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
The Issue The issue in this matter is whether Respondent, Polk County Board of Commissioners (Polk County or County) has provided Respondent, Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), with reasonable assurances that the activities Polk County proposed to conduct pursuant to Standard General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 4419803.000 (the Permit) meet the conditions for issuance of permits established in Rules 40D-4.301, and 40D-40.302, Florida Administrative Code. (All rule citations are to the current Florida Administrative Code.)
Findings Of Fact Events Preceding Submittal of ERP Application The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system dates back to at least the 1920's, and has been altered and modified over time, especially as a result of phosphate mining activities which occurred on OFP property in the 1950's-1960's. The system is on private property and is not owned and was not constructed by the County. Prior to 1996, the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system was in extremely poor repair and not well- maintained. The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system originates at Eagle Lake, which is an approximately 641-acre natural lake, and discharges through a ditch drainage system to Lake Millsite, which is an approximately 130-acre natural lake. Lake Millsite drains through a series of ditches, wetlands, and ponds and flows through OFP property through a series of reclaimed phosphate pits, ditches and wetlands and ultimately flows into Lake Hancock, which is an approximately 4500-acre lake that forms part of the headwaters for the Peace River. The drainage route is approximately 0.5 to 1 mile in overall length. The Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system is one of eight regional systems in the County for which the County and SWFWMD have agreed to share certain funding responsibilities pursuant to a 1996 letter agreement. To implement improvements to these drainage systems, Polk County would be required to comply with all permitting requirements of SWFWMD. During the winter of 1997-1998, Polk County experienced extremely heavy rainfall, over 39 inches, as a result of El Nino weather conditions. This unprecedented rainfall was preceded by high rainfalls during the 1995-1996 rainy season which saturated surface waters and groundwater levels. During 1998, Polk County declared a state of emergency and was declared a federal disaster area qualifying for FEMA assistance. Along the Lake Eagle and Millsite Lake drainage areas, septic tanks were malfunctioning, wells were inundated and roads were underwater. The County received many flooding complaints from citizens in the area. As a result of flooding conditions, emergency measures were taken by the County. The County obtained SWFWMD authorization to undertake ditch cleaning or vegetative control for several drainage ditch systems in the County, including the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system. No SWFWMD ERP permit was required or obtained for this ditch cleaning and vegetative control. During its efforts to alleviate flooding and undertake emergency ditch maintenance along the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage route, the County discovered a driveway culvert near Spirit Lake Road which was crushed and impeding flow. The evidence was unclear and contradictory as to the size of the culvert. Petitioner's evidence suggested that it consisted of a 24-inch pipe while evidence presented by the County and by SWFWMD suggested that it was a 56-inch by 36-inch arched pipe culvert. It is found that the latter evidence was more persuasive. On February 25, 1998, the County removed the crushed arched pipe culvert at Spirit Lake Road and replaced it with two 48-inch diameter pipes to allow water to flow through the system. The replacement of this structure did not constitute ditch maintenance, and it required a SWFWMD ERP. However, no ERP was obtained at that time (although SWFWMD was notified prior to the activity). (One of the eight specific construction items to be authorized under the subject ERP is the replacement of this culvert.) Old Florida Plantation, Ltd. (OFP) property also experienced flooding during February 1998. OFP's property is situated along the eastern shore of Lake Hancock, and the Eagle- Millsite-Hancock drainage system historically has flowed across the property before entering Lake Hancock. In the 1950's and 1960's, the property was mined for phosphate. The mining process destroyed the natural vegetation and drastically altered the soils and topography, resulting in the formation of areas of unnaturally high elevations and unnaturally deep pits that filled with water. OFP purchased the property from U.S. Steel in 1991. The next year OFP initiated reclamation of the property, which proceeded through approximately 1998. In 1996, OFP applied to the County for approval of a development of regional impact (DRI). OFP blamed the flooding on its property in 1998 on the County's activities upstream, claiming that the property had never flooded before. But upon investigation, the County discovered a 48-inch diameter pipe on OFP property which, while part of OFP's permitted drainage system, had been blocked (actually, never unopened) due to OFP's concerns that opening the pipe would wash away wetlands plants recently planted as part of OFP's wetland restoration efforts. With OFP and SWFWMD approval, the County opened this pipe in a controlled manner to allow flowage without damaging the new wetlands plants. Following the opening of this blocked pipe, OFP property upstream experienced a gradual drop in flood water levels. When the water level on OFP's property stabilized, it was five feet lower and no longer flooded. Nonetheless, OFP continues to maintain not only that the County's activities upstream caused flooding on OFP property but also that they changed historic flow conditions. This contention is rejected as not being supported by the evidence. Not only did flooding cease after the 48-inch pipe on OFP's property was opened, subsequent modeling of water flows also demonstrated that the County's replacement of the crushed box culvert at the driveway on Spirit Lake Road as described in Finding 8, supra, did not increase flood stages by the time the water flows into the OFP site and did not cause flooding on OFP property in 1998. (To the contrary, OFP actions to block flows onto its property may have contributed to flooding upstream.) On October 6, 1998, the County entered into a contract with BCI Engineers and Scientists to initiate a study on the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system, identify options for alleviating flooding along the system and prepare an application for an ERP to authorize needed improvements to the system. Prior to the County's submittal of an ERP application, SWFWMD issued a conceptual ERP to OFP for its proposed wet detention surface water management system to support its proposed DRI on the OFP property. OFP's conceptual permit incorporated the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system and accommodated off-site flowage into the system. Before submitting an ERP application to SWFWMD, the County had communications with representatives of OFP concerning an easement for the flow of the drainage system through OFP property. In March 1999, the County reached an understanding with OFP's engineering consultant whereby OFP would provide the County with an easement across OFP lands to allow water to flow through to Lake Hancock. In turn, the County would: construct and pay for a control structure and pipe east of OFP to provide adequate flowage without adversely affecting either upstream or downstream surface waters; construct and upgrade any pipes and structures needed to convey water across OFP property to Lake Hancock; and provide all modeling data for OFP's review. The ERP Application Following completion of the engineering study, the County submitted ERP Application No. 4419803.000 for a Standard General ERP to construct improvements to the Eagle-Millsite- Hancock drainage system on August 18, 1999. Eight specific construction activities are proposed under the County's project, at various points along the Eagle- Millsite-Hancock drainage system as follows: 1) Add riprap along channel bottom; 2) Modify culvert by replacing 56-inch by 36- inch arch pipe by two 48-inch pipes (after-the-fact, done in 1998, as described in Finding 8, supra); 3) Add riprap along channel bottom; 4) Add box, modify culvert by replacing existing pipe with two 48-inch pipes, add riprap along channel bottom; 5) add riprap along channel bottom; 6) Add weir, modify culvert by replacing existing 24-inch pipe with two 48-inch pipes, add riprap along channel bottom; 7) Add box and modify culvert by replacing existing 24-inch pipe with two 48-inch pipes; 8) Modify existing weir. Under the County's application, construction activities Nos. 6, 7, and 8 would occur on OFP property. In addition, it was proposed that surface water would flow across OFP's property (generally, following existing on-site drainage patterns), and it was indicated that flood elevations would rise in some locations on OFP's property as a result of the improvements proposed in the County's application. (Most if not all of the rise in water level would be contained within the relatively steep banks of the lakes on OFP's property--the reclaimed phosphate mine pits.) In its application, the County stated that it was in the process of obtaining easements for project area. As part of the ERP application review process, SWFWMD staff requested, by letter dated September 17, 1999, that the County clarify the location of the necessary rights-of-way and drainage easements for the drainage improvements and provide authorization from OFP as property owner accepting the peak stage increases anticipated in certain OFP lakes as a result of the County's proposed project activities. On September 28, 1999, OFP obtained a DRI development order (DO) from the County. In pertinent part, the DRI DO required that OFP not adversely affect historical flow of surface water entering the property from off-site sources. Historical flow was to be determined in a study commissioned by the County and SWFWMD. The DO appeared to provide that the study was to be reviewed by OFP and the County and approved by SWFWMD. Based on the study, a control structure and pipe was to be constructed, operated and maintained by the County at the upstream side of the property that would limit the quantity of off-site historical flow, unless otherwise approved by OFP. OFP was to provide the County with a drainage easement for this control structure and pipe, as well as a flowage easement from this structure, through OFP property, to an outfall into Lake Hancock. The DO specified that the flowage easement was to be for quantitative purposes only and not to provide water quality treatment for off-site flows. The DO required OFP to grant a defined, temporary easement prior to first plat approval. In its November 11, 1999, response to SWFWMD's request for additional information, the County indicated it would obtain drainage easements and that it was seeking written acknowledgment from OFP accepting the proposed increases in lake stages. During the ERP application review process, the County continued efforts to obtain flowage easements or control over the proposed project area and OFP's acknowledgment and acceptance of the increase in lake stages. At OFP's invitation, the County drafted a proposed cross-flow easement. But before a binding agreement could be executed, a dispute arose between OFP and the County concerning other aspects of OFP's development plans, and OFP refused to enter into an agreement on the cross- flow easement unless all other development issues were resolved as well. On August 4, 2000, in response to SWFWMD's request that the County provide documentation of drainage easements and/or OFP's acceptance of the increased lake stages on OFP property, the County submitted a proposed and un-executed Perpetual Flowage and Inundation Easement and an Acknowledgment to be signed by OFP accepting the increased lake stages. On August 7, 2000, the OFP property was annexed by the City of Bartow (the City). On October 16, 2000, the City enacted Ordinance No. 1933-A approving OFP's DRI application. The City's DO contained essentially the same provision on Off- Site Flow contained in the County's DO. See Finding 18, supra. However, the City's DO specified that the historical flow study was required to be reviewed and approved by OFP (as well as by the County and by SWFWMD). OFP has not given formal approval to historical flow studies done to date. On October 6, 2000, SWFWMD issued a Notice of Final Agency Action approving Polk County ERP No. 4419803.000. Permit Specific Condition No. 7 provides that "all construction is prohibited within the permitted project area until the Permittee acquires legal ownership or legal control of the project area as delineated in the permitted construction drawings." As a result of this permit condition, the County cannot undertake construction as authorized under the Permit until any needed easement or legal control is obtained. Precise Easement Route Approximately two months before final hearing, a dispute arose as to the precise cross-flow easement route proposed by the County. OFP had understood that the County's proposed route was based on a detailed survey. But closer scrutiny of the County's proposed route indicated that it cut corners of existing lakes on OFP's property, crossed residential lots proposed by OFP, and veered north into uplands (also proposed for residential use) in the western portion of the route before looping south and then north again to the outfall at Lake Hancock. Information subsequently revealed in the course of discovery suggested that the County's proposed route may have been based on pre-reclamation topography of OFP's property. After OFP recognized the implications of the cross- flow easement route being proposed by the County, OFP provided the County with several different alternative easement routes through the OFP property. While agreement as to the precise route has not yet been reached, the precise route of the easement is not significant to the County, as long as water can flow across OFP property to Lake Hancock and so long as the County does not have to re-locate existing ditches. Such adjustments in the location of the proposed flowage easement would not affect SWFWMD staff's recommendation for permit issuance, as long as it covered the defined project areas. In addition, OFP's current site plan is a preliminary, conceptual plan subject to change before it is finalized. Regardless what cross-flow easement route is chosen, it will be temporary and subject to modification when OFP's development plan is finalized. If the County is unable to not negotiate a flowage easement across OFP property, it could obtain whatever easement is required through use of the County's eminent domain powers. The County's acquisition of an easement to accommodate a flowage route and anticipated increased stage on OFP property gives reasonable assurance that any stage increases will not cause adverse impacts to OFP property and gives reasonable assurance that the County will have sufficient legal control to construct and maintain the improvements. Project Area The County applied for a Standard General Permit and specified a total project area of 0.95 acre. This acreage reflects the area required for actual construction and alteration of control structures and drainage ditches in the preexisting Eagle-Millsite-Hancock system. It does not reflect the entire acreage drained by that system (approximately 1,800 to 2,000 acres). It also does not reflect the area of the cross-flow easement, which the County has yet to obtain. When determining project size for purposes of determining the type of permit applicable to a project, SWFWMD staff considers maximum project area to be limited to the acreage owned or controlled by the applicant. In addition, since this is a retrofit project for improvement of an existing drainage system not now owned or controlled by the County, SWFWMD staff only measured the area required for actual construction and alteration of control structures and drainage ditches. Future easements necessary for future maintenance of the system were not included. When OFP applied for its conceptual ERP for its proposed DRI, the project area was considered to be the acreage owned by OFP. The rest of the basin draining through OFP's property to Lake Hancock (again, approximately 1,800 to 2,000 acres) was not considered to be part of the project area. Water Quantity Impacts The County's project will retrofit certain components of the same drainage system which OFP will utilize for surface water management and treatment pursuant to its conceptual ERP. Modeling presented in the County's application demonstrates that there will be some rises and some lowering of some of the lake levels on OFP's property during certain rain events. Anticipated rises are lower than the top of banks authorized in OFP's conceptual permit; hence the system will continue to function properly. While there are some differences in the County's permit application and OFP's conceptual permit application concerning modeling estimates of flow rates through OFP property, the differences are minor and are attributed to differences in modeling inputs. The County used more detailed modeling information. Any such differences are not significant. Differences in flow rates provided in the County's proposed permit and in OFP's conceptual permit do not render the permits as incompatible. If the County's permit were issued, any modeling undertaken in connection with a subsequent application by OFP for a construction permit would have to be updated to include the County's improvements to the system. This outcome is not a basis for denial of the County's permit. While the rate at which water will flow through the system will increase, no change in volume of water ultimately flowing through the drainage system is anticipated as a result of the County's proposed improvements. The increased lake stages which are anticipated to occur on OFP property as a result of the County's project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to the receiving waters of Lake Hancock or adjacent lands. The project will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. The project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. The project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Chapter 373.042, Florida Statutes. Water Quality Impacts No adverse impacts to water quality on OFP property are anticipated from the County's proposed drainage improvements. The project will not add any pollutant loading source to the drainage system and is not expected to cause any algae blooms or fish kills in OFP waters or cause any additional nutrient loading into OFP's surface water management systems. As reclaimed phosphate mine pits, the lakes on OFP's property are high in phosphates. Meanwhile, water quality in upstream in Millsite Lake and Eagle Lake is very good. Off-site flow of higher quality water flushing the OFP lakes will improve the water quality on the OFP site. The County's project will have no adverse impact on the quality of water in the downstream receiving of Lake Hancock (which currently has poor water quality due in large part to past phosphate mining). Upstream of OFP, the project will not cause any adverse water quality impacts and is anticipated to result in positive impacts by lessening the duration of any flooding event and thereby lessening septic tank inundation from flooding. This will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare. Thus, there is a public benefit to be gained in having the County undertake the proposed drainage and flood control improvements now, rather than waiting for OFP to finalize its plat and construct its development project. The County's proposed improvements do not require any formal water quality treatment system. The improvements are to a conveyance system and no impervious surfaces or other facilities generating pollutant loading will be added. Upstream of OFP, the Eagle-Millsite-Hancock drainage system flows through natural lakes and wetlands systems that provide natural water quality treatment of the existing drainage basin. OFP expressed concern that the County's improvements to drainage through these areas (including the ditch maintenance already performed in 1998) will increase flow and reduce residence time, thereby reducing natural water quality treatment. But ditch maintenance does not require an ERP, and the County gave reasonable assurances that reduction in natural water quality treatment will not be significant, especially in view of the good quality of the water flowing through the system out of Eagle Lake and Millsite Lake. As a result, it is found that the County's proposed project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that any applicable quality standards will be violated. Indeed, OFP's expert consultant conceded in testimony at final hearing that OFP has no reason to be concerned about the quality of water at present. Rather, OFP's real concern is about water quality in the future. Essentially, OFP is asking SWFWMD to require the County to guarantee OFP that future development in the area will not lead to any water quality problems. Requiring such a guarantee as a condition to issuance of an ERP would go far beyond SWFWMD requirements and is never required of any applicant. Besides being speculative on the evidence in this case, future development in the area will be required to meet applicable SWFWMD water quality requirements. SWFWMD permitting required for such future development would be the proper forum for OFP to protect itself against possible future reduction in water quality (as well as possible future increase in water quantity). Environmental Impacts The drainage ditches to be improved by the County's project were originally constructed before 1984. These upland cut ditches were not constructed for the purpose of diverting natural stream flow, and are not known to provide significant habitat for any threatened or endangered species. The County provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not change the hydroperiod of a wetland or other surface water, so as to adversely affect wetland functions or other surface water functions. The functions of the wetlands and surface waters to be affected by the proposed project include conveyance, some water quality treatment, and possibly some wildlife movement or migration functions between the wetlands served by the ditches. Wetland impacts from the project consists of .63 acre of permanent impacts and .21 acre of temporary impacts, for a total of .84 acre of impact. The permanent impacts consist of the replacement of pipes with new structures in the ditches and the addition of rip rap in areas to prevent sedimentation and erosion. The proposed project's anticipated increase in the rate of flow is expected to lessen the duration of any flooding event at the upper end of the drainage system, and at the downstream end is expected to create a subsequent rise in some of the lakes and storage areas on the OFP property during certain rain events. The anticipated rise in some of the reclaimed lakes on OFP property is not anticipated to have any adverse impact on the functions that those surface waters provide to fish, wildlife or any threatened or endangered species. The reclaimed lakes subject to rise in water levels for certain rain events are steep-sided and do not have much littoral zone, and little, if any, loss of habitat will result. The County's application provides reasonable assurance that the anticipated stage increase in affected wetlands or surface waters will not adversely affect the functions provided by those wetlands or surface waters. The County provided reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not violate water quality standards in areas where water quality standards apply, in either the short- term or the long-term. Long-term effects were addressed in Finding 43-51, supra. Short-term water quality impacts anticipated during the construction of the proposed improvements will be addressed through the use of erosion and sediment controls. The proposed project also will not create any adverse secondary impacts to water resources. The project will not cause any adverse impacts to the bird rookery located to the north on OFP property. The project will not cause any adverse impacts to the bass in OFP's lakes, a concern expressed by OFP relatively recently. To the contrary, since the project will improve water quality in OFP's lakes, the impact on OFP's bass is expected to be positive. OFP raised the issue of a bald eagle nesting site located on its property. The evidence was that a pair of bald eagles has built a nest atop a Tampa Electric Company (TECO) power pole on the property in October of each year since 1996. Each year the pair (which is thought to be the same pair) has used a different TECO power pole. Most of the nests, including the one built in October 2000, have been on poles well south of any construction proposed under the County's ERP and clearly outside of the primary and secondary eagle management zones designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But one year, a nest was built on a pole farther north and possibly within the secondary eagle management zone. OFP presented testimony that U.S. Fish and Wildlife would require OFP to apply for an "incidental take" in order to build homes within the primary eagle protection zones around any of the four poles on which eagles have built nests since 1996; timing of construction of homes within the secondary protection zones may be affected. Even accepting OFP's testimony, there was no evidence as to how U.S. Fish and Wildlife would view construction of the County's proposed drainage improvements on OFP property within those zones. In addition, the evidence was that, in order to accomplish its DRI plans to build homes in the vicinity of the TECO power poles that have served as eagle nests in recent years, without having to apply for an "incidental take," OFP plans to place eagle poles (more suitable for eagle nests than power poles, which actually endanger the eagles) in another part of its property which is much more suitable habitat in order to encourage the eagles to build their nest there. The new location would put the County's proposed construction activity far outside the primary and secondary eagle management zones. Other Permitting Requirements The County's proposed project is capable, based on generally accepted scientific engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed. The County has the financial, legal, and administrative capability of ensuring that the activity proposed to be undertaken can be done in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the Project will cause adverse impacts to any work of the District established under Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the project will not comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established under Chapter 40D-3, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order issuing Standard General Environmental Resource Permit No. 4419803.000. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 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 September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. McKinley, Esquire Polk County Attorney's Office Post Office Box 9005, Drawer AT01 Bartow, Florida 33831-9005 Gregory R. Deal, Esquire 1525 South Florida Avenue, Suite 2 Lakeland, Florida 33803 Margaret M. Lytle, Esquire Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 E. D. Sonny Vergara, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are entitled to issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for the modification of a surface-water management system to serve the 24.1-acre World Dressage Complex in Wellington, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Charles Jacobs and Kimberly Jacobs are the owners of a residence at 2730 Polo Island Drive, Unit A-104, Wellington, Florida. The residence is used by the Jacobs on an annual basis, generally between October and Easter, which corresponds to the equestrian show season in Florida. Petitioners maintain their permanent address in Massachusetts. The District is a public corporation, existing by virtue of chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949. The District is responsible for administering chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, within its geographic boundaries. The District’s statutory duties include the regulation and management of water resources, including water quality and water supply, and the issuance of environmental resource permits. The Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are Florida limited-liability companies with business operations in Wellington, Florida. The Applicants are the owners of four parcels of property, parts of which comprise the complete 24.1- acre proposed Complex, and upon which the surface-water management facilities that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed. Contiguous holdings of the four Applicants in the area consist of approximately 35 additional acres, primarily to the north and west of the Complex. Acme Improvement District The Acme Improvement District was created in the 1950s as a special drainage district. At the time of its creation, the Acme Improvement District encompassed 18,200 acres of land. As a result of additions over the years, the Acme Improvement District currently consists of approximately 20,000 acres of land that constitutes the Village of Wellington, and includes the Complex property. On March 16, 1978, the District issued a Surface Water Management Permit, No. 50-00548-S, for the Acme Improvement District (1978 Acme Permit) that authorized the construction and operation of a surface-water management system, and established design guidelines for subsequent work as development occurred in the Acme Improvement District. The total area covered by the 1978 Acme Permit was divided into basins, with the dividing line being, generally, Pierson Road. Basin A was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the north into the C-51 Canal, while Basin B was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the south into the C-40 Borrow Canal. Water management activities taking place within the boundaries of the Acme Improvement District are done through modifications to the 1978 Acme Permit. Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of modifications to that permit. The Property The Complex property is in Basin A of the Acme Improvement District, as is the property owned by Petitioners. Prior to January 1978, the property that is proposed for the Complex consisted of farm fields. At some time between January, 1978 and December 18, 1979, a very narrow body of water was dredged from abandoned farm fields to create what has been referred to in the course of this proceeding as “Moose Lake.” During that same period, Polo Island was created, and property to the east and west of Polo Island was filled and graded to create polo fields. Polo Island is surrounded by Moose Lake. When it was created, Polo Island was filled to a higher elevation than the adjacent polo fields to give the residents a view of the polo matches. Petitioners’ residence has a finished floor elevation of 18.38 feet NGVD, which is more than three-quarters of a foot above the 100-year flood elevation of 17.5 feet NGVD established for Basin A. The Complex and Petitioner’s residence both front on Moose Lake. There are no physical barriers that separate that part of the Moose Lake fronting Petitioners’ residence from that part of Moose Lake into which the Complex’s surface-water management system is designed to discharge. Moose Lake discharges into canals that are part of the C-51 Basin drainage system. Discharges occur through an outfall at the south end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-23 canal, and through an outfall at the east end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-6 canal. There are no wetlands or surface water bodies located on the Complex property. 2005-2007 Basin Study and 2007 Acme Permit Material changes in the Acme Drainage District since 1978 affected the assumptions upon which the 1978 ACME Permit was issued. The material changes that occurred over the years formed the rationale for a series of detailed basin studies performed from 2005 through 2007. The basin studies, undertaken by the District and the Village of Wellington, analyzed and modeled the areas encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit in light of existing improvements within the Acme Improvement District. The changes to Basin A and Basin B land uses identified by the basin studies became the new baseline conditions upon which the District and the Village of Wellington established criteria for developing and redeveloping property in the Wellington area, and resulted in the development of updated information and assumptions to be used in the ERP program. On November 15, 2007, as a result of the basin studies, the District accepted the new criteria and issued a modification of the standards established by the 1978 Acme Permit (2007 Acme Permit). For purposes relevant to this proceeding, the 2007 Acme Permit approved the implementation of the new Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington.1/ The language of the 2007 Acme Permit is somewhat ambiguous, and portions could be read in isolation to apply only to land in Basin B of the Acme Improvement District. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the language of the permit tended to focus on Basin B because it contained significant tracts of undeveloped property, the land in Basin A having been essentially built-out. However, he stated that it was the District’s intent that the Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington adopted by the 2007 Acme Permit was to apply to all development and redevelopment in the Acme Improvement District, and that the District had applied the permit in that manner since its issuance. Mr. Waterhouse’s testimony was credible, reflects the District’s intent and application of the permit, and is accepted. The Proposed Complex The Complex is proposed for construction on the two polo fields to the west of Polo Island, and properties immediately adjacent and contiguous thereto.2/ The Complex is designed to consist of a large covered arena; several open-air equestrian arenas; four 96-stall stables, with associated covered manure bins and covered horse washing facilities, located between the stables; an event tent; a raised concrete vendor deck for spectators, exhibitors, and vendors that encircles three or four of the rings; and various paved access roads, parking areas, and support structures. Of the 96 stalls per stable, twenty percent would reasonably be used for storing tack, feed, and similar items. The surface-water management system that is the subject of the application consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, dry detention areas, swales for conveying overland flows, and exfiltration trenches for treatment of water prior to its discharge at three outfall points to Moose Lake. The horse-washing facilities are designed to tie into the Village of Wellington’s sanitary sewer system, by-passing the surface water management system. The Permit Application On May 18, 2011, two of the Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, applied for a modification to the 1978 Acme Improvement District permit to construct a surface-water management system to serve the proposed Complex. At the time of the initial application, the proposed Complex encompassed 20 acres. There were no permitted surface water management facilities within its boundaries. The Complex application included, along with structural elements, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for handling manure, horse-wash water, and other equestrian waste on the property. Properties adjacent to the Complex, and under common ownership of one or more of the Applicants, have been routinely used for equestrian events, including temporary support activities for events on the Complex property. For example, properties to the north of the Complex owned by Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, have been used for show-jumping events, derby events, and grand prix competitions, as well as parking and warm-up areas for derby events and for dressage events at the Complex. Except for an earthen mound associated with the derby and grand prix field north of the Complex, there has been no development on those adjacent properties, and no requirement for a stormwater management system to serve those properties. Thus, the adjacent properties are not encompassed by the Application. Permit Issuance On November 22, 2011, Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 was issued by the District to Far Niente Stables II, LLC. Polo Field One, LLC, though an applicant, was not identified as a permittee. On January 13, 2012, the District issued a “Correction to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203.” The only change to the Permit issued on November 22, 2011, was the addition of Polo Field One, LLC, as a permittee. On January 25, 2012, the Applicants submitted a request for a letter modification of the Permit to authorize construction of a 1,190-linear foot landscape berm along the eastern property boundary. On February 16, 2012, the District acknowledged the application for the berm modification, and requested additional information regarding an access road and cul-de-sac on the west side of the Complex that extended into property owned by others. On that same date, the Applicants provided additional information, including evidence of ownership, that added Stadium North, LLC and Stadium South, LLC, as permittees. On March 26, 2012, the District issued the proposed modification to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203. On November 15, 2012, the Applicants’ engineer prepared a revised set of plans that added 2.85 acres of property to the Complex. The property, referred to as Basin 5, provided an additional dry detention stormwater storage area. On or shortly after December 3, 2012, the Applicants submitted a final Addendum to Surface Water Management Calculations that accounted for the addition of Basin 5 and other changes to the Permit application that increased the size of the Complex from 20 acres to 24.1 acres. On December 18, 2012, the Applicants submitted final revisions to the BMPs in an Updated BMP Plan. On January 7, 2013, the District issued the final proposed modification to the permit. The modification consisted of the addition of Basin 5, the deletion of a provision of special condition 14 that conflicted with elements of the staff report, the Updated BMP Plan, the recognition of an enforcement proceeding for unauthorized construction of the linear berm and other unauthorized works, and changes to the Permit to conform with additional information submitted by the Applicants. The final permitted surface-water management system consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, a 0.64-acre dry detention area, swales for conveying overland flows, and 959-linear feet of exfiltration trench. For purposes of this proceeding, the “Permit” that constitutes the proposed agency action consists of the initial November 22, 2011, Permit; the January 13, 2012, Correction; the March 26, 2012, letter modification; and the January 7, 2013 modification. Post-Permit Activities at the Complex Work began on the Complex on or about November 28, 2011. Work continued until stopped on April 18, 2012, pursuant to a District issued Consent Order and Cease and Desist. As of the date of the final hearing, the majority of the work had been completed. In late August, 2012, the Wellington area was affected by rains associated with Tropical Storm Isaac that exceeded the rainfall totals of a 100-year storm event. Water ponded in places in the Polo Island subdivision. That ponded water was the result of water falling directly on Polo Island, and may have been exacerbated by blockages of Polo Island drainage structures designed to discharge water from Polo Island to Moose Lake. No residences were flooded as a result of the Tropical Storm Isaac rain event. The only flooding issue related to water elevations in Moose Lake was water overflowing the entrance road, which is at a lower elevation. The road remained passable. Road flooding is generally contemplated in the design of stormwater management systems and does not suggest a failure of the applicable system. Permitting Standards Standards applicable to the Permit are contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)-(k), and in the District’s Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR), which has been adopted by reference in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). The parties stipulated that the standards in rules 40E-4.301(1)(d),(g) and (h) are not at issue in this proceeding. Permitting Standards - Water Quantity Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quantity, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In addition to the preceding rules, section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled “Flood Plain Encroachment,” provides that “[n]o net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average wet season water table and that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others, will be allowed.” Section 6.7 of the BOR, entitled “Historic Basin Storage,” provides that “[p]rovision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the project site.” The purpose of a pre-development versus post- development analysis is to ensure that, after development of a parcel of property, the property is capable of holding a volume of stormwater on-site that is the same or greater than that held in its pre-development condition. On-site storage includes surface storage and soil storage. Surface Storage Surface storage is calculated by determining the quantity of water stored on the surface of the site. Mr. Hall found no material errors in the Applicants’ calculations regarding surface storage. His concern was that the permitted surface storage, including the dry detention area added to the plans in December 2012, would not provide compensating water storage to account for the deficiencies he found in the soil storage calculations discussed herein. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ surface storage calculations are found to accurately assess the volume of stormwater that can be stored on the property without discharge to Moose Lake. Soil Storage Soil storage is water that is held between soil particles. Soil storage calculations take into consideration the soil type(s) and site-specific soil characteristics, including compaction. Soils on the Complex property consist of depressional soils. Such soils are less capable of storage than are sandier coastal soils. When compacted, the storage capacity of depressional soils is further reduced. The Applicants’ calculations indicated post- development storage on the Complex property to be 25.04 acre/feet. Mr. Hall’s post-development storage calculation of 25.03 acre/feet was substantively identical.3/ Thus, the evidence demonstrates the accuracy of Applicants’ post- development stormwater storage calculations. The Applicants’ calculations showed pre-development combined surface and soil storage capacity on the Property of 24.84 acre/feet. Mr. Hall calculated pre-development combined surface and soil storage, based upon presumed property conditions existing on March 16, 1978, of 35.12 acre/feet. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hall concluded that the post-development storage capacity of the Complex had a deficit of 10.09 acre/feet of water as compared to the pre-development storage capacity of the Property, which he attributed to a deficiency in soil storage. The gist of Mr. Hall’s disagreement centered on the Applicants’ failure to consider the Complex’s pre-development condition as being farm fields, as they were at the time of issuance of the 1978 Acme Permit, and on the Applicants’ application of the 25-percent compaction rate for soils on the former polo fields. As applied to this case, the pre-development condition of the Complex as polo fields was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage, rather than the farm fields that existed in January 1978, and is consistent with the existing land uses identified in the 2005-2007 basin studies and 2007 Acme Permit. Given the use of the Complex property as polo fields, with the attendant filling, grading, rolling, mowing, horse traffic, parking, and other activities that occurred on the property over the years, the conclusion that the soils on the polo fields were compacted, and the application of the 25- percent compaction rate, was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage. Applying the Applicants’ assumptions regarding existing land uses for the Complex property, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed surface water management system will provide a total of 25.04-acre feet of combined soil and surface storage compared to pre-development soil and surface storage of 24.84-acre feet. Thus, the proposed Project will result in an increase of soil and surface storage over pre-development conditions, and will not cause or contribute to flooding or other issues related to water quantity.4/ Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed surface-water management system will meet standards regarding water quantity established in rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), and (c), and sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the BOR. Permitting Standards - Water Quality Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quality, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards . . . will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Section 373.4142, entitled “[w]ater quality within stormwater treatment systems,” provides, in pertinent part, that: State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state . . . shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater treatment Such inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the stormwater management system located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormwater . . . . Moose Lake is a component of a stormwater-management system that is located upstream of a manmade water control structure. The Permit application did not include a water quality monitoring plan, nor did the Permit require the Applicants to report on the water quality of Moose Lake. During October and November, 2012, Petitioners performed water quality sampling in Moose Lake in accordance with procedures that were sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of the results. The sampling showed phosphorus levels in Moose Lake of greater than 50 parts per billion (ppb).5/ That figure, though not a numeric standard applicable to surface waters, was determined to be significant by Petitioners because phosphorus may not exceed 50 ppb at the point at which the C-51 Canal discharges from the Acme Improvement District into the Everglades system. Notwithstanding the levels of phosphorus in Moose Lake, Mr. Swakon admitted that “the calculations that are in the application for water quality treatment are, in fact, met. They’ve satisfied the criteria that are in the book.” In response to the question of whether “[t]he water quality requirements in the Basis of Review . . . the half inch or one inch of runoff, the dry versus wet detention . . . complied with those water quality requirements,” he further testified “[i]t did.” Mr. Swakon expressed his belief that, despite Applicants’ compliance with the standards established for water quality treatment, a stricter standard should apply because the pollutant-loading potential of the Complex, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen from animal waste, is significantly different than a standard project, e.g., a parking lot. No authority for requiring such additional non-rule standards was provided. The evidence demonstrates that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that all applicable stormwater management system standards that pertain to water treatment and water quality were met. Permitting Standards - Design Features and BMPs Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that constitute more general concerns regarding the design of the Complex, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Petitioners alleged that certain deficiencies in the Complex design and BMPs compromise the ability of the stormwater management system to be operated and function as proposed. Design Features Petitioners expressed concern that the manure bin, though roofed, had walls that did not extend to the roofline, thus allowing rain to enter. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the walls extend to a height of approximately six feet, with an opening of approximately two feet to the roof line. The plan detail sheet shows a roof overhang, though it was not scaled. Regardless, the slab is graded to the center so that it will collect any water that does enter through the openings. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the manure bins are sufficient to prevent uncontrolled releases of animal waste to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners suggested that the horse-washing facilities, which discharge to a sanitary sewer system rather than to the stormwater management facility, are inadequate for the number of horses expected to use the wash facilities. Petitioners opined that the inadequacy of the wash facilities would lead to washing being done outside of the facilities, and to the resulting waste and wash water entering the stormwater management system. Petitioners provided no basis for the supposition other than speculation. Mr. Stone testified that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to handle the horses boarded at the stables and those horses that would reasonably be expected to use the facility during events. His testimony in that regard was credible and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to prevent the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners expressed further concerns that horse washing outside of the horse-washing facilities would be facilitated due to the location of hose bibs along the exterior stable walls. However, Mr. Swakon testified that those concerns would be minimized if the hose bibs could be disabled to prevent the attachment of hoses. The December 2012 Updated BMP Plan requires such disabling, and Mr. Stone testified that the threads have been removed. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the presence of hose bibs on the exterior stable walls will not result in conditions that would allow for the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Best Management Practices The Updated BMP Plan for the Complex includes practices that are more advanced than the minimum requirements of the Village of Wellington, and more stringent than BMPs approved for other equestrian facilities in Wellington. Petitioners identified several issues related to the Updated BMP Plan that allegedly compromised the ability of the Complex to meet and maintain standards. Those issues included: the lack of a requirement that the Applicant provide the District with a copy of the contract with a Village of Wellington-approved manure hauler; the failure to require that BMP Officers be independent of the Applicants; the failure to require that the names and telephone numbers of the BMP Officers be listed in the permit; and the failure of the District to require that violations by tenants be reported to the District, rather than being maintained on-site as required. Mr. Stone testified that the BMP conditions included in the Updated BMP Plan were sufficient to assure compliance. His testimony is credited. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the terms and conditions of the Updated BMP Plan are capable of being implemented and enforced. Permitting Standards - Applicant Capabilities Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that are based on the capabilities of the Applicants to implement the Permit, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. As the owners of the Complex property, the Applicants have the legal authority to ensure that their tenants, licensees, invitees, and agents exercise their rights to the property in a manner that does not violate applicable laws, rules, and conditions. Regarding the financial capability of the Applicants to ensure the successful and compliant operation of the Complex, Mr. Stone testified that the entity that owns the Applicants, Wellington Equestrian Partners, has considerable financial resources backing the Complex venture. Furthermore, the Applicants own the property on and adjacent to the Complex which is itself valuable. As to the administrative capabilities of the Applicants to ensure that the activities on the site will comply with relevant standards, Mr. Stone testified that an experienced and financially responsible related entity, Equestrian Sport Productions, by agreement with the Applicants, is charged with organizing and operating events at the Complex, and that the Applicants’ BMP Officers have sufficient authority to monitor activities and ensure compliance with the BMPs by tenants and invitees. Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Applicants have the financial and administrative capability to ensure that events and other operations will be conducted in a manner to ensure that the stormwater management system conditions, including BMPs, will be performed was persuasive and is accepted. The fact that the Applicants are financially and administratively backed by related parent and sibling entities does not diminish the reasonable assurances provided by the Applicants that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Complex will be undertaken in accordance with the Permit. Petitioners assert that many of the events to be held at the Complex are sanctioned by international equestrian organizations, and that their event rules and requirements -- which include restrictions on the ability to remove competition teams from the grounds -- limit the Applicants’ ability to enforce the BMPs. Thus, the Petitioners suggest that reasonable assurances cannot be provided as a result of the restrictions imposed by those sanctioning bodies. The international event rules applicable to horses and riders are not so limiting as to diminish the reasonable assurances that have been provided by the Applicants. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that construction and operation of the stormwater management system will be conducted by entities with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. As a related matter, Petitioners assert the Applicants failed to disclose all of their contiguous land holdings, thus making it impossible for the District to calculate the actual impact of the Complex. Although the application was, for a number of items, an evolving document, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicants advised the District of their complete 59+- acre holdings, and that the Permit was based on a complete disclosure. The circumstances of the disclosure of the Applicant’s property interests in the area adjacent to the Complex was not a violation of applicable standards, and is not a basis for denial of the Complex permit. Permitting Standards - C-51 Basin Rule The final provision of rule 40E-4.301 that is at issue in this proceeding is as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. Mr. Hall testified the Complex violated permitting standards partly because it failed to comply with the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-041, Part III, pertaining to on-site compensation for reductions in soil storage volume. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the C-51 Basin rule does not apply to the lands encompassed by the Acme Improvement District permits, including the Complex property. The C-51 Basin rule was promulgated in 1987, after the issuance of the original Acme Improvement District permit. The District does not apply new regulatory standards to properties that are the subject of a valid permit or its modifications. Therefore, the area encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit, and activities permitted in that area as a modification to the 1978 Acme Permit, are not subject to the C-51 rule. The Joint Prehearing Stipulation provides that “Chapter 373, Fla. Stat., Chapter 40E-4, Fla. Admin. Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (July 4, 2010) are the applicable substantive provisions at issue in this proceeding.” The Stipulation did not identify chapter 40E-41 as being applicable in this proceeding. Given the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse, which correctly applies standards regarding the application of subsequently promulgated rules to existing permits, and the stipulation of the parties, the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40-E-041, Part III, does not apply to the permit that is the subject of this proceeding. Therefore, the stormwater management system does not violate rule 40E-4.301(1)(k). Consideration of Violations Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(2), provides, in pertinent part, that: When determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met, the District shall take into consideration a permit applicant’s violation of any . . . District rules adopted pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., relating to any other project or activity and efforts taken by the applicant to resolve these violations. . . . Petitioners have identified several violations of District rules on or adjacent to the Complex property during the course of construction, and violations of District rules associated with the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (PBIEC), the owner of which shares common managers and officers with the Applicants, for consideration in determining whether reasonable assurances have been provided. Violations on or Adjacent to the Complex On March 22, 2012, the District performed an inspection of the Complex property. The inspection revealed that the Applicants had constructed the linear berm along the eastern side of the Property that was the subject of the January 25, 2012, application for modification of the Permit. The construction was performed before a permit modification was issued, and was therefore unauthorized. A Notice of Violation was issued to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, on March 22, 2012, that instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease all work on the Complex. Several draft consent orders were provided to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, each of which instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease and desist from further construction. Construction was not stopped until April 18, 2012. The matter was settled through the entry of a Consent Order on May 10, 2012 that called for payment of costs and civil penalties. The berm was authorized as part of the March 26, 2012 Complex permit modification. All compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District During inspections of the Complex by the parties to this proceeding, it was discovered that yard drains had been constructed between the stables and connected to the stormwater management system, and that a bathroom/utility room had been constructed at the north end of the horse-washing facility. The structures were not depicted in any plans submitted to the District, and were not authorized by the Permit. The yard drains had the potential to allow for animal waste to enter Moose Lake. The Applicants, under instruction from the District, have capped the yard drains. No other official compliance action has been taken by the District. A permit condition to ensure that the yard drains remain capped is appropriate and warranted. At some time during or before 2010, a mound of fill material was placed on the derby and grand prix field to the north of the Complex to be used as an event obstacle. Although there was a suggestion that a permit should have been obtained prior to the fill being placed, the District has taken no enforcement action regarding the earthen mound. Petitioners noted that the Complex is being operated, despite the fact that no notice of completion has been provided, and no conversion from the construction phase to the operation phase has been performed as required by General Condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the Complex permit. Such operations constitute a violation of the permit and, as such, a violation of District rules. However, the District has taken no official action to prohibit or restrict the operation of the Complex pending completion and certification of the permitted work and conversion of the permit to its operation phase. The construction of the berm, yard drains, and bathroom/utility room, and the operation of the Complex, causes concern regarding the willingness of the Applicants to work within the regulatory parameters designed to ensure protection of Florida’s resources. However, given the scope of the Complex as a whole, and given that the violations were resolved to the satisfaction of the District, the violations, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met. Violations related to the PBIEC At some time prior to February 13, 2008, one or more entities affiliated with Mark Bellissimo assumed control and operation of the PBIEC. When the facility was acquired, the show grounds were in poor condition, there were regulatory violations, it had no BMPs of consequence, there were no covered horse-wash racks, and the wash water was not discharged to a sanitary sewer system. After its acquisition by entities associated with Mr. Bellissimo, the PBIEC was substantially redesigned and rebuilt, and BMPs that met or exceeded the requirements of the Village of Wellington were implemented. The PBIEC currently has 12 arenas that include facilities for show jumping events, and nine horse-wash racks. The PBIEC has the capacity to handle approximately 1,700 horses. On March 14, 2008, the District issued a Notice of Violation to Far Niente Stables V, LLC, related to filling and grading of an existing stormwater management system and lake system at the PBIEC; the failure to maintain erosion and turbidity controls to prevent water quality violations in adjacent waters; the failure to maintain manure and equestrian waste BMPs; and the failure to transfer the PBIEC stormwater management permit to the current owner. On October 9, 2008, Far Niente Stables V, LLC, and the District entered into a Consent Order that resolved the violations at the PBIEC, required that improvements be made, required the implementation of advanced BMPs, and required payment of costs and civil penalties. On January 12, 2011, a notice was issued that identified deficiencies in the engineer’s construction completion certification for the stormwater management system improvements, horse-wash facility connections, and other activities on the PBIEC. Although completion of all items required by the Consent Order took longer -- in some instances significantly longer -- than the time frames set forth in the Consent Order,6/ all compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. On January 7, 2011, the District issued a Notice of Violation and short-form Consent Order to Far Niente Stables, LLC, which set forth violations that related to the failure to obtain an environmental resource permit related to “Tract D and Equestrian Club Drive Realignment.” The short-form Consent Order was signed by Far Niente Stables, LLC, and the compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. Based on the foregoing, the violations at the PBIEC, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met for the Complex Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order: Incorporating the June 29, 2012, Order of Standing and Timeliness; Approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 to Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC.; and Imposing, as an additional condition, a requirement that the unpermitted yard drains constructed between the stables be permanently capped, and the area graded, to prevent the unauthorized introduction of equine waste from the area to the stormwater management system. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 26th day of April, 2013.
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent's license to practice engineering in the State of Florida, should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard d/b/a The Hubbard Association, was licensed to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 006634 on August 17, 1962. Certificate of authorization number EB0003297 was issued to the firm, The Hubbard Association, Inc., on September 25, 1981. In March 1986, Respondent prepared a set of plans for the proposed City of Macclenny Wastewater Treatment Works Improvement Program, Sewage Treatment Facility ("Macclenny project"), and one volume of "Contract Documents and Specifications" ("specifications"), which were submitted to the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Wastewater Management and Grants (Bureau) on or about April 24, 1986. All wastewater treatment plans designs must go to the DER for approval prior to construction, and if a public entity wants grant funding for its wastewater treatment facility, the project must be reviewed and approved by the Bureau (now called Bureau of Local Government and Waste Water Financial Assistance) which administers State grant programs for wastewater treatment facilities. The Bureau reviews grant project plans and specifications to ensure that they: (a) comply with administrative requirements of the grants programs; (b) comply with minimum Federal and/or State technical standards for wastewater facilities; (c) are suitable for bidding; and (d) present a constructible project. The plans for the Macclenny project depict an existing treatment facility, a new clarifier to improve the removal of solids (an expansion of about 130,000 gallons per day in treatment capacity), and a new effluent pumping station to pump to an overland flow field (field) through a force main pipeline to spray risers. The risers would spray the water laterally across the field. Water would collect in a central collection ditch, and run through a final chlorine contact chamber prior to discharge in Turkey Creek. A new agricultural building for equipment storage, and a new holding pond, which is an off-line pond for storage of inadequately treated water, are also depicted. The field in the Macclenny project is roughly 24 acres and is located in a large area between the chlorine contact chamber and the holding pond. The field in this system has 5 cells. A cell is an area of land that can be independently controlled to allow loading/resting cycles in the treatment process. Each cell in a given field should be as near equal in size as possible to provide for equal treatment of the wastewater during the loading/resting cycles. Loading/resting cycles allows a cell within the field to "rest" (no effluent being pumped on to that cell) so maintenance mowing or harvesting can be accomplished and to "load" the other cells to revitalize the bacteria that renews the treatment process. "Load" means to apply the effluent or treated wastewater from the existing facility to the field. Generally, forty percent of the field would be loaded with wastewater at any one time. On December 9, 1985, the Bureau had a predesign conference with Respondent in Macclenny to discuss design items. No plans or specifications for the Macclenny project had been submitted at that time, nor were they submitted at this conference. On February 18, 1986, an in-progress design review was held at Macclenny, with the Bureau staff available to answer Respondent's questions. On March 5, 1986, another in-progress design review meeting was held in Macclenny, with the Bureau staff present, at which time the plans were "fifty percent" (50%) complete. The unsigned and unsealed plans were given to the Bureau for a preliminary review. On March 25, 1986, the Bureau issued a few preliminary comments on the 50% completed plans and specifications. The purpose of the 50% complete review is to help the design engineer complete his plans and specifications. On March 31, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the Bureau a set of plans for the proposed Macclenny project. Respondent's transmittal letter, which the Bureau received with the plans on April 11, 1986, stated that "completed plans" were being transmitted. On April 21, 1986, Respondent transmitted to the bureau an additional set of the same plans for the Macclenny project, which Respondent again referred to as "completed plans" on his transmittal letter form which were received by Bureau on April 24, 1986. This transmittal also included specifications, a design data check list, design calculations, cost estimate, and plan of operation. The plans in this submittal are referred to as "the plans." It was Respondent's understanding that signing and sealing a set of engineering drawings signified a legal obligation that if someone takes the plans and builds a project it will work. Respondent's signature and seal are on the first sheet of the set of plans which was in the April 1986 submittal but not on the specifications. The plans were prepared, signed, sealed and submitted to the Bureau for review by Respondent. Respondent did not place any conditional language or qualification on the plans or write a letter advising the Bureau that the plans were not complete. It was Respondent's understanding that the Bureau would not review a set of plans unless they were signed and sealed, notwithstanding the completeness of the plans. Respondent did not consider the plans as completed, notwithstanding that he had signed, sealed and submitted them to Petitioner as "completed". It was Respondent's understanding that the plans were being submitted for review only, not complete for construction. An engineer may get answers from the Bureau without submitting plans that are signed and sealed as completed, such as the predesign conference or 50% review that occurred in this case. The Bureau considers plans that are signed, sealed and submitted as "completed" for review to be 100% complete and ready to bid. The Bureau considered the plans and specifications which Respondent submitted on April 24, 1986 as being final, complete plans and specifications for final review by the Bureau. The Bureau reviewed the plans assuming them to be complete and followed normal procedures for reviewing a complete set of plans and specifications. On June 19, 1989, the Bureau issued 52 written comments based on its review of the plans and specifications it had received in the April 24, 1986 submittal from Respondent. The plans and specifications were submitted to the Department of General Services (DGS) by the Bureau for a review and opinion because the Bureau was concerned about the structural design. DGS responded to this request through Jim Berkstresser, P.E. on June 25, 1986. By cover letter dated July 18, 1989, Respondent filed written responses to the Bureau's 52 comments. The Bureau did not approve Respondent's plans and specifications for the Macclenny project submitted on April 24, 1986. On September 5, 1986, Respondent resubmitted plans in response to the Bureau's 52 comments. These plans had the same configuration as the April submittal regarding the overland flow treatment. On September 29, 1986, Respondent met with David Wolfe to discuss the field configuration for the proposed overland flow system and other outstanding issues related to the revised contract documents. The principal concerns were non- uniform flow and significant erosion potential. Respondent's plans did not follow accepted design criteria. At this meeting field configurations were discussed, as well as guidelines to be followed in design of the overland flow field, and a general field layout were developed. Respondent submitted another set of plans which the Bureau received on October 30, 1986, and that set was approved and stamped accepted by DER-BWMG on December 22, 1986. All sheets in the approved set are dated August 20, 1986, with the exception of the cover sheet on which Respondent failed to date his seal and signature, and sheets G-6 and G-7 which are dated October 24, 1986. Respondent signed and sealed the cover sheet and sheet G-7 of the approved set of plans, but did not seal any other sheets in the approved set of plans. A signature and seal on a set of plans indicates that the plans were prepared by, or under the direct supervision of the person signing and sealing them, and that the plans are complete and depict a project that will perform its intended function. A signature and seal on a set of plans means the engineer assures that the design is his design and that the plans and specifications are ready to be bid for construction. The design should contain criteria and information significant to ensure the project will work. Sheet flow is the primary treatment mode in an overland flow system. Sheet flow is where a thin layer of water is induced to flow in a very controlled atmosphere across a length of land that is functioning very similarly to a trickling filter. The acceptable range of slope of an overland flow system is 2% to 8% with the best results obtained in the lower range because of a longer "residence time". "Residence time" is the amount time the wastewater is on the field for treatment. The slopes must be even and uniform to maintain a constant velocity so as to minimize the potential for erosion and to maintain a constant depth of water throughout the filed so as to maximize the treatment. Cross slopes should be minimized and topographic lines should be as close to parallel as possible on the field. The plans for the Macclenny project shows: (a) slopes ranging from less than 2% up to 6%; (b) multiple compound slopes across the field and; (c) topographic lines that are not parallel. The specifications for the field do not set out the acceptable tolerances on the slopes or the acceptable level of compaction of the field for the contractor who is to construct the field and; therefore, lacks control over the final product. Contours in an overland flow field are important, and while it is desirable for them to be on 1-foot intervals, contours at intervals of 2 feet are acceptable provided the plans and specifications address what happens between the contours. Respondent's plans and specifications show contours at intervals of 2 feet but do not address what happens between the contours. The plans of the facilities that were approved prior to the submittal of any plans by Respondent called for a 2- 3 week loading/resting cycle. The standard practice is to have all cells within an overland flow field to be of equal size so that the area to be loaded at any given period of time is the same size. The cells in the overland flow field in the Macclenny project as depicted by the plans are not of equal size, and if operated on a 2-3 week loading/resting cycle would not provide a consistent amount of treatment and thereby result in varying levels of treatment of the effluent. It is standard practice to provide performance specifications for seeding the field with the primary grass cover and for overseeding when necessary to prevent wind and water erosion. There were no performance specifications in the plans and specifications on the Macclenny project submitted by the Respondent. Agricultural equipment is an integral part of the overland flow field system and has a direct bearing on whether the system will function over the long run. Specifications for agricultural equipment are necessary to determine if the system will work properly. There were no specifications for agricultural equipment submitted by the Respondent in the plans. It is standard practice to furnish spray nozzle specifications, such as nozzle size, degree of fanning, characteristics under varying pressures and how much water will be discharged by the nozzle, in a set of plans and specifications for an overland flow field. Respondent's specifications for the Macclenny project did not contain the necessary specifications for the spray nozzles. Compacting is a standard practice, and it is standard practice to show compaction requirements on plans or specifications. The usual practice is to investigate the soil and specify compaction, usually based on a foundation report by a geo-technical engineer, showing the safe beading capacity of the soil in what condition, with recommendations for compaction. The Respondent's specifications do not call for compaction of the soil under the clarifier slab. However, the Respondent's specifications do call for compaction in the holding pond and situations where an area is over-excavated and backfilled. Should the area under the clarifier slab be over- excavated and backfilled, then compaction is covered in the specifications but compaction would not be covered unless this occurs. Therefore, since the weight of the slab is carried by the soil beneath it, specifications for compaction should have been included in Respondent's specifications for any situation. Changes in temperature causes concrete to expand or contract which may result in cracking. Placement of a concrete slab may result in the slab bending which may result in cracking. Therefore, reinforcing a concrete slab is required to maintain the slab's integrity. The thickness of a concrete slab will determine the distribution of the reinforcing so that cracking is minimized. The clarifier slab in the Macclenny project is depicted as being 12 inches thick and shows number 6 bar reinforcing on 6 inch centers in the top of the slab but no reinforcing in the bottom of the slab. Failure to require reinforcing in the bottom of the slab could result in the slab cracking due to significant changes in temperature and soft spots in the soil beneath the slab. Failure to place reinforcing in the bottom as well as in the top of the slab is not in accordance with standards of the code of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), revised in 1983, and is a structural weakness. The chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 is like a rectangular concrete box beneath the earth where the earth is within a few inches of the top of the walls. The walls are vertically reinforced with number 4 bars on 12 inch centers placed in the center of the 8 inch thick wall. When the tank is empty the reinforcing bars will be approximately 160 per cent overstressed from the active pressure of the earth. Additional reinforcing is needed in the walls to meet ACI standards. There are deficiencies in the vertical wall reinforcing of the chlorine contact chamber as detailed on sheets 5-6 and 5-7 of the Plans. On sheets 5-3, 5-4 and 5-7 of the plans, reinforcement through the construction joints is incorrectly detailed to assure that cracking of the concrete will not occur. Construction joints occur between different pours of concrete, such as where the walls meet the top of the bottom slab. The concrete bottom of the holding pond as detailed in sheet 5-8 of the Plans is large enough to require expansion joints to prevent cracking as the slab expands and contracts due to changes in the weather, yet no expansion joints are shown for the slab as detailed on sheet 5-8 of the plans. Neither the collection ditches nor the spray riser bases as detailed on the plans show any reinforcing to maintain the integrity of the concrete. While this is not a major structural weakness, it indicates a failure to comply with standard structural engineering practices. Although the plans call for relocation of an existing drainage ditch, the Respondent failed to consult DER regarding the permitting of such drainage ditch. A detention time of 30 minutes is required to properly disinfect wastewater and is-basic knowledge for all civil engineers, yet the plans called for only a fifteen minute detention time. It is standard engineering practice to provide flood level elevations on the site plans. Respondent failed to provide flood level elevations for the Macclenny facility site plans. The plans failed to: (a) provide elevations for high water alarm and pump off settings; (b) provide specifications for flume liner on sheet M-4; (c) show how to close an existing outlet on the chlorine contact chamber; (d) show where an effluent pump station was to be located; (e) show pressure relief valve locations and; (f) indicate quantities for purpose of contract bidding. The specifications list equipment and work items, such as pumping equipment, grit storage tank, case-out assembly, telescoping valve, air diffusers, portable pump, hose and couplings, that are inapplicable to the Macclenny project. There are inconsistencies in the plans and specifications, such as: (a) the plans showing one clarifier while the specifications call for two clarifiers, (b) the plans showing a 150 pound chlorine cylinder as opposed to a 1-ton chlorine cylinder in the specifications and; (c) the plans showing the clarifier with a 38-foot diameter while the specifications calls for a clarifier with a 40-foot diameter. Respondent was negligent in submitting incomplete plans to the Bureau as "completed plans" and in failing to utilize due care and failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles, with regard to the content of those plans which he submitted as "completed plans".
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding this case, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, L. Thomas Hubbard guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and for such violation impose an administrative fine of $1,000.00 and suspend from the practice of engineering for a period of thirty (30) days, stay the suspension and place the Respondent on probation for a period of one year under terms and conditions the Board deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearing this 20th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0096 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Findings of Fact 1. Rejected as not being necessary to the conclusions reached in this Recommended Order. 3.-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, respectively, but modified. 13. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 14.-19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, respectively, but modified. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or subordinate or unnecessary. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18 but modified. 22.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 27, respectively, but modified. 34. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17 and 18, but modified. 35-37. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 38. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28 and 29, but modified. 39.-40. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate, but see Findings of Fact 37 and 38. 41.-5O. Adopted in Findings of Fact 28, 32, 29 (28-31), 29, 29, 32, 30, 32 and 32, respectively, but modified. 51. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 52.-53. Adopted in Findings of Fact (28-33) and 32, respectively, but modified. 54.-55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. Adapted in Finding of Fact 55. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 58.-62. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 28-33. 63.-66. Adopted generally in Findings of Fact 34-36. 67.-72. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 37. 73.-74. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 38. 75.-76. Adopted generally in Finding of Fact 39. 77.-79. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 13-15 and 28-39. 80.-82 Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 40- 41. 83.-90. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 42 and 43. 91.-96. Adopted generally or covered in Findings of Fact 44 and 45. 97.-104. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 46. 105.-107. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 47. 108.-109. Adopted in Finding of Fact 48. 110.-115. Adopted generally or covered in Finding of Fact 55. 116.-117. Adopted in Finding of Fact 49 and 50. 18. Rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 119. Adopted in Finding of Fact 51. 120.-124. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. 125. Rejected as immaterial or irrelevant or unnecessary or subordinate. 126.-127. Adopted in Finding of Fact 52. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 54. Adopted in Finding of Fact 53. Adopted in Finding of Fact 55. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Findings of Fact 13-15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19 except last sentence that is rejected as being immaterial or irrelevant. Rejected as being a restatement of Administrative Complaint and not a Finding of Fact but see Findings of Fact 15 and 19. Rejected as being a restatement of John Sowerby's testimony and not a Finding of Fact, but see Findings of Fact 15, 17 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 6. Restatement of David Wolfe's testimony COPIES FURNISHED: Rex Smith Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire 1020 D. Lafayette Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 5676 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5676 L. Thomas Hubbard, pro se THA Building 3110 Spring Glen Road Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence in the record, as well as the pleadings and joint prehearing stipulation, the following relevant facts are found: Cast-Crete owns and operates a concrete batch plant in Hillsborough County, Florida, and manufactures concrete products such as reinforced beams, lintels, seals and drainage structures on the property. The plant is located on the west side of State Road 579, 3/4 mile north of Interstate 4, Section 28, Township 28 South, Range 20 East. The concrete products are manufactured in various forms which are laid out over a large portion of Cast-Crete's property. Lubricating oils are utilized to facilitate the removal of the product from the confining forms. During this process some of the lubricating oil is spilled onto the ground. Also, cleaning solutions containing degreasers are utilized to wash the concrete trucks eight to ten times per day. This solution ends up on the ground. Aggregate limerock (crushed limestone) is used in the concrete formulation process and is stored in large piles on the property. In order to contain the dust, water is sprayed on the aggregate piles 24 hours a day. The wash water from the continuous process of wetting the aggregate, other waste water and some stormwater is channeled through the property and into a settling pond in the northwest corner of Cast-Crete's property. This pond discharges continuously off the property by way of a concrete flume into a county maintained ditch. Water in the ditch travels in a westerly direction approximately 200 to 300 yards before it passes under Black Dairy Road, where the watercourse deepens and widens. The ditch discharges into a marshy area which drains into Six Mile Creek and other water bodies. The pond at the northwest corner of Cast-Crete's property is equipped with a metal skimming device to remove oils and greases floating on the surface of the pond. Nevertheless, it is estimated that approximately 100 gallons of oil per year are discharged by Cast-Crete. Oil and grease in the outflow water is occasionally above 5 mg/L. Oil and grease layers have been observed on water at both Black Dairy Road and Six Mile Creek, probably resulting from road run- off. Approximately 90 percent of the water discharged from the property is a result of the wetting or washdown of the aggregate piles. The excess water which comes from the aggregate piles is laden with dissolved limestone, lime and limestone particles. This limestone dust raises the pH level of the water. Because of the continued wetting of the aggregate, water flows through the settling ponds and off of Cast-Crete's property at a rate of approximately 4.8 gallons per minute, or 7,200 gallons per day or 2.5 million gallons per year. During a rain event, the flow increases markedly. Except during times of heavy rainfall, water flowing from the respondent's property provides a thin stream of water in the drainage ditch approximately six inches wide and several inches deep. The pH of the wastewater from Cast-Crete's discharge flume is between 10 and 11 units. During high volume flows, the pH remains at or above 11 units. An increase of one unit of pH in the wastewater means that the wastewater has become 10 times more basic, since pH is measured on a logarithmic scale. The natural background of unaffected streams in the area of and in the same watershed as the Cast-Crete property is less than 8.5 units. Specific conductance or conductivity is the measure of free ions in the water. Typical conductivity readings from other water bodies in Hillsborough County range between 50 and 330 micromhos per centimeter. The specific conductance of Cast-Crete's wastewater ranges from 898 to 2000 micromhos per centimeter. This is due to the presence of calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide in the water. Blue-green algae is the dominant plant species in the ditch between the Cast-Crete discharge flume and the first 150 meters of the ditch. A biological survey of the ditch system indicates that the diversity of species east of Black Dairy Road is low. This is attributable in part to the high pH of the wastewater. The low diversity can also be attributed to the fact that the County maintains the ditch by use of a dragline on an annual basis. Background samples from a site within one mile to the northwest of the Cast-Crete property were taken. The site (a stream passing under Williams Road) is an appropriate place to take background samples because the water there is unaffected by Cast-Crete's discharge or other man-induced conditions. The pH background sample ranged from 4.6 units to 5.1 units. The specific conductance background samples ranged from 70 to 100 micromhos per centimeter. Samples taken from a site potentially impacted by Cast-Crete's discharge showed a pH level of from 6.35 to 7.37 units and specific conductance of from 592 to 670 micromhos per centimeter. Cast-Crete discharges water from its concrete plants operation without a permit from the DER.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring respondent to submit a complete application for an industrial wastewater permit within thirty (30) days, and that, if it fails to do so, it cease discharging wastewater from its property until such time as an appropriately valid permit is issued by the DER. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Thulman Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 W. DeHart Ayala, Jr. 501 E. Jackson Street Suite 200 Tampa, FL 33602 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 84-1647 CAST-CRETE CORPORATION OF FLORIDA Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Tamaron wastewater treatment facility (facility), located at 3800 Gatewood Drive, Sarasota, Florida, serves the Tamaron residential subdivision which was originally developed by U. S. Homes Corporation in 1976. The subdivision presently consists of 499 homes and was completely built out in the mid-1980's. The facility was originally owned and operated by U. S. Homes Corporation. Tamaron Utilities, a nonprofit entity comprised of the 499 homeowners, acquired the facility in November, 1987. At that time, the facility's existing operating permit was transferred to Tamaron Utilities. The facility is overseen by an elected board of volunteer homeowners. The Department is the agency of the State of Florida that is authorized to regulate domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permit their construction and operation. It is the successor agency to the Department of Environmental Regulation. By letter dated November 10, 1987, the Department notified Tamaron of the requirements of Chapter 87-303, Laws of Florida (Grizzle-Figg Amendment), which amended Section 403.086, Florida Statutes, and of the Department's intention to modify Tamaron's operating permit to incorporate a schedule of compliance with Section 403.086, Florida Statutes, as amended by Chapter 87-303, Laws of Florida. On August 23, 1988, an operating permit (D058-141783), which contained secondary water treatment requirements, was issued to the facility. Specific condition 7 of the permit required that the facility be in compliance with the Grizzle-Figg Amendment by October, 1990, or eliminate discharge to surface waters. On September 5, 1990, Tamaron filed an application with the Department to renew its domestic waste water treatment and disposal systems operation permit. Tamaron did not consider its facility as discharging waste into one of the specifically named water bodies set forth in the Grizzle-Figg Amendment or to "water tributary thereto" and thereby required to meet the advanced waste treatment criteria set forth in the Grizzle-Figg Amendment. However, in an abundance of caution, Tamaron proceeded to bring its facility into compliance with the advanced waste treatment criteria as set forth in the Grizzle-Figg Amendment. After numerous requests for additional information and several meetings between Tamaron and the Department, the Department issued its Notice of Permit Denial on April 9, 1991, asserting that Tamaron had not provided: (a) reasonable assurance that the requirements of Section 403.086(1)(c), Florida Statutes, mandating advanced waste treatment (AWT) before discharge to certain designated surface waters, would be met and; (b) reasonable assurance that the discharge to those certain designated surface waters would result in minimal negative impact as required by Section 403.086(5)(a), Florida Statutes. The facility continues to operate under its secondary treatment permit No. DO58-141783. The facility consists of a wastewater treatment plant designed for secondary treatment, with tertiary filtration. The design capacity of the facility is 155,000 gallons per day (0.155MGD) with actual flows of slightly over 100,000 gallons per day (0.100MGD+). Three percolation ponds surround the facility comprising the primary effluent disposal method for the facility. The Tamaron subdivision has a series of excavated surface water bodies (stormwater lakes), hydraulically connected, which eventually discharge at the northeast corner of the subdivision into Phillippi Creek. The direct path of surface water flow is from the subdivision's stormwater lakes to Phillippi Creek. These stormwater lakes are in multiple ownership. Under Department policy, stormwater systems permitted by the Department, its predecessor DER, or a water management district solely as stormwater treatment facilities under Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, are not considered "waters of the State". However, stormwater systems built prior to Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, permitting requirements, were considered "waters of the State" if they discharge more frequently than a twenty five year, twenty-four hour storm event. See Petitioner's exhibits 13 & 15. Tamaron's stormwater system was built prior to Chapter 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, permitting requirements, and was designed to discharge at a ten year, twenty-four hour storm event which is more frequent than a twenty five year, twenty-four hour storm event. Discharge of water into Phillippi Creek from the subdivision's stormwater lakes is fairly frequent; however, the volume of the discharge is low. Phillippi Creek is a natural surface water which eventually flows into Roberts Bay. Roberts Bay is a specifically named water body in the Grizzle-Figg Amendment (Section 403.086(1)(c), Florida Statutes). Since September, 1989, Tamaron has retained William Murchie, P.E. of AM Engineering, to evaluate the design and operation of the facility in order to comply with appropriate regulatory requirements. The facility provides biological treatment through a contact stabilization utilizing an activated sludge. This process typically provides high quality advanced secondary biological treatment. A chemical feed tank system utilizing ferrous sulfate was added to the facility several years ago to chemically precipitate out total phosphorus to meet the advanced waste treatment requirements. High-level disinfection is achieved in the large chlorine contact chamber and through two tertiary filters. At the design flow of 0.155MGD, the chlorine contact chamber provides nearly 80 minutes of contact time, while actual contact time for existing flows, not including time in filters, is calculated at 110 minutes. Upon leaving the chlorine contact chamber and the biological treatment components of the facility, the chlorinated effluent is directed through two tertiary filters to reduce the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). After the tertiary filters, the effluent passes through the sample block where it is sampled for TSS, BOD and chlorine and is then piped sequentially into the first, second and third percolation ponds. The percolation ponds span two acres and provide residence time of 35 to 45 days, during which time the effluent is further biologically treated and nitrogen is reduced. From the percolation ponds, the effluent is pumped into a low pressure system which uniformly distributes effluent over two nitrogen reduction filters. The nitrogen reduction filters are located north of the plant and are immediately adjacent to one of the subdivision's stormwater lakes. The nitrogen reduction filters consist of deep sand beds covered with Bermuda grass to provide high nitrogen uptake. The irrigation of the two nitrogen reduction filters is alternated every half day. These nitrogen reduction systems were modified in October/November, 1990, by adding 3 to 3 1/2 feet of clean sand with a permeability rate of 28 feet per day, planting Bermuda grass, and installing an irrigation/distribution system. These filters replaced two sand pits with shallow layers of very coarse sand, after initial testing demonstrated the sand pits to be inadequate in removing nutrients consistent with statutory requirements. In January, 1992, an underdrain system utilizing perforated pipe was installed in the nitrogen reduction filters to create an aerobic zone and to provide a representative sample port after nutrient reduction in the filters. This sample port, used for the biweekly monitoring, consists of a single solid pipe, that collects effluent from the perforated pipes, with a tap to prevent discharge into the adjacent stormwater lake, except during sampling events. The biweekly sampling event results in effluent being discharged from the pipe for approximately 30 minutes to flush the pipe so as to get a proper sample. The underdrain sampling port at the nitrogen reduction filters replaced two earlier monitor wells between the nitrogen reduction filter and the stormwater pond, which proved ineffective because of their location. The perforated underdrains are situated in filter bed sand of medium grain size with a permeability rate 100 feet per day and located below 3 - 3 1/2 feet of clean sand with a permeability rate of 28 feet per day and above very permeable layers of sand, stone and coarse shell. (See Tamaron's exhibit 23 and Department's exhibit 14) The very permeable layers of sand, coarse shell, the perforated pipe and the single solid pipe are all located above the ground water table. Since the perforated pipe and sample port are both located above the ground water level and the surface of the adjacent stormwater lake, it is unlikely that the effluent sample taken from the sample port would be influenced by the ground water or a back flow of water from the adjacent stormwater lake. The coarse shell layer situated below the nitrogen reduction filters extends to the edge of the adjacent stormwater lake. Therefore, the effluent, other than the effluent trapped in the perforated pipe and carried to the sample port, that is irrigated onto the nitrogen reduction filters passes through the sand and into the coarse shell layer. The effluent is then transported laterally through the coarse shell layer to the underground edge of the adjacent stormwater lake where there is a subsurface discharge into the adjacent stormwater lake. Since the discharge to the stormwater lakes is primarily subsurface in nature, the logical compliance point to measure effluent parameters would be the underground sample port which collects the effluent prior to subsurface discharge into the stormwater lake. See Petitioner's exhibit 15. The direction of ground water flow at the facility is towards the north to the adjacent stormwater lakes as evidenced by the hydraulic gradient of the site determined using ground water table elevations. The location for sampling effluent from the facility for compliance with secondary standards was described in Specific Condition 5 of Tamaron's previous permit No. D058-141783 dated August 23, 1988. Specific Condition 5 states that the discharge from the chlorine contact chamber shall be sampled in accordance with Chapter 17-19, Florida Administrative Code, (now Chapter 17-601, Florida Administrative Code), for compliance with the stated secondary limits. The facility's tertiary filters are located after the chlorine contact chamber. Tamaron samples effluent for compliance with secondary standards (BOD,TSS, chlorine) at the sampling box after disinfection and tertiary filtration. Tertiary filtration is designed to achieve a more efficient removal of TSS and BOD. The resulting effluent is usually of higher quality than secondarily treated effluent. A secondary plant with tertiary filtration is referred to as an "advanced secondary treatment" plant. Data presented by Tamaron titled Tamaron 1991-1993 Data On FDER Permit Compliance (Tamaron's exhibit 17, page 1 of 2) shows reported values, sampled after tertiary filtration at the sample box, which suggest that secondary treatment parameters, including fecal coliform, are not being exceeded. The data actually shows a very high removal rate for the parameters sampled. The United States Environmental Protection Agency issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, number FL0042811, to Tamaron for the facility with an effective date of June 1, 1991, which authorized Tamaron to discharge from the facility to the receiving waters named Phillippi Creek to Roberts Bay in accordance with the effluent limitation, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth in the permit. Since the facility was located in the Grizzle-Figg Amendment area of Florida certain changes were made from the draft permit to the final permit. Those changes appear in the Amendment To The Statement Of Basis At The Time Of Final Permit Issuance which is made a part of the final permit. The amendment provides for changes in Part I, Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements. These changes, among other things, require that the Grizzle-Figg Amendment annual limits of 5 mg/l BOD, 5mg/l TSS, 3mg/l total nitrogen and 1mg/l total phosphorus be added to the effluent limits to adequately maintain water quality standards, and added monitoring requirements and measurement frequency regulations to give the basis for permit limits and conditions in accordance with Chapters 17-302, 17-600 and 17-601, Florida Administrative Code. Data presented by Tamaron titled Tamaron 1991-1993 Data On NPDES Permit Compliance (Tamaron's exhibit 17, page 2 of 2) show reported values sampled after nitrogen reduction filters which suggest that the maximum values for AWT parameters, including fecal coliform, are not being exceeded, particularly after January, 1992, when Tamaron began sampling effluent collected by the perforated underdrains at the sample port. Tamaron has been monitoring and reporting compliance under its final NPDES permit and providing copies to the Department. There was no evidence that Tamaron was ever in violation of its NPDES permit. Tamaron submitted documentation to the Department with its permit application that demonstrated high-level disinfection within the facility was being achieved. However, TSS was being sampled after the application of the disinfectant. Using this procedure, the facility continued to achieve high- level disinfection until the permit denial. After the permit denial, the facility resumed basic disinfection which was required under Tamaron's permit for secondary treatment. This same data indicates that there was compliance with the requirements for fecal coliform. The record is not clear as to the frequency and number of samples taken to provide the data for reporting compliance with the NPDES permit and the data presented in Petitioner's exhibit 17, page 2 of 2. However, there was no evidence, other than sampling for TSS after the disinfectant was added, that Tamaron was not complying with its NPDES Permit that required, among other things, that the monitoring requirements and measurement frequency of the Department's rules and regulations be followed by Tamaron. Tamaron has modified and upgraded the facility in order to achieve a treatment process which will produce effluent of a quality for discharge under the Grizzle-Figg Amendment. Tamaron has provided reasonable assurances, although not absolute assurance, that the facility can comply with the discharge permit requirements of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, including Section 403.086, Florida Statutes, notwithstanding the testimony of Jay Thabaraj to the contrary concerning Tamaron's sampling technique and its method of obtaining high-level disinfection which can be addressed as a specific condition, if necessary. Studies conducted by the Tamaron's engineer included in Petitioner's exhibit 21 indicates that there was no adverse impact to the stormwater lakes from the facility's wastewater treatment and disposal system. Tamaron has provided reasonable assurances that the point of discharge is a reasonably access point, where such discharge results only in minimal negative impact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order granting Tamaron an operating permit for its facility as secondary treatment facility. In the alternative, that the Department enter a final order granting Tamaron an operating permit for its facility that requires compliance with the advanced waste treatment criteria set forth in Section 403.086(4), Florida Statutes, that, in addition to any general or specific conditions that are normally required, contains specific conditions that: (a) contains specific instructions on sampling technique, sampling frequency and reporting as set forth in Rule 17- 740(1)(b)2., Florida Administrative Code, and (b) sets forth compliance with high-level disinfection, with a time limit for compliance, that accomplishes the intent of the rule, if not the strict letter of the rule, without total redesign of the facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 3rd day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2968 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner, Tamaron's Proposed Findings of Fact: The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(3); 4(5,6); 5(6); 6(7); 8(12); 10(8); 11-12(13-25,38); 13(31-34); 14(8); 15(13); 16(14); 17-18(15); 19(36); 20(16); 21(17); 22(18); 23(19); 24(20); 25(21);26(22); 32(32,7); 33(33); 34(32,32); 36(31); 39-40(34); 41(36); 42- 43(34); 44(35); 47(4); and 51(10). Proposed findings of fact 27-31, and 35 are conclusions of law rather than findings of fact.. Proposed findings of fact 45, 46, 48-50, 56, 57, 59, and 61-72 are arguments rather than findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact 7, 9, 37, 38, 52-55, 58 and 60 are neither material nor relevant. Respondent, Department's Proposed Findings of Fact: The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1,6); 2(2); 3(4,10); 5(9); 6(9,10); 8(11); 9-17(18-27); 18(8); 19(13); 20(5); 21(17); 22(30); 23(31); 24(14); 25(17); 26(18-23); 27(34); and 32(35,38). Proposed finding of fact 4 is neither material nor relevant but see Findings of Fact 18-25. Proposed findings of fact 7, 31 and 33 are arguments rather than findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact 28-30 are conclusions of law rather than findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Charles G. Stephens, Esquire C. Robinson Hall, Esquire Enterprise Plaza, Suite 1516 101 E. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Francine Ffolkes, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The SFWMD is a public corporation in the state of Florida existing by virtue of Chapter 25270, Laws of Florida, 1949, and operating pursuant to Chapter 573, Fla. Stat., and Title 40E, Fla. Admin. Code, as a multi-purpose water management district, with its principal office in West Palm Beach, Florida. The Navy has proposed construction of a naval housing facility on the Peary Court site (the "Site") in Key West, Florida. The Site is approximately 25.89 acres and will provide 160 housing units for junior enlisted Navy and Air Force personnel and their families. The Site is the center of a larger, 37 acre drainage basin. The Site was formerly the location of military housing. However, for the past 18 years, the Site had been used by the City of Key West, with the assent of the Navy, for active and passive recreation for city residents. The Site contains a cemetery of historic value and a former military housing structure now being used by the Navy Key West Federal Credit Union with an associated parking area of paved asphalt. On February 6, 1992, the Navy submitted an application for a Surface Water Management District General Permit for the Project. The proposed surface water management system (the "System") was designed by Rice Creekmore, a registered professional engineer, and his company Johnson, Creekmore, and Fabray. The proposed System utilizes the existing topography and incorporates a number of drainage control mechanisms to manage the run-off from the Site. The System employs inlets, swales and culverts to direct stormwater run-off into dry detention areas (ponds) for pretreatment prior to discharging into seven 24-inch Class V injection wells (drainage wells). As discussed below, these injection wells must be permitted by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation ("FDER"). The dry pond areas utilize key ditches, bottom elevation 1.0' NGVD, in order to hydraulically connect all of the dry pond areas together into one dry system prior to overflowing into the drainage wells beginning at elevation 1.5' NGVD. In other words, the detention ponds are interconnected with pipes. The design includes only one point where run-off would be discharged from the Site during any storm equal to a 25 year, three day storm event. That discharge would occur at the lowest point of the Site at the corner of Eisenhower and Palm. The water would be discharged through a V notch weir (the "Weir") into the City's stormwater system. An existing 12" storm drain line at the discharge point will be replaced by a 13.5" by 22.0" Reinforced Concrete Elliptical Pipe culvert. As discussed in more detail below, the System is designed so as to detain 1" of run-off within the dry detention ponds prior to any discharge through the Weir. After review of the application and submittals, the SFWMD issued a Notice of Intent to issue General Permit and Stormwater Discharge Certification No. 44-00178-S (the "Permit") on September 29, 1992. Petitioner and Intervenor timely petitioned for an administrative hearing challenging the SFWMD decision to award the Permit. There is no dispute as to the standing of either Petitioner or Intervenor. The SFWMD has adopted rules that set forth the criteria which an applicant must satisfy in order for a surface water management permit to issue. The criteria are set forth in Rule 40E-4, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(m) and 40E-4.091(1)(a) incorporate by reference The Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within South Florida Water Management District - April, 1987, ("The Basis for Review"). The Basis for Review explicates certain procedures and information used by the SFWMD staff in reviewing a surface water management permit application. The SFWMD issues general permits for projects of 40 acres or less that meet specific criteria. All other projects must obtain individual permits which are reviewed by the District Board. The specific rules relating only to general permits are set forth in Rule 40E-40. In addition, the Basis for Review sets forth certain technical requirements which must be met for the issuance of a general permit including general construction requirements and special requirements for wetlands. The Basis for Review also sets forth criteria for how a proposed system should address water quantity and water quality issues. The SFWMD assumes that water quantity and water quality standards will be met if a system satisfies the criteria set forth in the Basis for Review. Water Quantity Criteria Rule 40E-4.301(a), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will provide adequate flood protection and drainage. The purpose of the water quantity criteria is to insure that pre- development flows and post-development flows are equal. The SFWMD requires calculations of a project's projected post-development flow to guarantee that the post-development discharge rate will not be in excess of the pre-development discharge rate. These calculations are based on a 25 year, 3 day storm event. There is no stormwater management system in place at the Project Site. The pre-development topography results in a pre-development discharge point from the Site at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue. At this point, a discharge or outfall pipe leads into the City of Key West's stormwater management system. The City's system ultimately discharge into Garrison Bight, a nearly waterbody which is discussed in more detail below. At the time the Navy began planning for the Project, the Navy was told that the discharge pipe had a capacity of accepting water at a rate of 40 cubic feet per second ("CFS"). The Navy initially designed a system to utilize this capacity. Subsequently, it was discovered that, due to the size of the pipe at the discharge point and the capacity of the pipes downstream in the City of Key West's stormwater management system, the City would not allow or accommodate a discharge of more than 11 CFS from the Site. Thus, the System had to be redesigned so that the discharge to the City's system would not exceed 11 CFS. The system was redesigned to incorporate the seven (7) Class V injection wells. The injection wells are intended to insure that discharge from the Project into the City stormwater system through the surface water discharge pipe at Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue will not exceed 11 CFS. The injection wells introduce treated stormwater into the ground before it reaches the discharge point. The pre-development rate of surface water discharge from Peary Court in a 25 year, 72 hour storm event was 55 CFS. This rate was calculated based upon a site survey, a determination of the existing amount of pervious versus impervious surface area, and a calculation made through a generally accepted civil-engineering computer program. 1/ This predevelopment discharge is the amount of water which would be expected to discharge off-site after percolation occurs. The number and size of the injection wells for the proposed system were determined based upon tests of an on-site twelve-inch fire well. The results of the tests revealed that the on-site test well could manage in excess of 2 CFS. Due to test limitations, the exact capacity could not be measured, but the capacity was clearly more than 2 CFS. These results were then compared with data obtained from the engineering firm of Post, Buckeley, Schuh & Jernigan for installed wells in the Florida Keys of a similar nature and size to the wells in the proposed surface water management system. The Post, Buckeley test results indicated that 24-inch wells had a capacity of 31 CFS. In addition, the design engineer consulted with South Florida Well Drillers, who have drilled other wells in the Florida Keys including 24-inch wells at the Key West airport which were completed shortly before the application for this Project. South Florida Well drillers found the capacity of 24-inch wells in Key West to be in the 25 to 30 CFS range. Based upon the results of the test well and the related reports described above, the project engineer based his design of the surface water management system on an estimated well capacity of 8.4 CFS for each well. These estimates were submitted by the Navy in its application and were appropriately determined to be reasonable by the SFWMD staff. Indeed, the evidence established that 8.4 CFS was a conservative estimate. The seven injection wells, at an estimated capacity of approximately 8.4 CFS each, provide in excess of 56 CFS of well discharge capacity, which is beyond the necessary discharge volume for the Project. Limiting Condition No. 13 of the Permit requires the Navy to obtain a well capacity test from a Florida Registered Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist following the installation of the first Class V injection well at the Site. If the results of this test indicate that the capacity of the well is different than that submitted by the Navy in its application, the Navy must apply for a permit modification to provide a design which incorporates a representative injection well flow-rate and an appropriate number of wells for the Site. In view of the reasonableness of the capacity rates utilized for the wells, it is unlikely that the results of the capacity test will result in any major design change in the proposed surface water management system. The use of the injection wells in the proposed surface water management system will significantly reduce the amount of run-off which would otherwise reach Garrison Bight from the Site. After the System is completed, it is expected that the amount of run-off from the Site that will reach Garrison Bight will be only 20 percent of the predevelopment amount. In addition, because there has previously been no management of the run-off from the Site and surrounding areas, there has been a frequent flooding problem at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue after heavy rain storms. The proposed surface water management system will accommodate the overflow of water which historically occurred when discharges from Peary Court and the surrounding areas could not be accommodated by the Key West storm water management system. Petitioner and Intervenor suggest that the effect of tidal flow on the capacity of the wells was not fully considered. The evidence established that the design engineer considered normal high tides in calculating groundwater elevations. Respondent's engineering experts have concluded that the proposed surface water management system is effectively designed to accommodate the Florida Keys' tidal flows. Petitioner and Intervenor offered no expert testimony to refute this conclusion and/or to establish that the tides would impact the effectiveness of the proposed surface water management system. In the event that an extremely high tide occurs at the time of a storm, the detention ponds may hold standing water for a short time. This water would not be discharged off-site. There is no evidence that tidal influences would in any way adversely affect the System's ability to uptake pollutants in the "first- flush". The Class V shallow injection wells are an integral part of the proposed Peary Court surface water management system. Without the injection wells it is not clear whether the Project could meet the SFWMD water quantity criteria. The SFWMD does not have authority to permit Class V injection wells. FDER must permit those wells. The Peary Court site is not the first Florida Keys' project permitted by the SFWMD which utilizes injection wells. The surface water management permits for the other projects were issued contingent upon obtaining the necessary permits for the injection wells. Special Condition No. 14 of the Permit provides that the Permit is conditioned on the Applicant obtaining the applicable permits from FDER for the injection wells. During the interim while the Navy is seeking the FDER permits, it should be required to retain all run-off on-site. If the Navy is not able to obtain the necessary FDER permits for the injection wells, the Navy should be required to either retain all run-off on-site or propose an alternate design to meet the SFWMD's water quantity requirements. A modified permit application with a new Notice of Intent should be required for any alternate design. The following Special Condition Number 14 was offered by the SFWMD at the hearing (language revised from original condition is highlighted and underlined): THIS PERMIT IS ISSUED BASED ON THE APPLICANT OBTAINING THE NECESSARY CLASS V INJECTION WELL PERMITS FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (FDER). THE PERMITTEE SHALL SUBMIT AN APPROVED CLASS V DRAINAGE WELL PERMIT FROM FDER PRIOR TO OPERATION OF THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. IN THE INTERIM, THE PERMITTEE SHALL CERTIFY TO THE DISTRICT THAT NO OFF-SITE DISCHARGE WILL OCCUR UNTIL THE APPROVED CLASS V DRAINAGE WELLS ARE IN OPERATION. IF THE SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN MUST BE MODIFIED AS A RESULT OF FDER REQUIREMENTS OR IF THE CLASS V INJECTION WELL PERMITS ARE NOT ISSUED, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPLY FOR A PERMIT MODIFICATION TO PROVIDE A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESIGN WHICH SHALL MEET DISTRICT CRITERIA IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME. The proposed additional language requires the Navy to certify that no off-site discharges will occur until the injection wells are permitted and are operating. This revised language should be added to Special Condition No. 14 to clarify that the injection wells must be in operation prior to any off-site discharge from the surface water management system. Maintenance of the surface water management system entails upkeep of the dry detention areas and routine grass cutting, as well as inspection of the injection wells on a periodic basis to guard against clogging and reduced capacity. The system is essentially designed to operate without direct surveillance or intervention. Injection wells do not require any additional maintenance over and above that which is routinely required for other types of surface water management systems. The injection wells will require routine maintenance to ensure that manholes and inlets do not become clogged. Limiting Condition No. 8 of the Permit requires that the surface water management system, including the injection wells, be maintained. At the hearing, the SFWMD proposed that a condition be added to the Permit to further clarify the maintenance requirements. A condition requiring long-term maintenance would be desirable and reasonable. A new special condition should be added to the Permit requiring long-term maintenance of grass swales and inspections of injection wells for clogging. Acceptable language for such a condition would be: SPECIAL CONDITION NO. 15 The permittee shall provide long-term maintenance of the surface water management system, encompassing the injection wells, including, but not limited to, (a) maintenance of the vegetation in the grass swales and detention ponds and (b) routine inspections of wells and discharge structures for clogging. Water Quality Criteria As noted above, there is no designed system for surface water management and/or water quality pretreatment at the Site in its undeveloped state. Surface water run-off that can not be managed by the City of Key West's storm water management system collects in roads adjacent to the Site, resulting in adverse water quality and quantity impacts to adjacent land and receiving waters. The applicable water quality criteria, contained in Rule 40E-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, require an applicant to provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, and will not cause discharge which results in any violation of the standards and criteria of Chapter 17-302 for surface waters of the state. Rule 40E-4.301 provides that: In order to obtain a permit under this chapter, an applicant must give reasonable assurances that the surface water management system is consistent with the State Water Policy as set forth in Chapter 17-40, Florida Administrative Code (40E-4.301(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 17-40.420 provides in pertinent part: Minimum Stormwater Treatment Performance Standards. When a stormwater management system complies with rules establishing the design and performance criteria for stormwater management systems, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that such systems will comply with state water quality standards. The Department and the Districts, pursuant to Section 373.436, Florida Statutes, shall adopt rules that specify design and performance criteria for new stormwater management systems which: 1. Shall be designed to achieve at least 80 percent reduction of the average annual load of pollutants that would cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards. The Basis for Review, which is incorporated into Title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, by reference, further delineates the applicable water quality permit criteria for surface water management systems. Regarding water quality criteria, the Basis for Review provides: 3.2.2.1 State standards - Projects shall be designed so that discharges will meet state water quality standards, as set forth in Chapter 17-3 [revised to 17-302], Florida Administrative Code. The SFWMD's water quality criteria do not require chemical testing of stormwater for residential projects. The SFWMD's water quality criteria require that the design of a surface water management system meet applicable design/technology based criteria. Section 3.2.2.2 of the Basis for Review contains the specific water quality criteria for the design of a surface water management system. The SFWMD allows applicants to design their surface water management system using either dry or wet detention or dry or wet retention, so long as the treatment provided by the system meets water quality and quantity criteria. Dry detention consists of a system of grass swales and vegetative- covered ponds which detain water at a predetermined rate prior to off-site discharge. Wet retention can contain canals, ditches, lakes or ponds to retain water on-site. If a system is designed to meet the criteria specified in 3.2.2.2(a) of the Basis for Review and incorporates Best Management Practices ("BMP's") for the type of system proposed, the SFWMD presumes that water quality standards will not be violated. In determining which system is appropriate for a particular site, water quantity (flooding impacts) and water quality impacts must be balanced. In some cases, water quantity concerns may preclude certain types of water quality treatment methods. At the hearing in this case, Petitioner and Intervenor suggested that retention is superior to detention in designing surface water management systems. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to support this conclusion. In any event, this contention focuses only on water quality considerations. One drawback to retention is that it may have on-site flooding impacts. With respect to this Project, the evidence indicates that retention may not have been an acceptable alternative because of possible adverse water quantity impacts. The Navy's proposed surface water management system was designed to utilize dry detention with filtration for treatment of surface water prior to discharge into the injection wells and/or off-site. The design uses a system of grass swales and grass-covered detention ponds to detain and filter pollutants from the surface water as it makes its way through the dry detention system. The System is designed to utilize as many grass swale areas as possible to filter or treat the surface water before it reaches the detention ponds which provide further treatment. The swales restrict the flow of water to approxmiately one half to one foot per second which allows for percolation and a tremendous amount of filtration. The System utilizes the natural topography of the Site to direct water through the dry detention system to the lowest point of the Site at the corner of Eisenhower Drive and Palm Avenue. Any water which makes it to this last detention pond and is not drained into one of the injection wells can flow through the discharge structure (the Weir) at 11 CFS and ultimately make it into Garrison Bight. Petitioner and Intervenor have suggested that the design of the proposed System is defective because water discharged from the cul-de-sacs in the Project design will flow directly into detention ponds without passing over any of the grass swales. The permit criteria do not specify that all surface water must contact grass swales prior to reaching a detention pond. While greater filtration is achieved the longer the run-off remains in the system, the evidence established that the detention ponds by themselves provide sufficient water quality treatment. With respect to all but one of the cul-de-sacs, the water must pass through at least two detention ponds before it is discharged. Run-off from the cul-de-sac closest to the Weir will receive treatment only in the last discharge pond. Petitioner and Intervenor questioned whether the run- off from this last cul-de-sac will receive adequate treatment, in other words, whether the "first flush" will be adequately detained prior to discharge, especially in circumstances when the detention pond is already wet. However, the evidence was insufficient to establish that their concerns are justified and/or that this situation would constitute a violation of water quality standards. This cul-de-sac is only 100 ft in diameter and accounts for no more than 8 percent of the total run-off from the Site. After considering all of the evidence, it is concluded that the water from the cul-de-sacs will be adequately treated in accordance with the permit criteria prior to any discharge. In assessing the Navy's proposed surface water management system the following criteria from the Basis for Review are pertinent in determining whether the proposed System will provide appropriate water quality treatment: 3.2.2.2 Retention and/or detention in the overall system, including swales, lakes, canals, greenways, etc., shall be provided for one of the three following criteria or equivalent combinations thereof. . .: Wet detention volume shall be provided for the first inch of run-off from the developed project, or the total run-off of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, whichever is greater. Dry detention volume shall be provided equal to 75 percent of the above amounts computed for wet detention. If the receiving waterbody, is a "sensitive receiving water," which would include an Outstanding Florida Water, the following additional criteria regarding direct discharges are applicable: 3.2.2.2 d. Projects having greater than 40 percent impervious area and which discharge directly to sensitive receiving waters shall provide at least one half inch of dry detention or retention pretreatment as part of the required retention/detention. The SFWMD interprets the permitting criteria as creating a rebuttable presumption that a surface water management system that provides detention in accordance with BMP's of the first inch (1") of run-off from a Site, commonly referred to as the "first-flush", will meet state water quality standards. The "first-flush" occurs at the onset of a rainfall when most pollutants run off paved areas and percolate into the grass swales. It is an accepted design parameter that the "first flush" contains 90 percent of the pollutants which will be collected in the run-off. The 90 percent of the pollutants in the first flush are consequently retained on-site through pure percolation and never reach the discharge facility. Although Petitioner and Intervenor suggest that dry detention does not provide this degree of filtration, the evidence was insufficient to support this contention. The proposed System for this Project provides treatment for the first one inch (1") of run-off from the developed Project, thereby meeting the permitting criteria for sensitive receiving waters. Intervenor and Petitioner contend that the development of this Project will necessarily result in a larger amount of pollutants in the run-off from the Site. They argue that the Applicant has not provided reasonable assurances that capturing 90 percent of the increased level of pollutants in the first flush will meet water quality standards. As noted above, compliance with the permit criteria creates a rebuttable presumption that water quality standards will be met. Insufficient evidence was presented to overcome this rebuttable presumption. In calculating the appropriate volume for the dry detention ponds, the Project engineer used the Site's percentage of impervious area. The percentage of impervious area was determined in accordance with SFWMD criteria. The calculations do not account for any percolation from the impervious areas even though much of that run-off will pass through swales and other grassy areas of the Site. In addition, there is a built-in buffer between the berm elevation around the ponds and the expected water level in the ponds. These factors confirm that there is significant additional capacity in the ponds which is an overage or safety net. In sizing the detention ponds, the project engineer also factored in additional off-site water that will be coming on-site from Palm Avenue. This water currently ponds on Palm Avenue contributing to a recurring flooding problem in the area. This off-site water will be routed through an inlet and pumped directly into on-site detention areas thereby reducing flooding on Palm Avenue and providing some treatment for off-site run-off that was not previously treated before entering the City's stormwater system. As noted above, additional water quality criteria requirements apply to projects which discharge to an Outstanding Florida Water. These additional criteria are set forth in paragraph 40 above. Outstanding Florida Water or OFW is the designation given exclusively by the FDER to certain waterbodies in Florida which have special significance, either for ecological or recreational reasons. Outstanding Florida Waters are afforded the highest degree of water quality protection. The criteria for designation of waters as Outstanding Florida Waters is found in Chapter 17-302, Florida Administrative Code. When the SFWMD initially reviewed the Permit application for this Project, it erroneously assumed that Garrison Bight, the ultimate receiving body for the waters discharged from the project through the City stormwater system, was an OFW. Although the SFWMD applied water quality criteria for OFW's when it reviewed the subject permit application, the evidence at the hearing in this case established that Garrison Bight is not an Outstanding Florida Water. A FDER representative, qualified as an expert in the designation of Outstanding Florida Waters, testified that the Outstanding Florida Water designation does not apply to certain waterbodies that were degraded at the time of designation or did not have the significance or pristine water quality that merit special protection. The designation also does not apply to artificial waterbodies. Artificial waterbodies are defined in Rule 17-302.700(9)(i), Florida Administrative Code, as a waterbody created by dredging or excavation or by the filing in of its boundaries on at least two sides. The FDER has formally determined that Garrison Bight is not an Outstanding Florida Water because Garrison Bight is an artificial waterbody in accordance with the definition. Furthermore, Garrison Bight is the site of extensive boating and marina activities. The water quality of Garrison Bight is currently degraded in comparison to ambient conditions and offshore/unconfined water. In sum, the evidence established that proposed surface water management system meets or exceeds the current permit criteria. Consequently, the water flowing into Garrison Bight from the Site will be significantly less and much cleaner after the proposed surface water management system is installed than it currently is without a designed surface water management system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving the issuance of Surface Water Management General Permit No. 44-01785 in accordance with the Notice of Intent dated September 29, 1992 and the additional conditions noted in this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 14th day of May, 1993.
Findings Of Fact On July 5, 1978, Gulfside applied to DER for the issuance of a permit to operate a wastewater treatment plant on property owned by it on Perdido Key in Escambia County, Florida. The proposed plant is designed to serve a condominium complex consisting of 64 units, with the expectation that 350 gallons of water per day per unit will be discharged into the system, thus requiring a minimum plant capacity of 22,400 gallons per day. The plant described in the application has a capacity to handle 24,000 gallons per day. The proposed plant will use an extended aeration process whereby effluent is routed from the individual units through a filter within the proposed plant and then discharged into two percolation ponds associated with the facility. The plant is designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids. In addition, the plant is designed with duplex blowers and pumps to insure continued operation in the event of failure of one of the units. An emergency generator is included to provide back-up power for the entire plant, including blowers, pumps and chlorinators. Perdido Key, where the proposed plant is to be located, is a barrier island located off the coast of Escambia County, Florida, near the Florida- Alabama border. There is substantial residential development presently on Perdido Key, but no central sewer system exists to service the area. Currently, only septic tanks and package sewer plants are available for waste treatment purposes on the island. Adjacent to Perdido Key is Old River, which has been classified a Class III water. Soils on Perdido Key are primarily sandy, and as a result, have a high percolation rate. The problem of high percolation rate through the soils of Perdido Key was adequately addressed by Gulfside in the design of percolation ponds associated with the proposed plant. The two percolation ponds are designed to be located at a minimum of four feet elevation above maximum high ground water level. In fact, during DER's review of this application, Gulfside agreed to raise the bottom elevation of these percolation ponds in response to a concern regarding their initial location in close proximity to the water table. The problem of the expected fast percolation rate was addressed in designing the size of these percolation ponds, and also taken into consideration in designing the method of distributing effluent across the bottom surface of the ponds. With regard to the latter consideration, initial design of the project contemplated a single point for discharge of effluent into each percolation pond. However, Gulfside has agreed to redesign these percolation ponds in such a fashion to discharge effluent more evenly throughout the bottom area of the ponds too combat the problem of the excess percolation rate. The proposed percolation ponds are designed with surface areas in excess of 15,000 square feet. The ponds were initially designed utilizing a six-to-one slope, which would have given twice the bottom surface area of the three-to-one slope eventually required by DER in the process of reviewing the application. The three-to-one slope shown in the plans and specifications results in a bottom surface area of 2,974 square feet. However, the engineering report submitted with the application indicates that percolation ponds will have a bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, it would appear appropriate for the ponds to have a minimum bottom surface area of 4,480 square feet. From the evidence, this problem can easily be rectified by raising the bottom elevation of the percolation ponds by approximately one foot. This requirement should be imposed as a condition to the granting of the requested permit. The proposed plant, although designed to remove 90 percent of B.O.D. and suspended solids, is not designed to remove nutrients from the effluent. However, the evidence establishes that these nutrients. Will be removed by a combination of filtration through soil substrata and biological action in the percolation ponds. Gulfside has also agreed to install a spartina marsh waterward of the percolation ponds to act as a final nutrient scrubber. The system design is reasonably calculated to assure removal of harmful quantities of nutrients, and no competent evidence was adduced to indicate that the system design was not sufficient for this purpose. Thus, although the treatment plant is proposed to be located only 50 feet from Old River, there is no indication that it will, in fact, result in any adverse impacts to that water body. In addition, DER has no rules or guidelines regulating distances from which package sewer plants, such as that proposed in this application, should be located from bodies of water such as Old River. It should be noted here that the application which is the subject of this proceeding is solely for the purpose of construction of the proposed facility. DER has imposed a permit condition requiring an initial four months operation for appropriate testing to determine compliance with the rules and regulations promulgated by DER before issuance of an operation permit. If testing demonstrates noncompliance with DER's rules and regulations, the operating permit for the facility can be denied. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that members of Petitioner, Southest Escambia Improvement Association, Inc., own property in the vicinity of the proposed facility, and that they utilize waters surrounding Perdido Key for sailing, swimming, crabbing and other recreational uses. Both Petitioner and Gulfside have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 have been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. Gulfside's Proposed Findings of Fact numbered 1 through 5 have also been substantially adopted in this Recommended Order. To the extent that Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by either Petitioner or Gulfside are not adopted in this Recommended Order, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause, or as not having been supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact This case involves the Department's attempt to purchase and utilize eight water quality data transmitter/display/logger units to measure parameters of pH, conductivity, DO (dissolved oxygen), temperature, depth, salinity, an option for oxygen reduction potential, and an option for ammonia measurement simultaneously in either fresh water or salt water for a period of up to 48 hours. The Department mailed ITB No. 93-03, entitled Water Quality Data Transmitter/Display/Data Logger Unit, on October 7, 1992. The term "parameter" refers to specific measurements such a pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, depth, and temperature, those measurements that were called for in the ITB. The term calibration refers to adjusting the measurements by a comparison to a standard. Calibration is performed to compensate for drift or shift in measurements, usually over a period of time. ITB No. 93-03 contained the following specifications for the desired equipment under "special Conditions and Specifications": Water Quality Data Transmitter/Sonde - for use in both fresh and saltwater with automatic temperature compensation. Include temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, depth, and low ionic pH system. Must be able to calculate or determine salinity and DO percent saturation. Must have option of adding additional probes, e.g. ORP and Ammonia. - 8 units. Water Resistant Digital Display/Data Logger Must be programmable for unattended data measurements for all parameters in item no. 1 above at various intervals (e.g. every 15, 30, 60 minute) and have the capability of logging all such data. - 8 units. Calibration/Maintenance Kits - Calibration for all parameters in item 1 must be simple, requiring 5 minutes or less for each parameter. - 8 units. Stirrer Units (if needed) - 8 units. PC compatible Software and Cable for data down loading - 8 units. Sonde to Logger/Display Unit Cable - at least 50 feet. - 8 units. Unattended Monitoring - Must be able to log and maintain water quality data file for a sampling frequency of 15 minute intervals over at least a 48 hour period while in an unattended mode of operation - 8 units. Field Carrying Case for Sonde and Display/Logger Unit - 8 units. User Manuals - 8 Units. Probe weights (if needed) - 8 units. ITB No. 93-03 specified the following warranty and delivery requirement: Must carry 2-year warranty on Sonde, Display/Logger Units, Stirrers, and Cables. Warranty service must be provided within two weeks of notification or, if extended repair period is required, then loaner units must be made available at no cost to DER during the warranty period. Delivery must be within 45 days of bid award. Petitioner Solomat's bid of $50,086.32 was the lowest when bids were opened on October 23, 1992. The company's written equipment specifications provided by the Petitioner to the Department were similar or superior to the written specifications provided with the competing bid responses. They were submitted in compliance with "General Condition" No. 7, page 1 of the ITB, which required submission of full specifications. Dr. Wayne Magley, on behalf of the Department, requested that Petitioner demonstrate the equipment it was offering in its bid response because the Department was not familiar with the Petitioner nor its equipment. After the bid opening, and before award in November 1992, Petitioner demonstrated its existing MPM4803 production unit for the Department in Florida, along with the 803PS sonde. A sonde is a multiparameter probe. The 803PS sonde was capable of being plugged into the existing MPM4803, and the WP4007 and WP803 data logger units then under development by Solomat. Petitioner agreed to modify its software for the MPM4803 to add the ability to read out in milligrams per liter (MG/L), a capability not mentioned in the ITB specifications or in Solomat's company specifications. This software modification contributed to the Department's subsequent calibration troubles because, according to Mr. Stonier, the modification of the unit software rendered Solomat's "how to" manual less accurate, detailed, and specific than it would have been for the unmodified software. The Petitioner amended its bid offering by letter dated November 5, 1992, to include, in addition to its October 20, 1992 bid response, the following: Stainless Steel Relief Cables with each unit Display D.O. readings in MG/L. A day of On-Site training from a Solomat factory representative A day of training at each local site from Geometrics. The ITB had only called for a water resistent product, but during this same pre-contract award period, Department personnel expressed a need to hose off the equipment. Hosing off the equipment would require a waterproof unit, so Petitioner offered the option to upgrade to new instruments slated for development and sale in April or May of 1993. In so offering, Solomat's representative described to Department personnel a WP4007 unit then under development. Solomat also had its WP803 unit under development. The WP803 also was intended to be developed to be waterproof. The WP803 was not part of Petitioner's additional offers to the Department in November 1992. Although Mr. Stonier asserted at formal hearing that Solomat's November 1992 upgrade offer was not integral to the finalized November 1992 bid award, he conceded that the Solomat offer was, "something Solomat was obliged to provide." In fact, this offer was reduced to writing. In response to the Department's concerns about hosing off the units, the Petitioner also promised a latex boot to protect the probe on the MPM4803 unit. This offer also was reduced to writing. The Petitioner further amended its bid response by letter dated November 10, 1992, to include, in addition to its October 20, 1992 bid offering and its November 5, 1992 enlargement of that offer, the following: Both versions of the weighting bracket will be provided with each unit. Two year warranty will cover any damage due to immersion or intrusion by salt air. Bottom latex boot will be supplied in addition to latex cover which you saw displayed today. A wrist strap will accompany each unit. Any further software (CS4) or Eprom updates will be available at no charge. SOLOMAT will extend the option to upgrade any or all of the instruments, with our new, fully waterproof version WP4007, within the next year at no charge. We will ship demo MPM 4803, fully preprogrammed, to be received by D.E.R. prior to November 18, 1992. Petitioner knew via the original ITB specifications and by the further discussions that took place in November 1992 after the bid opening and prior to the final award and purchase order that the Department was concerned about the ruggedness, watertightness, and use of the eight instruments in the field for extended periods in various conditions and types of water. No. 1 and No. 7 of the ITB "Special Conditions" specifications clearly stated that the Department wanted to leave the units on site for 48 hours in varying types of water. At formal hearing, Mr. Stonier admitted he knew in November 1992 that was what the Department wanted to do even if the ITB were confusing. The Petitioner knew that the Department would be utilizing the water quality monitoring equipment under diverse conditions in the field because Mr. Stonier's November 12, 1992 letter to the Department provided as follows: The D.E.R.'s application includes the tough everyday use in varied environments that demands the ruggedness and reliability that the Solomat instruments have been designed and are each tested for. Mr. Stonier testified at formal hearing that it was understood in November 1992 . . that the units were going to be carried out on site into various types of measurement situations, . . . and that the probes would be -- the 803PS sonde would be submerged, and samples would be recorded. And these instruments are certainly designed to do that. in fact, they're designed where they can be left out on-site for longer periods of time. The Department accepted the Petitioner's October 20, 1992 bid as amended by its November 5 and 10, 1992 letters, and in reliance on those letters. Although the ITB contained no definition of "accuracy", the Department's acceptance of Petitioner's bid also included reliance on Solomat's equipment specifications regarding equipment accuracy submitted by Petitioner in its response to "General Condition" No. 7, page 1 of the ITB. The bid acceptance and subsequent purchase order occurred on or about November 20, 1992. The purchase order is not in evidence. In January 1993, Petitioner delivered eight MPM4803 units and eight 803PS sonde units to the Department in response to the bid award/purchase order. This model was equipped with a latex boot, but the Department complained about the waterproof ability of the boots, and Petitioner promised to provide wider latex boots. Petitioner's training representative provided one day of training in Tallahassee and one day of training in Orlando in early February, 1993. Petitioner's training representative encountered difficulty in demonstrating how to calibrate the equipment at the February 1993 Tallahassee training session which he was unable to resolve prior to calling Petitioner's U.S. headquarters for technical assistance. Beginning in early February 1993, Department personnel repeatedly encountered problems in calibrating the Petitioner's equipment. Calibration problems were encountered in trying to follow the manuals provided by the Petitioner despite some additional written instructions beyond the original faulty manual (see Finding of Fact 11) and despite oral instructions by telephone. There also were continuing problems with the pH sensor, with conductivity, and with DO (dissolved oxygen). Beginning in February 1993, Department personnel repeatedly encountered problems with Petitioner's equipment's inability to stay calibrated and to take accurate measurements resulting from excessive drift. Solomat employees perceived the Department users as unsophisticated and slow to understand how to use the Solomat equipment, and as preferring the earlier models of similar units with which they were more familiar and which had been developed by competitive vendors. Indeed, some documented user errors included Department personnel failing to remove probe guards on sensors. Some OC3 dissolved oxygen sensors in the 803PS sonde had to be replaced by Solomat due to user error in installing them without the 0-ring so that water could seep in and damage the equipment or with two 0-rings so that there was no contact between the electrode and the probe sonde. However, these types of human error did not significantly affect valid tests showing calibration drift and accuracy reading problems. It is noted that P-5 (Loxahatchee notes), an August 24, 1993 28 day "short informal report" relied upon by Petitioner to show that some persistant, open-minded Department users could learn to correctly calibrate the MPM4803 data loggers/803PS sondes and that good data could be gathered over more than 48 hours, contains on its first page the comment, "Stabilities were very good except DO; it is unclear whether this was due to probe response drift or improper calibration by Solomat representatives." Department personnel tracked their problems with the Petitioner's MPM4803 equipment's failure to take accurate measurements by sampling at field sites which have been consistently tested by Department personnel with other equipment over a period of years so that they had a background of data for comparison for any given parameter. When they were unable to account for significant drifts of calibration and even negative readings in some parameters on Petitioner's products, Department personnel then used other vendors' water quality monitoring equipment to confirm that the Petitioner's equipment was not giving consistently accurate measurements. Although Petitioner's witnesses testified concerning their perception that such methods of comparison lacked accuracy and fairness, they offered no better field tests as an alternative. Petitioner's concerns mostly centered around other vendor's meters also sometimes registering outside ITB or company specifications. However, in fact, the Department was making some of its assessments based upon calibration and post-calibration readings on the same Solomat meter each time. In light of the testimony of John Kent Edwards that in his District, he personally calibrated the Petitioner's units every morning in the laboratory before they went out in the field and that careful post calibration procedures on the same meters still demonstrated significant drift; the testimony of Mr. Edwards and Louis They that standard calibration solution or calibration solutions prepared fresh by a chemist were used in calibrating Petitioner's units to eliminate variables of that sort; the admission by Don Roos to Department personnel in July 1993 that it could take five minutes to stabilize DO on the low end and on the high end (see Finding of Fact 36); the acknowledgement by Peter Ebersold that it is possible that DO and pH drift would violate ITB specifications and Petitioner's own equipment specifications over more than 24 hours in dirty water; Dr. Saffel's uncontradicted testimony that the calibration on all Petitioner's units provided to the Department were written only for generic water, not water as bioactive as some of Florida's water, and that Petitioner's units' long term stability of calibration depends very strongly on the purity of the water being measured; and Wayne Magley's testimony that a subsequent Winkler Titration test in the laboratory verified the other vendors' scores but not Petitioner's scores while showing that Petitioner's units were working correctly, and that statistical correlations of all the meters were done, it is found that the Department's testing procedure is probative and persuasive that the MPM4803 units were not meeting certain specifications encompassed in the bid award/purchase order. The Petitioner's assertion that low ionization cables threw off all calculations is in the nature of a nonsequitur, since this type of cable was agreed upon in the amended bid responses, became part of the parties' contract, and Petitioner was required to provide workable units under that agreement. Petitioner's assertion that the conversion of readings to MG/L was the problem falls in the same category. During 1993, both parties made repeated good-faith attempts to resolve the calibration and instrument accuracy problems, with the Department informally telephoning Petitioner for assistance and sharing information among the Department's Tallahassee office and district personnel. By a June 9, 1993 letter, the Department provided Petitioner its data showing its employees were not able to get consistent, reasonable readings with the Solomat units. In June 1993, Wayne Magley, on behalf of the Department, asked the Petitioner to provide additional on-site assistance because Department personnel were still unable to resolve problems with calibrating and using Petitioner's equipment despite Petitioner rendering helpful technical advice when called by Department personnel. Dr. Magley specifically asked for Don Roos because of Mr. Roos' history of being extremely knowledgeable about the equipment and rendering helpful technical advice when called. In July 1993, Don Roos and Peter Ebersold came to Florida to provide assistance at the Department headquarters in Tallahassee and Orlando District office. During the Tallahassee visit, Mr. Roos admitted that it could take up to five minutes for DO to stabilize before it could be calibrated for low end and five minutes for DO to stabilize for high end, for a total time in excess of 10 minutes for one parameter. This calibration time violates the Department's bid specification that each parameter must be calculated in five minutes or less. Misters Roos and Ebersold observed Department staff calibrating the MPM4803 with the 803PS sonde during their July 1993 visit to Tallahassee and did not have any criticism of the Department staff's calibration process. Petitioner diagnosed a problem with its MPM4803 units as being that some Department users were inadvertently recalibrating temperature and misinterpreting "error" message prompts, thus throwing all the readings off. Therefore, Solomat made a change to eliminate "temperature" from the recalibration cycle and changed the Eproms on the Department's units to simplify the procedure. Despite trying to get the wider latex boots for the MPM4803 units until July 1993, Petitioner was unable to obtain wider latex boots and at that point gave up trying to get the required improved boots for the MPM4803 units, in anticipation of being able to upgrade the Department to newer units. The Petitioner reiterated in correspondence as late as August 3, 1993 that the Department would be receiving an upgrade from the MPM4803 to the WP4007 units, stating, "[t]he exchange of your MPM4803s with the new WP4007 waterproof dataloggers will occur near the end of the year." Dr. Saffell testified that the Department was promised an upgrade on his authority. By a November 15, 1993 letter, the Department reported to Petitioner that most of its employees still could not calibrate for each parameter within the five minutes or less as required by the ITB specifications and still had difficulty getting consistent readings. The Department wanted to return the units for refund. By a December 7, 1995 letter, the Department notified Petitioner that it intended to find Petitioner in default of the bid contract including failing to provide the promised upgraded units in any timely fashion despite Petitioner's promise to do so within a year of its November 10, 1992 bid amendment and because the Petitioner's equipment could not be consistently calibrated in five minutes or less for each parameter as required by the bid specifications. The Petitioner also had never supplied the latex boot as agreed. It is clear that as of the December 7, 1993 letter, Petitioner was in default on the foregoing three elements of its contract with the Department. By letter dated December 13, 1993, Petitioner notified the Department that it still wished to provide the instrument upgrade. In this letter, Petitioner unilaterally changed the model it was going to provide from the WP4007 to the WP803, on its own assessment that the WP4007 had too many options and a more user friendly unit would be less confusing to Department users. The WP4007 features which are not on the WP803s were not part of the original ITB specifications. The WP803, like the WP4007, was intended to be waterproof. Solomat's specifications for the WP803 were intended to exceed those of other vendors for comparable machinery. Despite Solomat's best intentions to have both the WP4007 and the WP803 models fully developed and ready for the market in April or May of 1993, neither the WP4007 nor the WP803 was released in the United States until February or March 1994. By letter dated December 21, 1993, the Department gave Petitioner until February 1, 1994, to correct its failed performance under the contract by supplying eight replacement units that met the specifications agreed upon back in November 1992. No mention was made of what model unit would be necessary, however the Petitioner was notified that the replacement units had to be provided to the Department for testing and that the units had to be acceptable to the Department after testing by February 1, 1994 in order for Petitioner to avoid being found in default of the bid contract. The Department did not, in this letter, or at any other time, specifically agree to accept the WP803 upgrade instead of the promised WP4007 upgrade, but specified that a failure to supply eight upgraded units and have them timely accepted by the agency would result in default. Petitioner responded that it would provide two prototypes or preproduction units to test in January and try to meet the Department's February 1, 1994 deadline for delivery of eight upgraded units. The Department allowed Solomat until February 15, 1994 to exchange eight satisfactory upgraded units for the eight MPM4803s originally supplied. Petitioner delivered two WP803 preproduction units and provided some training in January 1994. WP4007 preproduction units could have been provided but were not. Because development had lagged behind marketing, Petitioner had inventory of neither WP803 nor WP4007 production units. The Department conducted testing, some of which could be considered limited field use, on January 18-20, 1994 on the prototype or preproduction WP803 units with Petitioner's representatives present. Petitioner's representatives did not criticize Department personnel's calibration procedures. On January 28, 1994, the Department provided the Petitioner a written summary of its findings as a result of the testing which included a four-point conclusion that the new units did not meet bid specifications. Petitioner's witness conceded the following: The circuit boards on the preproduction WP803 units tested in January 1994 had been assembled by hand. The internal programming on the Eprom was not fully debugged. There were problems with the conductivity linearizations. Petitioner attempted to interface those instruments with the 803PS sondes the Department already possessed and the modifications did not work. Petitioner did not intend these prototype WP803s to be used in the field because, among the foregoing problems, they were not fully waterproof. Petitioner's review of the Department's test data in February 1994 on the prototypes convinced the company that there were problems that went beyond mere user problems. Some parameters were acceptable but results were not reliable for all parameters. The testimony of John Kent Edwards, Louis They, and Wayne Magley together with Petitioner's assessment is sufficient to establish that despite a fair test, calibration drift for Petitioner's preproduction WP803 units tested on January 18-20, 1994 failed quality assurance levels and did not meet certain specifications of the contract. The Department eventually extended the February 1, 1994 deadline until February 21, 1994. The Department conducted additional testing on the WP803 production units supplied by the Petitioner prior to February 21, 1994. Wayne Magley set up and calibrated three of the production units received. One machine had an immediate hardware failure. Over a week, he did a series of calibrations and post-calibrations in the laboratory and one field trip. Despite employing calibration methodology to give Petitioner the benefit of the doubt and even accounting for low ionic strengths, the "five minutes for calibration of each parameter" specification could not be met. Problems with accurate readings remained even when Petitioner's instruments were tested against each other. Department testing on the WP803 production units demonstrated that they also failed to meet either the ITB specifications or the company specifications provided by the Petitioner as part of its bid. By a March 3, 1994 letter, the Department notified Petitioner it was declaring a default, pursuant to Rule 60A-1.006 (3) F.A.C. By mid-February, Petitioner had not supplied more than four production level WP803s. The Department instructed Solomat not to ship any more units because Department tests on the first four made the Department not want to progress further. Petitioner did not send the additional WP803 production units. The Department ended up with four MPM4803 production units, four WP803 production units and four 803PS sondes. Solomat has four 803PS sondes at its Connecticut office marked, "DEP property." In August 1994, Petitioner provided its production level WP803 data logger and 803PS sonde to U.S. Testing Labs which performed an independent evaluation to determine if the problems that the Department had experienced were with the units or with the users. Daniel Cooke, Ph.D., was in charge of the test. He, like the Department, had some initial start up difficulty, including learning how to calibrate with oral instructions over the telephone beyond the printed December 1993 instruction manual; a loose connection that Petitioner had to repair; and conductivity adjustments that Solomat had to make. As a result, he aborted the first test on his own and aborted the second try at a test at the request of Solomat. He found he was able to calibrate with the June 1994 instruction manual Petitioner created after the Department had claimed a default. His test results also showed that: 1) high DO was outside of specification throughout the test; 2) conductivity was outside of specification throughout the test; 3) salinity was outside of specification throughout the test; and 4) all parameters were outside of Petitioner's specifications at times during the testing. Petitioner's witness conceded that there could be some drift over the period of a week in the field, some small drift over two hours even in the lab calibrations and DO and pH drift could violate the ITB's "48 hours" specification, dependent upon the pollution of the water in the field. A few months before formal hearing, Petitioner revised its own company specifications to define more realistic tolerances under actual field conditions as 24 hours and two weeks after calibration. The Department represented that it has not yet gone to the next bidder or established a timetable and assumed any costs of reletting the ITB, as contemplated by Rule 60A-1.006(3) F.A.C., because it has no money to do so. Accordingly, there is no evidence of cost of reprocurement which the Department seeks to assess against Solomat (TR-12-13)
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order that (1) determines Petitioner to be in default of its contract; (2) orders Petitioner to reimburse the Department $50,086.32 as refunded contract monies, without any additional cover costs; (3) orders Petitioner to pay to the Department, on or before the date payment of the contract monies is made by Petitioner, an amount equal to the actual cost of contracting with the next lowest bidder or the cost of reprocurement or the costs attendant upon replacement purchase on the open market in an amount either stipulated between the parties or as estimated upon past agency experience in letting the original bid/contract; (4) provides for the return of all equipment to Petitioner upon satisfaction of the requirements of paragraphs 2-3; and (5) provides for the removal of the agency decertification upon the satisfaction of the requirements of paragraphs 2-3. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of August, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 2nd day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 94-1682 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to 5120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: 1, 9, 12-14, 16-18, 21-25, 29-31, 48, 50, 53, 64, 68, 71-72, 80-81, 83-87, 89-90, 93, 94, 96, 101-102, 123, 127-128, 130, 133, 136, 146, 148, 149, and 153 Substantially accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material which has been interspersed therein and except for legal argument and proposed conclusions of law for which a ruling under s. 120.59(2) F.S. is not required. 2 Covered in the preliminary statement. 3-8, 10, 27, 61, 82, 91-92 99-100, 112, 115, 117, 121-122, 125, 139-140, 142-143 Rejected as immaterial or non-dispositive of any material issue of fact. 11, 19-20, 28, 51-52, 54-55, 63, 73-78, 107-108, 124, 134-135, 137 Rejected as subordinate to the facts as found. 62, 65-67, 88, 98, 103-106, 113-114, 116, 118, 126, 129, 131-132, 138, 141, 144-145, 147 Rejected as out of context, misleading, and/or as they are stated, these proposals are not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent evidence of record. 15, 26, 49, 56-60, 69-70, 79, 95, 97, 119-120, 150-152 Rejected as stated because not proven as stated. Same material substantially covered in the recommended order 32-47 Rejected in part as misleading and/or not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent record evidence; otherwise rejected because it is non-dispositive in that it is selectively culled opinion testimony. There were two aborted tries to do the test before the final data was run; all raw data (including the aborted tries) had been turned over to Solomat, so that additional inquiry of Daniel Cooke, the witness, was limited. Rejected further because it does not reach the dispositive material facts that Solomat did not supply the items called for in their negotiated/modified contract. This was ultimately a laboratory test with a new manual, not a field test with the old manual and the specifications were ultimately modified. Same material substantially covered in the recommended order. 109-111, 154 Substantially rejected as mere legal argument or as a conclusion of law not requiring a ruling pursuant to s. 120.59(2) F.S. Otherwise covered in the Conclusions of Law. Respondent' s PFOF: 1-6, 9-17, 19-29, 31-39, 41-43 Substantially accepted except for unnecessary, subordinate, and/or cumulative material which has been interspersed therein and except for legal argument and proposed conclusions of law for which a ruling under s. 120.59(2) F.S. is not required. 18, Rejected as subordinate to the facts as found 7-8, 30, Rejected as immaterial or non-dispositive of any material issue of fact. 40, 45 Substantially rejected as mere legal argument or as a conclusion of law not requiring a ruling pursuant to s. 120. 59(2) F.S. Otherwise covered in the Conclusions of Law. 44 Covered in the preliminary statement. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert S. Cohen, Esquire Pennington and Haben, P.A. Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Candi E. Culbreath, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Kenneth Plante Department of Environmental Protection General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399
