influent screen, a 105,554-gallon influent equalization tank, a 163,000-gallon aeration chamber, a 154,725-gallon post-anoxic chamber, a 35,525-gallon re-aeration zone, a 112,062-gallon clarifier, and a 317,950-gallon digester. The sand filters and chlorine contact chambers currently in use will be expanded to accommodate flows from the new treatment train, and the chlorine contact chambers will be changed to liquid bleach feed. The Permit at Issue also proposes to authorize the construction and operation of a new .499 MGD AADF underground injection well system consisting of two new Class V, Group 3 ten- inch wells, drilled to a depth of at least 110 feet and cased to a depth of at least 60 feet, which would discharge effluent to Class G-III ground water within Key Largo Limestone. When placed into service along with the two existing injection wells, the total design capacity and permitted capacity of all four underground injection wells would be .998 MGD AADF.10/ The existing reclaimed water reuse system for the Key West Golf Club or the other receiving facilities currently is authorized for a permitted flow capacity of .499 MGD AADF and a design capacity of 1 MGD AADF. The Permit at Issue would authorize the construction of a new reclaimed water reuse system having a permitted capacity of .849 MGD AADF; however, the design capacity of the system remains 1 MGD AADF, and the amount of reclaimed water sent to the golf course for reuse as irrigation is not being changed by the Permit at Issue from that currently authorized by the Existing Permit. Hereafter, the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility that are the subject of the Permit at Issue are referred to as the "Project." The expanded facility resulting from completion of the Project is referred to as the "Expanded Wastewater Facility." The Existing Wastewater Facility treatment trains will be modified to meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. Specifically, an alkalinity control system, a carbon injection system, and an alum injection will be added and certain aspects of the wastewater treatment process will be modified as necessary to meet the AWT standard. The new treatment train proposed as part of the Project will be designed to meet the AWT standards upon operation, which will not occur sooner than 2016. Accordingly, as required by section 403.086(10(d)1., all effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Treatment Facility will meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. As a result of conversion of the wastewater treatment process to AWT, and even assuming all treated effluent is injected down the wells, total nitrogen loading will be decreased from 58 pounds per day to 15.9 pounds per day and total phosphorous loading will be decreased from 14.4 pounds per day to 5.3 pounds per day. This is the case even though the volume of effluent disposed of through the wells may as much as double. Only the activities comprising the Project, which are the proposed to be authorized by the Permit at Issue, are the subject of this proceeding. The Permitting Process The overarching purpose of the wastewater facility permitting process, including permitting of modifications to an existing wastewater facility, is to ensure that the wastewater facility does not discharge wastes to any waters of the state without first being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of such waters. This is accomplished by requiring the facility to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable DEP rule standards, which incorporate industry standards. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 600.100(1). Similarly, the overarching purpose of the Underground Injection Well System permitting process is to protect the quality of underground sources of drinking water and prevent degradation of the quality of other aquifers adjacent to the injection zone that may be used for other purposes. This is accomplished by requiring underground injection wells to be designed, constructed, and operated in accordance with applicable DEP rule requirements and standards. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 528.100(1). The Wastewater Facility or Activity Permit Application Form 1, General Information, and Application Form 2A, Permit for Domestic Wastewater Treatment and Reuse or Disposal Facility, which are adopted by rule, are the forms that must be completed and submitted to DEP to receive authorization to modify existing wastewater facilities or construct new wastewater facilities. This form includes a list of requirements, some (but not necessarily all) of which apply to proposed modification of an existing wastewater facility. The form requires that a Florida- licensed P.E. certify that the engineering features of the project have been designed by the engineer in conformance with the sound engineering principles applicable to such projects, and that, in his or her professional judgment, the facility, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and the rules. The Application to Construct/Operate/Abandon Class I, III, or V Injection Well System, which is adopted by rule, is the application form that must be completed and submitted to DEP to receive authorization to construct and operate a Class V Injection Well System. This application form includes a list of requirements, some (but not necessarily all) of which apply to a specific underground injection well construction project. The form requires that a Florida-licensed P.E. certify that the engineering features of the injection well have been designed and examined by the engineer and found to conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application. By signing and sealing the application, the P.E. certifies that, in his or her professional judgment, there is reasonable assurance that the injection well, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules. Once the application forms are submitted, DEP permitting staff reviews the applications and determines whether items on the forms and any materials submitted to support those items are incomplete or need clarification. In that event, staff sends the applicant a Request for Additional Information ("RAI"), requesting the applicant to provide additional information to address incomplete or unclear aspects of the application. Once the applicant has provided information sufficient to enable DEP to review the application for issuance or denial of the permit, DEP determines the applications complete and reviews the project for substantive compliance with all applicable statutory and rule permitting requirements. DEP is authorized to issue the permit, with such conditions as it may direct, if the applicant affirmatively provides reasonable assurance, based on the information provided in the application, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of DEP standards or rules proposed in the application. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.070(1). If the applicant fails to provide such reasonable assurance, the permit must be denied. Conversely, if the applicant provides such reasonable assurance, the applicant is legally entitled to issuance of the permit. Engineering Design of the Project KWRU retained Weiler Engineering Corporation to design the proposed modifications to the Existing Wastewater Facility and the new underground injection well (again, collectively referred to as the "Project") and to prepare and submit the applications for the Permit at Issue to DEP. Edward Castle and Christopher Johnson prepared the applications for the Permit at Issue. As the applicant, Johnson signed the application documents as required pursuant to the application form. As the engineer of record, Castle signed and sealed the certifications in the application forms, representing that he was the engineer in responsible charge of preparing the Project's engineering documents. Castle's signature and seal on the application forms for the wastewater treatment facility expansion portion of the Project constitute his representation that he designed and examined the engineering features of the wastewater treatment facility expansion; that these features conform to sound engineering principles applicable to the Project; and that, in his professional judgment, the wastewater treatment facility expansion portion of the Project, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. Similarly, Castle's signature and seal on the application to construct the new underground injection wells constitute his representation that he designed the engineering features of these injection wells; that the injection wells conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application; and that in his professional judgment, there is reasonable assurance that the wells, when properly maintained and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent discharged through the injection wells meet AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. As previously noted, the design capacity of wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is proposed to be .849 MGD AADF. Castle selected this design capacity based on historic wastewater flows at the Existing Wastewater Facility and foreseeable projected wastewater treatment capacity demand in the future.11/ Specifically, to estimate future capacity demand, Castle considered development agreements, requests for utility service, the existence of scarified property and applicable development density, wetslips, recent property sales, and estimated and proposed in-fill development on Stock Island. He projected residential development wastewater treatment demand based on historic actual flow data from the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan ("Master Plan"), in conformance with the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, the so- called "Ten States Standards," a wastewater systems design and planning guidance document incorporated by reference in rule 62- 600.300(4). Additionally, Castle applied the estimated sewage flows codified in Florida Department of Health rule 64E-6.008, Table I, System Design Estimated Sewage Flows ("DOH Table I"), to estimate wastewater treatment demand for projected commercial and hotel development uses. Once Castle had projected wastewater capacity demand for residential and hotel/commercial uses at buildout on Stock Island, he factored in an additional 15 percent capacity safety factor to derive the .849 MGD AADF design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Castle chose AADF, rather than the maximum monthly average daily flow or three-month average daily flow, as the timeframe for the design capacity based on historical flow amounts to the Existing Wastewater Facility and because of insignificant seasonal variations in historical flows to the Facility.12/ This is because the population on Stock Island contributing flow to the Existing Wastewater Facility is largely comprised of non-seasonal residents and commercial operations.13/ Nonetheless, to ensure the Expanded Wastewater Facility will have adequate capacity to effectively treat wastewater to the required standards during higher flow periods that may result from non- residential seasonal occupancy in the future, Castle assumed year-round, 100 percent occupancy for the projected hotel and commercial development on Stock Island in determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Castle estimated a peak hourly flow of 1.273 MGD for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. This figure estimates the maximum flow through the facility on an hourly basis specifically to take into account the diurnal variability of wastewater flow entering the facility. By definition, the peak hourly flow is a maximum hourly flow rather than the sustained flow or volume into or through the facility. The projected maximum hourly flow of 1.273 MGD, which was determined by multiplying the annual average daily flow by a peaking factor of 1.5, is an estimate of the maximum hourly flow wastewater coming into the Expanded Wastewater Facility's equalization tanks. Importantly, it is not the volume of wastewater flow, on an annual average daily basis, that will leave the facility's equalization tanks and flow through the facility's treatment process. Put another way, the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow is not the Expanded Wastewater Facility's design capacity. As previously noted, the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Facility also would be .849 MGD AADF. The permitted capacity is the amount, on an annual average daily flow basis, that the wastewater treatment portion of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is authorized to treat and discharge. This metric establishes an absolute limit, on an annual average daily basis, on the quantity of wastewater that can be treated by, and discharged from, the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Also as discussed above, once the two new underground injection wells are installed, the total design capacity of the four wells at the Expanded Wastewater Facility will be .998 MGD AADF. The two new injection wells are being added to ensure adequate disposal capacity for the .849 MGD permitted capacity and, importantly, to accommodate the peak hourly flow. The reclaimed water reuse system currently has an authorized design capacity of 1 MGD AADF, and this is not being changed by the Project, although the permitted capacity is being increased to .849 MGD AADF. As discussed in greater detail below, neither the design capacity nor the permitted capacity of the reuse system is a function of the irrigation application rate per acre of the golf course, and neither represent the amount of irrigation applied to the golf course per day. In determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle considered wastewater capacity demand for the facility through the year 2020, rather than over a 20- year period. This is because buildout of the properties on Stock Island that will contribute flow to the facility is reasonably projected to occur between 2018 and 2020. After buildout, there will be no additional properties being developed to contribute additional wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the proposed design capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate under rule 62-600.200(19) and other pertinent provisions in chapter 62-600 and conforms to sound engineering principles applicable to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that the proposed permitted capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate under rule 62- 600.200(62) and other pertinent provisions of chapter 62-600 and conforms to sound engineering principles applicable to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. The credible, persuasive evidence further establishes that the Project, when properly constructed, operated, and maintained, will comply with all applicable statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent meet the AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. The credible, persuasive evidence also establishes that the underground injection wells, as designed, conform to modern engineering principles applicable to the disposal of pollutants as proposed in the permit application; and that there is reasonable assurance that the wells, when properly constructed, maintained, and operated, will discharge effluent in compliance with all pertinent statutes and rules, including the requirement that the effluent discharged down the injection wells meet AWT standards as of January 1, 2016. DEP Review and Proposed Issuance of the Permit at Issue The wastewater treatment facility and underground injection well applications for the Project were submitted to DEP on April 15, 2014. During DEP's review of the applications for the Project, the question arose whether the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow stated in the permit application would trigger the so-called "deep well" requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. that the underground injection wells be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet. DEP ultimately concluded that the term "design capacity," as used in the statute, referred to an average daily flow rate14/ over a specified period of time——here, a year——for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, rather than the transient peak hourly flow for the facility. Thus, the Expanded Wastewater Facility does not have a design capacity exceeding 1 MGD, so the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. does not apply to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. DEP permit review staff issued one RAI, and KWRU timely provided the requested information. Upon receipt and review of KWRU's response to the RAI, DEP deemed the application for the Permit at Issue complete. DEP staff reviewed the permit applications for compliance with applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. DEP's review does not entail re-designing or re- engineering the project or questioning the design engineer's reasonable exercise of judgment on design matters, as long as the project is accurately designed based on sound engineering principles and will operate in accordance with the applicable permitting requirements and standards. Thus, as a matter of practice, DEP relies, to a large extent, on the design engineer's certification that the system is accurately designed according to sound engineering principles——as is appropriate and authorized pursuant to the certification provisions on the application forms, rule 62-4.050(3), and chapter 471 and Florida Board of Engineering rules.15/ Gary Maier, P.E., professional engineer supervisor III and supervisor of DEP's domestic wastewater facility permit review staff, also reviewed the applications, the Intent to Issue, and the draft Permit at Issue to ensure that the Project complied with all applicable rules and standards and that KWRU had provided reasonable assurances such that the Project should be approved. Ultimately, DEP determined that KWRU provided reasonable assurances that the relevant permit applications met the applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. Accordingly, DEP issued a Notice of Intent to issue the Permit at Issue. Establishment of Prima Facie Entitlement to Permit at Issue The relevant portions of the permit file, including the permit applications, supporting information, and Notice of Intent to Issue for the Permit at Issue, were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. With the admission of these documents into evidence, KWRU established its prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the Permit at Issue. See § 120.569(2)(p), Fla. Stat. Challenge to the Permit at Issue Once KWRU demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the Permit at Issue, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence proving their case in opposition to the Permit at Issue. See id. To prevail in this proceeding, Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove their case by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence. Petitioners have raised numerous grounds in the Second Amended Verified Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing16/ that they contend mandate denial of the Permit at Issue. Each of these grounds is addressed below. Alleged Permit Application Deficiencies Petitioners contend that the Permit at Issue should be denied due to alleged deficiencies in the applications submitted for the Project. Capacity Analysis Report Petitioners allege that, under rule 62-600.405, KWRU was required to submit a Capacity Analysis Report ("CAR") as part of its application for the Permit at Issue and that its failure to do so renders the applications incomplete, thus requiring denial of the Permit at Issue. The purpose of a CAR is to analyze capacity at an existing wastewater facility and to apprise DEP when it becomes evident that expansion of the wastewater facility may be needed. Specifically, the CAR is performed and submitted on a periodic basis, or when certain contingencies occur, to apprise DEP of the actual flows through the facility. If the actual flows are approaching the facility's permitted capacity, the CAR serves to notify DEP that expansion of the facility may be warranted. Thus, the CAR helps ensure that the permittee recognizes the need for, and properly plans for, future expansion of the facility. In support of their contention, Petitioners presented the testimony of William Lynch, a Florida-licensed P.E., who has experience in the planning and design of wastewater treatment facilities in Florida, including the Florida Keys. Lynch testified that the most recent three-month average daily flows reported to the DEP by KWRU repeatedly exceeded 50 percent of the permitted capacity of the Existing Wastewater Facility, thereby triggering the requirement in rule 62-600.40517/ that a CAR be submitted. KWRU previously submitted an initial CAR when the Existing Wastewater Facility historically exceeded 50 percent of its permitted capacity. Thereafter, KWRU submitted an updated CAR in April 2012, as part of the renewal application for the Existing Permit that KWRU filed in October 2011. The April 2012 CAR indicated that permitted flows would not be exceeded for ten years. Thus, under rule 62-600.405(5), a subsequent updated CAR would be due at five year intervals or when the applicant applied for an operation permit or renewal of an operation permit, whichever occurred first.18/ The persuasive evidence establishes that during the period between issuance of the Existing Permit in February 2012 and submittal of the applications for the Permit at Issue in 2014, the three-month average daily flows for the Existing Facility had not exceeded 50 percent of the treatment plant's capacity and the five-year interval CAR submittal interval (which would have expired in 2017) had not yet expired, so an updated CAR was neither required nor submitted. When development on Stock Island resumed in the 2012 through 2014 timeframe following an economic recession, it became apparent from actual flow data that the Existing Wastewater Facility would need to be expanded to accommodate the wastewater flow from new development, as well as to accommodate wastewater flow from existing development being required by law to connect to a central wastewater system. Accordingly, in April 2014, KWRU submitted the applications for the Permit at Issue. As part of KWRU's applications, the design and permitted capacity of the Existing Wastewater Facility were analyzed, and future wastewater flows for the facility were projected, taking into account all relevant factors, including projected development over an appropriate planning period, new connections from existing development, and the lack of seasonal variation in historic flows. Based on this information, the proposed design and permitted capacities for the Expanded Wastewater Facility were determined. This information is precisely that which would have been required in an updated CAR. Because all pertinent information necessary to determine the design and permitted capacities for the Expanded Wastewater Facility was submitted as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue, a separate CAR was not required and, indeed, would have been redundant and pointless. It should be noted that the Permit at Issue specifically requires submittal of a CAR upon renewal, which is five years from the date of issuance. Further, the Expanded Wastewater Facility is subject to chapter 62-600, including rule 62-600.405, so KWRU would be required to submit a CAR if circumstances specified in the rule were to occur.19/ Thus, Petitioners failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that a CAR was required to be submitted as part of applications for the Permit at Issue. Accordingly, the absence of a CAR as part of the applications is not a basis for denying the Permit at Issue. Deep Injection Well Requirement Petitioners contend that the design capacity for KWRU's wells exceeds 1 MGD, so KWRU was required under section 403.086(10)(e)2. to apply for approval to install deep injection wells——i.e., wells that are cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet. Petitioners further contend that KWRU's failure to include an application for deep injection wells in its applications thus mandates denial of the Permit at Issue. Under section 403.086(10)(e)1., injection wells serving wastewater facilities that have a design capacity of less than 1 MGD are required to be at least 90 feet deep and cased to a minimum depth of 60 feet. Under section 403.086(1)(e)2., injection wells serving wastewater facilities having a design capacity equal to or greater than 1 MGD must be cased to a minimum depth of 2,000 feet or such greater depth as may be required by DEP rule. As previously discussed, rule 62-600.200(19) defines "design capacity" as "the average daily flow projected for the design year which serves as the basis for the sizing and design of the wastewater facilities." The rule states that the design capacity is established by the permit applicant, and that the timeframe associated with the design capacity——such as annual average daily flow, maximum monthly average daily flow, or three- month average daily flow——also is specified by the applicant. Additionally, rule 62-600.400(3)(a), which is part of DEP's Design Requirements rule for domestic wastewater facilities, reiterates that the applicant establishes both the design capacity and the timeframe used to define its selected design capacity, with the caveat that the timeframe selected must reflect seasonal variations in flow, if any. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that KWRU's selected design capacity and timeframe ——here, .849 MGD AADF——accurately and appropriately addresses the projected wastewater flows that will be treated by the Expanded Wastewater Facility. As Castle credibly testified, historical flows to the Existing Wastewater Facility do not indicate substantial seasonal residential flow, consistent with the workforce population residing year-round on Stock Island. Moreover, to the extent there may be some seasonal flow variation associated with projected hotel and commercial development, Castle took that into account in determining the design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. For these reasons, Castle's selection of AADF as the design capacity metric is appropriate, conforms to sound engineering principles, and complies with applicable DEP rules. Further, as previously discussed, the 1.273 MGD peak hourly flow is exactly that——the peak or maximum flow expressed on an hourly basis——that can be processed by the Expanded Wastewater Facility. It does not constitute the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility, which, by definition, is the average flow over a specified period of time. The persuasive evidence in the record shows that the proposed design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility is .849 MGD AADF, and this design capacity is appropriate and based on sound engineering principles. As such, the design capacity of the facility is less than 1 MGD, so the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. does not apply to the Project. Thus, Petitioners failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. applies to the Project. Accordingly, they did not establish that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that KWRU did not apply for approval of deep injection wells as part of the applications for the Project. Identity of Permittee The Permit at Issue is proposed to be issued to Key West Resort Utilities Corporation, which is not an existing entity registered to do business in Florida or in any other state. Petitioners contend, and KWRU and DEP do not dispute, that a permit issued to an entity that does not legally exist cannot legally authorize any activities. Accordingly, to the extent the Permit at Issue is proposed to be issued to Key West Resort Utilities Corporation, Petitioners contend that this constitutes a basis for denying the Permit at Issue. At the hearing, DEP and KWRU presented credible evidence showing that the correct permittee is KW Resort Utilities Corp., not Key West Resort Utilities Corporation as was stated on the proposed Permit at Issue. Further, the permit applications correctly identify KWRU as the applicant for the Permit at Issue. Thus, identification of Key West Resort Utilities Corporation as the permittee on the proposed Permit at Issue was a typographical error, and the evidence establishes that this error will be corrected when the Permit at Issue is issued. If this typographical error is corrected, then the Permit at Issue should not be denied on this basis. Alleged Project Design and Engineering Deficiencies Petitioners allege that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance, based on a preliminary design report, plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, modification, or operation of the Expanded Wastewater Facility will not discharge or cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403 and applicable DEP rules. Petitioners further allege that KWRU has undersized the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility and that the appropriate design capacity is greater than 1 MGD, thus triggering the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. Projected Flows to Expanded Wastewater Facility In support of their position, Petitioners presented the testimony of William Lynch, a Florida-licensed P.E., who testified that the future wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility projected by KWRU in its applications are incorrect because they do not accurately address planned development in KWRU's service area, as required by the Ten States Standards. Lynch took the position that pursuant to the Ten States Standards, the appropriate planning horizon for the Project is at least ten years, which would require KWRU to project wastewater flow to the Expanded Wastewater Facility through approximately 2025, rather than through 2020, as projected in the applications for the Project. However, the persuasive evidence shows that KWRU utilized an appropriate planning horizon in projecting future wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility. KWRU's facility design engineer, Castle testified, persuasively, that although the graphic submitted in the application shows the projected wastewater flows only through the year 2020, the planning horizon he used actually was infinite. This is because the projected buildout of the service area20/ to maximum wastewater flow is anticipated to occur between 2018 and 2020, and after that point, wastewater flows to the facility would remain constant. Thus, it was pointless to depict projected flows out to the year 2025——particularly since the narrative in the application describing the Project makes clear that buildout of KWRU's service area is anticipated to occur by 2020. Because the wastewater flows projected for the year 2020 accurately represent the maximum flows that the Expanded Wastewater Facility can process, the projected planning horizon to the year 2020 is appropriate for the facility, complies with the Ten States Standards, and complies with DEP rules. Lynch also asserted that the projected wastewater flows to the Expanded Wastewater Facility from development identified in the application do not accurately apply the standards in DOH Table I and that this inaccuracy further contributed to underestimation of the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Lynch arrived at this position by applying Table I to all identified future development——both residential and nonresidential——and considering an additional development (Key West Harbor Yacht Club) not listed in the applications. He projected that the future wastewater flow from these developments would be approximately 146,110 gallons per day——approximately 46,000 gallons per day higher than the 100,000 gallons per day that Lynch claimed KWRU projected for the planned developments on Stock Island. Based on the addition of 46,000 gallons to KWRU's proposed design capacity of .849 MGD, Lynch opined that .895 MGD is the design capacity that should have been proposed for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. However, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that, in determining the design capacity of .849 MGD for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle accurately projected the wastewater flow quantities from future development on Stock Island. Castle described in detail the process he undertook to determine the projected wastewater flows from the various land uses and locations on Stock Island through projected buildout between 2018 and 2020. Specifically, he identified planned nonresidential development on Stock Island expected to begin producing wastewater flows in 2014 and applied the DOH Table I standards to determine the projected flows for each development. To determine projected wastewater flow from future residential development on Stock Island, Castle identified approximately 40 acres of scarified or under-utilized property in KWRU's service area and applied a density of 12 equivalent dwelling units ("EDU") per acre,21/ with 167 gallons per day of wastewater flow attributable to each EDU, using actual historic wastewater flow data from the Master Plan. Additionally, for each scarified or under-utilized property having water frontage, he projected one boat slip per 35 feet of frontage and applied a 75-gallon-per-day flow for each boat slip using DOH Table I recreational vehicle flows. For years 2016 through 2019, Castle projected incremental increases in wastewater flows per year22/ to account for potential development of other currently occupied properties. The aggregate of all projected flows from the identified developments, the 40 acres and boat slips, and the incremental increases per year through buildout yielded a projected wastewater flow of .74 MGD to the Expanded Wastewater Facility by years 2018 through 2020, which represents buildout flow to the facility. Castle then added a "safety factor" of 15 percent to the projected .74 MGD wastewater flow to accommodate currently unknown future redevelopment of existing occupied properties, to reach the .849 MGD design capacity. The 46,000-gallon discrepancy between Lynch's .895 MGD design capacity calculation and Castle's .849 MGD design capacity calculation is attributable to four basic differences in how they each determined design capacity. First, Lynch used more recent development agreement and development order information that more precisely identified and quantified specific land uses than the information that KWRU had available to it at the time it prepared and submitted its application. However, the evidence did not establish that the flow information on which Lynch relied and that on which Castle relied were so appreciably different as to significantly affect the projected design capacity for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Second, Lynch applied DOH Table I to project future wastewater flows from all future planned development on Stock Island, both residential and nonresidential, whereas Castle applied DOH Table I only to determine nonresidential development future flows, and used actual historic flow data from the Master Plan to determine residential development future flows. Castle's residential flow calculation using historical actual flow data conforms to the recommendation in section 11.242(a) of the Ten States Standards that actual flow data be used, to the extent possible, to predict future flows; thus, Castle's calculation likely more precisely projects future flow attributable to residential development on Stock Island.23/ Third, Lynch took into account the Key West Harbor Yacht Club flow into the Expanded Wastewater Facility, whereas KWRU did not consider this flow in projecting future flows to the facility. This omission constituted an oversight on KWRU's part, and the flow from this development should have been included in the wastewater flow projection for the facility. However, the persuasive evidence did not show that this omission constituted a significant error in KWRU's .849 MGD AADF design capacity projection.24/ Fourth, Lynch apparently misinterpreted a statement in the application referencing "such redevelopment" as referring to the known planned developments on Stock Island, which were specifically identified by name in the application, and, thus, interpreted the reference to 100,000 gallons as being the flow KWRU projected for those known, named developments. However, the persuasive evidence established that the 100,000 gallons that KWRU assigned to "such redevelopment" in its application referred not to the known, named developments identified in the application, but instead to presently unknown future development on Stock Island, which Castle took into account by including the 15 percent "safety factor" in determining design capacity. Pursuant to the foregoing, it is determined that KWRU demonstrated, by credible, persuasive evidence, that it accurately estimated future wastewater flows from projected development on Stock Island to determine an appropriate design capacity of .849 MGD AADF for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Design Capacity Timeframe Petitioners allege that the timeframe associated with the design capacity specified by KWRU——the annual average daily flow, or AADF——is not appropriate for the Expanded Wastewater Facility because it fails to reflect seasonal flows to the facility as required by rules 62-600.200(16) and 62-600.400(3)(a). Petitioners assert that the design capacity for the facility should instead be expressed in maximum monthly average daily flow ("MMADF") to account for seasonal flows. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Lynch, who opined that the KWRU service area experiences seasonal flows driven by the influx of tourists to Stock Island during tourist season. Lynch based this opinion on the wastewater flow data for the Existing Wastewater Facility for the year 2014, and his calculations showing that the three-month average daily flow ("ADF") for October through December 2014 was 11 percent higher than the AADF and that the MMADF for that period was 16 percent higher than the AADF. Lynch considered this variation substantial enough to indicate seasonality, so that MMADF is the appropriate design capacity timeframe for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Using MMADF as the design capacity timeframe, Lynch opined that the design capacity of the Expanded Wastewater Facility should be 1.04 MGD MMADF——which would trigger the deep well requirement in section 403.086(10)(e)2. Castle chose AADF as the timeframe for the Expanded Wastewater Facility design capacity because historical flow records over a period of years do not show significant seasonal variations in flow for Stock Island. Castle testified, credibly and persuasively, that while the historical flow data shows a consistent slight increase in flows from August to December, in his view, the variation is not significant enough to constitute a seasonal flow. This is consistent with the evidence establishing that Stock Island is a "bedroom community" having a mostly year- round workforce population. Lynch formulated his opinion regarding appropriate design capacity using 2014 flow data for the entire year, which was not available at the time KWRU filed its permit applications for the Project in April 2014. Although Lynch relied on more recent data, his opinion was based only on one year of data. By contrast, Castle selected AADF as the design capacity metric based on the previous five years of flow data, which showed variations in flow ranging between two percent and 12 percent on a three-month average daily flow basis. Castle credibly testified that these variations were not significant enough to indicate seasonal flows and did not closely correlate with tourist season in the Keys. Additionally, in calculating his flow projections for the Expanded Wastewater Facility, Castle assumed 100 percent year-round occupancy for residential units, so that his projected design capacity of .849 MGD necessarily took into account potential seasonal flows. Thus, to the extent there are seasonal flows, the facility simply will receive flows below the design capacity during off-season. The undersigned finds Castle's use of long-term historical flow data more reliable than Lynch's use of only one year of data in assessing whether there is flow seasonality.25/ DEP's wastewater permitting supervisor, Gary Maier, concurred that the variations in wastewater flow do not reflect a significant seasonal variation that would require the use of a smaller averaging period than AADF. Maier also observed that none of the wastewater facilities in the Florida Keys having a design capacity greater than 100,000 gallons per day has a design capacity based on MMADF. This evidences that Castle's selection of AADF as the timeframe metric conforms to the design capacity standard used for facilities of comparable size in the Florida Keys. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that KWRU's selection of AADF as the design capacity timeframe metric for the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriate and complies with DEP rules. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that KWRU's selection of AADF as the design capacity timeframe metric violates any applicable laws or rules. Accordingly, Petitioners did not demonstrate that the Permit at Issue should be denied on this basis. Ability of Expanded Wastewater Facility to Reliably Meet AWT Petitioners further allege that KWRU failed to provide a complete application demonstrating that the treatment processes for the Expanded Wastewater Facility will efficiently and reliably meet effluent limitations for design year flow. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that KWRU provided all of the information required for the applications for the Permit at Issue, so DEP correctly determined that the applications were complete before commencing its substantive review of the applications. Also as discussed above, Lynch opined that the proposed design capacity was undersized for the flows he projected for the Expanded Wastewater Facility. However, the persuasive evidence shows that KWRU's proposed design capacity of .849 MGD AADF is appropriate, conforms to sound engineering principles, and meets applicable statutory and rule requirements. In order to ensure that a wastewater facility functions effectively and reliably, it is important that the facility not be substantially oversized for the amount of wastewater flowing into the facility. In an over-sized facility, inconsistent timing of wastewater flow, lack of appropriate chemical environment for waste breakdown, and inadequate food supply for the microorganisms may lead to ineffective performance of the facility. A consequence of these imbalances is that undesirable microbes may populate the facility, causing incomplete solids settlement, overflow of solids downstream to the filters, and operational problems resulting in failure of the facility to treat wastewater to AWT standards. KWRU provided reasonable assurance, based on the proposed .849 MGD AADF design capacity and the other engineering features of the Project, that the Expanded Wastewater Facility is appropriately sized and will effectively and reliably treat the wastewater to AWT standards. Thus, Petitioners failed to prove that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it is undersized and will not reliably meet AWT standards. Key West Golf Club Reuse System Issues Petitioners contend that as part of the applications for the Project, KWRU proposes to send 1 MGD of reclaimed water to the golf course. Petitioners claim that, given an irrigated area of 100.27 acres and an average irrigation rate of .73 inches per acre per day, only 300,000 gallons of reclaimed water per day is accounted for by reuse as irrigation. On that basis, Petitioners allege that KWRU has not demonstrated that the 700,000 gallon-per-day balance of reclaimed water sent to the golf course will be reused for a beneficial purpose rather than being disposed. This contention is based on a misunderstanding of the structure and function of the reuse system. The 1 MGD flow stated in the permit application is the design capacity of the reuse system, which is not being changed by the Permit at Issue. Importantly, this figure does not quantify the amount of water that is or actually will be sent to the golf course or applied as irrigation to the golf course irrigated area in a single day. Rather, it represents the flow capacity to which the reuse system is designed.26/ The applications for the Permit at Issue do not propose any changes to the quantity of reclaimed water being reused, which is governed by the irrigated acreage at the golf course and the irrigation rate. These parameters are not being changed. As previously discussed, KWRU sends reclaimed water to the golf course only on an as-needed basis, where it is stored in the ponds until needed for irrigation. If the course does not need reclaimed water sent to the ponds, KWRU does not send the water. Thus, the golf course controls the amount of reclaimed water that is sent to the storage ponds. Although the permitted capacity of the reuse system is being expanded from .499 MGD AADF to .849 MGD AADF, the actual amount of reclaimed water sent to the golf course by KWRU is not anticipated to change because, as discussed above, the amount being reused for irrigation is not being changed. Since the amount of reclaimed water being reused for irrigation is not increasing, the reuse system is not being expanded. Thus, the evidence does not show that 700,000 gallons per day of reclaimed water will be sent to the golf course for disposal, inconsistent with rule 62-610.810(2), rather than being reused for a beneficial purpose.27/ Petitioners also assert that the increased permitted capacity of the reuse system constitutes a "new or expanded reuse or land application project," so that an engineering report and reuse feasibility study were required as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue, pursuant to rule 62-610.310(1). KWRU previously provided these documents when it originally applied for authorization of the reuse system. The credible, persuasive evidence shows that increasing the permitted capacity of the reuse system does not trigger the requirement to submit another engineering report or reuse feasibility study. This is because no changes to the structural components or operation of the reuse system facilities are proposed. As Castle credibly explained, and Maier confirmed, the relevant question in determining whether an engineering report is required is whether the land application rate and/or the irrigated acreage is being changed, which would increase the amount of reclaimed water being reused and, thus, would require expansion of the reuse system. As discussed, neither the irrigated area nor the irrigation application rate is proposed to change under the Project. Thus, neither an engineering report nor a reuse feasibility study are required as part of the applications for the Permit at Issue. Therefore, Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that KWRU did not submit a reuse feasibility or engineering report as part of its applications for the Permit at Issue. Alleged Surface Water Quality Violations by Injection Wells Petitioners allege that disposing of the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility through the injection wells will cause or contribute to violations of surface water quality standards codified in chapter 62-302. Petitioners further allege that, as a consequence, the discharge will violate antidegradation requirements in rules 62- 4.242, 62-302.300, and 62-302.700(1), and that the wells do not comply with the underground injection control rule requirement in rule 62-528.630(7), specific to Monroe County, that the wells not cause or contribute to surface water quality violations. Regulatory Status of Surface Waters in Stock Island Vicinity A significant portion of the surface waters in the Florida Keys, including those surrounding Stock Island and Key West, are classified as Class III surface waters pursuant to rule 62-302.400. Water quality criteria adopted by rule for Class III surface waters are established to protect fish consumption, recreation, and the propagation of a healthy, well- balanced population of fish and wildlife. As previously noted, certain portions of the Florida Keys, including the surface waters surrounding Stock Island and Key West, are designated an OFW. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.700(9)(i)13. No degradation of surface water quality, other than that allowed under rules 62-4.242(2) and (3), is permitted in an OFW. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(1). The narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62- 302.530(47)(a) states: "[t]he discharge of nutrients shall be limited as needed to prevent violations of other standards contained in this chapter. Man-induced nutrient enrichment (total nitrogen or total phosphorus) shall be considered degradation in relation to the provisions of Rules 62-302.300, 62-302.700, and 62-4.242, F.A.C." The narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62-302.530(47)(b) states: "[i]n no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna." These criteria apply in Class III surface waters, including the surface waters in and around the Florida Keys. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.531(1). Rule 62-302.531(2) requires DEP to numerically interpret the narrative nutrient criterion for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) and for nutrient response (chlorophyll- a). Where a site-specific numeric interpretation of rule 62- 302.530(47)(b) has been established, that numeric interpretation constitutes the primary standard applicable to that site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.531(2)(a). A range of natural factors affect nutrient loading for a given waterbody. Therefore, site- specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria generally are deemed more reliable than broadly applicable, non-site specific criteria. Estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b), consisting of nutrient values for nitrogen and phosphorus and a nutrient response value for chlorophyll-a have been adopted for many areas in the state of Florida, including the Florida Keys. These numeric interpretations——commonly referred to as "numeric nutrient criteria," or "NNCs"——are open water, area-wide averages. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.532(1). For the Florida Keys, seven Florida Keys Marine Nutrient Regions ("FKMNRs") have been identified and geographically delineated on a series of maps adopted by rule. For each of these FKMNRs, NNCs have been adopted for nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.532(1)(g). The NNCs for the Lower Keys Region and the Back Bay Region are germane to this proceeding. For the Bay Back Region, the NNCs are .009 mg/L for phosphorus, .25 mg/L for nitrogen, and .3 µg/L for chlorophyll-a. For the Lower Keys Region, the NNCs are .008 mg/L for phosphorus, 0.21 mg/L for nitrogen, and 0.3 µg/L for chlorophyll-a. These NNCs are expressed as annual geometric means that are not to be exceeded more than once in a three-year period.28/ The area of water extending from the shoreline out to 500 meters offshore in the Florida Keys is referred to as the "Halo Zone." DEP has adopted by rule a map delineating the Halo Zone. The NNCs applicable to surface waters in each of the FKMNRs currently do not apply to the surface waters in the Halo Zone. Thus, only the narrative nutrient criteria codified at rules 62-302.530(47)(a) and (b) apply to surface waters in the Halo Zone at this time.29/ Additionally, pursuant to chapter 62-303, the Impaired Waters Rule, DEP has identified and delineated spatial assessment areas in waterbodies based on homogeneity for multiple water quality parameters.30/ These assessment areas, called "Waterbody IDs" or "WBIDs," are delineated for purposes of assessing, through water quality sampling, whether the surface waters within the WBID are impaired——that is, whether they fail to meet one or more of the applicable water quality standards due to pollutants.31/ DEP has delineated several WBIDs, identified by number, in the Halo Zone surrounding Key West and Stock Island. The Halo Zone surrounding Stock Island comprises WBID 6014B, and the Halo Zone surrounding Key West consists of WBIDs 6014A and 8073A through 8073H.32/ The Back Bay Region, which is located north of Stock Island and outside of the Halo Zone, is designated as WBID 8074. The Lower Keys Region consists of WBID 8073, which is located northwest of Stock Island and surrounding Key West outside of the Halo Zone, and WBID 8079, which is located south of Stock Island outside of the Halo Zone. Water quality monitoring, consisting of sampling for a range of parameters, is conducted at monitoring stations within each of these WBIDs. At least one monitoring station is located within each WBID. This water quality sampling is conducted according to DEP's applicable standard operating procedures. The monitoring stations have collected nutrient and nutrient response data spanning a period of years. The data collected in 1995 through 2013 are pertinent to this proceeding.33/ The Keys RAP, which was prepared in 2008 and updated in 2011, prescribes specific management activities to be implemented to restore surface water quality in the Florida Keys, including eliminating cesspits and onsite septic tank systems and connecting wastewater generators to centralized wastewater systems that treat the wastewater to AWT standards. As authorized under rule 62-303.600, DEP determined that the Keys RAP provides reasonable assurance that the restoration goals for the surface waters in the Florida Keys will be achieved by ensuring that all management activities specified in the Keys RAP would be implemented for specified waterbodies by 2015. Accordingly, in February 2012, DEP approved and adopted the Keys RAP by Secretarial Order. Current and historic water quality data show that all WBIDs in the Keys, including those in the Lower Keys Region, Back Bay Region, and Halo Zone for the surface waters surrounding Key West and Stock Island, are not impaired for nutrients——that is, that the NNCs and narrative nutrient criteria, as applicable, are being met. Pursuant to sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, and rule 62-303.600, DEP has classified the Florida Keys WBIDs as Category 2 under the waterbody use attainment classification scheme34/ for nutrients and nutrient response. The classification of the Keys WBIDs in this category means that sufficient water quality data are available to determine that at least one designated use is attained. Thus, as authorized by section 403.067 and rule 62-303.600(2), DEP has placed the Keys WBIDs on the "Delist List."35/ This "de-listing" action recognizes that the Florida Keys WBIDs, including those in the Halo Zone, are not impaired for nutrients and chlorophyll-a. Subsurface Geology in Vicinity of Stock Island The parties agree that, as a general proposition, the ground water and surface waters are connected to each other in the Florida Keys. However, no evidence was presented showing a specific location or locations where ground water connects to surface waters. Although it generally is undisputed that, at some point, ground water connects to surface waters, the parties disagree regarding whether, where, and how long it may take for the injected effluent to reach surface waters. Petitioners contend that due to the local geology, the injected effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility rapidly reaches surface waters in the vicinity of Stock Island and that the increased discharge through the new injection wells will exacerbate and cause or contribute to surface water quality violations in the immediate vicinity of Stock Island and offshore. In support of this position, Petitioners presented the testimony of Scott Zednek, a Florida-licensed P.G. Zednek opined that due to the absence of subsurface sediments that would prevent upward flow to surface waters, the buoyant freshwater effluent injected down the wells will rapidly vertically migrate through the highly transmissive Key Largo Limestone and Miami Limestone to reach surface waters. To develop his opinion, Zednek reviewed a Florida Geological Survey boring log ("FGS Log") approximately one-third mile from the Existing Wastewater Treatment Facility and a Universal Engineering Services geotechnical study boring log ("UES Log") performed on the KWRU site. The FGS Log was prepared specifically to analyze the subsurface geology. The UES Log was performed as part of a geotechnical study to analyze subsurface conditions onsite specifically for the purpose of determining the load-bearing capability of the KWRU site to support a concrete water tank. As such, the FGS Log provides a more precise view of the subsurface geology in the vicinity of the KWRU site.36/ Based on the UES Log, Zednek opined that there are no confining layers underlying the KWRU site. The UES Log for the site shows N-values, generated using an ASTM-designated process for determining the resistivity or strength of the subsurface, of between two and 43 for the first 60 feet of sediment below the surface. According to Zednek, an N-value of less than 50 indicates lack of a confining layer. Further, his review of the UES Log did not show the presence of Q-layers, which may function as semi-confining layers, or aquitards, that would substantially restrict the movement of fluid, including the injected effluent.37/ Based on the UES Log, Zednek opined that the limestone underlying the site is fractured, creating vertical pathways for the injected effluent to migrate upward to the surface. Zednek testified that the Key Largo Limestone, into which the effluent is injected, is very porous and highly transmissive, facilitating rapid migration once the effluent is injected. Based on his review of the FGS Log, Zednek testified that a Q-layer first appears at approximately 62 feet below the ground surface——below the depth of the injection wells' casing—— so it would not act as a confining layer for the injected effluent. Zednek further observed that this Q-layer is only 1.5 centimeters thick. In his experience, this thickness is not sufficient to create a confining or semi-confining layer. Zednek thus opined that the subsurface geology at the KWRU site will enable and facilitate vertical migration of the injected effluent to surface waters. Zednek also noted the proximity of the Safe Harbor channel cut. He opined that the injected effluent likely would horizontally migrate through the highly transmissive Key Largo Limestone,38/ then vertically migrate to surface waters through the "path of least resistance" at the Safe Harbor channel cut. As further support for his opinion, Zednek cited an interim report summarizing results of a subsurface dye tracer study performed for the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority regional wastewater treatment facility. The study's purpose was to determine whether the subsurface geology at the Cudjoe Key location was sufficiently confining to prevent vertical migration of the injected effluent from shallow injection wells proposed at that facility. According to Zednek, the interim report showed that the subsurface at the injection site was not sufficiently confining to prevent the injected effluent from rapidly vertically migrating to surface waters. Petitioners also presented the testimony of John Paul, Ph.D., in support of their contention that the injected effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility would rapidly rise through the subsurface limestone up into surface waters. Dr. Paul testified regarding viral tracer studies he had conducted at Long Key, approximately 65 miles east-northeast of Stock Island, and at the Saddlebunch Keys, located approximately 20 miles east- northeast of Stock Island. In conducting these studies, Paul injected bacteriophage viruses into Class V wells and tracked their movement into surface waters. In the Long Key study, the injected viruses moved through the subsurface limestone to the south-southeast and appeared in surface waters in deep canals on the ocean side of U.S. 1 approximately 53 hours after injection. In the Saddlebunch Keys study, the viruses also appeared in surface waters some distance south-southeast of the location at which they were injected.39/ Paul acknowledged that when the viruses appeared in surface waters, they were detected at a concentration of one trillionth (.0000000000001 or 1 x 10-12) less than the concentration in which they had been injected, indicating significant dilution by ground water and/or surface waters. He also acknowledged that canals dredged to depths shallower than the injected depth may not facilitate rapid migration of the injected effluent to surface waters. In rebuttal, KWRU presented the testimony of Michael Alfieri, a Florida-licensed P.G. who specializes in hydrogeology. Alfieri examined the FGS Log and UES Log, and also reviewed the detailed lithology logs and photographs for the FGS Log. Based on his review of this information, Alfieri opined that the FGS Log indicates the presence of semi-confining layers that function as aquitards in the first 60 feet of subsurface sediment. Alfieri noted that the existence of an aquitard depends on the nature of the geologic materials present at that location, so that N-values do not perfectly correlate with the presence or absence of confining layers. Thus, a carbonate silt or clay having an N-value of only two may better function as an aquitard than a porous, transmissive limestone having an N-value of 50, and silts or clays having a thickness as little as one centimeter may function as an aquitard to significantly impede fluid flow.40/ Based on his review of the FGS Log and the detailed lithology log descriptions and photographs for the FGS Log, Alfieri observed four laminated calcrete zones, six Q-zones, and chalky limestone within the first 60 feet——all of which would function as aquitards to impede the vertical movement of the effluent.41/ Thus, according to Alfieri, the effluent is anticipated to migrate laterally from the injection wells below these confining layers before migrating through a vertical pathway to reach surface waters at an unknown location. To predict the likely migration pathway for the effluent, Alfieri conducted hydrological modeling using a simplistic SEAWAT computer model. He used horizontal and vertical transmissivity values for the subsurface strata derived from geological studies previously conducted in the Florida Keys. Although these studies indicate greater horizontal than vertical transmissivity, Alfieri assumed equal vertical and horizontal transmissivity for modeling purposes——necessarily yielding more conservative results than would be anticipated to occur in real life. Accordingly, the modeling results showed more rapid vertical migration than would be anticipated in real life when the Q-zones and calcrete layers depicted in the FGS Log are considered. Even with these conservative assumptions, the modeling results showed the injected effluent migrating horizontally at least a mile offshore42/ before migrating upward to surface waters. The persuasive evidence shows that the injected effluent will be confined to the subsurface and will travel laterally a substantial distance before rising to surface waters at some unknown location or locations offshore. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence does not support the conclusion that the effluent will rapidly rise to the surface waters in the nearshore area in the vicinity of the KWRU site.43/ Narrative Nutrient Criteria Petitioners allege that the effluent injected down the wells into the ground water will reach surface waters, causing or contributing to a violation of the narrative nutrient criteria for surface waters codified in rules 62-302.530(47)(a) and (b).44/ In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of James Fourqurean, Ph.D., who has extensive experience in research on Florida Keys aquatic ecosystems in their healthy and imbalanced states. Dr. Fourqurean described these ecosystems in their healthy state and in their nutrient-enriched state. Florida Keys nearshore ecosystems normally are oligotrophic, which means they are nutrient-limited. Thus, they do not normally exhibit high chlorophyll-a levels and microalgae counts. When nutrient levels in the Florida Keys ecosystems increase——whether by increasing the concentration of nutrients in discharges or by increasing the volume of water containing nutrients——primary production, i.e., plant growth, increases. Seagrass communities are phosphorus-limited, so that when these communities are exposed to phosphorus-enriched water, the phosphorus is rapidly absorbed from the water column and is stored in the benthos.45/ This phosphorus capture initially leads to increased seagrass abundance, but as phosphorus enrichment continues, the community species composition rapidly shifts to favoring seaweed and microscopic algae, ultimately damaging or destroying the seagrass community. Coral reef communities similarly are nitrogen-limited. Thus, when coral reef communities are exposed to nitrogen- enriched water, they shift to algae-dominated communities——again, damaging or destroying the coral reef communities. Based on historical aerial photographs of the area surrounding Safe Harbor and his experience studying seagrasses in the Florida Keys, Fourqurean concluded that the natural seagrass populations in the entire Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary area, which includes the Stock Island area, are experiencing ecological imbalance. On the basis of the water quality sampling he conducted in and around Safe Harbor, Fourqurean opined that the imbalance is the result of man-induced nutrient enrichment. However, he did not engage in field studies in and around Safe Harbor, so could not cite specific examples where seagrasses had been replaced by algal-dominated communities in that area. Fourqurean noted that human waste contains high concentrations of phosphorus and nitrogen. In his view, because the effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility contains phosphorous, it necessarily constitutes a source of phosphorous in the surface waters in Safe Harbor, even though it is injected into ground water. However, he acknowledged the existence of numerous other sources of nitrogen and phosphorus in the Safe Harbor vicinity, including septic tanks, boat cleaning operations and pump outs, and storm water runoff. He further acknowledged that he did not know where or when effluent from the Existing Wastewater Facility (and, by extension, the Expanded Wastewater Facility) may reach surface waters. Fourqurean acknowledged that the Permit at Issue would authorize the injection of effluent treated to AWT standards into ground water, rather than directly to surface waters, and he further acknowledged that the total phosphorus and nitrogen loading from the Expanded Wastewater Facility would substantially decrease as a result of conversion to AWT, even though the volume of effluent discharged down the wells may as much as double. He remained concerned that the Expanded Wastewater Facility may contribute phosphorus——even in very small quantities——to surface waters, causing imbalance to seagrass communities. He also opined that when saline ground water and the fresher effluent mix, the resulting brackish solution would dissolve the calcium carbonate comprising the subsurface limestone, releasing stored phosphorus that would eventually reach surface waters and negatively affect nearshore seagrass communities, However, he acknowledged that depending on subsurface physical conditions and flow paths of the effluent, phosphorous, nitrogen, or both, may be completely removed prior to the effluent reaching surface waters. He further acknowledged that seagrass community health in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary has improved in the last two years and that water quality also has improved, reversing a ten-year decline. This is consistent with replacement of onsite septic tanks by central wastewater treatment systems in the Florida Keys. On rebuttal, KWRU presented the testimony of William Precht, who has extensive experience with Florida Keys geology and aquatic communities. Precht confirmed the existence of numerous sources of significant nutrient enrichment in the Safe Harbor vicinity other than the Existing Wastewater Facility, and noted that these sources must be taken into account when analyzing nutrient enrichment in Safe Harbor. He testified that raw wastewater is particularly deleterious to benthic communities. Thus, connecting wastewater generators that currently use septic tanks to central wastewater treatment systems can significantly improve water quality. Precht observed that Fourqurean's single-day sampling in the Safe Harbor area provided information regarding variability in nutrient concentrations, but characterized Fourqurean's conclusion that the Existing Wastewater Facility was the source of the nutrients as "unscientific" because it was based on supposition rather than on testing. He opined that the limited data set gathered over a one-day period could not reliably identify the source of nutrient enrichment in Safe Harbor. Precht testified that flushing capability is a key influence on nutrient concentration in surface waters. The further from a natural marine environment that water quality testing is performed, the more likely water quality will be poor due to nutrient enrichment from land-based sources. Given the configuration of Safe Harbor, water quality would be poorest in the interior dead-end canals and would steadily improve as one moved into more open water and flushing increased, with the highest water quality in open waters outside the canal system. Precht opined that the presence of noxious benthic plant life in the Safe Harbor vicinity may be attributable the destruction of seagrass communities in the area by historical dredging, rather than due to nutrient enrichment. Based on the reduction in total nitrogen and total phosphorus loading as a result of implementing AWT, Precht opined that the proposed discharge will not negatively affect the biological communities in the Safe Harbor vicinity. He further opined that due to the rapid uptake of phosphorus in the marine environment and due to denitrification that occurs in ground water and in marine surface waters, there is little chance that any nutrient loading that may result from the injected effluent would cause damage to the coral reef environment. Also on rebuttal, Alfieri persuasively testified that although phosphate release does occur when freshwater is injected into limestone that formed in a saline environment, this process gradually occurs over "geologic time"——that is, over millions of years. Therefore, he did not anticipate a significant release of phosphate from the subsurface limestone as a result of the effluent discharge. Also, limestone rapidly absorbs phosphorous, so phosphorus in the injected effluent would be absorbed quickly by the subsurface limestone.46/ Further, in any event, the effluent will be diluted by at least seven orders of magnitude——that is, one hundred millionth (.00000001)——of the injected concentration by the ground water, and/or by surface waters (assuming the effluent eventually reaches surface waters). As discussed above, the Keys RAP was prepared in 2008 and updated in 2011. The Keys RAP prescribes specific management activities to be implemented to restore surface water quality in the Florida Keys, including eliminating cesspits and onsite septic tank systems and connecting wastewater generators to centralized wastewater systems that treat the wastewater to AWT standards. Pursuant to the Impaired Waters Rule and DEP's adoption of the Keys RAP, activities that are consistent with the Keys RAP are considered to provide reasonable assurance that the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b) will be met. As discussed above, the Project will expand a centralized wastewater treatment plant that will accept, and treat to AWT standards, wastewater generated by development on Stock Island——including development that currently relies on onsite septic tanks for wastewater disposal. The Project is consistent with the Keys RAP, so there is reasonable assurance that the Project will meet the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b). The persuasive evidence shows that the Project will not cause or contribute to alterations of nutrient concentrations in water bodies so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Thus, Petitioners failed to show that the Project will cause or contribute to violation of the narrative nutrient criterion in rule 62-302.530(47)(b). Further, for the reasons discussed below, it also is determined that the Project will not violate the narrative nutrient criterion codified at rule 62-302.530(47)(a). Numeric Nutrient Criteria Petitioners also allege that the effluent will cause or contribute to violation of the estuary-specific numeric interpretations of the narrative nutrient criteria for the Back Bay nutrient region, codified at rule 62-302.532(1)(g)1., and the Lower Keys nutrient region, codified at rule 62-302.532(1)(g)3. In support, Petitioners cite the results of surface water sampling performed by Fourqurean in the Safe Harbor area showing high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and chlorophyll-a. Petitioners contend that these high nutrient levels evidence that the existing injection wells already are causing or contributing to surface water quality violations in the waters surrounding Stock Island, and that the increased effluent discharge from the proposed new injection wells will exacerbate this situation, further causing or contributing to violations of surface water quality standards. In preparing his opinion regarding the effect of the proposed injection wells on surface water quality, Fourqurean sampled surface water quality on one day at nine stations located in the vicinity of Stock Island, ranging from shallow waters inside the Safe Harbor basin to deeper waters offshore. Samples were collected at the surface and at a depth of one meter below the surface following the standard operating procedures for water quality sampling established by the Florida Keys Water Quality Protection Program. Fourqurean testified that the samples collected at the stations inside the Safe Harbor basin and near the shore of Stock Island showed very high levels of chlorophyll-a, evidencing that these areas are dominated by microalgae and, thus, are eutrophic. Additionally, the samples collected inside the Safe Harbor basin exhibited very high phosphorus concentrations—— almost three times greater than the estuary-specific numeric nutrient criterion for phosphorus. Phosphorus concentrations correspondingly decreased as samples were collected outside of the basin and offshore. Nitrogen concentrations followed a similar pattern in the sampling that Fourqurean conducted inside and outside of the Safe Harbor basin. According to Fourqurean, the high nutrient concentrations in the samples taken in Safe Harbor, when compared to the lower concentrations in samples taken outside of Safe Harbor, evidence the existence of a large source of phosphorous and nitrogen in Safe Harbor——in his view, the Existing Wastewater Facility. However, Fourqurean acknowledged that there are many potential nutrient enrichment sources on Stock Island, including fishing operations, boat sewage pump-outs, and direct discharges of storm water to surface waters. He further acknowledged that the specific source of phosphorus and nitrogen in the surface waters surrounding Stock Island cannot be identified. He did not opine as to the relative amounts of nutrients in surface waters that he believes are being contributed by the Existing Wastewater Facility or that will be contributed by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, as compared to other nutrient sources in the Safe Harbor area. He also acknowledged that a scientifically-valid water quality study would require more than a single day of sampling.47/ Kenneth Weaver, environmental administrator for DEP's Standards Development Section,48/ credibly and persuasively testified, and the water quality data for nutrients and chlorophyll-a collected in the WBIDs surrounding Key West and Stock Island show, that the surface waters in these WBIDs meet the applicable NNCs.49/ Historical water quality data also show that since 2008, the surface waters in these WBIDs continuously have met the baseline concentrations on which the NNCs were established and adopted. Even with the increased volume of wastewater treated by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, implementation of the AWT standard by the facility's wastewater treatment trains will substantially reduce the amount of total nitrogen and total phosphorus discharged into ground water through the injection wells. Specifically, for total nitrogen, the concentration will be reduced from 13.92 mg/L to 2.25 mg/L, and the total amount of nitrogen loading will be reduced from 58 to 15.9 pounds per day, representing a total net reduction of 72.4 percent in the discharge of total nitrogen. For total phosphorus, the concentration will be reduced from 3.47 mg/L to .75 mg/L, and the total amount of phosphorus loading will be reduced from 14.4 to 5.3 pounds per day, representing a total net reduction of 63.3 percent in the discharge of total phosphorus.50/ Weaver addressed the effects of these projected nutrient discharge concentrations on the surface waters in WBIDs 8074 and 8079, which comprise the portions of the Lower Keys Region and Back Bay Region closest to the KWRU site. He opined that, because these regions are currently meeting the applicable NNCs for nitrogen and phosphorus, and because KWRU's implementation of AWT will result in substantial reduction of total nitrogen and phosphorus loading, the NNCs will continue to be met in these regions——even in a "worst-case" scenario that assumes all of the treated effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility is disposed of through the injection wells and reaches the surface. The persuasive evidence shows that the Project will not cause or contribute to violations of the applicable numeric nutrient criteria. Thus, Petitioners failed to show that the Project will cause or contribute to violation of the applicable numeric nutrient criteria in rule 62-302.532(1)(g)1. and 3. Surface Water "Free-From" Standards Petitioners allege that the effluent contains iron and copper above detection limits, as well as personal care products and pharmaceuticals, and that these constituents violate rules 62-302.500(1)(a)5. and 62-302.530(61). Rule 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. requires all surface waters of the state to be free from domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man- induced non-thermal components of discharges which, alone or in combination with other components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal), are present in concentrations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species, unless specific standards for such components are established by rule. Rule 62-302.530(61) effectively requires surface waters to be free from substances in concentrations which injure, are chronically toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavioral response in humans, animals, or plants. These rules collectively comprise the "free-from" standards for surface waters. Petitioners presented no evidence to substantiate the allegation that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will contain pharmaceuticals or personal care products. However, even assuming these constituents were present in the effluent, Petitioners did not present evidence showing that they are carcinogenic; mutagenic; or teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species; or that they are injurious or chronically toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavioral response, in humans, animals, or plants. Petitioners did not present evidence showing that the effluent contains copper and iron in quantities that violate any applicable surface water quality standards, including the surface water "free-from" standards. Paul testified, based on sampling he conducted at domestic wastewater outfalls discharging directly to surface waters, that effluent treated to AWT standards often contains pathogenic bacteria and viruses that constitute threats to human health. On this basis, he opined that even though the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility is treated to AWT, it may contain pathogenic constituents that are harmful to human health. However, as previously discussed, the evidence shows that the effluent discharged through KWRU's injection wells will be substantially diluted by groundwater, and also by surface waters to the extent it reaches surface waters at some unknown location. Accordingly, the results of Paul's pathogen studies cannot be extrapolated to conclude that KWRU's effluent also will contain pathogenic bacteria and viruses in such amounts as to constitute a threat to human health. Petitioners failed to show that the effluent disposed of in the injection wells will cause or contribute to violations of the surface water quality standards in rules 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. and 62-302.530(61). Dilution to Meet Surface Water Quality Standards Petitioners allege that KWRU is relying on dilution of the effluent in order to meet surface water quality standards without having been permitted for a mixing zone, in violation of rule 62-302.500(1)(c).51/ This contention lacks merit. As discussed in detail above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the effluent discharged through the injection wells will not violate water quality standards for and parameters, including for nutrients, and will not cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards. The credible, persuasive evidence establishes that once injected, the effluent will horizontally migrate a considerable distance before it may migrate vertically to reach surface waters. The parties generally agree that ground water and surface waters are "connected" in the Florida Keys. To that point, although it appears likely that at some point the effluent will reach surface water, the evidence does not establish that is an absolute certainty. Nonetheless, even assuming the effluent would reach surface waters at some unknown location and time, the persuasive evidence shows that it would be so substantially diluted by the ground water that it would neither cause nor contribute to violations of surface water quality standards. Further, the persuasive evidence, consisting of Weaver's "worst case" analysis of nutrient loading from the effluent discharge, which assumed no dilution by ground water, establishes that even if the effluent——which will be treated to AWT standards——were discharged directly into surface waters, it would meet the applicable nutrient criteria. Finally, Petitioners' claim assumes that the effluent will be discharged into surface waters. However, as discussed above and in greater detail below, to the extent the effluent ultimately may be discharged to surface waters, such discharge would be indirect, so would not be subject to statutory and rule provisions requiring establishment of a mixing zone. For these reasons, Petitioners failed to prove that KWRU violated any applicable law or rule by not requesting and obtaining a mixing zone for the discharge of the effluent through the injection wells. Class V Injection Wells in Monroe County Petitioners also allege that issuance of the Permit at Issue violates rule 62-528.630(7), which requires all Class V Group 3 domestic wastewater injection wells in Monroe County to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the well will not cause or contribute to a violation of surface waters standards as defined in chapter 62-302. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the operation of the wells as authorized under the Permit at Issue will not cause or contribute to violations of surface water quality standards codified in chapter 62-302. Accordingly, Petitioners failed to prove that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it violates rule 62-528.630(7). Antidegradation Petitioners contend that the Permit at Issue must be denied because KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that the injection of effluent will not violate the antidegradation requirements applicable to surface waters codified at rules 62- 4.242, 62-302.300, 62-302.530(47)(a), and 62-302.700(1). This contention lacks merit. As more fully discussed below, the antidegradation requirements in these rules apply only to a direct discharge to surface waters, which is not present in this case. Here, the evidence clearly establishes that the injection wells do not directly discharge effluent into surface waters. It is undisputed that the effluent will be injected from the wells into Class III ground water, where it will migrate through the subsurface strata. Although it is likely that, due to a "connection" between ground water and surface waters, the effluent ultimately will reach surface waters at some unknown location or locations at some unknown time, this constitutes an indirect discharge, which is specifically excluded from the term "discharge of a pollutant." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-620.200(13). However, even if the antidegradation rules did apply to the discharge of the effluent through the injection wells, Petitioners failed to prove that the discharge would degrade surface waters. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence establishes that the surface waters in the Florida Keys, including those in and around Stock Island and Key West, currently meet the narrative and/or nutrient criteria, as applicable, and that effluent discharged through the injection wells will be treated to AWT standards, substantially reducing the facility's total nutrient loading below current levels. Thus, the credible, persuasive evidence established that, even in a "worst-case" scenario, which assumes no dilution of the effluent by ground or surface waters, the effluent still would not cause or contribute to a violation of the narrative or numeric nutrient criteria. As discussed above, the credible, persuasive evidence showed that, in fact, the effluent will be very substantially diluted by the ground water into which it is injected, and will be further diluted if and when it ultimately reaches surface waters. For these reasons, Petitioners failed to prove that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the disposal of the effluent through the injection wells would not degrade surface waters, in violation of rules 62-4.242, 62-302.300, 62- 302.530(47)(a), and 62-302.700(1). Alleged Violation of Ground Water Standards Petitioners allege that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the injection wells would not violate applicable ground water standards. Petitioners further allege that there is an underground drinking water source under Stock Island. In that case, more stringent ground water quality and injection well rule standards would apply to operation of the injection wells. Petitioners did not present any credible, persuasive evidence to support these allegations. The persuasive evidence establishes that although there is a fresh water lens under Stock Island, it is not classified as an underground source of drinking water52/ due to its substantial variability in horizontal and vertical extent, which renders the salinity levels highly variable. Thus, the ground water at Stock Island is classified as Class G-III ground water which is non-potable ground water having a total dissolved solids content of 10,000 mg/L or greater, or having a total dissolved solids content of 3,000 to 10,000 mg/L and having been determined to have no reasonable potential as a future source of drinking water or designated by rule as an exempted aquifer. Only the minimum criteria for ground water, known as the "free-from" standards, apply to Class G-III ground water. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-520.430(1). These criteria require that at all times and in all places, ground water be free from discharge components in concentrations that are carcinogenic, teratogenic, mutagenic, or toxic to humans; acutely toxic within surface waters affected by ground water; pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare; create or constitute a nuisance; or impair the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-520.400. There is no evidentiary basis on which to infer that the effluent from Expanded Wastewater Facility that is disposed through the injection wells will violate the free-from standards KWRU's many years of effluent monitoring at the Existing Wastewater Facility show that the effluent does not violate these standards. Further, David Rhodes, a Florida-licensed P.G. employed by DEP, credibly testified that a violation of the free- from standards necessarily would entail the presence of toxic materials in KWRU's effluent and that there would be immediate and dramatic effects on the flora and fauna at the golf course, where reclaimed water is reused for irrigation. Since such effects never have occurred, it is reasonable to infer that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will not violate the free-from standards.53/ Additionally, as previously addressed, the credible, persuasive evidence demonstrates that no surface water quality violations will result from installation and operation of the injection wells as part of the Expanded Wastewater Facility. Accordingly, the reasonable and beneficial use of adjacent waters will not be impaired due as a result of the injection wells. Petitioners also claim that due to inadequate treatment by the Expanded Wastewater Facility, the effluent disposed in the injection wells will contain unacceptably high levels of bacteria and viruses. The persuasive evidence establishes that KWRU provides high-level disinfection prior to injecting the effluent or sending the reclaimed water for reuse at the golf course. Historical monitoring data shows that KWRU's effluent complies with applicable microbial standards, and unrebutted evidence consisting of quality-related beach closure data for the Florida Keys, gathered as part of the Department of Health's Healthy Beaches monitoring program, indicates that no beach closings in the Florida Keys ever have been attributed to KWRU's Existing Wastewater Facility. Petitioners did not prove that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the injection wells authorized as part of the Project will not result in violations of applicable ground water standards. To the contrary, KWRU provided reasonable assurance that the effluent from the Expanded Wastewater Facility disposed in the injection wells authorized as part of the Project will not violate any applicable ground water standards. Alleged Water Quality Violations Due to Reuse System Petitioners allege that KWRU did not provide reasonable assurance that the storage of up to 1 MGD of reclaimed water in the reuse system storage ponds on the Key West Golf Club golf course will not cause or contribute to a violation of surface water quality standards and ground water standards. Specifically, Petitioners posit that, because the ponds are unlined, reclaimed water from the Expanded Wastewater Facility will leach from the ponds into the ground water and reach surface waters, violating surface water quality standards and ground water standards and negatively impacting human health through high levels of microbial pathogens, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products. Petitioners further allege that discharge of reclaimed water from the ponds into the ground water could mobilize constituents of concern from the Key West Landfill and a closed waste-to-energy facility, both of which are near the golf course, ultimately resulting in surface water quality standards and ground water violations. In support of these contentions, Petitioners presented the testimony of Scott Zednek, who testified that the reclaimed water, which is fresher than the surrounding ground water, may leach from the ponds into the ground water, and thereafter potentially may reach surface waters. According to Zednek, this leaching could occur because the ponds are unlined. Additionally, Zednek opined that, because there is a closed landfill near the golf course, the reclaimed water leaching from the reuse system ponds could mobilize and spread contaminants from the landfill. The persuasive evidence demonstrates that storage of the reclaimed water in the reuse system ponds will not result in violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. Although the golf course ponds are unlined in the sense that a high-density polyethylene or impermeable clay liner has not been installed on the bottom and sides of the ponds, over the years, marl has formed on the bottom and sides of the ponds, creating an aquitard that substantially confines the reclaimed water to the ponds, rather than allowing it to readily leach into the ground water. Further, the reclaimed water generally is less saline than the ground water underlying the course, so tends to "float" on top of, rather than readily mixing with, the denser, more saline ground water. Additionally, the evidence shows that years of historical ground water monitoring data obtained through monitoring wells on the golf course near the reuse system ponds showed no ground water standards violations as a result of storing reclaimed water from KWRU in the ponds.54/ Because the amount of reclaimed water being sent to the reuse storage ponds is not being changed by the Project, and the nutrient levels in the reclaimed water are being through AWT, there is no factual basis from which to infer that storage of the reclaimed water in the pond will result in violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. The persuasive evidence also does not support Zednek's view that reclaimed water leaching into the ground water from the storage ponds will mobilize pollutants under the nearby landfill. As discussed above, the persuasive evidence establishes that, due to the aquitard, there will be very little leaching of reclaimed water into the ground water, and even if such leaching did occur, there would be very little mixing of the reclaimed water with the more saline ground water. As such, there is no demonstrated factual basis on which to infer that reclaimed water will flow under, and mobilize and spread pollutants from, the landfill. Further, the evidence establishes that the predominant ground water flow direction under Stock Island is to the south- southeast. Since the landfill is located north of the reuse system ponds, any reclaimed water that did enter ground water would flow south-southeast, away from the landfill. Zednek also opined that if the storage ponds overflowed, the reclaimed water could run off into surface waters, resulting in surface water quality violations. However, the evidence establishes that KWRU will only send as much reclaimed water to the reuse storage ponds as the Key West Golf Club requests, so any assertion that the ponds will overflow is speculative. Further, even if the ponds were to overflow, Petitioners did not show that the reclaimed water would flow into surface waters, or that it would violate surface water quality standards if it were to flow into surface waters. Petitioners did not prove that KWRU failed to provide reasonable assurance that the storage of reclaimed water in the reuse system storage ponds at the Key West Golf Club will not violate any ground water standards. Stated another way, KWRU provided reasonable assurance that the storage of reclaimed water in the reuse system ponds at the Key West Golf Club golf course will not cause or contribute to violations of ground water standards or surface water quality standards. Applicability of AWT to Existing Wastewater Facility Commencing January 1, 2016, the two new treatment trains authorized by the Permit at Issue must meet the AWT standards. These treatment trains are authorized to treat wastewater to specified secondary standards through December 31, 2015. Petitioners assert that the Permit at Issue must be denied because the two new treatment trains should be required to meet AWT standards immediately upon operation, and that allowing the new treatment trains to meet secondary standards through December 31, 2015, violates section 403.806(10) and rule 62- 620.620(4). Sections 403.086(10)(c) and (d) expressly impose the AWT standards on all new or expanded domestic wastewater discharges after December 31, 2015. Accordingly, the Permit at Issue is completely consistent with the statute. Further, the Permit at Issue does not violate rule 62- 620.602(4). That rule requires a wastewater facility permit applicant to make certain specified demonstrations when a permit is renewed, revised, or reissued having a less stringent effluent limitation than contained in a previous permit. Although the Existing Permit states that the Existing Wastewater Facility has been modified to meet the AWT standards, it further states: "[t]he extended aeration process will be switched to the AWT nutrient removal system prior to January 1, 2016." The clear import of this statement is that the AWT standards are not required to be met until January 1, 2016, consistent with section 403.806(10). Because the Permit at Issue also requires the new treatment trains to meet the AWT standards commencing on January 1, 2016, the Permit at Issue does not impose a less stringent effluent limitation than that imposed by the Existing Permit; accordingly, KWRU is not required to make the so-called "anti-backsliding" demonstrations set forth in rule 62- 620.620(4). Furthermore, it is undisputed that the new treatment trains will not be constructed and operational before January 1, 2016; thus, as a practical matter, the new treatment trains must meet the AWT standards immediately upon going into operation. Thus, Petitioners have not shown that the Permit at Issue should be denied on the basis that it violates section 403.806(10) and rule 62-620.620(4). Petitioners' Standing As noted above, Petitioner Halloran, resides in Key West, Florida. His residence fronts on the water and he owns a boat. Halloran and his family use and enjoy the waters around Key West for swimming, fishing, kayaking, and other in-water recreational uses, eat local-caught seafood, and engage in nature photography. Halloran also owns rental properties that front on the water, and he owns and rents out dock space for houseboat mooring. He is a member of Last Stand. Halloran has challenged the Permit at Issue because he is concerned that the increased discharge of effluent from the Project down the injection wells will degrade the waters around Key West where he and his family engage in in-water recreational uses. He also is concerned that the increased effluent discharge, particularly nutrients, will harm the seagrasses, coral reefs, and the benthic communities in the waters around Key West. Halloran read the initial petition prepared and filed in this proceeding, and he skimmed the Amended Petition specifically to determine the changes from the initial Petition.55/ He acknowledges that he does not completely recall the entire contents of the initial petition or the Amended Petition. Petitioner Last Stand is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under Florida law. Naja Girard D'Albissin, a member of the Board of Directors of Last Stand, appeared on behalf of Last Stand. D'Albissin testified that Last Stand currently has approximately 105 members. Last Stand's mission is to promote, preserve, and protect the quality of life in Key West and the Florida Keys, with particular emphasis on protecting the natural environment. Last Stand historically has engaged in environmental advocacy directed toward governmental entities and engaged in litigation opposing activities that its members believe would harm the natural environment. In July 2014, Last Stand's Board of Directors voted to challenge the Permit at Issue. Respondent DEP stipulated that 52 members of Last Stand spend time or reside in Monroe County, 50 members enjoy the waters and natural environment of the Florida Keys, and 50 members believe that their use and enjoyment of the natural environment and economic interests in Monroe County will be adversely affected by the Project. Last Stand tendered, for admission into evidence, affidavits of some of its members attesting to the substantial interests they contend will be injured by the Project. However, Last Stand had refused to allow Respondents to engage in discovery regarding these members' alleged substantial interests; accordingly, the undersigned did not allow these members to testify at the final hearing.56/ The affidavits were excluded from admission into evidence as unsupported hearsay. See § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. Entitlement to Permit at Issue KWRU met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the Permit at Issue by entering into evidence the applications and supporting materials for the Permit at Issue for the Project. Additionally, KWRU presented persuasive, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that necessary to meet its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to demonstrate its entitlement to the Permit at Issue. Petitioners did not meet their burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p) in this proceeding to demonstrate that the Project does not meet all applicable statutory and rule requirements. Furthermore, on rebuttal, KWRU and DEP thoroughly addressed and rebutted the grounds that Petitioners allege justify denial of the Permit at Issue. The persuasive evidence demonstrates that the Project meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements. Accordingly, KWRU is entitled to issuance of the Permit at Issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the issuance of Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit FLA014951-012-DWIP and UIC Permits 18490-020 and 18490-021. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 2016.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Gate Petroleum Company (Gate) has provided reasonable assurances that Water Quality Standards will not be violated by the proposed modification of Gate's dredge and fill permit No. 160462149 and whether Gate has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification of that permit will not be contrary to the public interest, nor be the occasion of adverse cumulative impacts to water quality or public interest considerations so as to make this project contrary to the public interest.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Gate Petroleum Company, by and through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Gate Maritime Properties, Inc., proposes to construct a ship- berthing facility for two ships adjacent to Blount Island Channel, along the southeastern portion of Blount Island, in the St. Johns River, in Duval County, Florida. The proposed facility would provide for the berthing of two ships of the United States Navy Military Sea-Lift Command in conjunction with the mission of the Navy's Rapid Deployment Force. The proposed facility would be located along the southeasterly portion of "Cut A" of the Blount Island Channel and will consist of a "T-head Pier", a breasting dolphin and cat walk and two mooring dolphins. The pier would be connected to the land by an approach trestle. The facility involved will be constructed by the insertion of concrete pilings into the bottom of the Blount Island Channel and in the adjacent upland, which would support concrete decks and caps. Removal of dredged material will be necessary to accomplish the project and will be performed by a floating hydraulic dredge with associated "Cutter Head." The resulting dredged material would be disposed of in a diked spoil area on either Blount Island or at the Dayson Spoil Site adjacent to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. The Respondent Gate currently holds a DER dredge and fill permit, No. 160462149, authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged spoil and the installation of an associated 5,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead. The proposed installation of the pier and mooring facilities would result in a modification of that permit so that approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead and most of the related dredging will be unnecessary and not performed. Instead, approximately 7,100 cubic yards of dredging would be necessary, without the necessity for bulkheading. The remaining shoreline bulkhead and dredging authorized under the above permit would be rendered unnecessary and replaced by the addition of two additional T-head piers and associated dredging at some indefinite time in the future. The additional piers and dredging are not involved in this permit modification application and are not before the Hearing Officer at this time. The Blount Island Channel of the St. Johns River, the St. Johns River and Clapboard Creek are classified as Class III surface waters of the state pursuant to Sections 17-3.081 and 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. It has been established by stipulation of the parties that the proposed modification of the dredge and fill permit will not adversely affect navigation nor the flow of water in the Class III state waters involved. It is also stipulated that the proposed modification will not adversely affect historical and archaeological resources pursuant to Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. It is stipulated as well that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson spoil site will not violate water quality standards at the point of discharge in the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. On March 22, 1989, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation issued its intent to approve the proposed permit modification so as to allow the elimination of the previous requirement in the permit to monitor for copper at the site of the effluent discharge; the relocation of the Blount Island spoil site effluent discharge and the construction of a T-head pier on the southeast side of Blount Island adjacent to the Blount Island Channel. The Department did not initially grant the request to relocate the Dayson spoil site effluent discharge from the Corps of Engineer Channel (Dames Point Cut) to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. On January 31, 1986, Gate was issued permit No. 160462149, pursuant to Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, with an expiration date of January 31, 1991. It authorizes the dredging and filling on and adjacent to Blount Island referenced above. The permit authorizes those operations in two phases, consisting of new dredging of approximately 300,000 cubic yards in the existing slipway and test area to obtain a project depth of 40.2 feet mean low water. Maintenance dredging was authorized in the amount of approximately 1,850,000 cubic yards in the slipway to maintain the above-noted project depth. New dredging of no more than 3 million cubic yards from the northeastern and southern margins of Blount Island to a depth of 38 feet mean low water (MLW) and 20 feet MLW on the northeastern and southern portions of Blount Island respectively, with attendant maintenance dredging, was authorized. The permit also allowed he construction of shoreline bulkheads along the eastern and southern margins of Blount Island. That 1986 permit also required disposal of dredged material from both phases of the project into diked areas on Blount Island and the existing diked off-site disposal area known as the Dayson Site, near the mouth of Clapboard Creek. Effluent from both sites was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. Effluent from the Dayson site was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut or routed by pipeline to the Blount Island disposal site for additional treatment prior to discharge. All dredging under the 1986 permit was to be done via a suction, cutter-head dredge apparatus, with the speed of the cutter-head to be controlled so as to prevent excessive turbidity; and with all dredged material to be placed in diked areas, with the effluent discharge being conducted over adjustable weirs. The dredging of the approximately 7,100 cubic yards of material associated with the modification application at issue will be performed with the same type of equipment. Both spoil disposal sites have sufficient capacity for disposal of the material involved with the construction of the T-head pier. The effluent or "de-watering water" generated from the disposal of the dredged material at the Dayson on site will be discharged through a pipe under the St. Johns River to a point near the confluence of the Dames Point Cut and the Old River Channel. That material will consist of approximately 10 percent dredged solid material and 90 percent water. The Dayson disposal site is surrounded by dikes 24 feet high and 120 feet wide at their base. They are so constructed that there will be no discharge of effluent from the Dayson disposal site to Clapboard Creek. Since 1974, over four and one-half million cubic yards of material have been disposed of at the Days on site without any violation of state water quality standards in the creek or the adjacent salt marsh. The entire 7,100 cubic yards of dredged material, together with related water could be placed in the Dayson disposal site without causing any discharge. Gate Maritime Properties, Inc. has a five-year lease agreement with Leadermar, Inc. which will operate the T-head pier as a berthing facility for the two ships. The lease was scheduled to commence July 22, 1989. Under the terms of the contract awarded by the Navy to Leadermar, Inc., Gate, or its lessee, is required to maintain a 110 foot, safe working area surrounding the vessels for operation of tugs, lighterage vessels and fendering operations. The contract with the Navy does not require, however, that the safe working area be maintained at a depth of minus 32 feet "mean lower low water" as shown by Gate Exhibit 6 in evidence. 1/ Given the findings made infra., concerning the lack of adverse water quality or public interest impacts caused by the dredging, and the paucity of any attendant suspension of bottom materials in the operation of the ships to be berthed at the proposed facility, the issue of whether the contract with the Navy requires a depth of minus 32 feet "mean low water" or "mean low low water", a reputed difference of 1.03 inches according to the rebuttal exhibit of Respondent Gate, neither Gate's position nor the Navy's reputed position regarding this apparent contractual dispute item, if carried out, would have any adverse water quality or public interest impact in the context referenced in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. The fact remains that Gate has applied for authority to recede from the massive dredging project presently authorized in the existing permit, to stipulate by this modification application that it only seeks to dredge 7,100 cubic yards of material in the area involved. Based upon the depth established by the marine survey conducted by Bennett, Wattels and Associates, there will be an adequate safe working area for tug boats, fuel barges and lighterage vessels, as well as the ships themselves, for operations involving the berthing facilities. See Gate Exhibit 5 in evidence. If the requested modification is granted, Gate will not dredge more than 7,100 cubic yards of material for construction of the pier and related facilities and in order to provide a safe working area as required under Leadermars contract with the Navy. Indeed the amount of material to be dredged for the construction and operation of the T-head pier was based upon the above- referenced Marine survey, unrefuted evidence in this record. The volume of material was calculated by using the Marine Survey depths and the "average end area method," a widely accepted method of such calculation in the marine engineering and construction field. Further, Gate adduced the only substantial evidence in this record concerning the issue of the amount of dredging involved or the extent of the dredged area, as that relates to the "safe working area" and other issues. Water Quality Gates' consulting experts performed various chemical and sediment analyses in the project area in order to establish a general composition of bottom sediments and to establish the likelihood of suspension of any toxic substances or pollutants in those sediments as a result of the dredging operation or the operation of the ships and berthing facilities. Those analyses, and their results, in evidence in this record, were unrefuted. The bottom sediments in the vicinity of the project area are predominantly fine sand with small fractions of silt. In general, the dredged material is most likely to be free from chemical or biological pollutants where it is composed of sand, gravel or other naturally occurring inert materials, as opposed to large percentages of organic materials, which were not shown to exist in the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the characteristics of the bottom sediments in the project area, there will be no re-entrainment of toxins or pollutants which night presently be sequestered in the sediments due to construction, dredging operations or the operations of the berthing facility and ships involved. An elutriate test was performed to predict the effect on water quality from temporary suspension of the bottom sediments during the dredging operation itself. Elutriate testing is a widely recognized, conservative estimate of contaminant releases, caused by dredging, into a water column. The parameters tested for are those specified in the Department's rules for Class III waters and include cyanide, mercury, silver cadmium, selenium, barium, beryllium, nitrogen, (unionized NH3, NO2, total TKN), fluoride, copper, iron, nickel, zinc, aluminum, pesticides, herbicides and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). The elutriate test results did not reveal any excess ion of any of these parameters in terms of the state water quality standards or as to prevailing natural background levels. There are no PCBs, hydrocarbons, heavy metals or pesticides shown to be sequestered in the bottom sediments of the Blount Island Channel in the vicinity of the proposed project. The chemical analyses was performed on composite elutriate samples of sediments which came from the area of the T- head pier location and the area north of the pier, where the propellers of the ships will be located and operated during test trials, after the ships are berthed at the site. Site specific chemical analyses and core borings were taken and compared with historical data or studies for these sites and found to be consistent with them. There is no likelihood of sequestered contaminants in the bottom sediments which would be released, with deleterious effect on water quality, as a result of the action of the dredge equipment or the operation of the ships after the facility is installed. Cutter-head, hydraulic pipeline dredges are not significant generators of turbidity. They are an efficient means of performing dredging and are designed to loosen and remove material from the bottom substrate, without disturbing or redistributing the dredged material around the dredge apparatus in the water column. The use of the hydraulic pipeline dredge will result in minimal water quality disturbance and any dredge-induced turbidity will be of a transitory, short-term nature. It would be localized in the immediate vicinity of the dredge's cutterhead in any event. Ambient water quality conditions can be expected to return to normal background levels in a matter of hours following cessation of the dredging activity. It is estimated by Gate's consultant witnesses that the dredging activity might be accomplished in approximately one day. It has thus been established that the relevant stage water quality standards will not be violated by the action of the dredging equipment and the dredging operation itself. Water Quality Impacts of Facility Operation The two ships of the military sealift command which are to be berthed at the proposed T-head pier are 948 feet in length and approximately 105 feet in beam. They are equipped with two main engines and two propellers. The propellers are 22 feet, 11 and 9/16 inches in diameter. The ships will be in what is known as "reserved operating status". The ships will go through a dry- docking procedure at a local shipyard approximately every two years for major overhauls, repairs and painting. Such maintenance work will not be performed at the project site. The ships will, however, undergo periodic "dock trials" while berthed at the facility. The dock trials will be conducted on a quarterly basis if the vessels have not been out on a mission in that quarter of the year. The dock trial procedure calls for the main propulsion powerplants of the ships to be put into operation and evaluated. Both main engines are tested under this procedure for approximately one hour, at ten revolutions per minute (rpm) ahead and astern. The tests are to be conducted by civilian personnel retained by the Navy or its contractor, with all appropriate safety precaution being taken. These include, but are not limited to, the manning of the bridge during tests by a master or chief mate and by rotating one engine ahead simultaneously with the other engine being rotated astern. The ships are also equipped with onboard, internal sewage treatment plants so as to prevent the discharge of pollutants to state waters. Only routine maintenance or repair work will be performed on the ships at the lay birth facility. The ships will be refueled at the facility from time to time with "bunker c" or diesel fuel brought in by barges. The barges will be conveyed by tugboats of no more than 16 feet draft. The fueling operation will be governed by the U.S. Coast Guard regulations and are performed by Coast Guard certified and licensed personnel. Dr. Neal Boehnke was accepted as an expert in the field of chemical analysis of water and testified on behalf of the Petitioner. In his opinion, water quality in the facility of the proposed project is poor and may contain elevated hydrocarbon levels. His opinions, however, are based upon 1982 and 1983 reports of sampling results allegedly obtained by the City of Jacksonville Bioenvironmental Services Division and the DER, as well as the study entitled "Survey of Hydrocarbons and the Lower St. Johns River in Jacksonville." These documents were not introduced into evidence. While it is true that an expert may base his opinion on facts and data made known to him in the normal course of his practice at or before trial and that those facts or data may be relied upon by him in formulating his opinions, it must be demonstrated that those facts and data are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinions expressed." See Section 90.704, Florida Statutes. In this proceeding, it was not established by competent evidence or testimony at hearing that the facts or data derived from these documents were of such a type as to be encompassed by this statutory section and thus they cannot serve as a legitimate basis for Dr. Boehnke's opinion. They otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay, not sufficient to support a finding of fact on the water quality impacts from the proposed project and they do not constitute corroborative or explanatory hearsay related to any accepted, competent, substantial evidence in this record for purposes of the hearsay admissibility provision in Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Therefore, Dr. Loehnke's opinion concerning alleged elevated levels of hydrocarbons in the water at the project site is not credited and is rejected. Dr. Allan Niedororda was accepted as an expert in the fields of oceanography, hydrology and hydrologic assessment. He conducted a study on the potential impact to water quality in the Blount Island Channel which might result from the dock trials to be carried out as a part of the routine maintenance and testing of the ships. His study evaluated the degree to which the propeller wash from the dock trials might entrain and transport bottom sediments, any related pollutants and the effect of this entrainment on water quality in the surrounding water column. His study consisted of field sampling and measurements of currents in the area, laboratory analysis and related data analysis. Bottom sediment samples from the project area were analyzed for particle size and grain size distribution according to standard, scientifically accepted procedures. The bottom sediments in the area of the project site are characterized by a sandy sediment of a fine to medium particle size characteristic. The bottom sediments largely consist of clean sand and small gravels, with some silt composition. The propeller wash which will be generated by the testing of the ships engines was computed to have a speed of approximately one half foot per second. Maximum speed will occur about three propeller diameters behind the plane of the propeller itself or about 72 feet behind the propellers. The bottom tip of the propeller with which the ships are equipped will be six feet off the bottom of the channel at low tide. At the point the propeller wash contacts the bottom, its speed will be approximately two tenths of a foot per second. Such a velocity will not be of sufficient force to produce such sheer stress on the bottom sediments as to entrain them or, that is, to displace them upward into the water column. Dr. Niedororda established that, even if the propeller wash is added to the natural velocity of the water currents at the project site, there would be no entrainment of the bottom sediments which he sampled in the project area. It has also been established that the routine, minor maintenance of the ships and dockage facilities involved in the permit application and the fueling and other operations associated with the berthing, testing, entry and egress of the ships from the proposed berthing facility will occasion no water quality violations, so long as appropriate Coast Guard regulations attendant to fueling and the prevention of the deposition of refuse and other wastes into the waters involved are observed. Any grant of the proposed permit modifications should be conditioned upon the strict observance of those regulations and procedures, especially with regard to the potential for spillage during fueling operations. Public Interest Standards Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes provides that a permit may not be issued unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether this is the case, the Department must consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health safety or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061; The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It has been established by stipulation that the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water and that the project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Unrefuted evidence adduced by Gate and the Department have established that the project will not adversely affect the public, health, safety, welfare or the property of others, if the project is constructed, installed and operated as proposed in the modification application and as proved in this case. The conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats, as well as fishing and recreational values and marine productivity in the project area will not be adversely affected. No harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the installation or operation of the project facility. In this connection, Dr. A. Quinton White, a member of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner, C.E.S., acknowledged in his testimony that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program proposed to be inaugurated by Gate will adequately protect any Manatees frequenting the area. Manatees are an endangered species, but it has been established that the permit modification proposed, if installed and operated, will not adversely affect the conservation of Manatees or their habitat. The Petitioner adduced no evidence on this issue or any of the public interest criteria enumerated above. The area at the project site is characterized by fairly firm consolidated bottom substrata, characterized by very few submerged grasses. Due to the sandy, hard bottom in the project vicinity, there is a paucity of marine grass upon which Manatee could feed. Consequently, Manatees do not and are not likely to frequent the area involved at the project site as that might reflect on the likelihood of their injury or destruction due to operation of the ships and any attendant vessels. Dr. Niedoroda established that the project and the attendant operations of the ships will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling and witness Gary Tourtellotte, testifying for Gate, established that the effects of the construction and operation of the T-head pier on the benthic community and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project will not induce any adverse effect on those elements of the public interest standards involved. The Petitioner offered no credible or credited evidence of equivalent value which could contradict the evidence adduced by Gate on this aspect of the public interest standards. It is true that dredging of the bottom substrata will temporarily eliminate the benthic community within the dredged area itself. It was established by expert testimony, however, that the benthic community will rapidly re-colonize itself with similar organisms to a naturally occurring degree within approximately 6-12 months. The benthic community in the project vicinity is of a low density nature, with a low diversity of organisms. Those organisms occurring in the project site area are estuarine, marine benthic species commonly associated with sandy or silty bottom substrates. Because the area to be dredged is quite small or approximately .25 acres, and the dredging operations will be of short duration, approximately one day, the dredging operations will not have a significant adverse effect on the benthic communities occurring in the project area or in the adjacent St. Johns River. The dredging associated with the project will likewise not have a significant long-term adverse impact on fisheries resources or marine productivity of the Blount Island Channel or the St. Johns River. This is because the area to be dredged is minimal in size and does not contain critical marine benthic habitat. The turbidity generated will be minimal because the sediments are predominantly coarse sands and gravels. Because of this, any turbidity occasioned by the installation and operation of the proposed facility will be very brief and not of a sufficient significance as to violate water quality standards. In view of the hydrologic analysis in evidence concerning propeller wash effects, the bottom sediments at the ship mooring area will not be entrained or suspended in the water column to any significant degree due to propeller operation of the ships. Thus the benthic community in the mooring area for the ships will not be disturbed due to currents created by the operation of the propellers. In a similar vein, it has been shown that the dredging and operation of the T-head pier and mooring facilities, including the attendant conduct of periodic dock trials and the entry and egress of the ships will not violate the water quality criteria for biological integrity. Indeed, the periodic dock trials are shown to have no impact on the benthic community, the fisheries or marine habitat involved at the project site. It was neither shown that the dredging associated with the construction of the pier and berthing facilities will have any adverse impact on fin fish or shellfish in the project area. It has been established that the project will be of a permanent nature, but it has not been established that the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity in terms of their functions as productive marine habitat, as furnishing fishing or recreational values and the like, will be adversely affected by the proposed project and attendant activity. Deletion of Copper Monitoring Requirement The 1986 permit authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million yards of dredged material with attendant extensive bulkheading in the Blount Island Channel requires also that Gate Monitor for copper every two weeks during discharges at the downstream boundary of the mixing zone for each point of a effluent discharge. Effluent from both the Blount Island and Dayson Disposal Sites is discharged into the Fulton Dames Point Cut. The Petitioner has stipulated that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson Spoils Site will not violate any water quality standard at that discharge point. Elutriate testing and other analyses submitted in support of the permit modification request to delete the copper monitoring requirement in the present permit have shown that there will be no violation of water quality standards as to copper, or any of the other water quality parameters involved due to any re-suspenions of bottom sediment during dredging. There will be no violation of water quality standards for copper, caused by the deposition of spoil, consisting of those bottom sediments, and the draining of effluent from the spoils site into the Dames Point Cut. The Department has independently verified the data submitted by Gate as a result of this testing and it has been established that there is no occurrence of any man induced pollutants in the sediments at the project site which will be deposited in the spoil site, (from which the effluent will be disposed of in the Dames Point Cut) which represents any elevation over natural background levels. The sediments to be dredged from the berthing area are not distinguishable from naturally occurring sediments and the copper values in the sediments to be dredged are no higher than those naturally occurring throughout the area. Thus there will be no adverse impact on the water quality occasioned by discharge of the effluent from the spoil site to the Dames Point Cut area due to copper occurring in the sediments or as to any of the other pollutants enumerated above. Thus, there has been no demonstrated necessity to continue monitoring the effluent from the spoil site for copper. In this regard, the Petitioner presented no evidence at hearing concerning the issue of whether copper monitoring should be continued or not. Cumulative Impact Blount Island was created in the 1950's and 1960's by the filling of its area with spoil material during the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers' construction of the Fulton-Dames Point Cut-Off Channel. Since that time, port facilities and an industrial complex have been constructed on Blount Island. It is one of the principle port facilities for the City of Jacksonville. Under the 1982 DER dredge and fill permit issued to Off-Shore Power Systems, and later transferred to Gate in 1986, the developed area of the island adjacent to the original St. Johns River Channel (the Blount Island Channel) was required to be bulk-headed and the channel dredged to -38 feet MLW. The amount of material to be dredged in the old channel of the St. Johns River for construction of the vertical shoreline bulk head totalled approximately 3.4 cubic yards. The T-head pier involved in this modification proceeding, if constructed, would replace 1,000 linear feet of that shoreline bulkhead authorized by the present permit and would substantially reduce the amount or quantity of material to be dredged. Construction of the T-head pier, instead of the permitted shoreline bulkhead, will minimize dredging and the environmental impact of the facility. Gate has elected to rescind its plans to construct the shoreline bulkhead along the eastern shore of Blount Island, as authorized under the existing dredge and fill permit. Gate instead intends to seek future modification of its existing dredge and fill permit to substitute at least 2 additional T-head piers for all of the shoreline bulk head authorized for the eastern shore of Blount Island. The construction of the additional T-head piers will require substantially less dredging than is authorized under the existing permit. Instead of the 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged material authorized under the existing permit, associated with installation of the shoreline bulkhead, the amount of material to be dredged, if indeed 2 additional T-head piers were applied-for and constructed, would amount to only 269,000 estimated cubic yards, as opposed to the originally authorized 3.4 million. Kevin Pope, the DER witness, established that there are no other projects in the area, or reasonably expected to be located in the project area, which would create impacts in addition to or cumulative with the proposed permit modification project so as to create adverse water quality impacts or which would make this project, because of cumulative impact, contrary to the public interest. There are no other dredge and fill projects in the area of the proposed T-head pier which would adversely impact the waters of the Blount Island Channel and the St. Johns River. The proposed modifications are shown not to likely cause any adverse environmental results and, in fact, will result in an environmental benefit as represented by the agreed-upon recession from the extensive dredging and bulkheading authorized by the present permit. No evidence was adduced by the Petitioner to contravene that adduced by Gate and the Department, which establishes the lack of any adverse cumulative impacts to be occasioned by the proposed project, both as to water quality standards and the public interest standards involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation approving the proposed modification to permit number 160462149 with the proviso that the conditions contained in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law be incorporated as specific conditions in the modified permit, including the additional condition agreed to at Final Hearing that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program will be inaugurated and be incorporated as a specific condition in the modified permit. DONE and ENTERED this 11th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 12th day of October, 1989.
The Issue Should a permit for a wastewater spray field be granted to the City of St. Cloud?
Findings Of Fact On March 18, 1985, the City of St. Cloud applied to the DER for a permit to construct a 429 acre Phase I effluent disposal site (+ 300 acre wetted area via spray irrigation) including support structures as the existing wastewater treatment plant site. On April 17, 1986, DER issued an intent to issue Permit Number 49- 101256. The major concern of the DER with regard to the proposed project was the hydraulic disposal capacity of the site, i.e., how much water could the site absorb. Boyle Engineering Corporation and their hydrogeologic consultants determined that the site has a disposal capacity of 2 million gallons per day (mgd) based on an area of 300 acres under spray. This equals a spray application rate of 1 inch per week based upon studies, test borings, and test wells in the subject area. (Testimony of Brian McMahan and Susan Metcalfe) The disposal capacity of any land application effluent disposal system is largely a function of the permeability of the soils, the transmissivity of the receiving ground water, aquifer and net precipitation (rainfall). Permeability is a measure of how fast water will move within the soil matrix. Transmissivity indicates how much water will travel through a cross section of the aquifer system with time. Transmissivity is largely a function of the permeability and aquifer thickness at a given location. Net precipitation is the total rainfall for a location less surface runoff, evaporation, and transpiration (plant uptake subsurface percolation). (Testimony of Susan Metcalfe and Dave Twedell). The proposed St. Cloud site has very low permeable soils. In addition the drainage in the vicinity is very poor This results in high water table conditions at the proposed site during periods of heavy rainfall. The low permeability of the soil will restrict the amount of effluent which can be sprayed upon the site, especially during the high water table season. (Testimony of Dave Twedell). The area around the site is subject to poor drainage due to lack of storm drains and the low lying nature of the land. (Testimony of Mr. Brown). Flooding or partial flooding occurs in the vicinity of the Bates and Tyners when there are heavy rains. Their concerns are two fold: (1) the proposed site will increase flooding, and (2) the effluent will pollute their wells. (Testimony of Bates and Tyner). Flooding in the area is the result of already existing poor drainage. When it rains, treated effluent will not be sprayed, but will be retained on site in an artificial impoundment. The impoundment area for the proposed site is planned to hold 70 days operational flow storage. Department rules only require 3 days of operational flow storage for times when precipitation make spray irrigation impossible. (Testimony of Lee Miller). The impoundment will not be lined with a hydraulic barrier system. Instead an alternative system is to be constructed around the pond which will capture ground water that has escaped underneath the pond and pump this water back into the pond. This system is designed to retain water on the site, however, this method has not been used before. Its use in an area subject to flooding and high water tables is not proven. (Testimony of Dave Twedell). Because of variations in the reliability of predicting soil permeability, the site may not have the disposal capacity projected by Boyle during periods of wet weather. The DER proposes that the site be field load tested for a period of one year to more accurately determine the disposal capacity achieved because of the conditions existing in the area and the variability of that results. (Testimony of Lee Miller and Dave Twedell). At the end of the one year proposed testing period, the field disposal capacity test will provide more accurate data from which to determine the average permeability for the 300 acre spray field. At the end of the year's test, the City of St. Cloud will have to apply for an operating permit based on the disposal capacity rate established by the test. (Testimony of Lee Miller and Dade Twedell). The hydraulic retention system is intended to prevent the holding pond and part of the spray field from adversely effecting the ground water levels of the homeowners with property adjacent to the pond. Bacterial content in the treated effluent is so low it would be "drinkable". Biological pollution of the objectors' wells is possible from livestock they have on their own property. Testing is not performed for chemical residues in effluent. (Testimony of Dave Thedell). In its conditions on the proposed permit, DER is requiring a water quality monitoring program which is very stringent. Eight ground water monitoring wells will test the ground water quality around the site. In addition, twelve ground water elevation stations will record ground water levels both on and off site on a continuous basis. Growth water levels will be recorded off site to determine what effect, if any, the operation of the site is having on adjacent, down gradient property. (Testimony of Dave Twedell, DER exhibit #1). No testing for chemical pollution is required to be performed on a periodic basis. Because of surface water quality concerns, the DER is requiring the city to monitor the water quality of any stormwater discharge off the site, flowing into Gator Bay. Three surface water quality stations will be in operation, along with two surface water flow stations. Surface water flow will be monitored continuously to determine the hydraulic impact the site is having on the Gator Bay system. (Testimony of Dave Twedell, DER exhibit #1). Again, testing does not consider chemical pollutants. The City must implement their surface and ground water monitoring program at least 90 days prior to the use of the effluent spray field. This will establish initial background and ambient water quality standards. (Testimony of Dave Twedell, DER exhibit #1). This testing does not establish a background for chemical pollutants. The monitoring systems will provide early warning detection for the wells of nearby residents. (Testimony of Dave Twedell). However, if biological pollution occurs, there will be a controversy about whether it was the spray field or the livestock which caused it. A 500 foot buffer zone to be maintained between the perimeter of the spray field and any existing shallow water supply well was said to prevent any contamination of existing wells. (Testimony of Dave Twedell, DER exhibit #1). However, this opinion was predicated upon non-flood conditions. Osceola County does not have an actual drainage system or a stormwater management plan for the area which would eliminate or reduce the flooding experienced by residents of the area. (Testimony of William C. Whitney).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that DER issue the permit as reflected in the draft permit; That issuance in no way indicates a commitment to issuance of an operating permit; That the petitioners be placed on the DER mailing list at such time as the City of St. Cloud applies for the operating permit of the spray field and thereby be noticed of all further proposed agency action with regard to this project; and the permit be subject to those additional conditions recommended herein which the Department may determine are prudent. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of September 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 86-1575 and 86-1576 The following constitute my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1985) on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Agency submitted proposed findings which were considered as follows: 1-6. Adopted with some minor additions and deletions for clarification. Adopted as paragraph 9 with minor changes. Adopted as paragraph 10 with minor changes. Adopted as paragraph 7 with minor changes. Adopted as paragraph 8 with minor changes. Rewritten substantial as paragraph 11 to better conform to the evidence. Rewritten substantial as paragraph 12 to better conform to the evidence. Adopted as paragraph 13. Adopted as paragraph 14. Adopted as paragraph 15. Adopted as paragraph 16. Adopted as paragraph 17. The Petitioner's, Bates and Fonseca, submitted a letter which is considered primarily argument. Their general and unnumbered comments concerning the low lying nature of the land and potential for contamination are included in the Recommended Order. The remainder of their comments are rejected as contrary to the facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Vivian Feist Garfein, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Melvin and Linda Tyner Post Office Box 1072 Kissimmee, Florida 32742 Al Bates Linda Fonseca 801 Cypress Drive St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Bill and Sharon Hall 601 Cypress Drive St. Cloud, Florida 32769 Fred and Leslie Baker Route 2, Box 2734 St. Cloud, Florida 32769-0245 H. R. Thornton, Jr. City of St. Cloud, Florida 1300 Ninth Street St. Cloud, Florida 32769 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether Georgia-Pacific Corporation is entitled to the issuance of an industrial wastewater facility permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program that would authorize it to discharge industrial wastewater to the St. Johns River in Putnam County, Florida, and whether Georgia-Pacific Corporation has met the statutory criteria for a related administrative order for the interim discharge to Rice Creek in Putnam County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: The Parties Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (Department), is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, to regulate discharges of wastes to waters of the State. Under approval from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program in the State. The Department also enforces specific water quality standards that have to be achieved in order to ensure protection of the designated uses of surface waters in the State. Respondent, Georgia-Pacific Corporation (Georgia- Pacific), owns and operates a bleached and unbleached kraft pulp and paper mill in Putnam County, Florida. The plant presently discharges treated wastewater to Rice Creek, a Class III water of the State, and a tributary of the St. Johns River. Petitioner, Putnam County Environmental Council, Inc. (PCEC), alleged in the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing (Petition) that it is a non-profit Florida corporation headquartered in Palatka, Florida. However, other than a statement by one witness that PCEC was incorporated on an undisclosed date prior to the hearing, PCEC failed to present any evidence to establish its corporate status or residency in the State of Florida. According to the same witness, the organization was created in an unincorporated status in 1991, and it currently has 65 members who use and enjoy the St. Johns River for recreational purposes. Petitioner, Stewards of the St. Johns River, Inc. (SSJR), also alleged in the Petition that it is a non-profit Florida corporation with headquarters in Jacksonville, Florida. Like PCEC, SSJR failed to prove its corporate status or residency in the State of Florida. Although the number of members in SSJR is unknown, "many" of its members are boaters and "most" live along the St. Johns River. Petitioner, Linda Young, is Southeast Regional Coordinator for the Clean Water Network and a citizen of the State of Florida. As such, she has standing to "intervene" in this action under Section 403.412(5), Florida Statutes. In this complex case, the parties have presented extensive and conflicting evidence regarding the factual issues raised by the pleadings. In resolving the numerous conflicts in that testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, as set forth in the findings below. The Applicant's Mill Operation Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill was built in the 1940's before the establishment of Department water quality standards and classifications. Because of the nature of the pulping process, the mill has not been able to fully meet water quality standards in Rice Creek because of poor dilution. Georgia-Pacific receives wood chips from a sister facility and purchases residual chips from local wood products facilities. Those chips are separated into pine and hardwood, conveyed into the pulp processing facility, and loaded into digesters, that is, industrial-sized pressure cookers, which cook the chips for several hours. Pulp from the digesters goes to the brown kraft, bleached kraft, and tissue manufacturing facilities. Water in the manufacturing process is used, re-used, and recirculated until it cannot be used again, at which point it is conveyed into a primary wastewater clarifier, which is used to settle out fiber and other settleable solids. Additional wastewater sources are collected in sumps located in the facility, which are discharged into the primary clarifier. The underflow from the primary clarifier flows into a solids settling area (sludge pond) while the water from the primary clarifier passes into a secondary treatment system. The secondary treatment system uses aerobic and facultative biological treatment. Stormwater at the facility also flows into the treatment system. The secondary treatment system consists of four ponds in series: Pond 1, 485 acres, aerated with over 1600 horsepower of aeration; Pond 2, 175 acres, with 140 horsepower of aeration; Pond 3, 130 acres, with 120 horsepower of aeration; and Pond 4, 100 acres. Pond 4 is a quiescent basin, used to settle solids in the wastewater before discharge. The treatment system has a very long hydraulic detention time; once water enters the system, it remains there for 50 to 60 days. After treatment, a side stream of roughly 8,000,000 gallons per day of treated effluent is withdrawn, oxygenated with liquid oxygen, and discharged at two locations in Rice Creek: 3.4 miles upstream from the St. Johns River (Outfall D-001); and 2.4 miles upstream from the St. Johns River (Outfall D-002). Under low flow conditions, effluent from the Georgia-Pacific mill dominates the flow in Rice Creek. The Application Process Rice Creek is a small tributary of the St. Johns River, particularly in its upper reaches where Georgia- Pacific's effluent discharge occurs. Over the years, there have been exceedances of certain Class III water quality standards including specific conductance, color, and periodically whole effluent toxicity. Because of this, and during the permit review process, the Department began considering alternatives for mitigating or eliminating those existing concerns with the facility's discharge. In October 1992, Georgia-Pacific applied to the Department for the renewal of its existing wastewater discharge permit. In June 1994, Georgia-Pacific submitted an application to the Department for the construction and operation of an industrial wastewater treatment and disposal system. This application included a request to relocate Georgia-Pacific’s existing discharge to the St. Johns River. Because Georgia-Pacific submitted timely permit applications, it is authorized to continue operations based on an "administratively extended permit." In June 1994, Georgia-Pacific also applied to the EPA for a permit under the NPDES program. In October 1994, the EPA acknowledged receipt of a timely application for the renewal of Georgia-Pacific's existing NPDES permit, advising Georgia-Pacific by letter that its permit was automatically extended and that continued operation was authorized in accordance with the existing permit and 5 U.S.C. Section 558(c). On May 24, 1995, the Department advised Georgia- Pacific that the EPA had granted the Department the authority to administer the NPDES program and that its state permit and existing NPDES permit were deemed combined into one order. In response to a Department request, in November 1995, Georgia-Pacific submitted to the Department an antidegradation review for the relocation of its discharge. After Georgia-Pacific applied to the Department for a renewal of its NPDES permit, the Department directed Georgia-Pacific to provide alternatives that would ensure compliance with water quality standards. Georgia-Pacific submitted a proposal to construct a pipeline that would enable it to discharge its effluent to the middle of the St. Johns River. Under that proposal, Georgia-Pacific would achieve compliance with water quality standards as a result of greater dilution in the St. Johns River. Based on a review of Georgia-Pacific's submittal, the Department determined that Georgia-Pacific could in fact achieve water quality standards by constructing a pipeline to the St. Johns River. Likewise, the EPA concluded that Georgia-Pacific could receive a permit to discharge to the St. Johns River through a pipeline, without additional process improvements. Although the Department concluded that compliance could be achieved solely by the construction of a pipeline, it began discussions with Georgia-Pacific and EPA in order to examine other approaches that might lead to compliance in Rice Creek. These discussions culminated in a decision that Georgia-Pacific would invest substantial funds in the installation of additional technology and also be assured of some ultimate means to achieve compliance with water quality standards. On May 1, 2001, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Issue an industrial wastewater permit, together with an Order Establishing Compliance Schedules Under 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes (the Administrative Order). In late January 2002, Georgia-Pacific submitted a request to the Department asking for consideration of two changes to the proposed permit: first, a request to relocate a groundwater monitoring well; and second, a request to review the Department's proposed mixing zone in the St. Johns River for the transparency standard. The Department also proposes a minor change in permit conditions to allow approval of the bleach plant monitoring plan to take place within sixty days after the issuance of the final permit. Both of Georgia- Pacific's requests were reviewed by the Department, and it has recommended that they be included in the proposed permit. Technology-Based Effluent Limits and Water Quality- Based Effluent Limits When considering a permit application such as the one here, the Department reviews the application to determine compliance with technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) and water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs). TBELs are minimum industry standards that all facilities must meet regardless of their discharge location. They are predominantly production-based, and they limit the mass of pollutants that may be discharged based on the mass of product produced. Those limits generally reflect EPA's assessment of the industry standard regarding what can be met in a given discharge. In the preparation of a permit, the Department practice is to first determine the TBELs that would apply. In contrast, a WQBEL reflects how low the discharge must be (or how effective treatment must be) for a given parameter to meet water quality standards. Relief mechanisms such as mixing zones are inherent in WQBELs. A WQBEL is necessary only for those parameters for which there is a reasonable potential for the facility either to exceed the water quality standard or come close to exceeding the standard. As a matter of agency practice, the Department does not impose a limit unless there is a reasonable potential to exceed a standard. In order to determine whether there is such a reasonable potential for exceeding a standard, the Department will review past operations and other information it may have regarding the characteristics of the discharge. For a discharge such as the one proposed in the present case, a "Level II" WQBEL is required. The Department's Point Source Section, with expertise in the field of water quality modeling, analyzes the Level II WQBEL. Georgia-Pacific must meet certain technology-based standards, such as those set forth in the Cluster Rule. The Cluster Rule has been promulgated by the EPA and adopted by the Department and requires the installation of technologies to eliminate the use of elemental chlorine in the bleaching process. The Palatka facility far exceeds (performs better than) technology-based effluent limits. In March 1998, the Department created a document titled "Level II Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations for the Georgia Pacific Corp. Palatka Mill" (the WQBEL Technical Report]. The WQBEL Technical Report has a typed notation on the title page reading "March 1998 -- Final." The WQBEL Technical Report contained the following effluent discharge limitations: The following are the effluent limitations for the Georgia-Pacific Palatka mill discharge to the St. Johns River based upon results from the Level II WQBEL. Review comments from EPA Region 4 are included in the correspondence section. Parameter Limitation Discharge 60 MGD Daily Maximum BOD5 Summer (June 1 - November 30) 3,500 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Winter (December 1 – May 31) 7,170 lbs/day maximum thirty day average TSS Summer (June 1 - November 30) 5,000 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Winter (December 1 – May 31) 10,000 lbs/day maximum thirty day average Dissolved Oxygen 2.7 mg/l minimum Specific conductance 3,220 umhos/cm daily maximum Un-Ionized Ammonia Nitrogen Summer (June 1 - November 30) .11 ug/l daily maximum Winter (December 1 – May 31) .13 ug/l daily maximum Iron (Total Recoverable) 2.91 mg/l daily maximum Cadmium (Total Recoverable) 3.46 ug/l daily maximum Lead (Total Recoverable) 5.87 ug/l daily maximum Zinc (Total Recoverable) 480 ug/l daily maximum When the WQBEL Technical Report was approved in 1998, the Department's Northeast District Office did not prepare a separate formal notice of approval. The WQBEL Technical Report was transmitted by memorandum from the Water Quality Assessment Section to the Department's Director of District Management for the Northeast District on April 13, 1998, where it remained on file. The WQBEL Technical Report complied with the plan of study previously approved by the Department, and it met the requirements of Rule 62-650.500, Florida Administrative Code. Both the Department and EPA staff concurred with the approval of the WQBEL Technical Report. They agreed that the construction of a pipeline and the relocation of the discharge to the St. Johns River would yield a net environmental benefit without additional process improvements. Upgrades Implemented and Required in the Proposed Agency Actions As described more fully below, Georgia-Pacific has modified its production and treatment processes in such a manner as to improve its overall environmental performance. In installing some of those modifications, Georgia-Pacific undertook what was required by federal and state law. For others, Georgia-Pacific has exceeded what it was required to do under state or federal law. To comply with the Cluster Rule, Georgia-Pacific eliminated two bleach plants and installed a new bleach plant, one which uses chlorine dioxide as opposed to elemental chlorine. The implementation of this technology is primarily aimed at eliminating the mechanism for the formation of dioxin in the bleaching plant. Compliance with the Cluster Rule generally requires, among other things, conversion to an elemental chlorine-free bleaching system. Georgia-Pacific is in compliance with the Cluster Rule. Under the Cluster Rule, Georgia-Pacific is required to sample for dioxin at its bleach plant, with a limit of under 10 picograms per liter. Georgia-Pacific has experienced reductions in the color of its effluent as the result of the chlorine dioxide conversion as well as reductions in specific conductance. The reductions in specific conductance are particularly significant because Georgia-Pacific has decreased its effluent flow, which would ordinarily increase specific conductance in the absence of additional improvements. After conversion to chlorine dioxide, Georgia- Pacific began monitoring for parameters defined by the Cluster Rule. In that monitoring, Georgia-Pacific has tested "non- detect" for dioxin and chlorinated phenolics. Specifically, Georgia-Pacific has monitored dioxin in its effluent, as well as within its process –- before dilution with other wastewater –- and the monitoring results at both locations are likewise "non-detect" for dioxin. Furthermore, levels of chloroform and adsorbable organic halides (AOX) have been well within the limits imposed by the proposed permit and the Cluster Rule. Georgia-Pacific has voluntarily agreed to install by April 15, 2006, an oxygen delignification system, or a like system that produces similar or better environmental benefits. Oxygen delignification is a precursor to bleaching, which removes lignins from the fiber before the product is bleached. This process is significant because lignin consumes chemicals, impedes bleaching, and prohibits achieving brightness targets in the bleach plant. The cost associated with the oxygen delignification system is $22,700,000. This commitment is reflected in the proposed Administrative Order and Permit. Oxygen delignification has been identified as having significant benefits in terms of reducing the color and specific conductance of effluent. Georgia-Pacific voluntarily agreed to install by August 15, 2003, a new brownstock washing system to replace four existing brownstock washing lines. A brownstock washer is a piece of equipment that washes organics away from fiber, after pulping and before oxygen delignification. The cost of this equipment is approximately $30,000,000. This commitment is reflected in the Administrative Order and Permit. The new brownstock washers are not required by Department rules, but they will be helpful in reducing the specific conductance of effluent. Georgia-Pacific has also voluntarily agreed to install a green liquor dregs filter. This system would remove dregs from the effluent system and reduce specific conductance and color in the effluent. The cost of the green liquor dregs filter is $1,100,000. This commitment is reflected in the Administrative Order and Permit. Under the proposed agency action, Georgia-Pacific is likewise required to install additional equipment for the implementation of its best management practices program to minimize leaks and spills in the process sewer. This equipment, including controls on the brownstock washer system, and the installation of a spill control system, pumps, and piping, has been installed at a cost of $7,100,000. Georgia-Pacific has also optimized the performance of its treatment system through the relocation of its aerators in the treatment ponds and modifying its nutrient feed system. This has led to reduced levels of biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the discharge, as well as improved treatment for total suspended solids. In addition, Georgia-Pacific has voluntarily installed a reverse osmosis system to recycle certain internal streams, which in turn has led to reductions in specific conductance, at a cost of $3,300,000. To comply with the proposed agency actions, Georgia- Pacific expects to expend a total of approximately $170,000,000 for upgrades for the purpose of producing environmental benefits. Additional money is earmarked for other environmental performance issues, such as water conservation. Except for technology-based limits adopted by rule, the Department does not dictate how a facility achieves compliance with water quality standards. Georgia-Pacific demonstrated that its environmental performance is substantially better than required by technology-based limits. Based on the foregoing, it is reasonable to find that Georgia-Pacific’s commitments to process improvements will lead to a general improvement in water quality in the receiving waters. Relocation of the Discharge As noted above, because of the minimal dilution available in Rice Creek, Georgia-Pacific has never been fully able to achieve water quality standards in Rice Creek, a Class III water body. Rice Creek continues to exceed water quality criteria for specific conductance and color; historically, the discharge had experienced exceedences for the chronic toxicity criterion. Under present conditions, with Georgia-Pacific discharging to Rice Creek and Rice Creek flowing to the St. Johns River, elevated levels of color are experienced along the shoreline of the St. Johns River in the area of existing grass beds. Modeling shows that under current flow conditions from Rice Creek, those color effects are observed on the northwest bank near the confluence of Rice Creek with the St. Johns River. If the discharge is relocated to the St. Johns River and discharged near the river bottom through a diffuser, it will beneficially change the distribution of color impacts both to Rice Creek and the St. Johns River. Color in Rice Creek will improve, returning to its background color of 100 to 150 platinum cobalt units (pcu). Specific conductance within Rice Creek will also be markedly reduced. Because the input will occur in the middle of the St. Johns River, with higher flows and greater turbulence, there will no longer be relatively highly colored water flowing along the shoreline. Therefore, the relocation will provide a significant benefit of moving highly colored water away from grass beds and will mitigate against any existing effects on those grass beds. It is beneficial to relocate discharges to the middle of a stream, as opposed to the edge of a shoreline, where effluent tends to hug the shoreline. Therefore, regardless of the process improvements, there will be a net environmental improvement by relocating the discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River The discharge from the proposed diffuser will be comparatively benign, in comparison to the present flow from Rice Creek into the St. Johns River. This is because the effluent would not reach or hug the shoreline in such a scenario but rather would be diluted in rising to the surface, as well as by its lateral movement in the direction toward the river bank. The relocation of the discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River will cause improvements through localized changes in concentrations near the diffuser and the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River. Based on the foregoing, it is found that Georgia- Pacific’s proposed discharge into the St. Johns River will not result in water quality degradation, but will instead lead to a general improvement in water quality. Proposed Conditions in the Permit and Administrative Order Before certifying completion of the required manufacturing process improvements, Georgia-Pacific is required to submit to the Department a report on its ability to optimize the modifications, as well as a separate report which would determine whether Georgia-Pacific can meet certain limits that would enable a continuing discharge to Rice Creek. If the water quality improvements are sufficient to achieve standards in Rice Creek, the permit would be reopened and Georgia-Pacific would be required to maintain the present discharge location to Rice Creek. Otherwise, Georgia-Pacific would be authorized to construct the pipeline to the St. Johns River. The permit is drafted so that Georgia-Pacific will verify the need for mixing zones, as well as the dimensions of proposed mixing zones, after process improvements are complete. The Administrative Order imposes interim effluent limitations during the compliance period described in that Order. The Administrative Order contains "report-only" conditions for certain parameters. For those parameters which do not have interim limits, there is no appropriate standard to apply because information on effluent and water quality conditions is incomplete. The Department also found it unreasonable to impose interim limits that will be met only after Georgia-Pacific completes the improvements requested by the Department. Under Department practice, it is reasonable to impose "report only" conditions for parameters when it is unclear whether the discharge for the facility presents a concern for potential exceedences of water quality standards. In addition, "report only" conditions are used when a facility is undertaking an effort to address problems for certain parameters during a period necessary to achieve compliance. The proposed permit includes mixing zones in the St. Johns River for dissolved oxygen, total recoverable iron, total recoverable cadmium, total recoverable lead, un-ionized ammonia, turbidity, and specific conductance. The length of each of those mixing zones is 16.5 meters, that is, limited to the rise of plume. A mixing zone is also required for transparency, which will require a length of 734 meters. Within 12 months after certifying completion of the manufacturing process improvements, Georgia-Pacific will be required to re-evaluate the need for mixing zones and effluent limits and re-open the permit as necessary to include final mixing zones, effluent limits, and monitoring requirements. Compliance with Ambient Water Quality Standards The Petition contends that Georgia-Pacific has not provided reasonable assurances that it would comply with the following standards: nutrients (paragraph 18); dissolved oxygen (paragraph 20); chronic toxicity (paragraph 21); total suspended solids (paragraph 23); iron (paragraph 25); and phenolic compounds (paragraph 26). Although no water quality standard is directly applicable, Petitioners also addressed the following water quality issues: biological oxygen demand (BOD) (paragraph 20); dioxin, "related compounds," chlorinated organics, AOX, and chemical oxygen demand (COD) (paragraph 22); color (paragraph 24); and total suspended solids (TSS), which is alleged to include total organic carbon (TOC) (paragraph 94). Petitioners asserted that dioxin, chlorinated organics, TSS, and AOX are significant in considering compliance with the "free-from" standard in Rules 62- 302.500(1) and 62-302.530. In determining whether water quality standards will be met, those allegations should only be considered in reference to those adopted standards for the "free-from" standard. The effluent data establishes that Georgia-Pacific will consistently meet the proposed permit limits for discharge to Rice Creek. Georgia-Pacific's treatment facility has the capacity to comply with the proposed permit limits for discharge to Rice Creek, and there is a very high degree of assurance that it has the capability to comply with those standards in the future. In addition, Georgia-Pacific's treatment facility is able to meet the WQBELs established for discharge into the St. Johns River. Evaluation and modeling demonstrate that if a discharge to the St. Johns River is undertaken, the St. Johns River will meet Class III water standards at the edge of the mixing zone if Georgia-Pacific complies with its proposed effluent limits. Also, the effluent will meet all applicable effluent guidelines and technology-based standards adopted in the Florida Administrative Code. The effluent will not settle, form deposits, or create a nuisance, and it will not float as debris, scum, or oil. Finally, the effluent will not produce color, odor, taste, or other conditions so as to create a nuisance. Georgia-Pacific performed an analysis to determine the effluent limits that would be necessary to achieve water quality standards. This analysis included water quality modeling, which is a method of summing up inputs and losses, calculating the amount of material in a system, and determining the concentration of a substance. The model was used to geometrically represent the St. Johns River, Etonia Creek, and the reach of the St. Johns River within the study area, which extended from Buffalo Bluff (15 miles upstream of the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River) to Mile Point 50. Rice Creek enters the St. Johns River at Mile Point 74. When a model is performed, the model will yield estimates or predictions of concentrations throughout a water body. Those predictions can be compared to field observations and measurements; if the model is done properly, the calculated numbers should agree with the measured numbers. Modeling is used to evaluate future conditions based on hypothetical future changes to the system. The modeling methods and advanced time-variable models employed by Georgia- Pacific's consultants were approved by the Department. Georgia-Pacific prepared a plan of study to obtain field data in the St. Johns River for the purpose of assuring that the models would simulate observed concentrations of constituents. The Department approved that plan of study and published a notice of approval. The Department also approved the quality assurance project plan for the collection of water quality data in Georgia-Pacific's modeling efforts. After approval of the plan of study and quality assurance project plan, Georgia-Pacific's consultants performed water quality surveys in November 1994 and May 1995. The models employed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants were calibrated and produced the observed water quality results. The proposed diffuser would be located about one foot from the bottom of the channel. As designed, the plume would leave the proposed diffuser and spread out, with the upper part of the plume going to the surface of the water. The plume model calculates the dilution at the centerline of the plume, where there would be a minimum of dilution. This method of using the centerline as a reference point leads to a conservative analysis, and it would require the Applicant to achieve more dilution than might otherwise be necessary to achieve water quality standards. For regulatory purposes, the Department usually uses the maximum height of the rise of the plume to determine a mixing zone, the point at which concentrations along the centerline of the plume would level off. Because of that practice, for certain parameters where the required mixing zone is less than the distance of the rise of the plume, a decrease in effluent limits would not lead to a decrease in the size of the mixing zone. Tidal actions will cause re-entrainment, that is, the movement of dissolved substances back into the plume area. This factor reduces the dilution factor that otherwise would apply to the system. This factor is accounted for in modeling by tying in a diffuser computation to a water quality model. The modeling employed by Georgia-Pacific assumes 7Q10 conditions, that is, a conservative assumption that flow is equal to the lowest one-week average for a ten-year period, where there is little dilution. The employment of this conservative method would minimize the probability of exceedences in the receiving water body. The projection employed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants was even more conservative because the 7Q10 flow rate is assumed to apply through a 60-day average flow, a condition that may never occur, and would not be expected to occur once in ten years. In contrast, the use of time-variable simulations would lead to less stringent permitting requirements. The permit provides reasonable assurance that the construction, modification, or operation of the treatment system will not discharge or cause pollution in violation of Department standards. The permit provides reasonable assurance that, based on the effluent limitations determined by the Department in the WQBEL Technical Report, water quality standards would be met outside the area of the proposed mixing zone for specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, un-ionized ammonia, iron, cadmium, lead, and zinc. Based on additional analysis as reflected in Georgia-Pacific's proposed amendment to the draft permit, Georgia-Pacific would achieve compliance with the transparency standard with the mixing zone described in its proposed amendment, that is, with a total length of 734 meters. The chronic toxicity criterion is a biological measurement which determines whether organisms are impaired by effluent. If impairment is demonstrated, the test does not indicate what component of the effluent is causing the effect. Georgia-Pacific is required to conduct testing for acute and chronic toxicity twice a year. Current tests undertaken in May and October 2001 are representative of effluent conditions after Georgia-Pacific undertook conversion of the bleach plant to chlorine dioxide. Those tests demonstrate that Georgia-Pacific is in compliance with the acute and chronic toxicity criterion since the conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching. Georgia-Pacific is also in compliance with the biological integrity standard, based on the most recent fifth-year inspection. Because of the flow characteristics and the characteristics of pulp mill effluent, the pollutants associated with the effluent are not assimilated as the effluent travels from the point of discharge, through Rice Creek, to the St. Johns River. The particulates associated with pulp mill effluent are so small or fine that they will remain in suspension and thus not settle out in Rice Creek. In addition, because Rice Creek is channelized, there is no sloping side that would enable the growth of vegetation that would filter the water. Furthermore, even if there was a sedimentation process occurring in Rice Creek, no additional sedimentation would occur after the system reaches an equilibrium point. Although Rice Creek does cause a small decrease in BOD through oxidation, Georgia-Pacific has compensated for that factor by the injection of oxygen in the effluent. Thus, the direct piping of effluent to the St. Johns River (as opposed to a discharge into Rice Creek, which flows into the St. Johns River) would not result in any significant increase in pollutant loading to the St. Johns River. In addition, the construction of a pipeline would take place only after additional technologies have been implemented to maximize pollutant reduction. Compliance with the Reasonable Assurance Standard Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances for the proposed permit to be issued for a discharge into the St. Johns River. This finding is based upon Georgia-Pacific's ability to meet the effluent standards described in the draft permit, and modeling results demonstrating that, with the proposed mixing zones for certain parameters, a discharge into St. Johns River, as designed, will not result in a violation of Class III standards. Mixing Zones In Section H of their Petition, Petitioners challenged the proposed mixing zones set forth in the proposed Permit. Petitioners generally alleged that the proposed mixing zones were "enormous" and that they failed to comply with certain rules restricting mixing zones. In their Petition, Petitioners articulated three theories to support the proposition that the mixing zones were illegal: first, that the mixing zones would include a nursery area of indigenous aquatic life, including beds of aquatic plants of the type listed in Rule 63-302.200(16); second, that the mixing zone, by itself, would lead to a violation of the minimum criteria in Rule 62-302.500; and third, that the mixing zones, or a combination of those mixing zones, would result in a significant impairment of Class III uses in the St. Johns River. Petitioners were authorized to amend their Petition to add additional allegations to paragraphs 17 and 67 of their original Petition regarding the mixing zone. Under those amendments, Petitioners alleged that Georgia-Pacific’s proposed amendment to the draft permit would (a) improperly expand the mixing zone; (b) fail to account for the length of the diffuser; (c) improperly substitute "transparency" for "color"; and (d) prevent isolation of transparency impacts from color in the discharge. However, there is no evidence which ties those allegations to any regulatory standard that would affect the proposed agency action. Petitioners also contended that color was a surrogate for chemical oxygen demand, as well as for substances that are alleged to cause chronic or acute toxicity. However, as shown by the testimony of Department witness Maher, the permit condition for "color" was a surrogate only for the transparency standard. No evidence to support a contrary inference was presented. Petitioners also made general allegations that the proposed mixing zones are illegal, without a clear indication of what is deemed illegal about the mixing zones. Although the Petition includes a general argument in opposition to mixing zones, Petitioners were unable to suggest a legal basis for alleging that the mixing zones were illegal. For example, Petitioners alleged that certain mixing zones are enormous but failed to articulate why they are so enormous as to be illegal. They did not allege that the Department had erred by allowing a larger mixing zone than Georgia-Pacific should have received under applicable rules. Indeed, such a position would be antithetical to Petitioners' allegations that Georgia-Pacific had failed to achieve water quality standards for a number of parameters. The accepted testimony establishes that Georgia-Pacific's proposed mixing zones will comply with Department rules. No persuasive evidence was presented to the contrary. Because the effluent quality will differ from present conditions after completion of the process improvements, the proposed mixing zones will not be final until after process improvements have been made, the operation has been stabilized, and the mixing zones have been re- verified. No mixing zones are authorized in the Administrative Order. The Administrative Order contains a table setting forth potential mixing zones that are used as a benchmark to determine whether Georgia-Pacific can meet water quality standards in Rice Creek. The table sets out a series of hypothetical mixing zones at 800 meters, that is, the maximum presumptive distance afforded without additional relief mechanisms. Because no mixing zones are proposed to take effect in Rice Creek, there can be no issue of "illegal" mixing zones in Rice Creek. Within a range of potential discharge flows, from 20 MGD to 60 MGD, water quality standards will be met within the area of the proposed mixing zones for all parameters for which mixing zones are required. Mixing zones are allowed by Department rules and are considered a part of Florida water quality standards. In the context of the Department's permitting review, if a modeling analysis shows that the concentration of a pollutant in effluent is greater than the water quality criterion, the Department will determine if the amount of dilution in the receiving water is sufficient to assimilate the pollutants of concern. The Department will then determine either the length (in the case of a river) or area (in the case of an estuary) of a water body that would be necessary to achieve compliance through dilution. Based on chloride levels, the St. Johns River at the area of concern would not be considered an estuary under Department rules. Each of the proposed mixing zones would be less than 800 meters in length (as allowed by Department rule) and less than 125,600 square meters in area (a limitation that would apply only if the area was an estuary). The proposed discharge will comply with all minimum rule requirements with respect to mixing zones, such as those for dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and the absence of acute toxicity. Likewise, the proposed mixing zones will not impact any nursery areas for indigenous aquatic life. Nutrient Issues In Section I, Petitioners contested the Department's decision to not require effluent limits to prevent a violation of the narrative water quality criterion for nutrients. For reasons addressed in the undersigned's Order dated February 14, 2002, that issue is waived based because of Petitioners' failure to file a timely challenge to the WQBEL Technical Report. In addition, based on the findings set out below, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will not violate the narrative standard for nutrients. Further, the evidence shows that effluent limits for nutrients are not presently warranted. Petitioners presented testimony that the St. Johns River may be nitrogen-limited or phosphorous-limited at different times of the year, which means that concentrations of one or the other would limit algae growth at different times of the year. Relative light levels, as well as the penetration of light, also affect algae growth. Georgia-Pacific’s treatment system requires the addition of ammonia because ammonia or nitrate is a necessary nutrient for the growth of bacteria in the treatment system. Ammonia and nitrate are both nutrients. Although there can be a conversion from one form to the other, that conversion does not affect the net loss or gain of nutrients. Although nutrient issues are of concern to water bodies, it is absolutely necessary in a biological treatment system to have sufficient nutrients for the operation of the system to treat parameters such as BOD. The Georgia-Pacific facility is achieving a high level of treatment while managing its system at a minimum level of nutrient addition. Management of a treatment system requires attention not only to the influent and effluent, but also monitoring of conditions within the system itself to assure adequate treatment. Georgia-Pacific is continuing to refine its procedures for doing so. The State has adopted what is referred to as the "5- 5-3-1" (advanced wastewater treatment) limitation for municipal treatment plants that discharge to surface waters. This standard refers to five milligrams per liter for BOD, five milligrams per liter for suspended solids, three milligrams per liter for total nitrogen, and one milligram per liter for total phosphorous. This limitation has been in effect for many years and remains one of the most stringent state standards in the nation. Georgia-Pacific's facility would be in compliance with those standards for nitrogen and phosphorous. Effluent from the Georgia-Pacific mill increases the concentration of total nitrogen in Rice Creek, relative to background conditions. However, because of the relatively higher flow of the St. Johns River, when the load from the mill is transported to the St. Johns River, the increase in nitrogen concentration is so small as to be imperceptible. Nitrogen loading from Georgia-Pacific's Palatka mill on a long-term average (prior to upgrades of its treatment plant) has been measured at 1,196 pounds per day. The average loading at Buffalo Bluff, which is far upstream of Rice Creek and the Georgia-Pacific Palatka mill, is 36,615 pounds per day. Additional nonpoint sources contribute approximately 12,000 pounds per day in the study area. Thus, the loading from the Georgia-Pacific mill represents a 2.4 percent increase in nitrogen levels on the St. Johns River, a difference that cannot be measured. The largest point source of nutrients in the lower St. Johns River is the Buckman wastewater treatment plant in Duval County. That facility does not have nutrient limits on its discharge permit. Rice Creek does not provide any treatment (as opposed to dilution) for nitrogen in Georgia-Pacific's effluent. A review of probability distributions for nitrogen concentrations upstream and downstream of Rice Creek demonstrated that Rice Creek had no influence on nitrogen levels in the St. Johns River. Phosphorous concentrations from the effluent, if discharged to the St. Johns River, would dilute rapidly, decreasing to .2 milligrams per liter within the water column, five to six feet below the surface, after discharge from the diffuser, below the area in which light is absorbed at the surface of the water column. Chlorophyll-A is a parameter that is typically used as a measure of phytoplankton in the water column. Concentration distributions for chlorophyll-A at Buffalo Point (upstream of Rice Creek) matched concentrations for the same parameter at Racey Point, a station far downstream of Rice Creek. This analysis confirms that the inputs coming into the St. Johns River System from Rice Creek do not have a significant influence on the water quality of the St. Johns River, with respect to nutrients. With a discharge coming directly to the St. Johns River, and with nutrient loading being the same as from Rice Creek, the nutrient loading would not influence the St. Johns River. The Department does not have sufficient information at the present to impose a nutrient limit on Georgia-Pacific. The draft permit accounts for this issue through a re-opener clause which would authorize a limit when that information is available, if such a limit is necessary. Allegations Regarding "Deformities in Fish" Section J of the Petition includes allegations that Georgia-Pacific failed to provide reasonable assurances regarding adverse physiological response in animals under Rule 62-302.530(62), and that Georgia-Pacific has failed to provide reasonable assurances that its discharge will not be mutagenic or teratogenic to significant, locally occurring wildlife or aquatic species, or to human beings, under Rule 62- 302.500(1)(a)5. Petitioners suggest that the permit cannot be granted as proposed because it lacks effluent limits for (unstated) substances that are alleged to create potential violations of the free-from standard. This argument is barred as a matter of law for the reasons stated in the Order dated February 14, 2002. In addition, based on the following findings, this argument has been rejected because Georgia- Pacific has met the reasonable assurances standard without effluent limits on those unstated (and unknown) substances that are alleged to cause violations of those rules. Petitioners presented evidence that paper mill effluent in general contains chemicals which could cause the masculinization of the females in certain fish species, as well as hormonal effects in males. However, witness Koenig did not offer any testimony that Georgia-Pacific’s effluent, in particular, contained such chemicals. Dr. Koenig had collected no data and had not conducted any field studies in Rice Creek to support his testimony; rather, he relied on articles published by others and provided by Petitioner Linda Young. In agency practice and interpretation of the free- from standard in Rule 62-302.530(62), Florida Administrative Code, the question of whether a change is adverse depends on the overall community or population of that particular species. Tellingly, Petitioners did not present any competent evidence, through Dr. Koenig's testimony or otherwise, that Georgia-Pacific's effluent presents the potential for adverse effects on the overall community or population of any species. Dr. Koenig testified at length from his reading of studies performed by other scientists regarding changes in the hormone levels and gonadosomatic index (the relative weight of gonads) of fish in the St. Johns River in the vicinity of Rice Creek. In his testimony, Dr. Koenig relied on two published articles to address conditions in the vicinity of Rice Creek, both of which were primarily authored by M. Sepulveda. One of those articles showed hormonal changes taking place in a laboratory study where largemouth bass were exposed to mill effluent. That study also showed a change in the gonadosomatic index in the subject fish. Dr. Koenig did not offer any opinion that such changes would be adverse or that they would affect the reproduction of those fish. The other study was a field study with samples of fish at various regions in the vicinity of Rice Creek. This study did not include any fish from Rice Creek, but did include fish from the confluence of Rice Creek and the St. Johns River, as opposed to reference streams. The study showed lower levels of hormones in fish from the area of that confluence, but also showed similar effects at a reference stream 40 kilometers away. No testimony was presented to support the inference that the effects represented in the two studies were adverse, within the meaning of the free-from rule. Moreover, the data from those two studies were collected in 1996, 1997, and 1998, or before Georgia-Pacific converted its bleach plant to chlorine dioxide bleaching in March 2001. Therefore, Dr. Koenig had no data to support any theory that under current effluent conditions, Georgia-Pacific is producing or will produce compounds that would cause any changes of hormone concentrations in fish. With respect to the phenomenon of fish masculinization in Rice Creek, Petitioners' experts had no data to support a competent opinion on this subject. To support his testimony, Dr. Koenig only read one article that purported to demonstrate fish masculinization in 11-Mile Creek and the Fenholloway River, and one letter from an employee of the St. Johns River Water Management District [Young Exhibit 8A] that referred to "external anatomical anomalies" near Georgia-Pacific discharge points. The article attached to that letter and included in Young Exhibit 8A addressed data collected in Escambia County, and does not address conditions in Rice Creek. Petitioners attempted to present the theory that the potential for endocrine disruption or fish masculinization resulting from paper mill effluent would violate the free-from standard. As a condition to issuance of the permit, the Department proposes to require Georgia-Pacific to obtain approval of a plan of study to analyze the potential for significant masculinization effects from the discharge. Under the proposed conditions, Georgia-Pacific is required to determine the minimum concentration at which such effects may be detected. By its terms, the proposed permit may be reopened to adjust effluent limitations or monitoring requirements if the masculinization study shows a need for them. Department witness Brooks acknowledged a general concern for endocrine disruption resulting from paper mill effluent. In particular, Mr. Brooks referred to studies which showed that paper mill effluent could cause the elongation of an anal fin in the females of certain fish species. However, Mr. Brooks observed that although this appeared to be a physiologic response, there was no evidence or reason to believe that this effect was an adverse effect. Reports regarding masculinization, that is, the elongation of anal fins in female fish, are suspect because (among other reasons) the studies do not account for variances that would be expected based on the independent variables of sex, age, and growth. In any case, the data from those reports do not demonstrate significant, adverse effects in exposed populations. A critical and unbiased review of the published literature shows that impacts of masculinization are biologically interesting but preliminary in nature. Department witness Maher observed that the masculinization effect occurs naturally, and that the Department's plan of study is intended to determine whether this natural phenomenon becomes problematic or is enhanced by activity at the mill. Initial information reviewed by the Department indicates that the phenomenon is no longer experienced when a mill converts to a chlorine dioxide (ECF) bleaching process, as Georgia-Pacific has done in converting to ECF. According to witness Brooks, the observed effect known as "fish masculinization" is not confirmed to result from endocrine disruption. The Department has concluded that it has reason to be concerned about the potential for fish masculinization. From the Department's viewpoint, it is not clearly understood what is causing this effect. It has been shown that there is a direct relationship between concentration (or dilution) and the observation of those effects. This conclusion is consistent with Dr. Koenig's testimony, which observed a decline in observed effects based on the dosage or concentration of effluent. The Department has reviewed evidence showing that, with dilution, the effect of fish masculinization "go[es] away." In the Department's analysis of the fish masculinization issue in the present permit, the Department is requiring process improvements that would reduce this phenomenon, if it exists, in Rice Creek. In addition, if the discharge is relocated to the St. Johns River, the additional dilution would ameliorate the concern regarding fish masculinization, and the phenomenon will "go away." To give an even higher level of assurance that the resource will be protected, the Department is requiring a study to evaluate and confirm that the issue is resolved. The process changes required in the permit, the potential for further dilution in the St. Johns River if it becomes necessary, and the evaluations required in the permit condition render it very likely that any potential for fish masculinization will be mitigated. Thus, to the extent that fish masculinization could be deemed a violation of the free- from standard, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will not cause the masculinization of fish in the St. Johns River. Petitioners did not offer any credible evidence establishing that any specific compound or substance would cause the alleged effects of endocrine disruption or fish masculinization. Indeed, Dr. Koenig acknowledged that he was unable to find in his literature search the mechanism or chemical that is alleged to cause fish masculinization. Likewise, Petitioners were unable to suggest any concentration of that substance which would lead to those alleged effects. Dr. Koenig expressed a belief that chlorinated organic compounds from the paper manufacturing process may be responsible for endocrine disruption. Dr. Koenig also opined that within the general process of paper manufacturing, the bleaching process in particular was a concern. To the extent that Dr. Koenig may have had a concern regarding endocrine disruption from his review of studies performed using data from 1996 through 1998, it is reasonable to conclude that this concern is ameliorated by Georgia-Pacific's conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching in March 2001. There is no evidence to establish a relationship between the presence or absence of dioxin and fish masculinization. Compliance with Dissolved Oxygen Standard (and BOD Concerns) In Section K, Petitioners disputed whether Georgia- Pacific had provided reasonable assurance of compliance with the adopted dissolved oxygen standard. The proposed permit contains different permit limits for BOD for winter and summer, because the impacts of discharges are different during those parts of the year. Georgia-Pacific has shown a substantial downward trend for BOD. The Georgia-Pacific facility discharges mass loadings of BOD at quantities which are much less than what is required to meet discharge standards. A review of effluent data shows that even for the worst period for performance, Georgia-Pacific's effluent was well below the proposed permit limits for BOD. A review of BOD discharges over the period of January 2000 to August 2001 demonstrates a consistent ability of the facility to meet the proposed permit limits, as well as a general trend of improvement that reflects Georgia-Pacific’s upgrade of the treatment system. Georgia-Pacific will meet the minimum standards for dissolved oxygen in mixing zones. With additional process improvements, Georgia-Pacific will also experience additional environmental benefits in the reduction of chemical oxygen demand. N. Dioxin and "Related Compounds" As to dioxin, Petitioners alleged in Section L of their Petition that Georgia-Pacific may discharge dioxin in concentrations that could cause a violation of the free-from standard. The proposed permit includes a permit condition for a plan of study to assess levels of "TCDD" and "TCDF" in fish tissue in the receiving waters. Department witness Brooks was unaware of any regulatory authority to require fish tissue sampling for dioxin. Department engineer Kohn was also uncertain of any regulatory authority for the Department to test for dioxin in fish tissue. Mr. Kohn agreed with the proposition that when a proposed permit condition is not specifically authorized by rule or statute, the condition must be withdrawn if the applicant objects. However, in this case, Georgia-Pacific did not object to the inclusion of a permit limit of .014 picograms per liter of dioxin in its final effluent. As noted above, Georgia-Pacific established that under its current effluent conditions, following conversion to chlorine dioxide bleaching, the facility is "non-detect" for dioxin. The Department does not have any adopted standards for fish tissue concentrations. Petitioners presented very little evidence of dioxin concentration in fish tissue following Georgia-Pacific's conversion to ECF bleaching, and they opposed the introduction of such data into evidence. A review of available data shows that there was not a statistically significant difference between the level of bioaccumulation of dioxin in fish tissue in Rice Creek versus a reference creek. The Florida Department of Health has concluded, based on review of prior fish tissue data, that a fish consumption advisory for Rice Creek was not warranted. Total Suspended Solids In Section M, Petitioners have alleged that TSS in the effluent would cause various environmental problems. However, Petitioners did not allege that TSS in the effluent would lead to a violation of water quality standards, and they did not present any accepted testimony or other evidence to support such a theory. There is no adopted water quality standard for TSS. According to the WQBEL Technical Report, effluent levels of TSS are generally comparable to background levels in the St. Johns River. The primary wastewater clarifier is designed to remove fiber or other settleable solids from the effluent before it travels to the secondary treatment system. Total suspended solids in Georgia-Pacific's effluent are primarily derived from biota in the treatment system, rather than fiber from the industrial process. Georgia-Pacific has shown a substantial downward trend for TSS. The facility reliably discharges TSS at quantities which are much less than what is required to meet proposed effluent limits. A review of discharge data for TSS demonstrates that Georgia-Pacific would perform in full compliance with the proposed permit limits. Petitioners presented no evidence to the contrary. Petitioners likewise presented no evidence to quantify any impacts from TSS. Color, the Transparency Standard, and Related Issues Petitioners have also alleged that the color in Georgia-Pacific's effluent would lead to nuisance conditions in violation of Rule 62-302.500(1)(a). However, they did not allege any potential violation of the one parameter traditionally associated with effluent color: the Department's transparency standard. Elevated levels of color in the effluent reduces the ability of light to penetrate into the water column, with potential effects on the growth of aquatic plants. This is translated into a "compensation point," that is, the water depth at which the light level reaches one percent. The state transparency standard prohibits a discharge from causing a decrease in the compensation point of more than ten percent, relative to natural background. The rate of decrease of light within a water column is related to increased color levels. Analysis performed by Georgia-Pacific's consultants shows that a ten percent change in compensation depth corresponds to a seventeen percent increase in color above natural background levels. Under the proposed permit, color was used as a surrogate, or alternative measure, for compliance with the transparency standard. Color was not used as a surrogate for any parameter other than transparency. Georgia-Pacific will, with additional process improvements, see additional environmental benefits in reducing the color of its effluent. For the purpose of the application, Georgia-Pacific's modeling analysis assumed that based on process improvements, its effluent would have a color of 1202 pcu. EPA's technical team had opined that Georgia- Pacific would, with process improvements, achieve a reduction in color to 500 pcu. Georgia-Pacific had opined that the improvements would achieve a color of 1202 pcu. Department witness Owen opined that the color reduction would be in a range between those two figures. Petitioners did not present any contrary evidence as to the ability of additional process improvements to reduce effluent color. Accordingly, using the most conservative (least optimistic) figure, Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that before a discharge to the St. Johns River would be authorized, it will reduce the color of its effluent to 1202 pcu. The proposed permit takes into account the potential that Georgia-Pacific's process improvements will achieve greater improvements in color than anticipated. Under the proposed permit, the Department would reduce the size of the proposed mixing zone if Georgia-Pacific demonstrates that the color of its effluent is lower than projected. The modeling analysis further demonstrates that based on a discharge to the St. Johns River, assuming an effluent color of 1202 pcu, the change in compensation depth is greater than ten percent in the vicinity of the proposed diffuser. A 734-meter mixing zone for transparency would be required for a discharge to the middle of the St. Johns River. The required area for such a mixing zone is 64,000 square meters. Antidegradation Review In Section P, Petitioners have generally alleged that the Department failed to conduct a proper antidegradation analysis. More specifically, they alleged that the proposed discharge would reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them. Because Georgia-Pacific presently discharges to Rice Creek, and because a separate relief mechanism (the Administrative Order) authorizes the discharge to Rice Creek, it appears that the antidegradation issues relate solely to the proposed discharge into the St. Johns River. If the relocation had resulted in degradation of the receiving water, the Department would have regulatory authority in its Rule 62-4.242(1)(c) to consider whether Georgia-Pacific could minimize its discharge through other discharge locations, the use of land application, or reuse. However, Petitioners failed to allege in their Petition that the Department misapplied that regulatory authority. Moreover, under Department practice, when a new discharge or relocation of a discharge will result in an environmental benefit, it is not necessary to conduct a review of other discharge options. The Department undertakes an antidegradation analysis in, among other scenarios, cases where a discharge will result in achievement of minimum water quality standards for a given designated use but will lead to an incremental lowering of water quality. The purpose of this analysis is to assure that the societal benefits of the discharge outweigh the cost of that incremental lowering. The proposed permit will not lead to the increase in discharge of any parameter, and the permit is more stringent and adds additional parameters or limits. In addition, there is a trend of improved performance for the treatment system. In the present case, the Department has concluded that the proposed project will result in a significant improvement in water quality by the reduction of pollutants associated with exceedences of water quality standards in Rice Creek. Regardless of whether the discharge remains in Rice Creek or is relocated to the St. Johns River, the proposed Permit and Administrative Order will lead to an improvement in water quality as opposed to a degradation of water quality. Based on improvements with respect to specific conductance parameters, the ability to relocate the discharge into the middle of the St. Johns River where better mixing will occur (relative to the confluence of Rice Creek), and anticipated improvements in grass beds, the proposed pipeline will lead to a net environmental benefit in the St. Johns River and Rice Creek. The project as set forth in the proposed Permit and Administrative Order will be clearly in the public interest because it will result in full achievement of water quality standards and full compliance with the designated use of the receiving water body. The project will result in a substantial reduction in pollutant loading in Rice Creek and the St. Johns River, regardless of the whether the discharge will be located in Rice Creek or in the St. Johns River. The Department adequately evaluated other discharge locations, alternative treatment, and disposal alternatives. Studies, including a land application pilot project, demonstrated that land application was not feasible based upon impacts to groundwater resources. In their Petition, Petitioners did not dispute the Department's analysis of those factors under applicable rules. Given these considerations, it is found that Georgia-Pacific has provided reasonable assurances that it will meet water quality standards, and it is evident that Georgia-Pacific will not reduce the quality of the St. Johns River below its Class III designation. Further, the proposed discharge will be clearly in the public interest for the purpose of antidegradation analysis. Further, the proposed discharge into the St. Johns River is important to and beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare, taking into account the policies set forth in Rules 62-302.100 and 62-302.300, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed discharge into the St. Johns River will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Instead, the proposed discharge would provide a benefit to fish and wildlife, and their habitats. No persuasive evidence was presented that the proposed discharge to the St. Johns River would adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. Indeed, the record demonstrates a beneficial effect as to those factors. The proposed discharge has not been shown to be inconsistent with the applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (SWIM plan). Rather, the evidence shows that the proposed discharge would promote the implementation of the applicable SWIM plan. Monitoring Issues Section Q in the Petition generally challenged the adequacy of proposed monitoring requirements. As to this issue, the monitoring conditions imposed in the proposed permit are sufficient to ensure compliance with the proposed permit. Petitioner Young's witness Gilbert agreed that the proposed monitoring conditions were adequate to determine the result of process changes, that the proposed monitoring conditions were comprehensive, and that those conditions were beyond what the Department normally required. The Department does not propose to engage in water quality sampling at the end of the diffuser or at the edge of the mixing zone because of the technical difficulties associated with such an endeavor. Instead, the process for determining compliance is to determine the condition of the effluent and simulate water quality conditions of the receiving water body under low-flow conditions (when the river would be most vulnerable to pollution discharges). Such an approach is more protective because it eliminates variables that may not be representative of worst-case conditions. The evidence shows that the size of Georgia- Pacific's facility renders it impracticable for Georgia- Pacific to compromise the integrity of sampling results, as suggested by Petitioners. Flow Limitations In their Petition, Petitioners also contended that the proposed agency action violates Rules 62-4.240(3)(a) and 62-620.310(9)(a) by failing to specify the volume of discharge or flows. Under Department practice, flow must be specified but is not necessarily limited. Flow was adequately specified in the proposed permit, where the facility is described as 40 MGD wastewater treatment facility with a 22 MGD expected average flow. Volume limits are indirectly set through the establishment of a mixing zone and through mass loading limits in the permit, such as the loading limits for BOD and suspended solids. When flow is increased and the concentration of the effluent remains constant, the flow would be limited by the mass limits in the permit. Furthermore, the pipe and diffuser will have a hydraulic limitation, that is, a physical limitation on the amount that can physically be discharged. The pipeline and diffuser are hydraulically limited to 60 MGD based on the current design. Over a ten-year period, Georgia-Pacific has shown a trend toward reduced effluent flow. For example, in 1991, Georgia-Pacific discharged just under 40,000,000 gallons per day (GPD). In 2001, the discharge was less than 24,000,000 GPD. As a result of water conservation measures, Georgia- Pacific has been able to achieve a substantial reduction in effluent flow even when it experienced increased storm water flow into the treatment system. Because of stormwater inputs into the treatment system, it is very difficult to set a flow limit on the discharge from a pulp and paper mill. Indeed, the Department does not typically impose volume limits on NPDES permits for pulp and paper mills. Where volume or flow limits are imposed on pulp and paper mills, they are necessary in order to assure compliance with a specific standard. The Administrative Order Georgia-Pacific has submitted plans and a reasonable schedule for constructing, installing, or placing into operation an approved pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system. No contrary evidence was presented, and no alternative construction schedule was proposed by Petitioners. In assessing a schedule to achieve compliance, the Department considered the time necessary to construct additional improvements as well as the reasonableness of the time period in light of Georgia-Pacific's capital investment. As part of this analysis, the Department also considered Georgia-Pacific's commitment to go beyond what they were legally required to do in environmental upgrades. The schedule of compliance is reasonable, given the cost and magnitude of the improvements required of Georgia-Pacific. Georgia-Pacific needs permission to continue its discharge to Rice Creek for a period of time necessary to complete research, planning, construction, installation, and operation of an approved and acceptable pollution abatement facility or alternative waste disposal system. The time period described in the Administrative Order will enable Georgia-Pacific to maximize the operation of the process improvements in order to determine if the discharge can meet water quality standards in Rice Creek. Given the cost and magnitude of the improvements required in the permit and Administrative Order, the schedule of compliance set forth in the Administrative Order is reasonable. There is no present, reasonable alternative means of disposing of wastewater other than to discharge it into waters of the State. In their Petition, Petitioners contested the Department's general antidegradation analysis but did not allege that any alternative means of disposal were improperly overlooked. The Department does not have specific regulatory authority to require facilities such as Georgia-Pacific to consider re-use as part of its antidegradation analysis, as it does with domestic waste discharges. Nonetheless, the Department did look at re-use and land application and determined that they were not feasible alternatives. Although it was not specifically required to do so by rule, Georgia- Pacific had exhausted every reasonable means to re-use (rather than discharge) water from its facility. Under earlier authorizations, Georgia-Pacific was not required to achieve standards for color, conductance, and chronic toxicity in Rice Creek. The granting of an operation permit will be in the public interest. This is because Putnam County will suffer an adverse economic impact if the facility is shut down and there will be net environmental benefits achieved through compliance with the requirements set forth in the Permit and Administrative Order. The Permit requires Georgia-Pacific to submit a written report to the Department if it appears that a mixing zone is needed for chronic whole effluent toxicity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order (1) issuing proposed permit number FL0002763 to Georgia-Pacific Corporation, as set forth in Department Exhibit 175, and with the change in the permit conditions as requested in Georgia-Pacific Exhibit 102 and proposed by the Department during the hearing, and (2) approving Administrative Order No. 039-NE as set forth in Department Exhibit 176. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 3rd day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Keyser & Woodward, P.A. Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32148-0092 Ralf G. Brookes, Esquire 1217 East Cape Coral Parkway, No. 107 Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9604 Jessica C. Landman, Esquire 1200 New York Avenue, Northwest Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20005 Terry Cole, Esquire Jeffrey Brown, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 Teri L. Donaldson, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Thomas R. Gould, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent, E. Speer and Associates, Inc. (the "Applicant"), should be granted a permit for the construction of a permanent docking facility pursuant to Sections 403.91-403.929, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17.
Findings Of Fact Whether Quantified Hydrographic Studies Are Necessary For All Marina Applications To Provide Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion (stated as a finding of fact) that it is not possible to demonstrate adequate flushing without "quantifying flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data." (R.O. at 20, 22-24, 47, 49-50, 54, 57-58; F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38-39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66, and 69) It is clear from the tenor of the entire recommended order that the Hearing Officer believes that as a matter of law an expert's opinion is not sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that flushing will be adequate to prevent violations of water quality standards unless that opinion is based on quantified conclusions generated by objective methods and appropriate hydrodynamic data. (R.O. at 47, 49-50, 57-58) Thus, for example, the Hearing Officer opines that quantification of flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates using objective measurements of appropriate hydrodynamic data is an essential element of the prima facie showing required to be made by the applicant. (R.O. at 47; C.O.L. No. 11) The Hearing Officer places great significance an the following excerpt from the opinion in 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Reculation, 552 So.2d 946 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. den., 562 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1990): 1800 Atlantic filed 34 exceptions to the recommended order, most of which were denied in the Department's final order . . . . The final order approved and adopted most of the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the recommended order and denied the permit. The following stated rulings and reasons there for are significant to the issues on this appeal. (emphasis added) We must note at this point that there is no finding of fact in the hearing officer's recommended order that quantifies how productive the marine habitat may be in this case, and no record support for the suggestion that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of the marine habitat attributable to this project [footnote omitted]. (emphasis added) Exception 23 filed by 1800 Atlantic challenged the hearing officer's finding that the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreational values, and marine productivity in the vicinity . . . The Department rejected this exception based upon the hearing officer's general statements, without any quantification whatsoever, of adverse effects upon these matters . . . (emphasis added) 1800 Atlantic, 552 So.2d at 951-952. I do not concur that 1800 Atlantic stands for the proposition that quantified hydrographic measurement of flushing is in all cases an essential element of a prima facie showing that a marina project will not cause violations of water quality standards. Notwithstanding the above noted statement of the court in 1800 Atlantic that "there is no finding of fact . . . that quantifies 'how productive the marine habitat may be' . and no record support . . . that there would be some quantifiable diminution in the quality of marine habitat attributable to [the] project," 552 So.2d 951, the court did not reject the finding that the project adversely affected the conservation of fish and wildlife, fishing or recreation values, and marine productivity. Indeed, had the court rejected the above finding due to lack of quantified findings the court would never have gone on to reach the issue of mitigation because in 1800 Atlantic mitigation could only become relevant if the applicant was unable to provide reasonable assurance that the project satisfies the public interest criteria of Section 403.918(2) (a), Florida Statutes. See Section 403.918(2)(b), Florida Statutes. I do agree that in some cases quantified hydrographic studies of flushing may be required in order to provide reasonable assurances. Thus, in Rudloe v. Dickerson Bavshore, Inc., 10 FALR 3426 (DER Case No. 87-0816, June 9, 1988), my predecessor held that a dye tracer study was necessary to provide quantitative information about dilution rates and directions on dispersion of pollutants emanating from a proposed marina site which was in "close proximity" to Class II waters approved for shellfish harvesting. 10 FALR at 3447-48. However, the need for such quantified studies must be determined on a case by case basis and is not required as a matter of law for all marinas. 5/ Far me to determine as a matter of law that experts may establish a fact only by certain types of evidence would be an unwarranted and unwise intrusion into the scientific domain of the expert. Thus, in Kralik v. Ponce Marine, Inc., 11 FALR 669, 671 (DER Final Order, Jan. 11, 1989), my predecessor held that expert testimony with regard to flushing does not lack credibility just because a hydrographic study had not been conducted. Of course, the finder of fact has the ultimate say on how much weight an expert opinion should be given if it is not based on a quantified study. Thus, whether an expert testifying on adequacy of flushing has conducted a quantifiable hydrographic study merely goes to the weight of the evidence. Kralik, 11 FALR at 671. I only conclude that a quantified hydrographic study for a proposed marina is not in all cases essential for a showing of reasonable assurances that water quality standards will not be violated. Accordingly, to the extent that the Hearing Officer's findings of fact state that a quantified hydrographic study is required in all cases as a prima facie element of a showing of reasonable assurance that a project will not violate water quality standards, I reject such statement as a mislabled and incorrect conclusion of law. Reasonable Assurance That Flushing Is Adequate To Prevent Violations of Water Quality Standards I read Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in whole or in part as taking exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study was needed in order to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards, and that because such a quantified hydrographic study had not been conducted, reasonable assurances had not been provided. (F.O.F. Nos. 33, 35, 38- 39, 40, 43-45, 64, 66 and 69) As noted by the Hearing Officer, the applicant's expert testimony concerning the adequacy of the flushing consisted of general statements describing visual observations of river and tidal flows which, together with past experience and knowledge of the general area of the project, formed the basis for the experts' opinions that a quantified hydrographic study was not necessary for this project. (R.O. at 22-23) Thus, far example, Mr. Charles C. Isiminger, accepted as an expert in marina design and hydrographic engineering testified that based on his knowledge of the area, its riverine and tidal flows, a hydrographic documentation was not needed to provide reasonable assurance that the project would not cause water quality violations. Mr. Isiminger also testified that any pollutants entering the water from the marina would be flushed out of the area within one tidal cycle. (Tr. at 65-66, 70, 77- 79, 93, 110, 125, 128, 134) Mr. Thomas Franklin, an environmental supervisor from the Department testified that: the hydrographic survey was not really necessary due to the location of the project being in open waters and in close vicinity to the Inlet with a large volume of tidal waters moving in this area, plus the fact that it was further enhanced by flushing due to the St. Lucie River being -- basically coming around Hell Gate point [sic] and funneling out into this estuary. (emphasis added) TR at 437. Other experts also testified that the area was well flushed and that a quantified hydrographic study was not needed in this case. (Jacqueline Kelly, Tr. at 187; John Meyer, Tr. at 319, 322, 341; Gerald Ward, Tr. at 44749) 6/ Speer asserts that the Hearing Officer's finding that a quantified hydrographic study is required in this case cannot stand in light of the unrebutted expert testimony that the marina site will be well flushed and that the rate of flushing provides reasonable assurances the water quality standards will not be violated. I have found no competent substantial evidence in the record which would support a finding that under the facts of this case a quantified hydrographic study is required. I did note that in Footnote 21 of the Recommended Order (R.O. at 20) the Hearing Officer states: Tidal range is only one of the types of data used to quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. See TR at 78. Other appropriate data include: overall flow rates, mid tide flow, flow amplitude (the magnitude of the flow without regard to direction, i.e., speed as opposed to velocity), horizontal current distribution, downstream plume characteristics, and field verification using a dye tracer. All of this data is needed to fully describe and quantify flushing rates and pollutant dispersal rates. (citing testimony of Mr. Isiminger at Tr. 88-94) At first blush this may appear to be competent substantial evidence supporting a finding that a quantified hydrographic study is necessary in this case. However, when the testimony is read in its complete context, it is clear that Mr. Isiminger is testifying as to what is necessary to do a hydrographic study when one is needed, and is not testifying that such a study is needed in this case. (Tr. 88-94). I also note that the record contains a memo written by Dr. Kenneth Echternacht, a hydrographic engineer employed by the Department. (Tr. at 67-70) This memo was admitted without objection. (Tr. at 23) The memo states in part that "without . . . hydrographic documentation, reasonable assurance cannot be given that the project will not cause problems." (Tr. at 70; Pet. Exh. No. 10) 7/ Dr. Echternacht was not called as a witness at the hearing and the letter was not offered as evidence of the opinion of Dr. Echternacht or the Department at the time of the de novo hearing. To the contrary, the above noted testimony of Mr. Franklin and the testimony of Jacqueline D. Kelly, an environmental specialist of the Department accepted as an expert in evaluating impacts of environmental dredge and fill projects (Tr. at 187, 195; R.O. at 3), clearly establish that at the time of the de novo hearing the Department was of the opinion that further hydrographic documentation was not needed. The Hearing Officer noted that Mr. Meyer testified that the flushing is a "very, very complicated dynamic situation." (Tr. at 320). The testimony was as follows: Q. So you don't know for sure whether the currents here impact this at all or stay offshore from it? A. Oh, the currents definitelv affect it, and you do have interchange -- as I mentioned before, a very high rate of interchange on a daily basis on every tide. Q. Are you saying that the current that flows through here every day flows right through the site? A. We're dealing with two different things here. We're dealing with your currents, your general migration of waters from the estuary from the inland areas down. You're also dealing with tidal effects coming in and out, and it's a very, very complicated dynamic situation. For me to try to tell you exactly how these things work would be impossible without having a very, very long drawn-out expensive study done on the entire area, and I have not reviewed any studies like that. Tr. at 319-20 (emphasis added) When taken in its context it is clear that Mr. Meyer is testifying that there is a very high rate of exchange on a daily basis on every tide. The fact that he viewed the exact details of the flushing as very complicated in no way retracted his statement that there was a very high rate of exchange on every tide. My review of the record leads me to concur with Speer that no testimony, either on direct, cross-examination, or examination by the Hearing Officer, nor any other evidence was introduced to rebut the expert testimony presented by Speer and the Department that flushing on the site was adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. 8/ As a general rule, the trier of fact may not arbitrarily reject uncontroverted evidence as proof of a contested fact. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G. & J. Investments, 506 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. den., 515 So.2d 229 (Fla. 1987); City of St. Petersburg v. Vinoy Park Hotel, 352 So.2d 149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In Re: Estate of Hannon, 447 So.2d 1027 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). This does not mean that a mere scintilla of unrebutted evidence is sufficient to establish a contested fact in an administrative hearing. At least in the context of administrative proceedings, the unrebutted evidence still must be competent substantial evidence to support a finding of fact. 9/ There is no suggestion that the Hearing Officer rejected the unrebutted testimony of the experts of Speer and the Department as not being competent substantial evidence. In fact, in the light of the testimony of Mr. Isiminger (Tr. at 65- 66), Mr. Ward ( Tr. at 447-449), Mr. Meyer (Tr. at 238- 239), and Mr. Franklin (Tr. at 345-350), it is beyond peradventure that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause violations of water quality standards. It is clear from the context of the Recommended Order that the Hearing Officer believed that reasonable assurance had not been provided only because he believed that a quantified hydrographic study was required as a matter of law. Although I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion that a quantified hydrographic study must be conducted as a matter of law for all marina applications, I must still determine whether a quantified hydrographic analysis is required under the facts of this case. In Rudloe v. Dickerson Bayshore, 10 FALR 3426 (DER Final Order, June 9, 1988) it was held that a hydrographic study was not adequate because it did not include a quantified dye tracer study. Id., 10 FALR at 3448. In Rudloe, as in this case, the marina was located in Class III waters, but near Class II waters. However, in Rudloe, the marina site was much closer to the Class II waters (approximately 1,700 feet in Rudloe (10 FAIR at 3430) as compared to approximately 8,000 feet in this case). (R.O. at 16, F.O.F. No. 26) Also, the Rudloe case is significantly different from this case in that competent substantial expert opinion was presented in Rudloe that the marina would adversely impact the Class II shellfish harvesting area. See Rudloe, 10 FALR at 3433-35, 3437-38 (testimony of DNR expert that operation of marina would result in closure of waters to the harvest of shellfish; testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston that the hydrographic drogue studies conducted were inadequate.) In this case, neither expert nor lay testimony was offered by Barringer to show that operation of the marina would result in violation of water quality standards or have any adverse impact on the Class II shellfish waters. 10/ I conclude that the facts of this case as found by the Hearing Officer are not sufficiently similar to the facts of Rudloe so as to justify holding as a matter of law a quantified hydrographic study is necessary to establish the required reasonable assurances. Since the record contains competent substantial evidence that flushing is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not cause water quality violations, and since there is no competent substantial evidence in the record to support the Hearing Officer's contrary finding, I must accept the exception of Speer and reject the Hearing Officer's findings of fact to the contrary. In this case I note that I am not so much rejecting findings of fact as rejecting a conclusion of law. As I noted, the Hearing Officer's finding is really based on a conclusion of law which I reject. This leaves only unrebutted competent substantial evidence that there will be adequate flushing to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. There is no rational basis to reject this unrebutted competent substantial evidence. Therefore, I must accept as proven that the applicant has provided the reasonable assurances that operation of the marina will not result in water quality violations. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; Estate of Hannon; supra, Effect On Class II Waters Speer's Exceptions Nos. 7 and 8 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina would not have a "negative effect" an the Class II waters of the St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (F.O.F. No. 43) Rule 17-312.080(6)(b), Fla. Admin. Code provides: The Department also shall deny a permit for dredging and filling in any class of waters where the location of the project is adjacent or in close proximity to Class II waters, unless the applicant submits a plan or proposes a procedure which demonstrates that the dredging or filling will not have a negative effect on the Class II waters and will not result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters. In this case expert testimony was presented by Speer and the Department that due to the distance of the marina site from the Class II waters (8,000 feet) the marina site was not in close proximity to the Class II waters, and due to the rapid flushing of the area, the construction and operation of the marina would neither have a negative effect nor would result in violations of water quality standards in the Class II waters of St. Lucie Inlet and the Great Pocket. (Isiminger, Tr. at 96, 126-27; Meyer, Tr. at 254-55) I find that the record contains no competent substantial evidence to rebut the evidence introduced by Speer and the Department that the marina will have no negative effect on Class II waters and will not result in violation of water quality standards in Class II waters. Accordingly, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In Re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Reasonable Assurance That Operation Of The Marina Will Not Result In Prop Dredging Or Violations Of The State Water Quality Criterion For Turbidity Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 9-12, and 16 in whole or in part take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the boat traffic from operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. (F.O.F. Nos. 33-34, 45, 48, 52-53, 64, and 67) 11/ On one hand, there was testimony that the depths of the marina, in combination with the size of boats allowed in the various slips, would allow for a one foot clearance from the bottom of the boats to the bottom of the marina, and that this clearance, in combination with speed limits in the marina, would provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not result in prop dredging or turbidity violations. (Isiminger, Tr. at 104-107, 118; Meyer Tr. at 263-65, 299, 304- 305; Kelly, Tr. at 189-190; Ward, Tr. at 460) On the other hand, Bruce Graham, admitted as an expert in marine biology testified that: "A large boat, three feet from the bottom, I think would resuspend sediment." (Graham, Tr. at 378). The Hearing Officer, noting that when asked if one foot clearance is sufficient to prevent prop dredging and resultant turbidity violations, a Department witness, testified: I would have to say that we simply don't have enough documentation to know this for a fact. We know that a foot gives us a degree of comfort that there will not be prop wash. In certain instances -- a tug boat, for instance, you know, with huge engines, you're going to have prop wash over a much -- over a large area and with probably much more than a foot of clearance. But for the normal, typical marina a foot, as I say, gives us a degree of comfort that we have settled on. Neyer, Tr. at 264. The Hearing Officer concluded that the witnesses of Speer and the Department could not explain the reasons or efficacy of the "one foot policy" except to say that in their experience the one foot policy was adequate to prevent prop dredging and turbidity violations. (R.O. at 28 n.35)0 The Hearing Officer thus found that Speer and the Department failed to "prove up" the one foot policy -- i.e., failed to elucidate and explicate the reason for the policy. 12/ Clearly the Hearing Officer placed more weight on the testimony of Mr. Bruce Graham than that of Isiminger, Meyer, Kelly and Ward. Since I cannot say that the testimony of Graham was not competent substantial evidence, I am not at liberty to reweigh the evidence or reject the Hearing Officer's finding of fact. See, Florida Dept. of Corrections v. Bradley, 510 So.2d 1122 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Heifetz v. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Sections 120.57(1)(b)10., and 120.68(10), Florida Statutes. Speer contends that Barringer presented no evidence that prop dredging will cause sufficient turbidity to violate the state water quality turbidity criterion of 29 NTUs. 13/ That contention misses the point. The burden is on Speer to establish by the preponderance of evidence that reasonable assurance has been provided that operation of the marina will not result in violations of the water quality criterion for turbidity. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The Hearing Officer, as the finder of fact, concluded that Speer failed to do so. Accordingly, I reject the exception of Speer and accept the Hearing Officer's finding of fact that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that operation of the marina would not cause prop dredging or violations of the state water quality criterion for turbidity. Manatee Impacts and the Public Interest Test Speer's Exceptions Nos. 13 and 17 take exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to do a quantified study of impacts to manatees and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat. (F.O.F. Nos. 61, 64 and 68) The Hearing Officer reasoned as follows: Instead of a traffic study, the Applicant and DER presented evidence in the form of general statements that manatees need not migrate north and south through the approach channel. According to the Applicant and DER, manatees can migrate across the project site by one of two alternative routes. They can migrate in one or two feet of water under moored boats and then under wave breaks on the north and east piers, or they can migrate in the shallow water landward of the west boundary of the project. That evidence was not persuasive and was controverted by competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence that manatees would be deterred from migrating under the project footprint by substantial obstacles in their path. Manatees migrating under the project footprint would be exposed to 86 or more moving boats with powerful engines and drafts of four to five feet in waters covering approximately 20,800 square feet. It could be argued, or course, that 86 or more boats would not be moving in and out of the marina at one time. However, it is impossible to estimate occupancy rates, length of stay, and frequency of boat trips without a traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) As Speer's exception notes, there was testimony that because of the width of the river and boat speed restrictions in the project area, there would be no adverse impacts an the manatee from the marina. (Kelly, Tr. at 162; Meyer, Tr. at 255-56, 331- 32; Isiminger, Tr. at 130) The St. Lucie/Jupiter/Hobe Sound waterways are a major travel corridor for manatees. (DER Exh. No. 4) Between 1974 and December 1990, there were ten water craft related manatee fatalities within the boating sphere of influence of the project. (DER Exh. No. 4) In order to reduce impacts on the manatees, the proposed permit contains the following specific conditions: S.C. No. 13: The permittee agrees to install and maintain a minimum of one manatee education/display on the main access pier during and after construction. S.C. No. 15: The permittee agrees that any collision with a manatee shall be reported immediately [to DNR and U.S. Fish and wildlife Service]. S.C. No. 18: The permittee shall post four (4) manatee area/slow speed signs, two of which would be spaced along the perimeter pier and two of which would be located on the outside of the marina for all boating traffic to observe within the marina facility. (DER Exh. No. 3) 14/ There was testimony that the piers, once constructed, would not impair the passage of manatees. (Isiminger, Tr. at 114- 115) On the other hand, there was some testimony that manatees may have to go around the project rather than through it. (Meyer, Tr. at 311) The existing boat traffic past the site of the project to the Inlet was "rough1y estimated" at 50 to 100 boats a day. (Meyer, Tr. at 337) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that "while [the project] may negatively affect, it is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the West Indian Manatee." (Tr. at 120-21) The Hearing Officer concluded that reasonable assurance as to adverse impacts on manatees could not be provided absent a quantified traffic study. (R.O. at 35, n. 51) In Coscan Florida, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 12 FAIR 1359 (DER Final Order March 9, 1990), the Department held that the information needed to determine a marina's impact on manatees and the necessary actions to mitigate such impacts must be decided an a case by case basis. For example, in Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 11 FALR 4710 (DER Final Order, Aug. 24, 1989), 15/ a marina sought to expand by adding 113 new wet slips. The marina was required to develop a manatee protection plan far the surrounding portions of the Caloosahatchee River, all new slips were limited to sail boats until the manatee protection plan was implemented and enforced, and power boat occupancy was limited to 75% of the total 174 wetslips in any event. The marina also made available a wet slip for use by the Florida Marine Patrol. In this case there is evidence of significant boat related manatee fatalities in the boating sphere of influence of the proposed marina. There is also evidence of existing traffic of 50-100 boats per day past the project site. In view of the fact that this project would add 86 slips and a public fueling facility, it seems likely that that the project will significantly increase both boat traffic and the threat of manatee collisions. Accordingly, I concur with the Hearing Officer that there is competent substantial evidence to support a finding that further studies are needed to determine what, if any, additional manatee protection conditions are needed to provide reasonable assurance that manatees will not be adversely affected. I conclude that the applicant did not provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the marina will not have an adverse impact on manatees, their migratory patterns, and their habitat, and therefore failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Therefore, I reject the exception of Speer. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts Speer's Exception No. 15 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that the applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance that there will be no adverse cumulative pacts created either by the cumulative effects of the object and existing similar projects, or by secondary pacts of the project itself. (F.O.F. No. 66) 16/ Cumulative impact analysis takes into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Conservancy v. A. Vernon Allen Builder, supra; Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Secondary impact analysis considers the impact of the project itself and of any other relevant activities that are very closely linked or causally related to the permitted project. Conservancy, 580 So.2d at 778; J.T. McCormick v. City of Jacksonville, 12 FALR 960, 980. 17/ Thus, in Conservancy the secondary impact analysis was required to consider the environmental impacts of development of 75 estate homes on an island where the development would be reasonably expected as a result of the permitted laying of a subaqueous sewer line. Similarly, in del Campo v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 452 So.2d 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), the Department was required to consider the environmental impacts of the foreseeable development of an island facilitated by the permitted building of a bridge to the island. In this case there is competent substantial evidence that there are other marinas located 1,750 feet downstream in Willoughby Creek, and 5,000 feet downstream in Manatee Pocket. (R.O. F.O.F. 31; Isiminger, Tr. at 112; Meyer, Tr. at 261) The record contains competent substantial evidence that the cumulative impact of the project and the existing marinas in Willoughby Creek and Manatee Pocket will not result in violations of state water policy. (Isiminger, Tr. at 125; Kelly, Tr. at 167) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly on cumulative impacts is not competent, substantial evidence. In light of the fact that there is no competent substantial evidence to indicate that cumulative impacts would result in water quality violations, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersbur; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. As to secondary impacts, the Hearing Officer pointed out that Speer did not introduce any evidence as to whether there would be secondary impacts to water quality as the result of further development or increased utilization of the uplands facilities. (See F.O.F. 66, n.59, R.O. at 39) Such further development or increased utilization of upland facilities is reasonably foreseeable and would be very closely linked or causally related to the building of an 86 slip marina with public fuel services. As noted above, the applicant has the burden of providing reasonable assurances as to cumulative and secondary impacts. Brown v. DER, supra; Conservancy, supra. However, neither the pleadings nor the pre-hearing stipulation raised the issue of the adequacy of the secondary impact analysis. In a case such as this where the Department's notice of intent to issue a permit has been challenged by a third party, the applicant's prima facie case need only include the application and the accompanying documentation and information relied on by the Department as the basis of its intent to issue. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., 396 So.2d 778, 788 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The petitioner challenging the permit must identify the areas of controversy and allege a factual basis for its contentions that the applicant did not provide the necessary reasonable assurances. J.W.C., 396 So.2d at 789. See also Woodholly Assoc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 451 So.2d 1002, 1004 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Since Barringer did not identify this issue and did not allege any factual basis for a contention that the secondary impact analysis was inadequate or incorrect, I may not rule on the issue in this order. Miscellaneous Exceptions To Findings of Fact Speer's Exception No. 14 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project will have no adverse impact on (1) the relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the project, including seagrasses, shell fish, and fin-fish, and (2) recreational and commercial values in the vicinity. (F.O.F. No. 64) Speer contends that this finding is not supported in the record by competent substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebutted testimony of Ms. Kelly and Mr. Isiminger. (Kelly, Tr. at 159, 161-62, 165-67; Isiminger, Tr. at 73) I cannot say that the testimony of Isiminger and Kelly is not competent, substantial evidence, and I find no evidence in the record to rebut the testimony of Kelly and Isiminger. Therefore, I must accept Speer's exception and reject the Hearing Officer's finding. Merrill Stevens Dry Dock; City of St. Petersburg; In re: Estate of Hannon; supra. Speer's Exception No. 3 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's finding that Speer failed to provide a current water quality analysis. (F.O.F. No. 35) A water quality analysis was submitted in April of 1990, shortly after the permit application was filed. (R.O. at 2, 19; F.O.F. No. 34) I find no competent substantial evidence in the record to suggest any reason for believing that the water quality has changed since April of 1990. I agree with Speer that, absent some specific reason for believing that the water quality has changed since the date of a study conducted contemporaneously with the permit application, there is no requirement to provide an updated water quality analysis. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Need For Quantified Hydrographic Study Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 7 and 9, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law that a quantified hydrographic study was needed to provide reasonable assurances that the operation of the marina would not result in violations of water quality standards and would would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. For the reasons stated in Parts III(1), (2) and (3) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Introduction Of Issues Not Set Forth In Pleadings Or Pre-Hearing Stipulations Speer's Exceptions Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, in whole or in part, take exception to the Hearing Officer's consideration of issues of (1) the need for a quantified hydrographic study, (2) the proximity of the site to Class II waters, (3) turbidity and prop dredging, (4) cumulative impacts, and (5) the need for a quantified study on manatee impacts. For the reasons set forth in Part 111(6) above, I agree that, absent waiver, a petitioner challenging an intent to issue a permit may not raise issues at the hearing which were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations. However, in this case the issue of manatee impacts was raised in the pleadings, and Speer was on notice that it had the burden of proof on that issue. As to the other issues, even if I accepted far the sake of argument that they were not raised in the pleadings or pre-hearing stipulations, Speer failed to timely object to the raising of these issues at the hearing and therefore waived any objection. See Sarasota County and Midnight Pass Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 13 FAIR 1727 (DER Final Order, April 4, 1991). Therefore, I reject the above exceptions. Proximity To Class II Waters Speer's Exception No. 2 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer was required to submit a plan which demonstrated that the marina would not have a negative effect on Class II waters. (C.O.L. Nos. 12 and 13) I do not agree that where a proposed marina site is 8,000 feet from Class II waters and where the site is rapidly flushed as noted in Parts 111(1), (2) and (3) above, that the site is in close proximity with the Class II waters within the meaning of Rule 17-312.080(6), Fla. Admin. Code. Accordingly, I accept this exception and reject the above note conclusion of law. Public Interest Test Speer's Exception No. 4 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurance that the project was not contrary to the public interest. (C.O.L. Nos. 17 and 20) For the reasons set forth in Parts III(4) and (5) above, I reject this exception. Cumulative Impacts Speer's Exception No. 5 takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that Speer failed to provide reasonable assurances that cumulative impacts would not result in water quality violations, and that such assurances could only be provided by a quantified study. For the reasons set forth in Parts III (1), (2), (3) and (6) above, I accept this exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law. Modification Of Permit Conditions Speer's Exception No. 6 takes Exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusions of law Nos. 24-34. These conclusions of law concern questions of the authority of the Hearing Officer and me to modify the conditions of the permit. I agree with Speer that since none of the parties have requested any modifications, these conclusions of law are irrelevant. 18/ Therefore I accept the exception and reject the above noted conclusions of law as irrelevant. Miscellaneous Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that Speer and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurance as to prop dredging and turbidity violations because neither Speer nor the Department sufficiently proved the basis for the one-foot clearance policy. For the reasons set forth in Part III(4) above, I reject this exception. Speer's Exception No. 8 in part takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the question of whether mitigation is adequate is a question of law. I agree with the Hearing Officer and reject this exception. See 1800 Atlantic Developers v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 552 So.2d 946, 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, Department of Environmental Regulation, enter a Final Order denying the application for a permit to construct the proposed project and denying the request for determination of improper purposes. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of June, 1992. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1550 (904) 488 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 1992.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a water quality control permit to authorize the mining of Miami oolite (limestone) on a site several miles south of Florida City in South Dade County, Florida. The specific location is in Section 18, Township 58 South, Range 39 East, immediately to the west of U.S. Highway One. Petitioner's application was filed with the Department on June 15, 1981. The Department requested various kinds of additional information which were supplied. The application was complete on December 15, 1981. Subsequently a letter of intent to deny the requested permit was issued on February 19, 1982. The reasons for the denial were: The project would destroy approxi- mately 70 acres of Everglades, saw- grass wetlands. The resulting pit would provide a direct access to the Biscayne Aquifer and permit the introductions of pollutants therein. The water body which would be created in the pit would become "waters of the state" and would not meet state water quality standards. The cumulative impact of "existing and proposed similar projects would result in a lowering of the water quality in the surface waters of the Everglades and the ground waters of the Biscayne Aquifer. The Applicant has not given reasonable assurances that the state standards for Class III waters and Class I-B waters would not be violated. Speci- fically the standards for turbidity, biological integrity, dissolved oxygen, lead, and oils and greases would be contravened. Two months later the Department amended its intent letter by adding specific conductance as one of the state standards which the project would violate. Description of the Project The applicant proposes excavating approximately 4,500,000 cubic yards of limestone from a 70-acre cut at the project site. At the conclusion of the mining, which is expected to last five to seven years, the cut will be 62 feet deep and filled with fresh water which will come from rain water and ground water seepage. At all times pertinent to the requested permit Mr. Goldring will own land completely surrounding the resulting artificial lake created by limerock removal. The mined limerock will be crushed at the site and then sold for the construction of roads and production of concrete products. During the period of excavation a "haul road" will be used to allow trucks entering the site from U.S. Highway One to approach the draglines performing the mining. During their operation the diesel pored draglines are expected to drip certain pollutants such as grease and diesel fuel which will enter the water on the site. These pollutants will be limited in their effect to the immediate pit area and while they will violate state standards for visible or undissolved oil, these violations will abate as soon as the mining stops. Jurisdiction The project site is in the middle of a vast sawgrass prairie which is part of the vast Everglades. The site is wet enough to support sawgrass as the dominant vegetation. For approximately ten percent of the year the land is completely submerged but it is apparently dry enough for farming because in the recent past the area was rock plowed. Rock plowing is the removal of surface rocks in order to prepare land for cultivation. The sole source of water on the site is rain water which either falls immediately on the site or to the northwest. During the rainy season there is a sheet flow of water from the northwest to the southeast across the site. This flow from the site is interrupted immediately to the east by U.S. Highway One and to the south by a road called Missile Road. At the intersection of Missile Road and U.S. Highway One there are two culverts several feet in diameter which allow water from the north to flow south into a vast area of more open sawgrass. That area of grass is hounded on the south by another road. As with the Missile Road, there is a culvert under the road. There is again a sawgrass marsh to the south which then abuts a levee constructed on the north of Canal C-111. There are breaks in the levee through which water can flow to reach the channel of C-111 and finally arrive in Florida Bay, a Class III water of the state. Except for the roads and the canal the land between the project site and Florida Bay is covered entirely by sawgrass. Florida Bay which is salt water does not exchange water with the project site which is approximately 4 1/2 miles to the north of the Day. If it did, sawgrass which is a fresh water aquatic plant would not be growing on Mr. Goldring's property. Sawgrass is not present in the culvert which transverse Missile Road and the other east-west road to the south. Sawgrass is also not present on the levee or in the channel of Canal C-111. Dissolved Oxygen Whether or not the state standard 2/ for dissolved oxygen (DO) will be violated is an important issue here. Much of the DO in standing water, such as the lake which will result from the excavation, comes from wind work and photosny-thesis. Wind work is the movement of atmospheric oxygen into the surface of water through the mechanical action of wind flowing across the surface. The photosynthetic action of plants produces dissolved oxygen under water. This action is dependent upon sufficient light. It is a logical conclusion therefore that because more light and all wind work is available at the surface of a water body, as the depth of the water increases, the availability of dissolved oxygen decreases. This simple logic ignores the fact that water mixing can occur through thermal changes. If the surface of a water body is cooled, the upper water layer becomes denser and sinks toward the bottom. This movement has the potential to move dissolved oxygen-rich water down to depths below which dissolved oxygen is ordinarily generated. It is apparently thermal oxygenation which accounts for the presence of water meeting state DO standards being found as deep as 50 feet in limerock pits in Dade County. In the recent study of "wilderness lakes" 3/ by the Department of Environmental Resources Management of Dade County the author concluded that water depth in such lakes is not a controlling factor for water quality parameters such as DO. That study plus data from an Army Corps of Engineers Technical Report "Excavation and Use of Limestone in South Florida" provides reasonable assurances that Mr. Goldring's project will not cause a violation of state dissolved oxygen standards in waters of the state. During sampling for the Corps studies, DO levels of 9.2 milligrams per liter were found as deep as 40 feet in the Florida Rock and Sand limestone pit located less' than one mile to the east of Mr. Goldring's property. Biological Integrity and Turbidity For Class III waters the state standard is that the Shannon-Weaver diversity index of benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced below 75 percent of established background levels. Neither the Department nor the Petitioner has taken any samples to establish what the background levels are on the Goldring site. It is obvious that if large draglines begin excavating, the macroinvertebrates immediately underneath the draglines will be completely destroyed and tide state standard will be violated. This destruction however, is no different from that which occurs in any dredge and fill project and if the biological integrity standards were literally applied no such projects could be permitted. The Department therefore does not apply the standard immediately at the point of either active dredging or filling while such activities are in progress. The same is true of the turbidity standard. A dredging operating in water is bound to violate the 50 Jackson units above background criterion during the actual removal of earth. The Department does not apply the standard at the point of the dredging cut. This interpretation of the rule has its historical origin in concerns expressed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers that if the rules were literally applied, the Corps could never do any work in Florida. Under the Department's present interpretation of its rules that biological integrity and turbidity are to be measured immediately outside the dredging cut, Mr. Goldring has been giving reasonable assurances that those state standards will not be violated here if turbidity curtains are used along the edge of the excavation during periods of high water when the turbidity in the pit could flow out of the pit and onto the surrounding sawgrass plains. Upon its initial review of Mr. Goldring's permit application the Department was concerned about the possibility that lead from gasoline fueled trucks and draglines may be introduced into state waters. This fear has now been alleviated somewhat by the knowledge that diesel fuel will be used for the equipment operating on the site. The Department also expressed concern about the potential for runoff from U.S. Highway One immediately to the east of the site containing lead and entering waters of the state from that sours There is however, no showing that the project will in any way increase the runoff which already exists from U.S. Highway One. Petitioner has given reasonable assurances that the state standard for lead in Class III waters will not be violated by the project. Specific Conductance The standard for specific conductance in state fresh surface waters is for the increase to be not more than 100 percent above background or to a maximum of 500 micromhos per cubic centimeter. The natural background level in the area of the site is less than 100 micromhos. The earlier mentioned Army Corps study shows readings ranging between 270-110 micromhos in limestone pits in South Florida. 4/ From these readings it is reasonable to conclude that there is a substantial possibility that Petitioner's project will cause conductance violations in the pit. Petitioner has not provided any data of sufficient weight to indicate that such violations will not occur. Cumulative Impact The excavation contemplated by the Applicant will result in the destruction of 70 acres of Everglades wetlands and will leave in their place a water-filled limestone pit. The loss of the wetlands will eliminate the cleansing effect which the sawgrass has on water flowing through it. In the instant case however, it does not appear that the waters of Florida Bay where C-111 enters will have Its quality in any way affected' by destruction of sawgrass on Mr. Goldring's property. Also it does not appear that the water in the area immediately surrounding the project site is in need of any cleansing from the sawgrass which may be removed. Except for the Florida Rock and Sand operation to the east of the site, the area is relatively undisturbed and the water quality is not stressed. Since 1979 the Department has processed 35 applications for rock mines in Dade County. The land area involved in those applications is an estimated total of 29 square miles. According to the Corps of Engineers study there are at least ten limestone pits, active or inactive, in Dade County. The limestone reserves remaining in Dade County, though not accurately estimated, are considered extensive. Limerock is the primary mineral resource of any economic value in the Dade County area. The operation of the existing limestone pits has necessarily caused the destruction of wetland vegetation, and thereby eliminated the cleansing of surface waters which the vegetation provides,
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order determining that it is without jurisdiction over the activity for which the Petitioner has sought a permit. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of September, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 26th day of September, 1983.
