Findings Of Fact Petitioner St. Johns Trading Company is a corporation solely owned by Donald W. Tredinick. It owns a tract of land in Putnam County, Florida, that is devoted primarily to the growth and harvesting of pine trees. The tract is predominantly a pine and hardwood swamp area with typical vegetation indigenous to that type of environment. The headwaters of Acosta Creek originate in a swampy area in the easterly portion of the tract and flow in a southwesterly direction several miles where it empties into the St. John's River. Acosta Creek is wholly contained within the borders of petitioner's land. It's depth varies from one to one and one-half feet and it is approximately eight to ten feet in width at the site of the proposed project. Several cleared areas exist upstream from that point that were planted in watermelon several years ago. A post-hearing sworn statement received from Tredinick states that an upland field of watermelons was fertilized in June, 1977, at a point about two miles southeast of the proposed dam site which drains into Acosta Creek. It is petitioner's practice to plant and fertilize melons the first year after land is cleared and then plant pine trees which are not fertilized. The stream is typical of those found in that section of north Florida with a sandy bed and some algae growth of moderate density. It sustains a small fish population of no great environmental consequence. There are few animals in the area with the exception of a number of burros which are kept as pets. At the proposed project site, some 6,000 feet upstream from the St. John's River, there exists a dirt trail on either side of the stream which presently is crossed by a narrow causeway over an existing wood culvert. (Testimony of Buck, Baxter, Ray, Barber, Petitioner's Exhibits 1,4,5; Affidavit of Tredinick) In November 1976, petitioner submitted an application for a permit to respondent to replace the wooden culvert under the causeway with two five-inch corrugated metal pipes in the streambed. This application was granted. Thereafter, however, petitioner determined that he wished to enlarge the causeway in order to permit passage for trucks carrying pulpwood across Acosta Creek. The existing culvert was insufficient to sustain the weight of the trucks. It was also decided that by raising the culvert pipes three feet from the streambed, an impoundment would be created that would result in a lake covering about three or four acres of land. To this end, petitioner filed an application with respondent on February 10, 1977, requesting a permit to construct the two five-foot diameter corrugated metal pipe culverts and two two- foot diameter culverts at an elevation three feet above the existing flow line of the stream, and to extend the existing causeway to 192 feet on either side of the north five-foot pipe with a minimum cover of 1.5 feet over the pipes. It was anticipated that this would create a three-foot deep lake. It was further proposed in the application that 1904 cubic yards of fill material be removed from the stream bottom which would be taken from three areas on the project site. These "borrow" pits would be located on the northern end and southeastern portions of the project. At the hearing, it was determined that an error had been made in the amount of fill material necessary and that only 1,003 cubic yards would be required. Two silt screens constructed of burlap, canvas material, or wire mesh were proposed to be placed downstream from the project on a temporary basis during construction. (Testimony of Buck, Petitioner's Exhibit l) A "driveway" permit was issued by the Putnam County Engineering Department on February 7, 1977, permitting the installation of the proposed culverts. However, this permit was only effective for a period of 45 days. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Respondent's field inspector, Ed Barber, an Environmental Specialist II, from the St. John's River subdistrict office, inspected the site of the proposed project on May 26, 1977, and thereafter rendered a report on his appraisal of the permit application. He noted that Acosta Creek supported an algal growth of unusually high proportions and attributed this to the possibility of high nitrate and phosphate input from upland farming activities. Although Barber did not personally observe such activities, he testified at the hearing that Buck had informed him that there were watermelon areas under cultivation upstream. His main concern was that the holding pond that would be created by the impoundment could become a nutrient trap and undergo a plankton bloom the following spring, which could have deleterious effects on local flora and fauna. For this reason, he recommended that the permit be denied for biological reasons. Also in the report was his estimation that the project would interfere with fish and wildlife population, that turbidity would exceed standards, and dissolved oxygen would be depressed below the value of five parts per million for Class III waters, and that coliform counts would exceed existing criteria. There is no evidence that petitioner had submitted biological or water quality data with his application. Barber's supervisor, David Scott, reviewed the matter in April and also recommended denial of the permit because the proposed lake would act as a nutrient trap and eliminate shallow water hydrophytes which maintain water quality by assimilating and transforming nutrients. He was further of the opinion that the "borrow" site would create discontinuities in the lake that in turn would concentrate silt settlements and organic debris. Based on the above recommendations, the acting subdistrict manager, G. Doug Dutton, advised petitioner by letter of June 7, 1977, of intent to deny the application for the reason stated in Scott's recommendation. The letter further stated that degradation of local water quality was expected with regard to dissolved oxygen, BOD, deleterious materials, toxic substances and bacteriological aspects, specifically, fecal coliform. Petitioner requested a hearing in the matter on June 20, 1977, contending that the decision was arbitrary and capricious in that respondent had acted upon a presumption, unsupported by fact, that the proposed causeway extension would cause water quality degradation. (Testimony of Barber, Scott, Dutton, Respondent's Exhibits 1,2,4) Petitioner then engaged a biologist to conduct water analyses at the site. Water samples were taken from Acosta Creek in July, August, and September, 1977. They revealed no abnormal concentrations except for nitrogen and phosphorus. Nitrogen was unusually high in the July sample, but this was attributed to the presence of burros in the area during the sampling. The September nitrogen sample tested at 0.4 mg/1. Phosphorus, however, both in the July and September samples, was unusually high. However, the source of the phosphorus input was not established. Fecal coliform was somewhat high in the September sample, but this was attributed to excessive rainfall during that period. Although the report indicated that further sampling would be made as to phosphorus concentration, no evidence was submitted in this respect. The biologist found that the proposed pond would be of value in that fish propogation would be encouraged and that no unusual biological problems could be anticipated because water turnover rates behind the impoundment would be approximately two per day during the dry season. Petitioner's hydrologist found that the flow through the impoundment would occur at least once a day. He further is of the opinion that the impounded water would be helpful as a barrier in case of forest fires and that it could possibly increase recharge of aquifers. Additionally, he believes that the presence of the pond would slow the flow of water in case of an unusually severe storm, thereby reducing the possibility of flood conditions. Respondent's hydrologist found no major hydrologic problems arising from the project, but recommended that the three potential borrow areas be combined into one of a circular shape or that a new upland borrow site be used to prevent the chance of flooding during severe weather conditions. (Testimony of Baxter, Ray, Simmons, Murali, Petitioner's Exhibits 3,4, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Testimony of respondent's experts established that insufficient water quality data had been submitted to determine whether nutrient input to the impounded area would create excessive algal growth and consequent long-term possibility of eutrophication of the lake. Although conceding that the relocation of the proposed borrow pits would also aid in retaining surrounding grasses that filter nutrients, they nevertheless were of the opinion that impoundment was not a "good idea" and would eventually lead to degradation in water quality. However, petitioner was not advised of the insufficiency of information submitted with his application as to water quality data until he received the notice of intent to deny the permit. (Testimony of Barber, Scott, Dutton, Respondent's Exhibit 3) Based on the foregoing, it is found that (a) the petitioner has provided respondent with insufficient information as to water quality to properly determine the long-range consequences of permitting construction and operation of the impoundment; and (b) the redesign or movement of the borrow sites will substantially reduce the possibility that water quality of Acosta Creek will be impaired by the proposed construction and operation of the impoundment.
Recommendation That petitioner be permitted a reasonable period of time to provide further information concerning the proposed project and that such information be taken into consideration by the respondent prior to issuance of a final order herein. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Sheri Smallwood, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert E. Solomon, Esquire 3205 Blair Drive Palatka, Florida 32077 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ST. JOHNS TRADING COMPANY, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 77-1204 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, Trail Ridge Landfill, Inc. (Trail Ridge), is a corporation formed in 1989 for the purpose of developing a landfill project and providing waste disposal capacity for the City of Jacksonville. Trail Ridge Landfill, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management of North America, Inc. Its operating division is involved in the waste collection, recycling and disposal business. Waste Management of North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., which is involved in all facets of solid waste collection and disposal nationally. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating solid waste management facilities and with permitting their initial construction and operation. It is charged with reviewing applications for permits for construction of such facilities, for reviewing applications for dredge and fill permits in wetlands or waters of the State and, as pertinent to the project involved in this proceeding, for storm water management and storage of surface water and the regulation thereof through its permitting and enforcement authority contained in Chapters 403 and 373, Florida Statutes, and Titles 40C and 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioners are Coastal Environmental Society, Inc. (CESI), a not- for-profit Florida corporation established for the purpose of protecting natural resources. St. Johns Preservation Association, Inc. (SJPA), also a not-for- profit Florida corporation established for the purpose of protecting the community, including environmental concerns; Baldwin-Maxville Coalition, Inc., also a not-for-profit corporation established to promote the health and welfare of its community, including environmental concerns; William McCranie, a resident of Jacksonville, Florida; Darryl Sperry, a resident and citizen who lives 1 1/4 miles from the proposed landfill site in Baker County. All Petitioners have been established to be substantially affected by the proposed permitting and the projects related thereto and all have met pertinent standing requirements as a matter of fact and law. The Respondents do not contest the standing of the Petitioners. Background and Purpose of the Project The purpose of the proposed landfill facility is to address the solid waste disposal needs of the City of Jacksonville and Duval County (the City). The City currently disposes of solid waste at two landfills. One is on the east side of Jacksonville on Gervin Road, and the other is located in the north area of Jacksonville on Island Road. The presently used, east landfill is an unlined landfill currently operated pursuant to a DER Consent Order, in connection with which closure of that landfill is planned. The north landfill consists of three unlined cells and one lined cell. The City currently has unused landfill capacity at these two landfills which will last approximately one more year, but has also sought approval for expansion of the north landfill which would provide about two more additional years of capacity, if approved. The proposed landfill project, if approved, constructed and operated, would meet these solid waste disposal needs for approximately 20 to 25 years. The project at hand began when the City issued a Request For Proposal for private companies to submit bids to the City for construction of additional landfill capacity somewhere to the northwest of Jacksonville in Duval County. Two companies that met qualifying requirements submitted proposals in response to the request for proposals. Trail Ridge was one of those two qualifying bidders. The City selected the Applicant for contract award and then entered into a contract. The Applicant has an option to purchase the proposed landfill site from Gilman Timber and Land Company (Gilman, Gilman Paper Company). After issuance of the permits to the Applicant, the option would be exercised. Thereafter the property would be immediately conveyed to the City from the Applicant. Thus the site of the proposed facility will ultimately be owned and controlled by the City, although the Applicant will operate the landfill under its contract with the City. Gilman presently uses the 1,288 acre site and several thousand surrounding acres for growing timber, principally pine trees, in a pine plantation-type operation grown for use as pulp wood. Much of the site and surrounding Gilman land is characterized by pine trees grown to an age of 20 years or less and then harvested. A great deal of the site property has recently been cut, chopped, plowed re-bedded and re-planted with pine trees. Although some of the site is characterized by mature timber, much of the timber has been recently planted or is otherwise timber not yet mature enough for harvest. The option agreement provides that Trail Ridge will purchase the property from Gilman for $10,000 per acre. The City will then purchase the 1,288 acres from the Applicant for $2,600 per acre, which the Applicant maintains is the current, fair-market-value for the land as it is currently used as pine plantation for growing pulp wood. These terms and conditions are a part of the City's Request For Proposals. In addition to paying the Applicant $2,600 per acre for the 1,288 acre site, the City will pay the Applicant a fee over the life of the operation of the proposed landfill. The fee, amortized over the 20- year span of the agreement, will make up the difference between the Applicant's $10,000 per acre purchase price paid to Gilman and the City's $2,600 per acre initial purchase price paid to the Applicant. The City will thus ultimately re- pay Trail Ridge the $10,000 per acre for the purchase price for the property. The Applicant corporation will operate the landfill over its entire useful life and then close it. Thus, the Applicant's own figures show the land is valued at $3,348,800. The record does not reflect the reason for the purchase price paid to Gilman being $12,880,000, of which the City will repay $9,000,000 to the Applicant in the form of the operation fee, over and above the initial payment to the Applicant of $3,348,800. In any event, the utilities payment to the Applicant of the $12,880,000 for the land and the operation of the landfill only represents the recompense to the Applicant for the purchase funds expended for it to buy the site from Gilman. Additionally, the Applicant, through its option agreement with Gilman, is required to pay Gilman a $60,000 per month option fee. $15,000 per month of that must be paid during the pendency of the option, with the remainder of the $45,000 monthly fees due upon closing of the purchase. The portion of the operation fee paid by the City over and above the $2,600 per acre initial purchase price, attributable to the land appraisal itself, will be paid by the City on the basis of a certain dollar fee-per-ton of solid waste handled and disposed of in the landfill by the Applicant. Testimony indicates this will be approximately $8.00-$15.09 per ton, although the evidence as to which amount is indefinite. The testimony of Applicant's witness Allen, in any event, references these amounts as applicable to the City's solid waste "stream" handled by Trail Ridge at the proposed facility. Its contact with the City assures the Applicant of a minimum of 569,000 tons of waste per year to which the fee would apply. The City currently generates approximately 750,000 tons of waste per year. There is no evidence of what the construction or other capital costs or operation expenses related to the proposed facility will be over the useful life of the facility for the Applicant or related corporations. Site and Design The proposed site is 1,288 acres in size, located in southwestern Duval County, approximately three miles south of Interstate Highway 10, 1.5 miles west of U.S. Highway 301 and 1.14 miles north of State Road 228. The site is located in a sparsely populated area approximately 4 to 6 miles from the City of Baldwin, 5 miles from the City of Macclenny and 2 miles from the City of Maxville. A substantial portion of the proposed site will be left undisturbed and used as a buffer area to separate it from any surrounding development. There are water supply wells within fairly close proximity to the site. One well is within a mile of the site and three are approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. The proposed facility will include both a Class I and Class III solid waste disposal area. The Class I area will be approximately 148 acres in size, and the Class III area, 28 acres. The Class III disposal area will only be used for non- household refuse such as construction debris, tree and shrubbery clippings and the like, which will not generate deleterious substances in liquid or gaseous form, as will the Class I landfill. The remainder of the 1,288 acres will be used for buffer zones, dirt borrow areas, storm water management facilities and ancillary facilities necessary to the day to day operation of the landfill. No part of the Class III disposal area will be located within 200 feet of jurisdictional wetlands, which are the closest bodies of water. The project will be located on "Trail Ridge," which is a relatively elevated geographic feature, extending generally in a north-south direction in western Duval County. Geologically, it is an ancient sand dune. There is a substantial decline in elevation of this portion of the ridge from west to east, which produces surface water drainage patterns in a west to east direction at the site, also accompanied by surface water drainage patterns in a southerly- northerly direction into wetlands which occur on the south and north verge of the site, because the site is a prong or easterly extension of Trail Ridge lying between wetlands which occur on the northerly, southerly and easterly boundaries of the Class I disposal site. The 1,288 acres, including the landfill sites themselves, have been used for silvi-culture practices since 1948 or earlier, and are currently managed primarily as a slash pine plantation grown for pulp wood purposes. The present owner of the site, Gilman Paper Company, plans to continue this use of the site should the landfill project not be approved and constructed. Since 1948, the entire site, including much of the wetlands thereon, have been logged, some portions of it as many as three times. The silvi-culture practices at the site include clear- cutting, chopping, burning, harrowing, tilling and bedding of the soil, and planting of pine trees. The pine trees are grown to be harvested on a 20-year cycle or less. Due to these intensive silvi-cultural practices, the natural conditions of the site have been significantly altered and much natural vegetation, such as bottom-land hardwoods, has been replaced by planted pine trees. The area has been extensively ditched for drainage purposes and logging roads have been constructed throughout the site. The design of the Class I disposal area of the landfill includes three major components: a liner system, which includes a permanent leachate collection and removal system, a cap and closure system and a gas control system. The Class I disposal area is designed to be 140 feet high when the landfill is completed and closed in approximately 20-25 years. It will have typical landfill refuse "lifts," of approximately 8 to 12 feet in height, with a side slope grade of three horizontal feet to one vertical foot of elevation gain. This is the maximum grade steepness allowed by DER rules. The Class III landfill, in which no household garbage, chemicals, oils and greases or other deleterious substances will be deposited, will include only a cap and closure system. In order to carry out Department regulatory requirements designed to contain waste permanently in a well- defined area and to minimize the amount of leachate produced within a landfill, as well as to collect and remove leachate that is produced, the landfill will have, in effect, a double liner system. The liner system is designed to contain the leachate produced when rain water contacts waste in the landfill and to cause that leachate to percolate vertically downward through the landfill, capture it in the liner system, prevent it from contacting groundwater and to remove it and treat it. Leachate from the Class I disposal area will be contained by the liner system and removed by a leachate collection and removal system. The liner system, starting from the bottom and proceeding upward, will consist of a 6 inch thick layer of compacted, subgrade soil. Over that layer, a prefabricated "bentonite" clay-like material will be deposited. Directly over the bentonite layer will be a high density polyethylene liner (the secondary liner) called a "geomembrane." The bentonite material has the characteristic of swelling when contacted by a liquid so that, if the geomembrane leaks, the bentonite will swell and plug the hole in the liner above it. On top of the bentonite layer and the geomembrane layer, is a synthetic drainage material called "geonet." Geonet has a very high transmissivity rate and therefore has great capacity to conduct water within its own plane. Lying immediately above the geonet material is a geotextile filter designed to keep sand out of the pores or interstices of the geonet. Above that geotextile filter is a second geomembrane (the primary liner). Above the second geomembrane is another geonet layer, as well as another geotextile filter layer. Then to protect the entire liner system from damage, two feet of clean sand will be placed above the uppermost geotextile filter layer. The two feet of sand also acts as a drainage layer for the uppermost geonet. The leachate that percolates down through the waste and the sand will contact the geonet and then be carried down slope on top of the geomembrane. This constitutes the leachate collection system. The bottom geonet is called the "leak detection system." This is because, if a hole develops in the primary liner, any leachate coming through the hole will be quickly drained away through the bottom geonet. The bottom geonet thus operates as a backup leachate collection system, since any leachate reaching the bottom geonet will also be discharged into the leachate removal system. If a leak should develop in the secondary liner, the bentonite material would quickly plug the leak, swelling and absorbing that liquid. The Petitioners have stipulated that the Applicant has proposed a liner system and leachate collection system for the Class I disposal area which meets all criteria of Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, except as to the requirements of Rule 17-701.050(5)(c), (e)3. and 4. and (f)3., Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant demonstrated that the liner system and leachate collection system will meet the criteria of Rule 17- 701.050(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The liner system will be installed in accordance with a quality assurance plan. A specific condition already agreed upon will require the Applicant to submit for approval a revised quality control and assurance plan for installing the Class I synthetic liner system, after selection of the liner manufacturer and prior to the liner's installation. The liner system is designed so that it will be protected from puncture by waste materials or landfill operation equipment. In addition to the two feet of sand placed on top of the entire liner system to protect it, when initial waste disposal begins, the first lift of waste across the entire area of the liner system, as it is installed in phases, will be composed of 6-8 feet of "select waste" to protect the liner from puncture. Select waste is waste containing no pipes, roots or other potentially puncturing objects which could penetrate the sand layer to damage the liner system. A quality assurance engineer will be on site full-time supervising the initial placement of the select waste until that phase of the landfill operation is completed. A grant of the permit should be so conditioned. The Applicant has established that the liner system and leachate collection system will meet the criteria of Rule 17-701.050(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The leachate depth on top of the primary and secondary liners will not exceed a foot because the geonet has the capacity to quickly remove leachate from the liner. The actual hydraulic head of leachate on the primary liner will be only approximately 1/4 inch. The depth on the secondary liner was shown to be even less. The liner system and leachate collection system will meet the criteria of Rule 17-701.050(5)(e)3. and (f)3., Florida Administrative Code. The design of the collection system, including the geotextile filter, will prevent clogging of the system throughout the active life and closure period of the landfill, primarily by placing a gravel aggregate around the collection pipe so as to prevent debris from entering the system. A pilot line will also be installed in each collection pipe to facilitate access for mechanical cleaning, should it be necessary. In the unlikely event of an obstruction in the system, the leachate would simply bypass that area and continue down-grade to the next downstream leachate collection pipe and be removed from the landfill for treatment by that means. The liner system and leachate collection system will also meet the criteria of Rule 17-701.050(5)(e)4., Florida Administrative Code. The leachate collected will be carried downhill to pipes at the east end of the landfill. The leachate will then be pumped from the pipes into storage tanks. Trucks will then be filled with leachate to be transported to the City's Buckman Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, owned and operated by the City, for treatment and disposal. Unrefuted evidence shows that this plant has adequate capacity and treatment capability to safely treat and handle the leachate. The truck loading areas will be equipped with berms and other means of protecting the surrounding wetlands, surface and groundwaters from leachate spills during the truck filling process. The Applicant's evidence does not demonstrate, however, that the tanks themselves and the area surrounding them will have protective measures for containing leachate spills. In order to comply with the above rule, the totality of the evidence concerning the leachate collection, disposal system and treatment method demonstrates that the tanks should be accompanied by a surrounding containment system (walls or berms) which will have the capability of containing the entire capacity of a tank should failure of a leachate collection tank or related piping or valving occur. Any grant of the permit should be so conditioned. The Petitioners have stipulated, and the Department agrees, that the Class III disposal area is exempt from the liner system and leachate collection system requirements of the above-cited rule provisions. Covering and Closure System Both the Class I and Class III landfills are designed with a composite soil covering system to minimize the amount of rainfall which can come into contact with the solid waste so as to minimize the creation of leachate. During the day to day landfill operations, a 6 inch initial cover will be applied to enclose each Class I landfill disposal cell on a daily basis, except for the working face itself, where waste is currently being deposited. The working face may be left uncovered, so long as solid waste is scheduled to be placed on it within an 18 hour period. A 6 inch initial cover will also be applied once every week to enclose each Class III landfill disposal cell. Thereafter, an intermediate cover of one foot of compacted earth will be applied on top of the initial cover within seven days of initial completion, if a final cover or additional lift on top of that completed cell is not to be applied within 180 days of cell completion. The initial cover will consist of sandy soil, over which will come the intermediate cover of one foot of compacted earth. The final cover will be applied to those portions of the landfill which have been filled with waste to the extent of designed dimensions at the time those portions have been filled. The final cover, to be placed on the sides of the landfill and ultimately upon the top at the end of its useful life, will be placed on top of the 12 inches of intermediate soil layer and will consist of 12 inches of compacted clay with a permeability of 1 X 10/-7 cm/sec. Next will come a layer of 12 inches of compacted soil and then a final layer of 12 inches of top soil, upon which the Applicant will plant grass for erosion control. Erosion of the cover layers on the side slopes is designed to be minimized by closing areas of the landfill as they are filled, an operational procedure commonly referred to as "close as you go." The final cover layers placed on the landfill outside of the clay cap are designed to allow the establishment of a planted grass cover as soon as possible to minimize erosion of the cover material and the side slopes. In addition, the intermediate cover placed on top of and between each cell, beneath the clay layer surrounding the outside perimeter of the landfill, has a high permeability, thereby acting as a drainage layer to direct rainfall and leachate vertically downward to the leachate collection system, as well as to collect runoff so as to retard erosion. Erosion is also retarded, as is the runoff of storm water/leachate over the side slopes of the landfill, by containing storm water which comes into contact with the working face of the landfill cells. This will be accomplished by minimizing the size of the working face to approximately 42 feet width. This will serve to reduce the potential for storm water to contact waste. Additionally, berms will be constructed around the working faces of each active cell which will cause any runoff or storm water which gets inside the working face of the cell to remain there and to percolate through the land fill to eventually be collected as leachate by the collection system. If enough rain falls on the working face of a cell to cause an overflow of storm water over the berms, additional berms placed on the interior slopes of the landfill will catch the overflow and divert it back through the landfill and the leachate collection system. The Applicant contends that normal maintenance equipment and personnel will be able to maintain the exterior side slopes of the landfill and thus minimize erosion. However, if erosion should become a problem, the Applicant proposes to install interceptor berms constructed on the side slopes, accompanied by various geotextural fabrics or synthetic materials proposed to be imbedded on the side slopes to help anchor the interceptor berms. These berms, however, have been demonstrated by Petitioner's witness, Mr. Peavy, to be inadequate to retard erosion. In fact, they may promote erosion because they would be insufficiently anchored to the side slope (as designed with 3:1 slope) and the downhill slope of the berms themselves is considerably steeper than a 3:1 ratio, which will actually promote erosion. The erosion problem will be discussed in further detail infra, but the proposed "optional" berm system, consisting of two proposed berms down the length of the 450 foot side slope will have to be redesigned in order to serve the purpose of retarding side slope erosion. The cap or cover for the exterior side slopes of the landfill will consist of a relatively impermeable clay layer overlain by a sand layer, as well as a top soil layer. Mr. Lithman, an expert in geotechnical engineering testifying for the Applicant, established that as a result of the side slope stability analysis he conducted of the clay layer for the Class I disposal area, that the clay layer would be stable, with a safety factor of 2.9-3, which is more than adequate for a slope as designed for the Class I disposal area (3:1). Mr. Evander Peavy, testifying for the Petitioners and accepted as an expert witness in the fields of civil engineering, soil mechanics, surface water hydrology and hydraulics, agreed that there was an adequate safety factor in the clay cap layer itself and that no plane of failure would likely occur in that layer. The problem, however, lies in the sand layer immediately predetermined or potential plane of failure will occur at the interface between the sand layer and clay layer. This is where the side slope of the landfill is most likely to fail. Failure means that the weight of the sand and soil layers on the outside of the clay layer would exceed the resisting forces, holding them back on the slope of the landfill, which would result in a deformation, slumping or break in the sand layer. If this slumping or break occurs in the sand layer and is not immediately repaired, rain water can erode the clay layer, which is highly erodible if exposed to rainfall. If not redressed soon, this could result in exposure of the waste of the landfill to rain water with the result that leachate could seep out of the side slopes of the landfill and enter surface waters of the State through the functioning of the storm water system. The most likely layers a civil engineer would analyze to determine the stability of the side slope would be the sand and soil layers above the clay layer because they are the weaker layers in terms of adhesion, shearing and resistance to downward movement under stress. However, Mr. Lithman, Trail Ridge's expert who conducted a side-slope stability analysis, only analyzed failure in the clay layer initially, until he was called on rebuttal to address findings of Mr. Peavy. The DER rule provision that allows 3:1 ratio side slopes for the sides of such landfills only serves as a guideline or maximum steepness criteria for design engineers. It does not relieve an engineer from analyzing slope stability in accord with good engineering practices. Analyzing side slope stability must be done in terms of establishing "safety factors." An acceptable safety factor for a landfill is 1.5 because, if failure occurs, solid waste can quickly be uncovered which can cause leachate contamination to surface waters of the State. A safety factor of 1.5 is the commonly accepted factor for earthen dam design because of the risks posed by failure of such slopes or embankments. Mr. Peavy is extensively experienced in the design of earthen dams and similar earth works, including extensive analysis of slope constituents and design for stability under shear forces and other failure-inducing factors, as well as for resistance to erosive forces. He was engaged in such phases of engineering work for approximately 26 years, during which period he designed and oversaw construction of numerous dams, revetments and other earthen embankments and works of many types. Because of this, and because of the commonly accepted engineering methods and calculations he used in analyzing the stability and integrity of the side slopes of the landfill, involving plane of failure analysis and erosion damage analysis, his testimony is credited over that of the other witnesses testifying on the subject matters involving side slope integrity of the landfill. Because of this, a safety factor was established for the side slopes of the landfill, for the sand and soil layers of 1.5. Safety factors of 1.25 are indeed commonly used for highway embankments, but highway embankments are not designed with predetermined or potential planes of failure, such as is involved at this landfill (as presently designed) between the sand-soil layers and the clay layer. Trail Ridge's expert witness in this area, Mr. Lithman, had testified that a safety factor of 1.25 would be adequate because it was typical of DOT earthen embankments for roadways. Mr. Niehoff testified that a 1.3 safety factor was sufficient. In fact, however, Mr. Peavy, testifying for the Petitioners, calculated the safety factor of the side slopes of the landfill to actually be 0.85, using his initial assumption of a weight for a cubic foot of the sand-soil layer of approximately 100 pounds. Mr. Niehoff testifying for Trail Ridge found no basic fault with Mr. Peavy's analysis of the safety factor and alleged that his analysis was done with accepted engineering procedures, but only with use of slightly different assumptions. He testified that if he had used the same assumptions as Mr. Peavy, he would have reached the same conclusions. Mr. Peavy also calculated his safety factor again by employing the same equation used by Trail Ridge's expert, Mr. Lithman, and assumed instead that the unit of sand-soil layers was 125 pounds per cubic foot, as did Mr. Lithman. This assumption coupled with the internal angle of friction of 35 degrees used by Mr. Peavy, which was shown to be a conservative assumption, resulted in a calculated safety factor of 1.05, which is still unacceptable, even under Mr. Lithman's analysis, because Mr. Lithman opined that the safety factor should be 1.25. Using Mr. Peavy's equation, but his own assumptions as to angle of friction and weight per cubic foot of the sand-soil layer, Mr. Niehoff, testifying for the Applicant, calculated a safety factor of 1.3. This safety factor also is unacceptable because it is less than the 1.5 safety factor established as proper by Mr. Peavy's testimony and, indeed, if Mr. Lithman's safety factor of 1.25 could be deemed acceptable, the 1.3 figure would result only in a marginal safety factor at best. The major difference between the safety factor calculations of Mr. Peavy and Mr. Niehoff is that Mr. Peavy assumed that the sand-soil layer above the clay layer would be saturated, while Mr. Niehoff assumed that only 19 inches of the 24 inch sand-soil cover layer would be saturated by rainfall. However, Trail Ridge's own experts, Mr. Lithman and Mr. Niehoff, offered conflicting testimony between themselves on the amount of saturation to be expected. Like Mr. Peavy, Mr. Lithman did his analysis on the basis that the sand-soil layers would be saturated completely, contrary to Mr. Niehoff's subsequent testimony that this would not happen beyond a 19 inch depth in the layer. Mr. Niehoff's conclusions that the sand-soil layer would not become saturated or valid only if there is a complete grass cover over the entire side slopes of the landfill. He admitted that if the sand-soil layer became saturated, the safety factor would only be 1.1 or less according to his own calculations. Trail Ridge offered no preponderant evidence to establish that an adequate grass cover could be established so as to prevent saturation of the sand-soil layer during the design 25-year, 24-hour storm event (approximately 8- 9 inches rainfall in 24 hours). The evidence indicates, rather, that establishing and maintaining a grass cover on the side slopes of the landfill will be very difficult to achieve on a uniform, completely grassed basis. This is because of erosion and because of the damage by equipment necessary to repeatedly repair erosion damage and because of the fact that much of the side slopes of the landfill will be, in effect, under construction until the landfill is completely built out and completed at the end of approximately 20 years. Even if the lower several lifts of the landfill, when covered on the "cover as you go" basis can achieve them, more recently deposited, will not have a complete grass cover. Thus, there is a substantial likelihood of saturation of the sand-soil layer, during storm events of the type for which the landfill is designed. Further, the volume of water that would saturate into the sand-soil layer, even if the landfill was completely grassed, will still be sufficient to totally saturate the lower 90 feet of the landfill side slopes above the clay layer in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. If the sand-soil layers become saturated, sloughing or failure of those layers will occur at the toe of the landfill. If that occurs, then the clay layer, protective cap can be quickly eroded by subsequent rainfall and surface runoff. This will cause the waste within the landfill to be exposed to rainfall, generating leachate which can migrate to the surface of the landfill and thence to the storm water system and ultimately to the surface waters of the State. No provisions have been made in the design to remove water from the sand-soil layers once it reaches the area near the toe of the landfill to prevent sand-soil layer failure. The impermeability of the clay layer would prevent the rainfall from migrating through the clay layer and continuing to the interior bottom of the landfill to be collected properly as leachate because the clay layer properly should be an impermeable barrier to storm water. Thus, a saturated condition of the sand-soil layers would be most likely to cause their sloughing and failure near the toe of the landfill, with resulting damage by erosion or cracking to the clay layer with the effect of allowing leachate to escape to surface waters of the State. Although the Applicant's expert, Mr. Lithman, opined that side slope stability had not been a problem with the 3:1 ratio slopes at the City's Rosemary Hill Landfill, he admittedly was unaware of the height or length of the side slopes of that landfill. The longer the side slopes and the higher the landfill, the more likely it is that the sand-soil layers will become saturated and fail during design storm events or shortly thereafter, especially as the landfill, in its later years is built both longer and higher toward its final configuration. Further, Mr. Lithman and the Applicant's evidence does not reveal the composition of the side slopes of the Rosemary Hill Landfill, in terms of whether or not the clay and sand-soil layers designed in the proposed landfill are present. Due to the height of the proposed landfill, the lengths of its side slopes and the absence of design features such as terraces and benches, failure of the side slopes, especially in the later years of the landfill's life and, indeed, after closure (closed landfills can generate leachate) is likely to occur, based upon the facts established through Mr. Peavy's testimony. The likely side slope failure is a result of the design flaw and is not a problem which can be cured by normal operation and maintenance activities. Indeed those activities may aggravate the problem through their deleterious effect on the establishment of a uniform, complete grass cover. Because of the height of the proposed landfill, the length and slopes of its sides and the lack of design features such as benches or terraces, it is likely to experience significant side slope erosion due to storm water. The volume of rain water that would accumulate and flow down the sides of the landfill will achieve velocities which would destroy even a well established grass cover, especially in the later years of the landfill's life when the sides have reached significant length and height. Storm water would thus gain sufficient velocity to destroy a grass cover and to particularly attack those portions where the grass cover is incomplete, thinned or possessed of an insufficient root mat to hold the soil. Once erosion starts, small rills will form which will soon develop into deeper gullies, ultimately penetrating the sand-soil layer. It can then quickly erode away the resulting exposed clay cap layer, exposing the waste to storm water. Leachate could thus leak from the landfill. Because of the present design of the Class I landfill, the only way to repair erosion damage is to push material from the bottom with heavy machinery, such as bulldozers. These erosion maintenance activities themselves would prevent the establishment of a uniform solid grass cover. The presently operated East Landfill in Duval County exhibits both side slope failure and erosion damage due to rainfall on its 3:1 slopes, including damage to the grass cover. Erosion damage to the slope layers due to erosion maintenance activities of the type which would be necessary to repair damage at the proposed landfill has occurred. Both erosion and side slope failure will ultimately result in exposure of solid waste to rainfall runoff and assure side slope seepage of leachate. The material eroded or sloughed away from the side slopes can obstruct the drainage conveyance system surrounding the landfill, rendering the MSSW/storm water system inoperative. Because of the presently proposed design of the landfill, it would be impossible to effectively correct side slope erosion or failure, due especially to maintenance activities. Even if a uniform grass cover could be established in the last years of landfill operation and after closure, the great length and slope of sides of the landfill by that time would result in erosion even if the grass cover were initially uniform and solid on the entire slope of the landfill. A change in the design of the landfill, however, whereby 15 foot wide benches or terraces would be incorporated into the sides of the landfill every 20 or so vertical feet, would likely prevent the side slope erosion and failure established to be likely by Mr. Peavy. In fact, benches or terraces similar to those found to be required by Mr. Peavy have had to be recently installed at the East Landfill in Duval County in order to resolve side slope erosion and failure problems on those 3:1 slopes. The mere installation of interceptor berms, as depicted in TRL Exhibit 28, would not alleviate side slope failure and erosion problems, but rather would aggravate them and would reduce the safety factor of the side slopes to 0.5. Consequently, in order to grant the permit, it should be conditioned on the landfill being re-designed and constructed so as to incorporate benches or terraces at approximately 20 foot intervals on the slope of the landfill from bottom to top. Although this may potentially reduce the volume of space within the landfill, depending on how it is accomplished, it has been established that, without the use of the bench or terrace system, pollutant leachate cannot be reasonably assured to be prevented from entering State waters and wetlands. Leachate Control Leachate is any water coming in contact with solid waste. The chemical constituents of leachate which are present and will be present in the Duval County solid waste stream, to be disposed of at the proposed landfill, include chlorobenzene, volatile organics of various types, benzene, acetone, phenolic compounds, gasoline constituents, chloroform, methylethylketone, methylene chloride, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, total organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and metals such as aluminum, chromium and zinc. Leachate thus contains toxic, hazardous and priority pollutants which will be disposed of in the landfill. The breakdown and degradation of solid waste can also generate additional toxic or hazardous compounds and substances. Leachate can potentially be discharged in a proposed landfill into groundwater and surface waters in a number of ways, including leakage from the bottom of the landfill liner into groundwaters, including into the Class I storm water pond and surface waters of the State through discharge from the groundwater into the storm water pond system. It could also be deposited into the storm water system through spillage of leachate where tanker trucks are loaded, through seepage of leachate through the side slopes of the proposed landfill by damage to the integrity of those side slopes as found above. The Petitioners maintain that side slope seepage of leachate will occur because the permeability of the intermediate cover layers surrounding the cells of the landfill is significantly less than the permeability of solid waste. This will have the result, according to Petitioners, that leachate will migrate horizontally through the intermediate cover layers to the sides of the landfill. Once there it arguably would migrate to the surface of the landfill side slopes through erosion of the outer cover, and fissures in the clay due to drying from exposure to the sun and through erosion. Additionally, the Petitioners maintain that leachate will migrate downward through the peripheral intermediate cover layer under the clay and contact the impermeable clay anchor cap, build up hydraulic head pressure and thus seep out through landfill sides near the toe of the landfill. The Petitioners maintain that Trail Ridge's policy and proposal to punch holes in the intermediate cover layers atop the cells of the landfill to encourage downward migration of leachate and discourage horizontal migration of leachate through the intermediate cover layers will be ineffective because the intermediate cover is more permeable than the solid waste itself so that punching holes in the intermediate cover to allow the leachate to migrate down through solid waste will actually not occur. Additionally the Petitioners contend that the filter system and the storm water pond will not treat the dissolved chemical components of the leachate specified in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and that these dissolved components will move through the sand filters into waters of the State. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, however, the Applicant has demonstrated that leachate will not avoid capture by the leachate collection system by seeping horizontally through the cover or cap and out the sides of the landfill, provided that the side slope failure and erosion prevention measures found to be necessary in the above Findings of Fact are instituted in the design, construction and operation of the landfill. The design of the cap and closure system is basically a side slope seepage prevention system, except for the absence of terraces or benches. The intermediate soil cover beneath the clay cap and surrounding each cell of the landfill acts as a drainage medium. It will channel any seepage of leachate from the cells of solid waste through the permeable, intermediate soil cover, generally in a downward direction, both in and between the cells of the landfill throughout its cross-section, as well as downward through the intermediate soil cover lining immediately beneath the clay cap around the periphery of the landfill. This system, if the above design deficiency is corrected, will tend to force the leachate downward into the collection system, as opposed to horizontally out the cover or the sides of the landfill. The reason this system will work in this manner is because the intermediate cover soil is more permeable than the solid waste itself. The permeability of the intermediate cover will promote vertical movement of the leachate because, as the leachate migrates across each cell, it will encounter the vertical, intermediate soil cover layer at the side of each cell and that will promote its moving downward toward the collection system. The water in the landfill will thus follow the path of least resistance, so that the vertical portions of the intermediate cover layers surrounding each cell and surrounding the sides of the landfill beneath the clay cap, coupled with the force of gravity, will provide a preferential path downward toward the leachate collection system. This finding includes consideration of the Petitioners' contention that leachate will migrate downward and contact the impermeable clay anchor cap and build up head pressure so that it will seep out of the sides at the toe of the landfill. The intermediate cover layer underlying the sides of the landfill beneath the clay anchor cap is connected with the leachate collection system underlying the bottom of the landfill. Thus, a continuous conduction of leachate down through the intermediate cover, permeable layer will allow the leachate to seep downward all the way to the leachate collection system rather than pooling behind the impermeable clay anchor cap. This condition will be enhanced by the fact that surrounding each cell is the approximately vertical, permeable intermediate cover layer, throughout the entire cross-section of the landfill, such that much of the leachate will migrate downward in the interior of the landfill. Because of the ready conductance of leachate in a downward direction by the intermediate cover layers, Trail Ridge's policy of punching holes in the intermediate cover layer on the top of each cell in order to seek to prevent side slope seepage of leachate will be ineffective because the intermediate cover is more permeable than the solid waste. Thus, this procedure is unnecessary and, in fact, could become counter-productive to the extent that punching holes in the intermediate cover would allow rain water mixed with leachate to contact more of the solid waste contents of the landfill as it migrates down through the interior of each solid waste cell. This would result in a more highly concentrated form of leachate, which could pose more deleterious threats to ground and surface waters should it escape to ground and surface waters. Therefore, any grant of the permit should be conditioned on a prohibition of the Applicant thus violating the integrity of the intermediate cover layer overlying each cell as the landfill is built up in lifts. Gas Control System The Class I disposal area is designed with a gas control system which will prevent explosions and fires caused by the accumulation of methane gas due to decomposition of the waste in the landfill. The gas control system will prevent damage to the vegetation on the final cover of the closed portions of the landfill or vegetation beyond the perimeter of the property. It will prevent objectionable odors off site. The Petitioners have stipulated that the Applicants' gas control system will be designed in accordance with Rule 17- 701.050(5)(j), Florida Administrative Code. Although the Petitioners presented testimony of various persons who live in close proximity to other landfills, which were at one time operated by Waste Management subsidiary companies, neither the persons who testified of odor problems at those landfills, nor other witnesses presented testimony to show whether any of the landfills utilized a gas control system or one of equivalent design to that proposed for the subject facility. No evidence was presented to support a finding that the proposed landfill facility would produce objectionable odors to any significant degree. The Petitioners have further stipulated that the Class III disposal area is exempt from the gas control system requirements set forth in Rule 17- 701.050(5)(i) and (j) and (6)(i), Florida Administrative Code, and the Department agrees. Hydrogeology and Ground Water Monitoring The Applicant filed as part of its application, and placed in evidence, a hydrogeological survey and groundwater monitoring plan, contained in TRL Exhibit 51. The hydrology of the proposed landfill site may fairly be characterized as complex because it contains many different features such as recharge and discharge areas, varying zones of conductivity, a sand component to the surficial aquifer as well as a rock aquifer component and multi-directional groundwater flows. Additionally, wetland systems occur down-gradient from the higher levels of the surficial aquifer on the north, east and south sides of the proposed Class I disposal area. From the surface grade down to a depth of approximately 100 feet lies the surficial aquifer, which primarily consists of a coarse sand medium. Lying below the sand aquifer is a confining unit (relatively impermeable) identified as the Hawthorn Group, which consists of denser marls, dolomites and silver clays. Beneath the Hawthorn layer, at a depth of approximately 300-400 feet, is the Floridan aquifer, which serves as the principal deep water supply source for this part of Florida. Additionally, immediately above the Hawthorn layer in the deep zone of the surficial aquifer, a "rock aquifer" exists under a portion of the landfill site, generally the eastern-most portion. It was not shown to be continuous throughout the site. The rock aquifer is connected to the sand surficial aquifer lying above it. Zones of varying higher and lower permeability occur at various places within the surficial aquifer. Generally, groundwater at the site flows down-gradient in an easterly direction, caused by rain or surface water recharging the surficial aquifer on the higher portions of Trail Ridge, including the western side of the landfill Class I disposal site. The surficial aquifer then discharges this groundwater to the land surface and the wetlands lying on the eastern side of the site. Additionally, some northward and southward flow of groundwater occurs from recharge areas to the wetlands lying on the northerly and southerly boundaries of the Class I disposal site in the wetlands. The specific condition 19 contained in the Department's Notice of Intent to issue permit and draft permit requires the Applicant to periodically (quarterly) sample monitoring wells to ensure that water quality standards are not exceeded at the boundary of a zone of discharge established by that specific condition and authorized by Rule 17-28.700(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. A groundwater monitoring plan has been developed by the Applicant, with accompanying hydrogeological survey as mandated by Rule 17-28.700, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed groundwater monitoring system consists of 42 monitoring wells in and around the area of the proposed Class I and Class III landfill sites. The system is designed to monitor upgradient and downgradient flows in wells constructed to sample from the shallow and intermediate zone and from the deep zone (to some extent) on the east boundary of the Class I disposal site. Specific condition number 18 of the Notice of Intent to grant the permit and draft permit, to which the Applicant has agreed, requires that a detailed chemical characterization of a representative sample of leachate be performed, so as to allow for any necessary modifications to the list of chemical substances to be analyzed in water samples drawn from the monitoring wells on a quarterly basis. Although there are up-gradient monitoring wells for the shallow and intermediate portions of the surficial aquifer, there are no upgradient monitoring wells for the deep zone of the surficial aquifer. There are no upgradient monitoring wells on the west side of the landfill in the deep zone. The deep zone of the surficial aquifer is the zone between the intermediate zone and the top of the Hawthorn confining bed. The rock aquifer is present beneath the proposed landfill site and was encountered at well locations B-7, B-8, B-12 and B-14. That rock aquifer is hydrologically connected to and part of the deep zone, which is hydrogeologically connected throughout the site to the uppermost portions of the surficial aquifer lying beneath the landfill. The rock aquifer is a significant source of drinking water in Duval County and the surrounding northeast Florida area and is used as a supply source for domestic and commercial wells within one and one-half miles of the landfill Class I site. "Sinkers" are immiscible liquids contained in landfill leachate that are denser than water. When released from the landfill they would sink to the first low permeability unit in the surficial aquifer. This would be at the bottom of the surficial aquifer at the rock unit. Once they encountered a lower permeability unit or strata, sinkers would then move in a more lateral direction downgradient in undetermined directions. The silty clay layer depicted on Figure 9 of TRL Exhibit 51 would intercept those sinkers and cause them to tend to move in a direction toward the silty clay layer intercepted by well B-1. At that point the sinkers would then have a tendency to move in a north or south direction on top of the confining zone. The direction those sinkers would move, following a gradient, cannot be determined at present from the groundwater monitoring plan because no deep wells are proposed in either of those areas which could detect sinkers. The groundwater monitoring plan is thus not adequate for the deep zone or to detect pollutants that could migrate off site in the rock aquifer because there are no monitoring wells in the deep zone on the west, north and south sides of the Class I landfill area. Monitoring for sinker compounds in the deep zones is thus insufficient and water supply wells nearby in the deep zone would be at risk because there is no way to detect pollutants between those water supply wells and the source of the pollutants at the landfill. The groundwater monitoring plan is inadequate because there is insufficient information to determine the direction of water flow in the deep zone. Sufficient upgradient monitoring wells in the deep zone are necessary in order to determine the direction of water flow in the deep zone which will in turn indicate where additional deep zone monitoring wells should be located to detect contaminants migrating off site. Leachates also contain contaminant constituents or compounds called "floaters." Floaters are immiscible liquids which are lighter or less dense than water. They tend to float on top of the groundwater table. The hydrologic information depicted with the application and the Applicant's evidence is not sufficient to determine where floaters might migrate. The shallow monitoring wells referenced in TRL Exhibit 42 would not adequately detect floaters at or near the water table surface. Due to the lower lying stream or wetland systems on the north and south side of the Class I landfill on Trail Ridge, groundwater flows in the vicinity of those areas are likely moving northward and southward to some extent. Thus, TRL Exhibit 51, and particularly Figure 14 of that exhibit, is insufficient to support a determination of where monitoring wells should be located because it does not include the impact of the stream or wetland systems on the north and south sides of the landfill. Groundwater contours bend into the stream areas on the north and south sides of the landfill which would indicate groundwater flow to the south and the north instead of just from west to east. The general shape of these contour lines would resemble the contour lines depicted in Figure 16 of TRL Exhibit 51. These contour lines bend back to the east and the west on the north and south sides of the Class I landfill. Since there is groundwater flow to the north and to the south from the Class I landfill, intermediate and deep monitoring wells in addition to shallow wells, should be located along the west, north and south sides of the landfill. Because they are not in the groundwater monitoring plan thus far, the plan is inadequate. A grant of the permits should be conditioned on such additional wells being installed and made a part of the monitoring program, in accordance with the above findings. A zone of discharge for the proposed landfill has been established pursuant to Rule 17-28.700(4)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code, which is intended to extend vertically from the base of the surficial aquifer and horizontally 100 feet beyond the footprint of the landfill or to the compliance groundwater monitoring wells, whichever is less. (See pages 611- 618 of the transcript.) Therefore, even if the groundwater monitoring wells are closer than 100 feet to the footprint of the landfill, they are to be used for monitoring for compliance with applicable water quality standards, including the primary and secondary drinking water standards for G-II groundwater, as contained in Rules 17-550.310 and 17-550.320, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant has agreed to this location of the wells, their spatial relationship to the footprint of the landfill, to the zone of discharge and to their use for compliance purposes. Storm Water and Surface Water Management System The Applicant proposes as part of its permit application a storm water discharge and surface water management system. The application for permitting for that system was submitted to the DER which reviewed it using the Water Management District's permitting criteria set forth in Chapters 40C-4 and 40C- 42, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to its independent permitting authority set forth in Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, the DER noticed its intent to issue the MSSW permit to the Applicant, based upon its opinion that the project will comply with applicable rules. The proposed storm water discharge/surface water management system (MSSW system) will utilize roadside swales, perimeter ditches, catch basins, culverts, detention ponds and pump stations to manage storm water in compliance with Chapters 17-25, 40C-4 and 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code. The solid waste disposal areas will operate as watersheds, routing storm water in to the MSSW system. The retention areas have been designed to handle the retention treatment requirements of a 25-year, 24-hour "design storm" runoff, resulting from approximately eight to nine inches of rainfall. The system is comprised of three independent parts; the Class I landfill system, the Class III landfill system and the separate roadway surface water management system. The Class I system will use temporary berms to intercept storm water runoff from the cap cover system of the landfill, on top of the solid waste disposal area. These top berms will divert the storm water runoff to regularly spaced pipes which will convey the storm water into the perimeter swale located at the foot of the landfill side slopes. The runoff will then be diverted through a culvert into a concrete-lined perimeter ditch which will convey it to the pond. The top berms of the landfill also operate as erosion control features, capturing and channelling some storm water runoff away from the side slopes of the landfill, thereby assisting in erosion control. The Class I retention pond covers an area of approximately ten acres and will contain approximately 43 million gallons of water at design water levels. The peak flow of storm water runoff from a design 25-year, 24-hour storm can be accumulated and released at predetermined rates. The runoff from the first one inch of rainfall in a 72 hour period is retained and stored in the pond. No discharge will be allowed to the pond's outfall system, rather all the outfall from the runoff from the first inch of rainfall will be routed through the sand filter system prior to discharge. When storm water runoff enters the pond, it will mix with the water already in the pond and become part of the total water column. When a rainfall event then produces greater than one inch of rainfall, some water will have to be discharged from the pond by passing it through the sand filter and then discharging through the outfall structure. The water discharged is water which was already resident in the pond before the rainfall event, mixed with the current rainfall runoff from that hypothetical rainfall event. The volume of the pond is so large that storm water runoff will constitute a very small fraction of the actual water volume in the pond at any given time. On the average, it will take 33 days for a given molecule of storm water runoff to travel through the pond, the sand filter and then be discharged through the outfall system. the sand filter system operates on a water level trigger device involving floats in wet wells attached to electrical switching mechanisms. When a certain water elevation in the wet wells, reflective of the elevation in the pond, is reached, the pumps automatically start and pump water into the filter chambers, causing the water to flow over a filtering sand. The filter will be maintained periodically by lowering of the water level to permit removal and replacement of the top six inches of sand in the filter. The Class III storm water pond is similar in design to the Class I pond except that it will not use a top berm. Rather, a perimeter swale will function similarly to the Class I landfill top berm, intercepting storm water runoff from the top and side slopes of the Class III landfill. The Class III storm water pond is equipped with the same type of filtration and pumping system as the Class I pond. The Class III system is designed also to retain the first inch of storm water runoff from a "design storm" rainfall in a 72 hour period. All of that runoff from the first inch of rainfall will likewise be routed through sand filtering prior to discharge. The roadway storm water system utilizes grassed roadside swales to act as a retention structure to filter the storm water runoff. The runoff retained in the swales will be conveyed by pipe to a smaller detention and dispersion pond located between the Class I and Class III disposal areas and built with the same design constraints as the Class I pond. The roadway system will not use a pumping system to operate, but rather discharge will occur through natural action of gravity through the dispersion pond. The filtered storm water runoff from the Class I and Class III disposal areas will be discharged into adjacent wetlands after it leaves the ponds. The discharge will be performed by a wetland irrigation system. The irrigation system will discharge the filtered storm water through conveyance pipes to the wetland boundaries. There a series of perforated pipes will extend outward from the conveyance pipes themselves and serve as a means of gradually releasing the filtered storm water into the wet land area as a means of wetland replenishment and mitigation. Concerning the issue of surface water quality, it has been established that the sand filtering systems on the Class I and Class III storm water ponds are capable of providing 100 percent of the treatment required by State water quality standards when considered in conjunction with the treatment capability of the ponds themselves as natural lake systems. The individual sand filters each provide twice the capacity for treatment necessary which equates to a safety factor of 2. With both filters operating, there is a combined safety factor of 4. Although the Class I and Class III retention ponds are designed with filtration systems, the primary pollution removal system will be the ponds themselves operating as natural lakes. Once storm water enters the ponds, the average residence time is adequate to allow the biological processes of uptake and assimilation to function to remove the bulk of the pollutants, including those derived from any spillage of leachate into the storm water management system and ultimately deposited into the ponds. The volatile organic compounds which can occur in the leachate can largely be removed simply by the process of evaporation, due to the adequate retention time of any leachate- containing storm water which reaches the ponds. It has been established that, due to the storm water pond's natural treatment mechanisms, especially the long retention time, the size and volume of the ponds, as well as the vegetated sides of the ponds, that, considering also the operation of the filter system, the water discharging from the Class I and Class III storm water treatment facility will have very low concentrations of total nitrogen, phosphorous, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids and heavy metals. The Applicant's expert witness on water quality and water chemistry, Dr. Harper, also assumed that the Class I retention pond would have some leachate migration into the pond through groundwater influx. Worst case scenarios were used to estimate this possible influx and the results established a maximum deposition of 2.46 gallons of leachate into the pond over a 65 day period. This amount would be diluted by a factor of 14 million solely by new storm water runoff and rain normally expected under average rainfall conditions during such a 65 day period, without even considering the considerable dilution by the existing water volume of approximately 43 million gallons already in the pond in such a period. Dr. Harper's testimony is accepted. It is unlikely that any runoff can enter the retention pond on one day and then exit within one day's time through the outfall overflow device. Even assuming that runoff occurs in excess of the designed one inch, that runoff would dilute with the large volume of water already present in the storm water pond. Thus, the new storm water would be mixed, diluted and subject to natural biological processes and the process of evaporation (of volatile organic compounds), operative in the pond before it can be released through the outfall structure. The runoff will enter the pond at the west end and discharge through the opposite or east end of the pond. The majority of water caused to be discharged through the outfall because of a larger-than-design storm event runoff would thus actually be water already present in the pond as opposed to incoming runoff from the recent rain event being deposited in the west end of the pond where the storm water system discharges from the Class I disposal area. Even a rainfall event producing twice the designed-for volume would produce no effect on the water quality of the discharge. Further, along with the filter systems and the natural processes of biological uptake, assimilation as well as evaporation in the natural lake system which would operate in the pond, the side slopes of both ponds will be vegetated so as to further assist in uptake and removal of any pollutants present in the runoff, further mitigating any potential for water quality impacts. It has been established that the surface water management system is designed to segregate surface water from leachate by minimizing the size of the landfill working face and reducing the potential for storm water to contact waste and become leachate. Further, a berm will be constructed around each working face which will encompass the entire active cell of the landfill, causing any runoff water entering the working face to remain there and percolate through the landfill to the leachate collection system, rather than entering the storm water system. If a severe rainfall event could cause leachate to overflow those berms, the design includes additional berms on the interior slopes of the landfill to catch that overflow and divert it back through the leachate collection system. The berms are relocated as the working face of the landfill changes, so they will continue to fulfill these functions on an ongoing basis. In terms of a worst case event, the Applicant has also established that the estimated impact of runoff from approximately one acre of exposed solid waste entering the retention pond would still cause no water quality impacts. Further assurance of leachate segregation from surface waters is provided in a spillage control plan which would be activated in the event of leachate spillage from a tanker truck. In connection with this, any grant of the permit should be conditioned upon an adequate berm system surrounding the tank truck leachate filling device in order to contain any such spill to prevent the leachate from entering the storm water retention facilities and surface waters. Such a system should also be characterized by (and the permit conditioned upon) retention berms or other forms of containment being placed around each leachate storage tank, designed to retain the full capacity of such a leachate storage tank in the event of a catastrophic tank valve, piping or other failure. It has been demonstrated, moreover, that if the leachate-storm water separation and control system were to fail in some way so that leachate directly entered the retention pond, the volume of leachate entering the pond would have to exceed approximately 150,000 gallons to cause any water quality violation in the storm water retention pond, even assuming the high concentration of contaminants in the leachate envisioned in the opinion of Dr. Robert Livingston, the Petitioners' aquatic ecologist and toxicologist. He raised concerns that pollution of the head water systems of the St. Johns and St. Mary's Rivers might result from the operation of the project. The Applicant has rebutted the concerns expressed by Dr. Livingston and Dr. Parks and established reasonable assurances that toxins and contaminants occurring in leachate will not deposit in surface waters of the State in any significant or rule-violative amounts for the reasons expressed in the above Findings of Fact. Draw-Down Effects The Petitioners contend that there will be a draw-down of groundwater levels in surrounding wetlands caused by these storm water ponds and associated pumping, in violation of the Water Management District's rules and policy embodied in MSSW Handbook Section 10.6.3. This section presumes an adverse impact on wetlands will result if the system causes the groundwater table to be lowered more than five feet lower than the average dry season low water table. The Petitioners' expert in this area, Dr. Motz, estimated that a measurable draw-down of groundwater of one to two feet in the wetlands water table would extend outward as far as maybe 1,000 feet in all directions from each of the storm water ponds. Dr. Motz used a large error convergence factor in his calculations, however, and also used a model for a confined aquifer, which was not shown to exist at the subject site. He did not use a model which should be appropriate for unconfined or semiconfined aquifers which the evidence reveals is the more appropriate hydrogeology which would be employed in groundwater modeling for the subject site. Dr. Motz' use of a large error convergence factor can potentially result in an answer which is far from the actual appropriate draw-down figure. Numerical models are approximations of reality and the smaller the error convergence factor, then the closer to the real number of the cone of depression, or draw-down level, the model will give. Consequently, the use of an analytical groundwater, cone of depression model was shown by the Applicants' witnesses to give a more accurate result, especially in view of the large error convergence factor employed by Dr. Motz in his numerical model. It was not shown that Dr. Motz had actually "calibrated" the groundwater model he employed. The Applicants' hydrogeology expert, Don Miller, used three analytical and two empirical methods to determine radius of influence or draw-down from the storm water ponds and calibrated the models he used. Validating the data or calibrating the model is a way of making sure the model actually represents the situation intended. Calibration is performed in this instance by inputting some data and then seeing if the model itself could accurately predict the remainder of the data of interest. Using these various methods, Dr. Miller arrived at a range of radius of influence likely to occur from the Class I storm water pond of 167 feet to 184 feet at the western end of the pond and approximately 40 feet at the eastern end. The maximum radius of influence for the Class III storm water pond was shown to be approximately 160 feet at the western end and 0 at the northeastern corner. The other hydrogeology expert for the Applicant, Dr. Leve, performed a separate analytical analysis of draw-down using the Southwest Florida Water Management District's "KOCH" model to produce a projected radius of influence of approximately 167 feet, which is comparable to the projections of Dr. Miller. In conjunction with this, it was shown that Dr. Motz' use of a small value for groundwater infiltration and the large error convergence factor served to increase his predicted radius of influence in an inaccurate way. Dr. Motz also used a higher value for transmissivity or hydraulic conductivity ("K"). The Applicant's experts relied on the average of the actual permeability test results obtained for the site. A different figure for transmissivity or hydraulic conductivity results from Dr. Motz taking into account two test wells in which hydraulic conductivity could not be measured because the well water level rose too quickly to obtain a measurement. Consequently, he predicted or assumed that that factor might affect the hydraulic conductivity at the site by a whole order of magnitude, which resulted in his 1,000 foot prediction for draw-down cone of influence. The problem here is that the evidence does not demonstrate clearly that this much- greater hydraulic conductivity factor with regard to these two wells, which was an isolated incident compared to all other wells tested, is not some mechanical or human error in the installation or evaluation of the wells. Further, even if one predicts the hydraulic conductivity of the unmeasured, apparently highly conductive wells at the geometric mean of all the hydraulic conductivity measurements for the water table zone (except for the marl zone) at 3.0 X 10 cm/sec or three times greater than the value used by the Applicant, it would result in a cone of influence of 265 feet instead of 184 feet. If one also assumed a value for the two ignored wells, as data points, by assuming that they had a hydraulic conductivity value of 3.5 x 10/-3 cm/sec, the highest reported well conductivity value, and then employed that in the empirical formula used by Donald Miller, it would still not greatly exceed the 265 foot cone of depression number. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that a cone of depression of that magnitude would have any adverse affect on the wetlands, especially in view of the recharging of the wetlands through the storm water pumping and irrigation system. In summary, the totality of the evidence in the Applicant's case, especially on rebuttal, demonstrates that Dr. Motz' methodology significantly overestimated the radius of influence for draw-down at both storm water ponds. The parties agree that the maximum draw-down of 16 feet would occur within the Class I storm water pond, where a "seepage face" would be formed where the pond would cut into the water table through earth borrowing activities. The maximum draw-down inside the Class III storm water pond, where a seepage face would be formed by the excavation into the water table to construct the pond, will be 14 feet. The lowered groundwater within the storm water ponds is due in part to the natural sloping land surface of that area and the concurrent natural slope of the water level before the ponds are even excavated. The slope of draw-down will decrease rapidly, that is, much of the 14 foot or 16 foot apparent draw-down amount will be the result of the relatively sheer seepage face formed by the pond excavation. At the top of that seepage face, the groundwater cone of depression will flatten out considerably and very rapidly so that, as the slope of the draw-down decreases rapidly in the immediate vicinity of the pond, the groundwater outside the ponds themselves will actually be lowered less than five feet. The groundwater levels used in the application were based upon seasonal high water level for the site, rather than "average dry season low" water levels, as referenced in Section 10.6.3 of the Water Management District's Applicant's handbook. Therefore, the projected draw-downs are very conservative and would overestimate the actual draw-down for dry season low water table groundwater levels. Consequently, the weight of the evidence supports the Applicant's predictions on the effects of draw-down. The evidence demonstrates that draw-down from the storm water ponds associated with both landfills will have either no impact or minimal impact on wetland species, either transitional or submerged, in the surrounding wetlands. Silvi-culture activities on the site have considerably altered the area and lowered the natural water table through the construction of drainage structures by the timber company in the past. In general, the wetland jurisdictional lines from the storm water ponds are based on United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) wetland criteria and thus do not contain species generally considered to be wetland species for purposes of DER dredge and fill or Water Management District MSSW jurisdictional purposes. Many species used by the Corps in determining jurisdiction, such as slash pine, can grow both in uplands or wetlands. The edges of the areas delineated as jurisdictional wetlands are dominated by transitional and upland plant species such as slash pine, gallberry, palmetto, grapevine and huckleberry, which can tolerate dry conditions. It is only as one's investigation proceeds waterward or toward the center of the delineated wetlands, (in which area the land surface slopes down- gradient at the same area where the draw-down cone of influence rapidly diminishes to an insignificant level), that the plant species change to those species adapted to regular and periodic inundation for purposes of the State agencies' wetlands jurisdiction. The draw-down maximum for any wetland location using the maximum projected radius from Dr. Miller's efforts of 184 feet, (17 feet beyond the projection based upon the Water Management District's model), is on the southwest edge of the Class I pond. Maximum draw-down there will be 24' inches at the wetland boundary line, that is, the Corps jurisdictional boundary line where the dominant plant species are transitional or upland plants such as slash pine, gallberry and bay trees. Pine trees at this point exhibit tall and vigorous growth which indicates that the water table, before installation of the ponds, is already well below the surface, otherwise these upland trees would lack sufficient oxygen to grow if water levels were closer to the surface. The potential draw-down here would thus have little effect on this vegetation. There will be essentially no draw-down effect further down-gradient beyond the DER Water Management District jurisdictional boundary, where the pines are already of diminished stature because of water existing close to the land's surface and where DER wetland jurisdictionally-listed plants predominate. The draw-down at the wetland boundary line on the southeastern part of the Class I pond will be 9 2/3 inches. Wetland species which could be affected are found 50-60 feet beyond that radius of influence at this point. The radius of influence on the northern side of the Class I pond will not cross any wetland boundary until it widens at the northwestern corner. The maximum draw-down at the wet land line near the northwestern corner of the pond would be approximately 15 1/2 inches. Here again the predominant plant species are the upland species of slash pine and gallberry and thus the draw-down will have little effect on those species for reasons mentioned above. On the western edge of the Class III pond is an isolated wetland for purposes of the Water Management District MSSW and Corps jurisdiction only. The edge of that wetland is dominated by slash pine and gallberry. The estimated draw-down on the boundary line of that land in the area dominated by slash pine and gallberry is six inches. There will be no draw-down from that Class III borrow pond area in any wetland dominated by transitional or submerged species. In addition to the above considerations and factual findings concerning the effect of the draw-down, the Applicant is proposing an irrigation systems as delineated above, which will deliver water to the wetlands to mitigate and replenish any minimal impacts of groundwater draw-down. The irrigation system will increase the degree and duration of saturation of the soils at the wetlands' boundary. This will mitigate any minimal effect of draw- down and may actually have the effect of enhancing the health and quality of the wetlands over time, from the wetlands' boundary waterward. In order that the irrigation system will pose the maximum benefit and most closely imitate the natural systems, the irrigation system will be designed for flexible operation. A wetlands ecologist will review the wetlands quarterly and adjust the irrigation system as necessary, as to location and operational regime, in order to properly maintain the health, including water levels and hydro-periods in the wetlands. The Applicant has agreed that the grant of the permit be conditioned to allow for this ongoing quarterly investigation and adjustment. Dr. Motz indicated in his testimony his belief that, to a large extent, the water pumped to the wetlands through the irrigation system would simply immediately migrate to the groundwater and immediately back to the storm water pond, through the effects of the draw-down, and not serve the purpose of replenishing the wetlands. He admitted, however, that he did not know whether the proposed irrigation system would work or not. The Applicant's expert witness in this regard, Dr. Leve, established that the irrigation system would effectively distribute water into the wetlands and saturate the surface due to the "mound effect" of water at the irrigation systems' discharge point at the wetland boundary. He used a standard, generally-accepted "mounding model" to predict the effects of the mounding for the irrigation system. Mounding is a hydrogeological phenomenon whereby water will mound up and create a zone of saturation in the soil at the point of discharge to the ground surface. Mr. Leve ran that model for a cross-section of each of the storm water pumps. He also ran the model for two different values of groundwater inputs into the ponds. A figure of 28,800 gallons of groundwater infiltration into the pond per day, as predicted by the Applicant's expert witnesses, and the 100,000 gallon per day groundwater input predicted by Dr. Motz was used. For both cross- section locations examined by Dr. Leve, the discharge of 28,000 gallons per day at the wetland boundary would raise groundwater levels by approximately three inches. The discharge of 100,000 gallons per day at the same locations through the irrigation system would increase water levels by approximately nine inches. These calculations ware based upon the discharge of the groundwater inputs into the storm water pond only. Discharge additionally of the inputs from storm water runoff from the surface of the landfill into the pond and then through the irrigation system would also be delivered into the wetlands as warranted. Additionally, a berm system will prevent surface water runoff from entering the north dirt borrow area. A berm will be constructed at the eastern boundary of the north borrow area to maintain an interior water elevation of 125 feet or one foot above the natural ground, whichever is higher. Water levels will thus be maintained at the north borrow area so that there will be no lowering or de-watering of the groundwater table. Additionally, storm water will be diverted by berms along the west end of both the Class I and Class III landfills upgradient and into the wetlands, so that the adjoining wetlands receive significant surface water recharge that previously did not flow into those wetlands. Mitigation A mitigation plan was proposed for purposes of both the dredge and fill permit application and, in the solid waste landfill application, for the MSSW permitting. It was incorporated into the draft dredge and fill permit and draft landfill permit incorporated in the Department's Notice of Intent to issue. The mitigation plan and other measures will offset the impacts from filling and other activities caused by the project in both the dredge and fill and MSSW jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The proposed mitigation measures include the creation of 4.76 acres of new wetlands; the irrigation of the wetlands surrounding the Class I and Class III storm water ponds, as delineated above, and the diversion of surface water around the landfills into the wetlands to aid in their recharge. A high quality, forested wetland will be created utilizing the reliable method of mulching and, an extensive hardwood planting program which will include red maple, sweetgum, cypress and tupelo trees. The created wetland will contain deep water and transitional zones. The area will be monitored to insure 80 percent survival of the trees planted and routine maintenance will be performed. Approval of this mitigation plan and any issuance of the permits should include the requirement that rapid replanting be done to replace any dead trees and such approval should also be conditioned on the use of the largest trees possible to be planted, by appropriate tree planting equipment, so that the beneficial uptake and filtering functions, as well as wildlife habitat functions of such hardwood wetlands can begin operating as a mitigatory factor as soon as possible. The created wetland area will replace lost wetlands with a wetland type of higher quality and potentially higher habitat function, depending upon the maturity of the trees planted (see above condition). The wetland replacement ratio attendant to the creation of this wetland area is proposed to be 2.8:1 and the permit should be conditioned on at least that ratio being observed in the mitigation wetland installation plan. Although there was some testimony critical of the wetland creation proposal because it would alter 4.76 acres of uplands which might be of significance to the wildlife in the area, in fact the site of the mitigation area is currently pine plantation which has been greatly altered from its natural state. It does not currently provide high quality upland wildlife habitat. Additionally, only 30-40 percent of the uplands on the entire tract will be altered by the entire project construction proposed. This leaves a majority of the uplands presently on the site in their current condition to the extent that it serves as wildlife habitat at the present time. A conversion of the subject area into a high quality hardwood forest wetland, which would remain bordered by upland on one side in any event, will not have any significant impact on the present value of the mitigation areas as habitat. Wetlands Assessment and Impacts Through the use of consultant personnel skilled in the fields of surveying, biology and botany, the Applicant established jurisdictional lines demarcating the boundaries of DER jurisdiction for dredge and fill permitting purposes and MSSW permitting purposes in the field and adduced evidence of those boundaries at the hearing. The jurisdictional lines established were conservative in the sense that they reflect the jurisdictional standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is generally landward of the lines which would be established by the plant communities characteristic of DER dredge and fill and Water Management District MSSW jurisdiction. The locations of the flags as placed by the biology-botany consultant were then professionally surveyed and plotted by a trained surveyor such that the jurisdictional line was signed and sealed as a "specific purpose of survey." Further, a biologist met with the surveyors weekly to review the plotted line to ensure accuracy. That survey was submitted to the Department in connection with the applications herein. The Department supports that jurisdictional determination in this proceeding. The Department's own jurisdictional determination staff members were on the sites of the jurisdictional determinations for approximately eight days. The location of the wetland jurisdictional line for purposes of MSSW permitting has not been challenged by Petitioners, and no evidence regarding MSSW jurisdiction has been presented by Petitioners in this proceeding. The wetlands jurisdictional survey prepared by the Petitioners, however, showed "new" DER jurisdictional wetlands which would represent, if accepted, an alteration of the DER jurisdictional wetland boundary. Additionally, the challenge to the DER. jurisdictional determination is restricted by the Petitioners to the area around the Class I landfill footprint and its associated storm water pond. No evidence has been presented regarding the jurisdictional determination for the remainder of the site and project, including the access road. Witness Don Garlic has a degree in marine biology with additional coursework and training in the field of botany, including field training in wetland species. He visited the site for seven days for the purpose of critiquing the dredge and fill DER jurisdictional line established by the Applicant and offered as proof by the Applicant in this proceeding. In the 2-3 mile segment of the jurisdictional line around the Class I landfill and associated storm water pond, Mr. Garlick opined that there were three gaps 18-20 feet wide where he did not agree with the dredge and fill jurisdictional line determination. These areas represented by the gaps, if the gaps were determined to be jurisdictional, would add rather long, linear features of putative wetlands to the jurisdictional wetlands already encompassed by the proposed Class I portion of the project. They would add approximately 1/2 acre of additional DER jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the project. The Petitioners, however, did not establish the duration of water flow at any of the areas in which dredge and fill jurisdiction was contested. Mr. Garlick stated that water was flowing each of the seven days he was on the site, from March 28 to May 8, 1991, but stated that it was raining when he was there on April 23. He did not review rainfall data to determine whether it had rained prior to any of his visits. Likewise, he was not shown to have reviewed any groundwater data or to have performed any tests to ascertain groundwater levels in relation to claiming jurisdiction over the disputed Areas A, B, C and D depicted on Petitioners' Exhibit 8. This site has not experienced a prolonged drought. For the period 1988 through the hearing, only the latter portion of 1990 reflected a significant lack of rainfall based on rainfall data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office (NOAA) at the U.S. Navy's nearby Cecil Field, as well as the Jacksonville International Airport. Nineteen eighty-eight, in fact, had above-average rainfall of 61 inches. The Class I landfill area was originally "flagged" in September and early October 1989. July, August and September 1989 were months of above average rainfall. September 1989 had 14 inches of rain, twice the normal rainfall. Nineteen ninety had slightly less than half of its average rainfall for the year, although it started out with normal rainfall and became dry in the fall months. There has since been twice the normal rainfall for the few months of 1991 prior to the hearing. A drought of the type and duration experienced in the latter part of 1990 would have had no significant effect on the plants at the sites in question (sites A, B, C and D). They are perennial plants that remain year-round and therefore are adapted to drought and flood conditions. (T-2047) 1/ The Applicant's jurisdictional determination based upon dominant plant species, established by its consultant in evidence was based upon perennial plant species. Therefore, the hydrological conditions on the site were normal ones when these areas were originally reviewed in 1989 and the jurisdictional delineations established and the conditions found at the site shortly prior to the hearing in March through early May 1991 by Mr. Garlick were unusually wet conditions and do not reflect the normal conditions prevailing at the site. Mr. Byron Peacock was accepted as an expert in wetlands ecology and botany with a B.S. degree in each of those disciplines, with emphasis on Florida wetland species, especially with regard to Florida fresh water wetlands. Mr. Peacock is quite familiar with the site, having been to the site "dozens of times" since September 1989, almost every month for a 21-month period. Mr. Godley, another of Applicant's expert witnesses, also visited the areas put into contention by Mr. Garlick in his testimony for purposes of testifying in rebuttal and also concluded that these areas were not jurisdictional for purposes of the DER's dredge and fill jurisdiction. Mr. Mike Eaton of DER visited at least one of the areas or sites in contention and was of the same opinion. Mr. Garlick had relied on flowing water being present and the plants present to determine that Area A, a ditch along Hells Bay Road, was a jurisdictional wetland area. The areas on both sides are upland. Mr. Garlick testified that there were breaks in the vegetation in Area A and that the vegetation was sufficient to establish a connection. Area A does not contain sufficient water to support a dominance of listed wetland species under either the "a or b tests," as provided in Rule 17-301.400(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. There is upland vegetation growing all the way across the ditch on both sides at its connecting point and point of discharge to dredge and fill wetlands. If the ditch held water it would be wettest at this point of discharge into the jurisdictional wetlands, but the ditch does not contain water on a regular and periodic basis, as established by the testimony of Mr. Peacock. Therefore, the water observed in the ditch by Mr. Garlick would have been surface water runoff from the recent high rainfall. Concerning Area B in the Class I storm water pond footprint, Mr. Garlick indicated that he relied on herbaceous wetland plants as a basis for his finding of that as a jurisdictional area. He used the "b test" vegetation method of at least 80 percent transitional plants, less than 10 percent submerged or upland species, as well as the presence of "other indicators" of regular and periodic inundation for that Area B for purposes of the rule cited last above. Area B is a logging road and lies between upland stands of planted pines. It has been used as a road within the past year and there are "rutted- out" or gouged areas in the road caused by vehicular traffic which have puddled water, but between the puddles are areas dominated by upland vegetation. There is also a clear vegetative break in jurisdiction at the point where Area B connects to the jurisdictional line at Area B's southern end. The vegetation at that connecting point is a mixture of red. root, a transitional plant and many upland species, the dominant one being amphicarpum muhlenbergianum, which looks similar to red root in the field. Mr. Garlick testified that red root was the predominant plant in Area B. Mr. Garlick may have mistaken amphicarpum muhlenberqianum for red root. He was not familiar with that upland species and did not know if it was found at the site. A review of photographs from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s showed that Area B had historically always been uplands. The evidence shows that this area holds water only in limited areas following rainfall and that there is no hydrological, "a or b test" vegetative connection between these areas and jurisdictional waters of the State. Area C, located on the west side of the present West Fiftone Road, also contains part of an old road bed, as well as a ditch. Area C was determined to be within MSSW jurisdiction by the Applicant, but was also claimed as a dredge and fill jurisdictional area by Mr. Garlick for the Petitioner. Mr. Garlick indicated in his testimony that plants in Area C were mixed transitional and submerged species, but were sufficient to make out the area as within DER jurisdiction, based upon those plants. He also testified that different parts of Area C met the "a test" or the "b test." The ditch on the eastern side of Area C is dominated by upland vegetation, including amphicarpum grass, slash pine and goldenrod. The slash pines growing in the ditch, as shown by a photograph in evidence, were several years old. This ditch was dry on all of Mr. Peacock's visits to the site except recently during heavy rains. The remainder of Area C is characterized by a canopy of slash pines, a subcanopy of titi shrub of an upland type, with less than ten percent of the vegetation being characterized by bay and tupelos. There is a ground cover over most of that area consisting of upland species such as chokeberry, gallberry and reindeer moss. This area was determined to be jurisdictional for MSSW purposes because of a wet area in the middle containing fetter bush and sweet gallberry, which are both transitional species for jurisdictional purposes. The entire Area C was delineated as MSSW in the permit application, even though it may not all be jurisdictional, simply for ease of delineation and survey. The MSSW wetland areas within Area C, however, have no vegetative or hydrologic connection to the dredge and fill jurisdictional wetlands. Area C thus does not contain sufficient water or vegetation under either the A or B test connected with other jurisdictional areas to be considered jurisdictional for purposes of the DER's dredge and fill jurisdiction. Area D consists of a rutted trail-road used on a regular basis by persons visiting the tract. There is an upland pine plantation on either side of the roadway. Mr. Garlick contended there was a "flow way" in Area D, but that the vegetation was spotty or sporadic. During the past 21 months, Area D was dry every time Mr. Peacock was on the site, except recently after prolonged, heavy rains. At the eastern end of Area D near its connection to Area C, there is a patch of upland amphicarpum grass, growing all the way across the ditch and road. There is also the presence of beak rush, an upland plant which looks similar to submerged rush. There is insufficient water or wetland vegetation under either the a or b test to establish that this Area D is jurisdictional. The evidence thus did not support the Petitioner's contention that additional dredge and fill wetlands would be impacted by the project. The areas claimed by the Petitioners as additional jurisdictional wetlands did not contain sufficient water to be determined jurisdictional, pursuant to DER Rule 17-301, Florida Administrative Code. These areas held water only at certain times of the year in direct response to heavy or frequent rainfall and were normally influenced, that is, fed, by surface water rather than groundwater. Likewise, these areas did not contain sufficient plant species in the canopy, subcanopy or ground cover to be considered jurisdictional pursuant to vegetation indices and procedures delineated in Rule 17- 301.400(1)(a) or (b), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Mike Eaton of DER testified and established a 1990 DER policy embodied in a memorandum admitted into evidence explaining how the Department employs the above-cited rule for purposes of using hydric soils in making dredge and fill jurisdictional determinations. Both Mr. Eaton and the DER policy in evidence established that hydric soils are not used by the Department except as an indicator of regular and periodic inundation once "b test" vegetation has been determined to be present for purposes of the above rule. Mr. Garlick testified that he used hydric soils as a "back up" to jurisdictional determinations based upon hydrology and plants. He did not identify any area where his jurisdictional determination was based on soils alone. The Department policy memorandum in evidence emphasizes the importance, in jurisdictional determinations with hydric soils as an aid, of not merely determining whether the soil in question is hydric, but also of investigating the specific characteristics of the soil profile, which the Department maintains must be performed by a soils scientist. Mr. Carlisle, a soil scientist, visited the site and took samples of the areas indicated by Mr. Garlick. These locations were located in an approximate fashion by Mr. Garlick on Petitioner's Exhibit 8 at the hearing. Thirty-four of the 35 samples taken were determined to be hydiric by Dr. Carlisle. There are, however, breaks of up to approximately 525 feet between the hydric soils test findings in Areas A, B and D and yet the distance between one hydric and non-hydric soil test finding was shown to be approximately 50 feet. No soil samples were taken by Dr. Carlisle in Area C. These samples are found to provide an insufficient basis for determining the presence of hydric soils throughout Areas A-D. Additionally, Areas A-D did not contain areas of "b test" vegetation contiguous to other jurisdictional areas. Therefore, even if hydric soils had been present throughout these areas, these soils standing alone, without supporting "b test" vegetation, are insufficient to establish jurisdiction in the areas maintained to be so by Mr. Garlick. General Wetland Impacts This project will impact wetlands subject to the DER jurisdiction and which are jurisdictional for MSSW purposes under Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code, the rules of the St. Johns River Water Management District. Thus, a dredge and fill permit is required pursuant to Section 403.91 et seq., Florida Statutes, and DER Rule 17-312, Florida Administrative Code. Areas subject to DER dredge and fill jurisdiction and MSSW permitting jurisdiction are considered pursuant to DER Rules 17- 301 and 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code. The 1,288 acre site contains approximately 550 acres of wetland, much of which contains planted pines as well as some naturally occurring pines, as well as hardwood swamp, cypress and gum swamp, seepage slope, ditches and swales. Virtually all of the wetlands have been adversely affected in some way by the forestry practices which have occurred and are still occurring on the site. Most of the sloughs and natural flow-ways have been channelized. Ditching has drained the adjacent wetlands and significantly altered the hydrology of the entire wetland system on the site. The wetland known as Hells Bay Swamp, immediately east of the landfills, is currently being clear cut by the Gilman Paper Company. The 550 acres of wetlands are jurisdictional for either dredge and fill or MSSW purposes or both. Some 3.17 acres of MSSW wetlands will be impacted by project construction; 1.61 acres of these are also dredge and fill wetlands. The 1.61 acres of the impacted dredge and fill and MSSW wetlands consist of roadside ditches along the Hells Bay Road and a road on the north side of the Class I landfill. These roads are currently subject to logging traffic, which decreases the usage of the roadways and ditches by wildlife. Consequently, the master of species present and using these ditches is limited. In addition to the 1.61 acres of ditches, the impacted MSSW wetlands also include 0.16 acres of wetland ditches along the entrance road in proximity to dredge and fill wetlands, a 0.80 acre isolated cypress head wetland located within the footprint of the Class I landfill and a 0.60 acre wetland located along West Fiftone Road extending into the south border of the Class I landfill footprint. The 0.80 acre cypress head has already been impacted by a logging road or fire break, and ditches have been constructed through the interior of it. The larger cypresses have been logged, and the remaining vegetation is sparse, rendering it of little quality as habitat for fish and wildlife. The 0.60 acre wetland extending into the south border of the Class I landfill is an old road bed with evidence of ruts from vehicular traffic depicted on photographs in evidence. This area has a slash pine canopy and is dominated by titi shrubs, with a few black gum and traditional wetland plant species such as fetter bush and gallberry in disconnected areas. It is a low quality wetland of scant value as habitat for fish or wildlife. Prior to and during construction, as a condition on a grant of the permits, all wetlands on the site will be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excessive deposition of turbidity, de-watering or other construction and operationally-related impacts by the installation and use of siltation barriers placed at wetland boundaries. Because of the significant possibility of the impacts mentioned above, especially siltation and turbidity, to the wetlands during the construction phase of the facilities and attendant to ultimate operation of the landfill itself, grant of the permit should be conditioned on acceptance of monthly inspections by DER enforcement personnel once construction has begun. Wildlife and Archaeological Resource Impacts Wildlife surveys were conducted by expert witness Isaac Rhodes Robinson and members of his staff, as well as by Biological Research Associates, Inc. in the months preceding the hearing. Mr. Robinson and the biologists on his staff spent approximately 1,000 man hours surveying the site, and Mr. Robinson, accepted as an expert in wildlife ecology and wetland ecology, testified on behalf of the Applicant in this proceeding. Assessments of the site were performed by reviewing relevant literature as well as conducting field surveys for both upland and wetland species. No evidence was found of any threatened or endangered species on the site. Mr. Robinson and his staff conducted surveys in 1990 and in early 1991 and biologists from Mr. Robinson's staff were present on the site at various times from September 1989 through the time of the hearing. Surveys performed by Mr. Robinson and his personnel were conducted in accordance with Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) guidelines and exceeded that agency's guidelines by surveying 100 percent of the upland areas. No testimony of any witness in this proceeding indicated any physical evidence of use of the site by any endangered or threatened species. Wildlife surveys revealed a shall colony of gopher tortoises, listed as a species of special concern by the FGFWFC in a marginal habitat zone on the extreme western boundary of the Class I disposal area. The colony consists of less than ten individuals and there will not be a significant impact to the tortoises because the individuals will be trapped and relocated to a more suitable habitat on another area of he Applicant's tract, which will be undisturbed by the landfill or its operations, or else to a suitable habitat area off-site, as directed by the FGFWFC. Jay Stephen Godley was accepted as an expert in wildlife ecology and wetlands ecology. He directed an independent assessment of the site and project's impacts. The assessment included reviewing permitting documents, aerial photographs and literature pertaining to wildlife use of the site, as well as over 90 man hours spent at the site. He confirmed that the small population of gopher tortoises was the only significant species on the site and that the project would not significantly impact any listed wildlife species. Extensive trapping and investigation of gopher tortoise and armadillo burrows reveal no evidence of listed "commensal" species, or those species commonly found in association with gopher tortoises, such as Florida mice, gopher frogs, Florida pine snakes, or Eastern indigo snakes. In additions the isolated cypress head in the Class I landfill footprint was sampled for gopher frog tadpoles, and none were found. Florida pine snakes prefer scrub or sand hill habitats, neither of which are found on the site. Pine flatwoods environments, without the presence of either sand hill or scrub habitat, like this site, are not good indigo snake habitat. No indigo snakes' shed skins or other evidence of indigo snake frequency were observed on the site. Indigo snakes are large black snakes which are active during daylight hours and easy to observe in the course of extensive surveys such as those that were conducted for purposes of this project. Considering the amount of time spent by the various biologists on the site, it is quite likely that indigo snakes would have been observed if they frequented this site. The project will have no significant impact on wading birds. All wetlands were surveyed for listed bird species for a minimum of five days using FGFWFC guidelines. No wading birds were observed on the site during the 21 month period of review by Mr. Robinson's firm. The existence of the wood stork, bald eagle or Florida sand hill crane was not established on this site and is considered unlikely by the expert witnesses, whose opinions are accepted. No eagle nests were observed and, since the tree cover provides very limited extent of open water, the site is less than satisfactory as habitat for the little blue heron, snowy egret and Louisiana heron. The only wading bird observed by the Petitioner's expert witness on wildlife issues was a little blue heron observed in a wetland area east of the site, which is off the site being purchased by the Applicant and which was recently clear-cut by the Gilman Paper Company. The project will have no significant adverse impact on the Florida black bear's habitat. The black bear is a threatened species, but black bears do not use the site. No evidence was presented that black bears have ever been present on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. No witness, including Mr. Goodowns, an employee of Gilman Paper Company who has frequently visited and worked on this site over many years, has ever observed a black bear or any sign of a black bear present on the site. Bee hives have been kept at the site since at least 1969 and, although these are very attractive to black bears, they have never been known to have disturbed the hives, nor has it ever been necessary for bee keepers to erect electric fences or other devices to protect the hives from bears. The site presently is not far isolated from human activity, which fact deters the use of it as a habitat or an occasional travel way for black bears. It is located in an area completely enclosed by I-10, State Roads 228 and U.S. Highway 301, all heavily traveled public highways, as well as in close proximity to the town of Maxville, approximately two miles away, and Macclenny, approximately five miles away. Highways with high traffic volumes are significant barriers to movements of black bears, rendering it even less likely that black bears have or will frequent the site. The only evidence of potential black bear presence anywhere near the site presented by the Petitioners was the site's position near the Osceola Black Bear Range, as interpreted from one published article, as well as indication of three bear road kills from six to 15 miles away from the site, and supposed black bear movements recorded by the FGFWFC, all represented on a hand-drawn map, only admitted a corroborative hearsay pursuant to Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. The map exhibit contained the expert's own redrawing of his interpretation of the extent of the Osceola Black Bear Range from the article he referenced, which itself was not offered into evidence. Bear movements depicted on the map really consisted of those of a bear apprehended by the FGFWF and released in the area. The map did not show any roads, therefore making location and distances to the reported road kills speculative at best. Because black bears do not use this site and because of its encirclement by significant human activity, the site is not significant as a bear dispersal corridor or travelway between the Osceola Forest bear population and the Ocala Forest population. No direct evidence by radio-telemetry data or otherwise was offered to show that black bears actually move between the Osceola and Ocala Forest populations, nor particularly that they move through the area in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Construction of the landfill would not prevent the movement or foraging of black bears through the site. Neither fencing nor presence of traffic on the landfill access roads only during daylight hours would prevent such movement. It is also unlikely that bears would likely be hit by traffic on the roads because the noisy trucks which will use the road would provide ample warning to bear's of any danger from traffic so they would avoid it. If the landfill were constructed on this site, less than one-half of 5/100 of one percent of the 3,800 square- mile area of the Osceola Black Bear Range, referenced by the Petitioners' expert witness, would be impacted. The site itself does not provide high quality black bear' foraging or denning habitat. Even the Petitioners' expert characterized it as "good" or "better than average" habitat. All but 3.17 acres of the area to be impacted by the project is upland, consisting primarily of pine flatwoods. Authoritative studies show that flatwoods are not heavily utilized by bears, which spend 70 percent of their time in swamp or wetland habitat. The 550 acres of wetlands, including approximately 280 acres of swamps, which will be left undisturbed on the site, will provide habitat and travel corridors for the black bears should any ever frequent the site. Additionally, the 4.76 acres of hardwood wetlands to be created as mitigation, would add high quality wetland habitat for black bears. Therefore, due to the extremely small area involved, the unlikelihood of use by black bears and the mitigation proposed, the landfill will have virtually no impact on black bear habitat, travelways or populations. The evidence thus established that the project will not have an adverse impact on endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Because the site has been under extensive commercial forest management and harvest operations for over forty years, the density of plant and animal life has been reduced, thus making the site as a whole, low quality wildlife habitat.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation approving Trail Ridge Landfill, Inc.'s applications for the above-referenced permits for the proposed solid waste management facility, including a solid waste management facility permit, a storm water/management and storage of surface waters permit and a dredge and fill permit, provided those mandatory conditions specified in the Notices of Intent to issue such permits, as well as those conditions found to be necessary in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are made mandatory conditions of permitting and subsequent facility operations. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September 1991.
The Issue Did Respondents violate Florida Administrative Code Rules 64E-6.010(5) and (7) by dumping untreated septage (untreated septic tank waste) onto the ground, instead of transporting it to an approved treatment facility? Did Respondents commit gross negligence, incompetence, and/or misconduct by dumping untreated septage onto the ground in violation of rule 64E-6.022(1)(n)? Did Respondents create a sanitary nuisance, exposing human and animal life to untreated human waste and endangering the public's health and safety by dumping untreated septage onto the ground in violation of rule 64E-6.022(1)(q)? If Respondents committed any of the offenses described above, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Casanova is a registered septic tank contractor, registration no. SR0041469. Mr. Casanova is the qualifying registered septic tank contractor for Busy Bee Septic, Inc. Mr. Casanova is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services through Busy Bee Septic, Inc., authorization no. SA0041225. Permit no. 36-QA-29343, issued by Lee County Health Department, authorizes Busy Bee to provide septage collection and disposal services. The permit authorizes Busy Bee to pump out septic tanks and transport septage collected from the tanks to an authorized disposal site. The permit does not authorize treatment of septage. It also requires Busy Bee to dispose of the septage at a permitted wastewater treatment facility. Carlos Casanova and Busy Bee are authorized to, and have provided, septic tank contractor services in Lee, Charlotte, and Collier Counties. The business operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Mr. Casanova and Busy Bee own and operate three 4,000-gallon septage collection trucks. Each truck has a passenger cab with a large tank behind it. Mr. Casanova delegates most field work to four male Busy Bee employees. Field work includes pumping septic tank contents into the trucks' tanks and transporting the septage to proper storage and disposal sites. Busy Bee is authorized to dispose of septage at Crews Environmental and Charlotte County Utility. On June 15, 2012, at approximately 10:45 p.m., a Busy Bee truck parked pointing east on the north side of Jacaranda Boulevard in Cape Coral, Lee County, Florida. Individuals with the truck ran a hose from the truck's tank into the wooded area beside Jacaranda Boulevard and discharged untreated septage into the wooded area through the hose. This is an area of palmetto and pine woods, with sandy soil. The water table lies about two feet below the surface. The next day the area where the contents of the Busy Bee truck had been discharged smelled strongly of sewage. Sewage sludge and bits of toilet paper were visible on the ground and palmetto fronds, along with marks in the dirt where the hose discharging the septage from the tanks had lain. Four days later, the 20-by-30-foot wooded area where the Busy Bee truck pumped out septage was still saturated with sewage and sludge. Traces of toilet paper remained, and the area still smelled of sewage. The hose marks remained also. The Busy Bee truck had discharged approximately 3000 gallons of septage into the area. The septage was soaking down through the sandy, porous soil to the groundwater. Septage discharged like this is a sanitary nuisance dangerous to human and animal life. It exposes animals and humans to pathogenic viruses. Eye witness testimony and photographs clearly and convincingly establish the presence of septage in the area alongside Jacaranda Boulevard. The same is true of the marks showing hoses had been run from the edge of the road to the area where the truck discharged the septage. The fact that a Busy Bee truck discharged septage onto the ground beside Jacaranda Boulevard the night of June 15, 2012, is also established by clear and convincing evidence. The evidence includes the very credible testimony of John Hendrick. The testimony of Laurie Hendrick corroborates his testimony. So, too, did photographs of the area where the septage was dumped and photographs of Busy Bee trucks. On June 15, 2012, Mr. and Ms. Hendrick were taking an evening drive in the area, which is close to their home, as was their custom. They both saw the truck when they first passed it. At that time, the truck was turning around on a side street. Mr. Hendrick was concerned when he saw the truck in a lightly populated residential area surrounded by wetlands. For this reason he drove past it again at the end of their drive to observe what the truck was doing and identify the name on the company's truck. Mr. Hendrick focused on identifying the truck by reading the name painted on it. The name Busy Bee was prominently displayed on the truck. Mr. Hendrick's testimony that Busy Bee was the name on the truck is credible, clear, and convincing for a number of reasons. He was paying close attention and concentrating on the name on the truck. Mr. Hendrick took the time needed to make sure he read the name. He slowed to 25 miles per hour to make sure that he could read the name. Although it was an evening, it was a summer evening, and there was enough light, especially with the aid of the car headlights. Mr. Hendrick's memory is clear and is his own. No one suggested the name Busy Bee to him. His emails the next day, trying to draw the authorities' attention to the septage discharge, identified the truck as a Busy Bee truck. Mr. Hendrick is also a trained observer. Before retiring, he worked 18-to-20 years in an emergency room where careful observation is an important skill. There is no indication that Mr. Hendrick's eyesight is impaired. Mr. Casanova argues that Mr. Hendrick's eyesight is deficient, because Mr. Hendrick had not had his eyes tested in three years. No evidence establishes that a person whose eyesight has not been tested in three years presumptively has impaired vision. Mr. Casanova also argues that because Mr. Hendrick expressed some uncertainty about the color scheme of the truck, his testimony about the name on the truck should be discounted. The argument is not persuasive. Mr. Hendrick focused on the name on the truck to make sure he could identify it. His memory of that focused observation is persuasive. Mr. Casanova's efforts to create the impression that Mr. Hendrick may have observed a truck of a septic tank contractor in Collier County with the name Beebe Septic were not persuasive for a number of reasons. The reasons include the fact that the Beebe name is not painted on the trucks and the fact that nothing in the name Beebe Septic resembles the "Busy" in Busy Bee. Mr. Casanova's other efforts to undermine the testimony of Mr. Hendrick are equally unpersuasive. Clear and convincing evidence proved that on the night of June 15, 2012, individuals operating a Busy Bee truck pumped untreated septage onto the ground adjacent to Jacaranda Boulevard in Cape Coral, Florida. The odor, the presence of toilet paper, the physical characteristics of the sludge, and the fact that the Busy Bee trucks were designed and permitted for transporting untreated septage establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the septage was untreated. The Department of Health has taken disciplinary action against Carlos Casanova three times in matters resolved by settlement agreements. The agreements expressly provide for consideration of them in subsequent disciplinary actions. On February 13, 2012, the Department entered Final Order No. DOH-12-0251-FOI-HST against Carlos Casanova imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 to resolve charges filed October 6, 2011. On February 13, 2012, the Department entered Final Order No. DOH-12-0252-FOI-HST against Carlos Casanova imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 to resolve charges filed on November 18, 2011. Finally, on February 13, 2012, the Department entered Final Order No. DOH-12-0253-FOI-HST against Carlos Casanova imposing a fine in the amount of $1,500 to resolve charges filed September 14, 2011.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order revoking the septage collection and disposal permits of Petitioners, Carlos M. Casanova and Busy Bee Septic, Inc., and revoking the septic tank contractor registration of Carlos M. Casanova. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 13th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issue in these consolidated cases is whether Respondent Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority ("FKAA") is entitled to issuance, by Respondent Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), of permit numbers 295404-018-DWC/CM ("Permit 18"), 295404-019-DWC/CM ("Permit 19"), 295404-025-DWC/CM ("Permit 25"), and 295404-027- DWC/CM ("Permit 27") (hereafter "Permits at Issue") authorizing the dryline construction of domestic wastewater collection and transmission systems in the lower Florida Keys.1/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Petitioner Dump the Pumps, Inc. ("DTP") is a not-for- profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Florida. DTP challenged the issuance of each of the Permits at Issue. Therefore, DTP is a Petitioner in each case in these consolidated proceedings. Petitioner Theresa Raven is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2415, challenging the issuance of Permit 18. Petitioner Daniel Fitch is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2415, challenging the issuance of Permit 18. Petitioner Jim Skura is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2416, challenging the issuance of Permit 19. Petitioner Margaret Schwing is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2417, challenging the issuance of Permit 27. Petitioner Gail Kulikowsky is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2417, challenging the issuance of Permit 27. Petitioner Deborah Curlee is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2420, challenging the issuance of Permit 25. Respondent Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority Respondent FKAA is a special district created by special act of the Florida Legislature. FKAA is charged with, among other things, providing wastewater service to the Florida Keys.4/ Ch. 98-519, Laws of Florida. Pursuant to this authority, FKAA is responsible for the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the CRWS. FKAA is the applicant for the Permits at Issue being sought to implement the CRWS. Respondent Department of Environmental Protection Respondent DEP is the state agency charged with administering the domestic wastewater program in Florida pursuant to chapter 403, Florida Statutes, Florida Administrative Code Chapters 62-4, 62-604, and 62-555, and various industry standards manuals incorporated by reference into DEP rules. DEP's proposed agency actions to grant the Permits at Issue are the subject of these proceedings. The Projects Background and Overview The projects at issue are proposed to be located in the Florida Keys, in Monroe County, Florida. In recognition of, and to protect, the Florida Keys' unique, sensitive ecology, Congress enacted the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act, designating the Florida Keys, including the submerged lands and waters and living marine resources within those lands and waters, a National Marine Sanctuary. To further protect the Keys' unique habitat and environmental resources, Congress also enacted the National Key Deer Refuge, designating much of Big Pine Key and other areas within the lower Florida Keys as a refuge for the conservation and management of the Key Deer and other wildlife. 16 U.S.C. § 696. The State of Florida also has recognized the need to protect the Florida Keys' unique, sensitive environmental resources. To that end, portions of the Florida Keys are designated by DEP rule as Outstanding Florida Waters. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.700(9). Additionally, the Florida Legislature has designated the Florida Keys an Area of Critical State Concern ("ACSC"). § 380.0552, Fla Stat. A stated purpose of the ACSC designation is to protect and improve the Florida Keys nearshore water quality through construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of section 403.086(10), Florida Statutes. § 380.0552(2)(i), Fla. Stat. The June 2000 Monroe County Sanitary Master Wastewater Plan ("Master Plan"), which was prepared as directed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, addressed elevated nutrient levels in Monroe County nearshore waters resulting from discharges of raw sewage and inadequately treated wastewater. A primary purpose of the Master Plan was to plan for a central wastewater collection and treatment system to serve portions of Monroe County. The Master Plan considered the potential use of a number of different types of wastewater systems, including gravity systems, vacuum systems, and low pressure systems. In 2003, Monroe County adopted Ordinance No. 027-2003, authorizing assessment of an annual wastewater fee on properties to be served by the wastewater facilities being installed to implement the Master Plan. In 2010, the Florida Legislature enacted section 403.086(10). In that statute, the Legislature found that the discharge of inadequately treated and managed domestic wastewater from small wastewater facilities and septic tanks and other onsite systems in the Florida Keys compromises the coastal environment, including the nearshore and offshore waters, and threatens the quality of life and local economies that depend on these resources. The statute further finds that the only practical and cost-effective way to improve wastewater management in the Florida Keys is for the local governments in Monroe County——which includes FKAA——to timely complete the wastewater and sewage treatment and disposal facilities pursuant to the Master Plan. To that end, the statute mandates that certain wastewater facilities identified in the Master Plan, including those at issue in these proceedings, be completed by December 31, 2015. To implement the Master Plan and this legislative mandate, Monroe County and FKAA entered into an interlocal agreement, which establishes and specifies FKAA's responsibilities to design, construct, operate, and maintain the central wastewater collection and treatment system. The CRWS is a component of this central wastewater collection and treatment system. It will serve the Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Service Area, which covers portions of Lower Sugarloaf Key, Upper Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key, Little Torch Key, and Big Pine Key. The CRWS consists of three elements: a collection system, which collects wastewater from serviced properties; a transmission system, which transmits wastewater from the collection system to the treatment plant; and a wastewater treatment plant. These proceedings only involve challenges to certain components of the wastewater collection system. The transmission system permit previously was challenged, but that case was dismissed before the final hearing.5/ The wastewater treatment plant is not at issue in these proceedings. Project Planning and Design In furtherance of its responsibilities under the Monroe County interlocal agreement and the 2010 legislation, FKAA engaged Mathews Consulting, Inc. ("Mathews") to undertake planning, design analysis, and preliminary design for the CRWS wastewater collection systems. Mathews prepared the Central Cudjoe Regional Wastewater Collection System Analysis of Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems, dated February 2009 ("Mathews Report"), setting forth the planning and design analysis for implementing the wastewater collection systems portion of the CRWS. A key aim of this analysis was to identify a cost-effective wastewater collection system design, considering project magnitude, physical features of the islands being served, system reliability, operational costs, and socioeconomic factors.6/ In arriving at the proposed design for the CRWS wastewater collection system, Mathews engaged in an exhaustive analysis of the reliability, functional feasibility, physical features and impacts, and affordability of various types of collection systems, including gravity systems, vacuum systems, low pressure systems, septic tank effluent pump systems, and onsite nutrient reduction systems.7/ System reliability, which encompasses environmental considerations, was a fundamental threshold consideration in Mathews' analysis. As part of its analysis of various types of wastewater collection systems, Mathews concluded that low pressure systems are reliable. Based on the Mathews Report, FKAA concluded that, given system reliability, a hybrid system constituted the best alternative for the CRWS. A hybrid system was the most cost- effective system over the 20-year planning horizon and fit within Monroe County's budget of approximately $150 million allocated for the project.8/ Facilities Authorized by the Permits at Issue The CRWS wastewater collection system is a hybrid system because it does not consist of only one type of wastewater system, but instead consists of a combination of types of systems. Specifically, the CRWS consists both of a gravity system, which is being implemented in more densely populated service areas, and a low pressure system, which is being implemented in remote, less populated service areas. These proceedings involve challenges to certain components of the low pressure system portion of the wastewater collection system. The low pressure system at issue in these proceedings consists of multiple components: a residential grinder pump and wet well located on each serviced property; a service pipe lateral from each residential grinder pump wet well to a local force main, which runs beneath the public right of way and conveys the wastewater to the neighborhood lift station; neighborhood/area lift stations containing additional grinder pumps to pump wastewater from the serviced neighborhoods or areas; and transmission mains to convey wastewater from the neighborhood or area lift stations to the wastewater treatment plant. Of these components, all but the transmission mains have been challenged by Petitioners as not meeting the applicable permitting requirements and standards. Permit 19 authorizes the dryline construction of the Upper Sugarloaf Key wastewater collection system. The project consists of 9,300 linear feet ("LF") of eight-inch polyvinylchloride ("PVC") SDR 26 gravity sanitary sewer; 31 sanitary manholes; two neighborhood grinder pump stations; 121 E/One simplex grinder pump stations and 13 E/One duplex grinder pump stations; 27,253 LF of two-inch force main; 1,837 LF of three-inch force main; and 4,737 LF of four-inch force main. Permit 19 constitutes a modification of a previously issued permit, Permit 6, which originally permitted the wastewater collection system for Upper Sugarloaf Key.9/ Permit 19 was sought because after Permit 6 was issued, Monroe County opted to fund additional gravity components of the Upper Sugarloaf Key wastewater collection system. Accordingly, Permit 19 has the effect of increasing the number of gravity sanitary sewer components (which are not at issue in these proceedings) and decreasing the number of low pressure system components of the Upper Sugarloaf Key wastewater collection system. Permit No. 25 authorizes the dryline construction of a wastewater collection system on Cudjoe Key. The project consists of 58,825 LF of eight-inch PVC gravity sanitary sewer; 222 sanitary manholes; 20 neighborhood grinder pump stations; 63 residential E/One low pressure simplex grinder pump stations and 11 E/One duplex grinder pump stations for commercial areas; 28,815 LF of two-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 8,615 LF of three- inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 1,488 LF of four-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 1,298 LF of six-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; and 2,316 LF of eight-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main. Permit 25 constitutes a modification of a previously issued permit, Permit 8, which originally permitted the wastewater collection system for Cudjoe Key.10/ Permit 25 has the effect of increasing the number of gravity sanitary sewer components (which are not at issue) and decreasing the number of low pressure system components of the Cudjoe Key wastewater collection system. Permits 19 and 25 collectively comprise the "inner islands" portion of the CRWS. Permit 18 authorizes the dryline construction of the Big Pine Key North wastewater collection system, to be located in north Big Pine Key. The project consists of 28,375 LF of eight- inch PVC gravity sanitary sewer; 108 sanitary manholes; six neighborhood grinder pump stations; 1,053 residential E/One low pressure simplex grinder pump stations; 11 commercial low pressure lateral connections; 5,267 LF of two-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 3,942 LF of three-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 11,918 LF of four- inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 1,588 LF of six-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 236 LF of eight-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 69,403 LF of two-inch low pressure HDPE SDR 11 force main; 31,065 LF of three-inch HD3PE SDR 11 force main; 5,228 LF of four-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; and 3,977 LF of six-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main.11/ Permit 27 authorizes the dryline construction of the Big Pine Key South wastewater collection system, to be located on south Big Pine Key.12/ The project consists of 59,651 LF of eight- inch PVC gravity sanitary sewer; 222 sanitary manholes; 15 neighborhood grinder pump stations; 355 residential E/One low pressure simplex grinder pump stations; 101 commercial low pressure lateral connections; 10,521 LF of two-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 14,155 LF of three-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 14,207 LF of four-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 5,339 LF of six-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; 43,771 LF of two-inch low pressure HDPE SDR 11 force main; 13,481 LF of 3-inch HDPE SDR 11 force main; and 317 LF of four-inch SDR 11 force main. Permits 18 and 27 collectively comprise the "outer islands" portion of the CRWS. The Permitting Process The Notification/Application for Constructing a Domestic Wastewater Collection/Transmission System, which has been adopted by DEP rule,13/ is the application form that must be completed and submitted to DEP to receive authorization to construct a domestic wastewater collection and transmission system. The overarching purpose of the dryline construction permitting process is to ensure that the collection/transmission system is designed in accordance with applicable DEP rule standards, which incorporate reasonable industry standards, so that once the system becomes operational, it functions as intended and does not harm the environment. The application form includes a list of 84 requirements, some——but not necessarily all——of which apply to a specific project. The form requires the applicant's certifying engineer to initial the space next to each applicable requirement, signifying that the requirement is met. The application form also requires the engineer responsible for preparing the engineering documents to sign and seal the application, signifying that the engineer is in responsible charge of the preparation and production of the engineering documents for the project; that the plans and specifications for the project have been completed; that the engineer has expertise in the design of wastewater collection/transmission systems; and that to the best of the engineer's knowledge and belief, the engineering design complies with the requirements of chapter 62-604.14/ Once the application form is submitted, DEP permitting staff reviews the application and determines whether items on the application form and any materials submitted to support those items are incomplete or need clarification. In that event, staff sends the applicant a request for additional information ("RAI"), requesting the applicant to provide additional information to address incomplete or unclear aspects of the application. Once the applicant has provided information sufficient to enable DEP to determine whether to issue or deny the permit, DEP determines the application complete and reviews the project for substantive compliance with all applicable statutory and rule permitting requirements. DEP is authorized to issue the permit, with such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides reasonable assurance, based on the information provided in the application, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules proposed in the application. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.070(1). If the applicant fails to provide such reasonable assurance, the permit must be denied. Conversely, if the applicant provides such reasonable assurance, it is legally entitled to the permit and DEP must issue the permit. Once the dryline collection/transmission system has been constructed, the permittee must obtain certification from DEP to operate the system as a wetline that pumps wastewater to the treatment plant. To obtain certification, the permittee must provide DEP with an operation and maintenance ("O & M") manual establishing the operation and maintenance protocol for use of the system. Proposed Wastewater Collections Systems FKAA, as the applicant for the Permits at Issue, retained Mathews to design the wastewater collection systems for the "inner islands" and to prepare and submit the applications for these systems to DEP on FKAA's behalf.15/ In preparing the applications for these wastewater collection systems, David Mathews, a licensed professional engineer in Florida employed with Mathews Consulting, completed the application forms for each system. In doing so, Mathews initialed the application checklist, indicating that all applicable requirements were met; signed and sealed the application documents where and as required; and signed and sealed the certification that he is the engineer in responsible charge of the preparation and production of the engineering documents for the project. Initialing the checklist also indicates that the plans and specifications for the project were complete; that Mathews has expertise in the design of wastewater collection/transmission systems; and that to the best of Mathews' knowledge and belief, the engineering design for the application complies with the requirements of chapter 62-604. Mathews submitted the application for the Upper Sugarloaf wastewater collection system16/ to DEP on March 13, 2014, and submitted the application for the Cudjoe Key wastewater collection system17/ to DEP on April 3, 2014. FKAA retained Chen Moore and Associates ("Chen Moore") as the design engineer and Layne Heavy Civil as the contractor for the wastewater collection systems for the "outer islands." On behalf of FKAA as the applicant, Chen Moore prepared and submitted the applications for these systems.18/ Oscar Bello, a licensed professional engineer in Florida, previously employed by Chen Moore,19/ prepared and completed the application forms for each wastewater collection system for the outer islands. In doing so, Bello initialed the application checklist, indicating that all applicable requirements were met; signed and sealed the application documents where and as required; and signed and sealed the certification that he is the engineer in responsible charge of the preparation and production of the engineering documents for the project. Initialing the checklist also indicated that the plans and specifications for the project were complete; that Bello has expertise in the design of wastewater collection/transmission systems; and that to the best of Bello's knowledge and belief, the engineering design for the application complies with the requirements of chapter 62-604. Chen Moore submitted the application for the north Big Pine Key wastewater collection system20/ to DEP on February 12, 2014, and submitted the application for the south Big Pine Key wastewater collection system on April 21, 2014.21/ Each wastewater collection system proposed in the applications is comprised of a gravity system and a low pressure system. As previously noted, the gravity systems are proposed for use in the more densely populated portions of the areas to be serviced by the systems, and the low pressure systems are proposed for use in the less densely populated areas to be serviced by the system. The low pressure systems are comprised in part of progressive cavity pumps manufactured by Environment One Corporation referred to as "E/One" grinder pumps. Each residence served by a low pressure system will be served by an E/One grinder pump and wet well housing the grinder pump located on the serviced property.22/ The grinder pump and wet well are buried, with the top portion positioned slightly above ground to vent gases and prevent surface water flow into the wet well. The grinder pump contained within the wet well is continuously submerged. The pump is connected to an electrical panel inside or outside of the residence, so that the residence provides the electricity to power the pump. Wastewater from the residence flows through a service line into the wet well housing the grinder pump. Once the wastewater reaches a certain level in the wet well, the pump turns on and pumps the wastewater out of the wet well into the force main located under the neighborhood street. E/One grinder pumps are used in wastewater collection systems throughout the United States, including low pressure systems located in other parts of the Florida Keys. They are recognized in the Alternative Wastewater Collection Systems manual, a 1991 publication of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, as appropriate for use in low pressure wastewater collection systems. To prevent wastewater backflow into the residential wet wells, check or safety valves are located in the lines conveying the wastewater from the wet wells and at the street right-of-way where the service lines connect to the neighborhood force main. The low pressure systems also contain piping components consisting of service laterals, local force mains, and transmission mains, of various diameters comprised of extruded high density polyethylene ("HDPE"). HDPE pipes are flexible and are pieced together by welding section ends together. They do not have joints with rubber gaskets, which may shrink, deteriorate, or leak over time. Due to their flexibility, HPDE pipes can be horizontally drilled under roadways and wetlands, eliminating the need to disturb the surface and to dewater in order to lay the pipes. As such, these pipes are particularly suitable for projects in which the pipes will be placed in areas having roadways or surface development, or in areas that are environmentally sensitive or have a high water table, such as the Florida Keys. The low pressure systems also feature neighborhood/area lift stations. The residential grinder pumps generate sufficient force to pump the wastewater collected in the neighborhood force mains to neighborhood/area lift stations.23/ Each lift station contains a series of submersible grinder pumps that activate based on wastewater level in the lift station. The lift stations are designed and located to pump wastewater from the serviced neighborhoods or areas to transmission mains that ultimately convey the wastewater to the treatment plant. For each of the proposed wastewater collection systems, the system capacity exceeds 100 gallons per day per capita. Exceeding the 100 gallons per day flow quantity is permissible, per the application form, if the applicant is able to better estimate the flow using water use data or other justification. Here, FKAA estimated the stated system capacity for each application based on historic actual water use data, which provides a more accurate estimate of wastewater system capacity; accordingly, the proposed systems are not limited to a design capacity of 100 gallons per day per capita. Review and Proposed Issuance of the Permits at Issue Upon receiving the applications from Mathews Consulting and Chen Moore, DEP staff reviewed them for compliance with all applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. DEP's review included a substantive design accuracy review by two licensed professional engineers in Florida, each having extensive wastewater systems design permitting experience. Ultimately, DEP determined that FKAA provided reasonable assurance that each wastewater collection system for which FKAA submitted an application met the applicable statutory and rule requirements and standards. Accordingly, DEP issued a Notice of Intent to Issue for each of Permits 18, 19, 25, and 27. At the final hearing, DEP's assistant director for the Southern District and a wastewater systems design expert, Al McLaurin, opined that FKAA had provided reasonable assurance to support the issuance of Permits 18, 19, 25, and 27. Mr. McLaurin persuasively testified that, based on results of the Little Venice Water Quality Monitoring Report showing a substantial improvement in water quality in canals of a subdivision as a result of installation of a central wastewater system, implementing the CRWS should result in a substantial improvement in water quality in the nearshore waters of the Florida Keys. Establishment of Prima Facie Entitlement to Permits at Issue The relevant portions of each of the permit files, including the permit application, supporting information, and Notice of Intent to Issue for each of the Permits at Issue were admitted into evidence at the final hearing. With the admission of these documents into evidence, FKAA established its prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to each of the Permits at Issue. See § 120.569(2)(p), Fla. Stat. The Challenges to the Permits at Issue Once FKAA demonstrated prima facie entitlement to the Permits at Issue, the burden shifted to Petitioners to present evidence proving their case in opposition to the Permits at Issue.24/ See id. To prevail in these proceedings, Petitioners bear the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove their case by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence. They have raised numerous bases that they contend mandate denial of the Permits at Issue. As an overarching matter, Petitioners argue that DEP's review of the applications for the Permits at Issue was not sufficiently rigorous, and that as a result, DEP did not accurately review the applications, did not catch errors or require the projects to adhere to the appropriate permitting standards and requirements, and incorrectly determined that FKAA provided reasonable assurance for issuance of the Permits at Issue. Petitioners base their argument in part on McLaurin's testimony that DEP's review is "cursory." However, following this characterization, McLaurin went on to describe the nature and depth of agency review to which the applications were subjected. DEP review staff reviewed the applications to ensure that the projects were accurately designed and will function without causing adverse environmental impact as required by the applicable permitting rules.25/ DEP's review process does not entail re- designing or re-engineering the project, or questioning the design engineer's judgment on design matters, as long as the projects are accurately designed and functional in accordance with the applicable permitting requirements and standards. When inaccuracies or incomplete items are discovered in the review process, they are addressed with the applicant through the RAI process.26/ If the deficiencies are not addressed in a manner sufficient to meet the applicable permitting requirements and standards, the permit is denied. As a matter of practice, DEP relies, to a large extent, on the design engineer's certification that the system is accurately designed according to the permitting standards and requirements——as is authorized and appropriate pursuant to the certification provisions on the application form, rules 62-604.300 and 62-4.050(3), chapter 471, and Florida Board of Engineering rules. Accordingly, the undersigned rejects the contention that DEP's review of the applications for the permits at issue was insufficient. Scouring Velocity Petitioners allege that the system, as designed, will not achieve a two-feet-per-second ("2 fps") minimum wastewater flow rate, such that it will experience insufficient velocity to scour and prevent accumulation of solids in the pipes. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Maynard, who relied on the application form, Force Mains section, item no. 78, which references the Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities, dated 1997——the so-called "Ten States Standards." Maynard testified that portions of the proposed systems do not meet the Ten States Standards, which establishes a 2 fps minimum flow rate, the minimum he claimed is necessary to prevent sedimentation and plugging of the systems piping. On this basis, Petitioners contend that the systems do not meet the mandatory regulatory requirements regarding minimum flow rate. However, pursuant to DEP rules, the Ten States Standards manual does not mandatorily apply to this project. As previously noted, the CRWS is an "alternative collection/transmission system" under DEP rules because it is "not comprised of strictly conventional gravity sewers, pump stations, and force mains." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-604.200(1). Rule 62-604.400(4) states: "[t]he manuals referenced in rule 62-604.300(5)(b), (c), and (j), F.A.C., shall be used in the evaluation of the design and construction of alternative collection/transmission systems in Florida." The Ten States Standards manual is not among the list of technical manuals that mandatorily apply to alternative systems, so the standards established in those manuals are not mandatory regulatory standards, but may be used as guidance. Thus, the 2 fps minimum flow standard established in the Ten States Standards is not a requirement applicable to the Permits at Issue. As such, item no. 78 on the application form, requiring a 2 fps flow rate based on the Ten States Standards, is inapplicable to these systems. Rene Mathews, president of Mathews Consulting, acknowledged that in some extreme street ends and cul-de-sacs, the systems will not meet the 2 fps flow rate. However, she credibly testified that this rate is not a requirement but may be used as guidance——and, in fact, was used as guidance in designing the wastewater collection system. She explained that in areas where 2 fps velocity cannot be achieved, FKAA will be required to clean more frequently. Mathews' testimony is consistent with that of Al McLaurin, who also stated that the 2 fps flow rate is not a mandatory regulatory standard and that DEP's rules afford discretion to allow it to permit systems having lower flow rates where, as here, the permittee provides reasonable assurance that it will clean and maintain the system's pipes with sufficient frequency to prevent them from becoming plugged. Oscar Bello, formerly of Chen Moore and the responsible engineer for the applications for the outer islands wastewater collection systems for which Permits 18 and 27 are proposed to be issued, concurred with Ms. Mathews' testimony regarding the inapplicability of the 2 fps standard. He also concurred in the need for additional cleaning in areas where the 2 fps flow rate will not be achieved. Mr. Gary Maier, a professional engineer supervisor with DEP's South District who manages wastewater permitting groups and reviews wastewater systems permit applications, also confirmed that the 2 fps flow rate is not a mandatory DEP regulatory requirement on which permit denial can be based. Ms. Mathews is a licensed professional engineer in Florida and has been practicing as a civil engineer for over 14 years. Her firm has handled over 150 wastewater projects, including the wastewater collection systems for the inner islands at issue in these proceedings. Over the course of her career, she has designed between 30 and 40 wastewater pump stations. Although she is not the engineer whose seal and certification appear on the applications for the inner islands wastewater collection systems, her firm designed, prepared, and submitted the applications for these systems, and she worked on these projects. She is knowledgeable about and understands the systems at issue. Mr. McLaurin is a licensed professional engineer in Florida with many years of engineering and engineering-related experience that includes wastewater systems design in the private and public sectors and wastewater systems applications review with DEP. Through his experience, he has gained extensive understanding of the statutes and DEP rules applicable to wastewater permitting. Although McLaurin was not directly involved in DEP's review of the applications for the Permits at Issue, he is thoroughly familiar with, and possesses complete understanding of, the permit applications and supporting documentation. Mr. Bello is a licensed professional engineer in Florida. He has approximately ten years of experience in infrastructure permitting in the public and private sectors. Bello is the design engineer responsible for designing the outer islands wastewater collection systems and preparing and submitting the applications to DEP on FKAA's behalf. As such, he possesses extensive, in-depth understanding of the systems' design and functionality. Mr. Maier is a licensed professional engineer in Florida with over 20 years of environmental regulatory experience, including extensive experience in interpreting and applying DEP's wastewater rules and reviewing wastewater systems permit applications. Mr. Maynard is a professional engineer licensed in Maine and Vermont, and has many years of engineering experience. Although he is experienced in a wide range of engineering-related fields, his experience appears primarily concentrated in hydrogeologic design, environmental site assessment, and contaminated sites assessment and remediation. He has some experience with septic system design and indirect discharge experience; however, that experience appears to be largely limited to on-site septic systems. He lacks experience in designing or implementing low pressure wastewater collection systems like those at issue in these proceedings. Maynard has no significant understanding of, and lacks experience in, interpreting or implementing Florida's wastewater statutes and rules. He was contacted to testify approximately two weeks before his deposition. He acknowledged that he spent only a few days reviewing pertinent documents and that he had not reviewed all of the information prior to being deposed. His testimony evidences that while he has extensive knowledge of engineering principles regarding fluids, piping, and pumps, he is only superficially familiar with the projects at issue and possesses very little understanding of the wastewater permitting rules applicable to these projects. The undersigned finds persuasive the testimony of Mathews, McLaurin, Bello, and Maier that the 2 fps flow rate is not a mandatory standard applicable to the projects authorized by the Permits at Issue, and that in areas of the systems in which a 2 fps flow rate will not be achieved, requiring more frequent cleaning to ensure that the pipes do not become plugged is adequate to meet DEP's rule requirements. The undersigned finds Maynard's testimony on this issue unpersuasive due to his lack of experience with projects similar to the CRWS wastewater collection systems, his lack of knowledge of and experience with DEP's wastewater permitting rules and requirements, and his lack of anything more than superficial familiarity with the projects at issue. Petitioners did not show that the Permits at Issue should be denied due to inadequate scouring velocity in violation of DEP rules and applicable technical manual standards and requirements. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the systems, as designed, will not experience wastewater backups or releases into the environment as a result of inadequate scouring velocity. FKAA has demonstrated that the systems, in compliance with DEP rules and applicable technical manual standards and requirements, will have wastewater flow of sufficient velocity to scour and prevent sedimentation in the piping, and that in the few remote areas where the velocity may be lower than recommended, more frequent cleaning of the piping will prevent sedimentation. Pipe Separation Petitioners allege that the Permits at Issue violate rule 62-604.400(2)(g), which requires a minimum ten-foot horizontal separation distance between wastewater collection/transmission pipes and public water system pipes.27/ Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Maynard to support their position. Maynard identified several locations in the Upper Sugarloaf and north Big Pine Key wastewater collection systems where the rule's horizontal separation distances between the wastewater lines and public water system lines are not met. In Petitioners' view, this constitutes a fatal flaw warranting permit denial. In rebuttal, Mr. Maier testified that a six-foot horizontal separation between the wastewater and public water systems pipes meets DEP's wastewater permitting rules. This is because the ten-foot separation distance established in rule 62- 604.400(2)(g) applies "[e]xcept as provided in subsection 62- 604.400(3)." Rule 62-604.400(3) provides, in pertinent part, that if there are conflicts in the separation requirements between wastewater collection systems and drinking water facilities established in rule 62-604.400(2) and those established in Florida Administrative Code Rule chapter 62-555, the requirements in chapter 62-555 apply. Rule 62-555.314(1)(g) states that new or relocated underground water mains shall be laid to provide a horizontal distance of at least six feet, and preferably ten feet, between the outside of the water main and the outside of any existing or proposed wastewater force main. DEP interprets these rules as establishing a minimum six-foot separation distance between public water system lines and wastewater lines, regardless of whether a new water line is being laid in proximity to an existing wastewater line, or vice versa. Maier explained that the purpose of requiring minimum separation distances between water and wastewater lines is to separate the lines a safe distance from each other to enable work on one line to be done without inadvertently damaging the other line. In recognition that construction practices have improved over the years, so there is less chance for such damage than when the rule initially was adopted, DEP amended the separation distance in the public water systems rule to six feet, but inadvertently failed to amend the wastewater collection system rule to reflect the same distance. In an effort to clarify that the six-foot minimum is the standard applicable to construction of wastewater lines as well as drinking water lines, DEP amended rule 62-604.400 to add subsection (3), which states that in the event of a conflict between the rules, the drinking water rule provisions (which establish the six-foot separation minimum) control. Petitioners contend that this interpretation is incorrect because rule 62-604.400(2)(g) does not conflict with rule 62-555. Petitioners assert that there is a logical basis for interpreting these rules as establishing different, non- conflicting standards: specifically, that the construction of new sewer lines near old, potentially leaking drinking water lines raises the potential for sewage to contaminate drinking water, whereas installing new water lines near old, leaking sewage lines raises the potential for drinking water to infiltrate sewage lines. Maier disagreed, persuasively testifying that there is no rational basis for the different separation standards in the rules; thus, DEP treats them as conflicting and the six-foot separation standard in rule 62-655 controls. Maier testified, credibly, that under any circumstances, both the new and old water lines are pressurized so any leakage will force water out of the lines rather than allowing sewage to infiltrate the lines. Per the explanation provided by Mr. Maier, DEP's interpretation of its own rules is reasonable and therefore is accepted.28/ Mr. Maynard's testimony is not afforded weight due to his lack of experience with and understanding of DEP's wastewater collection/transmission systems permitting rules. Conversely, based on his experience with DEP wastewater regulation over many years, Mr. Maier's testimony is deemed persuasive on the pipe separation distance issue. Petitioners failed to show that the Permits at Issue should be denied for noncompliance with applicable pipe separation requirements. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the wastewater collection systems proposed to be authorized by the Permits at Issue meet the applicable wastewater line and drinking water line horizontal distance requirements in DEP's wastewater collection system rules. Friction Coefficient Standard Petitioners allege that the friction coefficient of 140, also called the "C Factor,"29/ submitted as part of the wastewater systems design exceeds the maximum value of 120 established in the Ten States Standards, and, therefore, does not meet DEP's rule standard for this value. Petitioners assert that as a result of using too large a C Factor in the system design, head loss that occurs as the wastewater flows through the system pipes is underestimated, so the systems will not function as anticipated. As previously discussed, because the wastewater collection systems at issue in these proceedings are alternative systems, the Ten States Standards do not mandatorily apply. Accordingly, the C Factor of 120 in the Ten States Standards is inapplicable to the systems. The C Factor used in designing the systems was chosen based on the material that comprises the piping——here, HDPE, which has an industry standard C Factor of between 140 and 150. The systems were designed using the more conservative value in the allowed C Factor range for HDPE piping. Under any circumstances, the difference in system performance of using a 140 C Factor instead of a 120 C Factor in designing the system is negligible. Using HDPE piping for low pressure systems is standard, and the use of the 140 C Factor in the system design complies with the industry standard for such piping. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the use of a C Factor of 140 in the wastewater collection systems design violates DEP's applicable requirements and standards, or that the systems will malfunction due to underestimated head loss, causing environmental harm or property damage. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that using the 140 C Factor in the wastewater collection systems design complies with DEP rules and applicable technical manuals, and adequately addresses head loss due to friction. Thus, it is not anticipated that the systems will malfunction due to head loss and release sewage, causing environmental harm or property damage. System Design Capacity Petitioners allege that the wastewater collection systems, as designed, will have insufficient capacity to handle the volume of wastewater put into the system. The application form, item 1, requires the system to be designed based on an average daily flow of 100 gallons per capita plus wastewater flow for other specified uses, unless water use data or other justification is used to better estimate the flow. Rather than designing the system based on an assumed average daily flow of 100 gallons per capita, design engineers Chen Moore and Mathews Consulting instead used actual water consumption data from FKAA's historic water consumption records for the past four years on a bimonthly basis for each parcel that will be served by the systems. Overall calculations of daily flow were based on the assumption that every dwelling unit contributed to the flow. Water consumption was converted to gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit ("EDU"), each house connected to the system was identified, and the average EDU per house was determined. Chen Moore and Mathews took a localized approach in determining flow rate per area contributing to the wastewater collection systems. Homes using water to irrigate landscaping were identified through aerial photographs and by on-the-ground surveys. The estimated amount of flow into the systems was reduced to address irrigation water consumption for landscaping that would not be returned to the wastewater flow from the dwelling unit. Petitioners' witness Donald Maynard testified that Census Bureau information provides a more accurate estimate of the actual population for purposes of system design capacity than relying on historic water use data. He opined that using historic water consumption data underestimates the amount of flow into the system because the data are based on historic population figures that are lower than the current population of the lower Keys. He also testified that considering landscape irrigation in estimating wastewater flow artificially reduced the estimate of wastewater volume that will flow into the systems. He concluded that these flow estimation methods were unreliable and resulted in undersized collection systems. Maynard acknowledged that he does not have any experience in designing low pressure sewer systems, that he did not perform any independent system design flow estimate calculations, that he did not independently research or investigate information relevant to determining system capacity, that he relied on information provided by others regarding Keys population trends, and that he had assumed, without verifying, that the Keys population has increased. In fact, the credible evidence showed that Monroe County's population, including certain areas of the lower Keys, decreased between 2000 and 2010. Rather than relying on general information, such as census data, to estimate system capacity, the CRWS system design engineers used years of parcel-specific data regarding actual water consumption to determine system capacity. This is a more precise and accurate method of determining system capacity than that suggested by Mr. Maynard. Petitioners have not shown that the systems' design capacity is insufficient to handle the volume of wastewater that will flow into them, in violation of DEP rules and applicable technical manual standards and requirements. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the systems, as designed, have sufficient capacity to accommodate the amount of wastewater that will flow into and be conveyed by the systems, and therefore meet DEP rules and all applicable technical manual standards and requirements. Peaking Factor Petitioners also allege that the wastewater collection systems, as designed, are based on an incorrect peaking factor of 4.0, and, thus, are undersized to handle peak flow that occurs at certain times, such as seasonally when the Keys occupancy rate is greater than average or immediately following power outages. As a result, Petitioners contend, wastewater will back up into homes, onto the ground, and into groundwater, and will flow into surface and nearshore waters, causing environmental harm and endangering human health. Petitioners offered the testimony of Donald Maynard to support their position. Maynard testified that, based on a preliminary design study performed by Brown and Caldwell in 2008, the correct peaking factor for the collection systems is 4.5, rather than 4.0, as proposed. Oscar Bello, design engineer for the outer islands wastewater collection systems, explained that the 4.5 peaking factor recommended in the Brown and Caldwell study related to the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant,30/ not the collection systems. Bello testified, credibly, that using a peaking factor of 4.0 to design the wastewater collections systems is sufficient to address peak usage conditions and will not undermine the systems' performance under those conditions.31/ Mr. Bello's testimony was buttressed by testimony by Tom Walker, assistant executive director for FKAA. Walker explained that it is prudent to build in a larger safety margin for treatment plant capacity. This is to ensure that under extreme conditions, if all systems components are working at——or, in some places over——capacity, the flow into the plant does not exceed its capacity. As previously discussed, Mr. Bello has extensive experience in infrastructure permitting in the public and private sectors. As the design engineer responsible for the outer islands wastewater collection systems, he possesses great understanding of the design and function of these particular systems. Mr. Walker is a licensed professional engineer in Florida. He has been a practicing engineer since 1976 and has extensive experience with municipal wastewater systems in Florida, as well as in Texas and overseas. He has been employed by FKAA since 2006, and has been deeply involved in the design and implementation of the CRWS. The testimony of Bello and Walker was credible and persuasive regarding the adequacy of the peaking factor proposed for the systems. By contrast, Maynard is only superficially familiar with the systems at issue and lacks substantial experience with, and understanding of, the rules applicable to the systems. As such, his testimony on this issue was not persuasive. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the peaking factor of 4.0 proposed for the wastewater collections systems at issue does not comply with any applicable regulatory standards or will result in undersized systems that will not function properly and will result in discharge of wastewater into homes and the environment. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the systems are designed to accommodate peak wastewater flows without malfunctioning, and that the peaking factor to which the systems have been designed meets DEP rules and all applicable standards and requirements. Quick Connect for Emergency Pump Out Petitioners allege that the system, as designed, violates DEP rules because it does not provide rapid pump out connection for the individual residential "pump stations" to enable them to be quickly accessed and pumped out in emergency circumstances. Petitioners posit that each individual residential single grinder pump and wet well constitutes a "pump station" and that DEP rules require every "pump station" to have emergency pumping capability. The term "pump station" as used in DEP's wastewater rules means a station consisting of two or more pumps, not an individual residential pump and wet well. This is apparent from the context in which the term is used in the Notification/Application Domestic Wastewater Collection/ Transmission form section titled "Pump Stations" and in the rules and technical manuals applicable to alternative collection systems. Mr. McLaurin confirmed that DEP rules do not require individual residential grinder pumps and wet wells to have emergency pumping capability. The lift stations serving the neighborhoods and other areas contain two or more pumps and thus are "pump stations" subject to the emergency pumping capability requirement. Ms. Mathews credibly testified, and other credible evidence in the record shows, that each lift station is equipped with a system that allows a pump to be dropped into the lift station, where a hose is extended and the pump is connected to the pump quick connect, enabling the wastewater to be pumped out of the station through the system pipes. A hatch must be opened in order to access the lift station to use the quick connect pump out system, but there is no credible evidence showing that this constitutes an impediment to rapidly engaging the pump out system. Petitioners have not demonstrated that the pump stations lack emergency pumping capability in violation of applicable DEP rules. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the neighborhood/area lift stations meet the DEP rule requirement to have emergency pump out capability. Explosion Potential of Pumps Petitioners allege that the residential grinder pumps and the neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps are unsuitable for the conditions to which they will be exposed because they are not explosion-proof, and that including them in the systems design violates DEP rules, the Ten States Standards, the National Electrical Code ("NEC"), and the National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA") Standards. Specifically, Petitioners assert that methane will accumulate in the residential grinder pump wet wells and in the lift stations, and, as such, these areas are considered "Classified Hazardous Area, Class I, Division 2, Group 2" under NFPA Standards. Petitioners contend that the mechanics of the grinder pumps make them susceptible to explosion under such conditions, so they are not suitable for use as proposed in the systems. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Michael Boismenu, who opined that use of grinder pumps in this type of environment constitutes a violation of NEC section 501.125 for motors and generators. Boismenu testified that the grinder pumps have the potential to ignite if they are exposed to a hazardous environment, which includes areas in which combustible gases, such as methane, accumulate. As such, Boismenu opined that grinder pumps should be classified as "Class I, Division 1" under the NEC and NFPA Standards. Under this classification, grinder pump use in an environment in which combustible gases accumulate would violate the NEC. Contrary to Mr. Boismenu's position, the credible evidence, consisting of the testimony of Rene Mathews and supporting documentation, shows that the residential grinder pumps are "unclassified," per NEC section 820-11, table 4.2. This means that the risk of fire and explosion is so low that there is no requirement for any particular fire protection measures to be implemented in using the individual residential grinder pumps. Also contrary to Boismenu's position, Ms. Mathews' testimony and the supporting documents show that the neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps and wet wells are classified as "Class I, Division 2" under the NEC and NFPA Standards. Under this classification, there is a potential for fire and explosion under abnormal circumstances, such as if the pumps were not operating properly.32/ To address this potential—— which is remote——the lift station grinder pumps' electrical components were specifically designed to meet the Class I, Division 2 standard and also will be continuously submerged, mitigating the risk of fire or explosion.33/ Mr. Boismenu is an engineer and previously was a licensed professional engineer in New York. He has extensive experience in the energy production field, but never has worked on a wastewater project similar to the CRWS and has no experience applying the NEC or NFPA standards to wastewater projects. He first received specific information from Petitioners on the projects at issue on or around September 9, 2014, so his familiarity with the projects is based on two weeks of review in preparation for his deposition. His testimony revealed that he lacks specific knowledge about, or understanding of, the electrical features of the individual residential or neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps or their classifications under the NEC and NFPA Standards. By contrast, Ms. Mathews' testimony was specific, detailed, and accurate, and was buttressed by documentation addressing the NEC and NFPA Standards applicable to residential and neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps. This evidence, which was credible and persuasive, demonstrates that the residential and neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps do not pose a significant threat of fire or explosion, and, thus, meet DEP's rules and the NEC and NFPA Standards. As previously discussed, the Ten States Standards manual——which Petitioners contend imposes an "explosion proof" standard——does not mandatorily apply to these systems. DEP rules and technical manuals applicable to these systems do not impose such a standard. Accordingly, the fact that the grinder pumps are not completely "explosion-proof" is not a cognizable ground for denying the Permits at Issue. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the residential and neighborhood/area lift station grinder pumps violate DEP rules and applicable technical manuals, the NEC, or the NFPA Standards regarding potential for fire and explosion. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that using E/One grinder pumps in the wastewater collection systems does not present a substantial fire or explosion risk and does not violate DEP rules or applicable technical manual standards and requirements. Air Release Valves Petitioners allege that the wastewater collection systems, as designed, inadequately provide for the release of combustible gases from the collection lines. As a result, Petitioners contend, gases may become trapped in the lines, obstruct wastewater flow, create an explosion risk, and endanger the public health and safety. Petitioners presented Mr. Maynard's testimony to support this contention. Maynard testified that methane and hydrogen sulfide would be generated by the wastewater and would accumulate in pockets in the wastewater lines. According to Maynard, this is mostly a problem at high points in the lines, particularly if there is not enough velocity to purge the gas from the line. He stated that "normally, you would put in vents to allow that gas to escape." The evidence shows that wastewater collection systems design does, in fact, include measures for releasing air and gases from the system. Specifically, in compliance with DEP's Design and Specification Guidelines for Low Pressure Sewer Systems, the design provides for air release valves to be located at the high points in the lines and at dead ends in the system lines. It is standard practice to add air release valves to pipes as necessary during pipe installation because the best locations for the valves are more accurately determined during the installation process. FKAA provided specific protocol for ensuring the correct operation of these valves and will submit as-built drawings showing location and proper placement of air release valves when it requests certification to operate the CRWS. Petitioners did not prove that the wastewater collection systems, as designed, fail to adequately provide for the release of air and gases, in violation of DEP rules and applicable technical manuals. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the systems, as designed, will include air release valves in compliance with DEP rules and applicable technical manuals. As such, gases will not accumulate and obstruct wastewater flow or explode. System Pressure Capacity Petitioners allege that E/One grinder pumps create pressure that exceeds the pressure capacity of the force main pipes, so that the pipes will burst and release sewage into the environment and onto property served by the pumps. In support, Petitioners presented the testimony of Donald Maynard and of Dr. Gunnar Hovstadius, both of whom testified that an E/One grinder pump34/ can generate pressures as high as 180 to 200 pounds per square inch ("psi"). According to both witnesses, if many grinder pumps are running simultaneously ——which they allege could occur as power is restored following a power outage——the pressure generated by the pumps could exceed the pressure capacity of the pipes, causing them to burst. Dr. Hovstadius relied on his experience with grinder pumps in Westport, Connecticut, following Hurricane Irene. There, sewage backed up into a home served by a grinder pump after power was restored following a lengthy outage. According to Hovstadius, numerous grinder pumps started up and simultaneously exerted substantial pressure on the wastewater system piping and other components, causing failure of the residence's grinder pump connection with the lateral pipe and allowing sewage accumulated in the force main to back up into the home. In rebuttal, Rene Mathews credibly testified that the normal operating pressure range for the E/One grinder pump is zero to 80 psi. Beyond 80 psi, the pump's performance falls into a non-typical operating range and the pump begins to heat up, causing thermal switches in the pump to shut the motor down at 100 to 120 psi. Thus, while it is remotely possible that the E/One grinder pumps could generate pressures in the range of 180 to 200 psi before failing, as a practical matter, operation of the pumps' thermal switches render this scenario highly unlikely. The system piping is certified for a working pressure of 160 psi, which exceeds the maximum 100 to 120 psi that may occur before pump shutdown; moreover, the piping must meet the American Water Works Association ("AWWA") standards C-901 and C-906, which means that the piping has a much higher pressure capacity——as high as 240 to 400 psi——specifically to withstand certain surge conditions. Additionally, even if many grinder pumps were simultaneously running when power is restored following an outage, the pumps would not exert a sudden maximum pressure surge on the system piping. This is because as each pump restarts and begins to run, the pressure in the pump gradually builds; if a pump reaches the 100 to 120 psi range——which, as previously noted, is outside the normal operating range——the thermal switch causes it to shut down. Also, as a practical matter, after a massive outage, power typically is restored to one neighborhood or area at a time rather than simultaneously to the entire power grid. Thus, any scenario involving all pumps simultaneously running at maximum pressure is highly unlikely. For these reasons, it is highly unlikely, under any reasonable circumstances, that pressure generated by the grinder pumps would cause the system piping to burst. Petitioners further assert that since the HDPE piping comprising the collection systems is only being tested to 150 psi, rather than to failure pressure of between 250 and 500 psi, it is not being adequately tested to ensure it can withstand higher pressure levels that may occur under extreme operating circumstances. Rene Mathews explained, and Al McLaurin confirmed, that pressure testing of the pipes, which takes place after construction is complete and before the systems are certified as operable by DEP, is performed to detect leaks that may have been created during the construction process——not to determine the failure pressure of the piping. The piping being used in the system is certified for a working pressure of 160 psi and meets the AWWA pressure capacity standards of 240 to 400 psi. Testing system pipes to failure pressure is neither necessary nor required under DEP rules or the applicable technical manuals, and is not desirable because it would damage or destroy system piping, unnecessarily adding to system cost. Dr. Hovstadius is a recognized expert in pumping systems, with worldwide experience in wastewater pump technology. He is knowledgeable about E/One grinder pumps and has experience with their use in one wastewater system in the northeastern U.S., where one grinder pump failed and flooded a home with sewage. However, he is not familiar with the specific details of the CRWS, having spent only a small amount of time before his deposition familiarizing himself with some of the documentation and information regarding the projects. He did not perform an independent engineering analysis of, or calculations regarding, the wastewater collection systems, and he was not aware of certain design features of the CRWS, such as check valves and the High Tide Technologies around-the-clock monitoring system,35/ which reduce the risk of a scenario as described in his testimony. By contrast, Ms. Mathews has extensive wastewater engineering experience, and the firm with which she is employed is the design engineer for the inner islands systems. She has previous experience designing systems with grinder pumps and possesses extensive knowledge and in-depth understanding of the CRWS and details specific to the wastewater collection systems. Mr. McLaurin has years of experience in wastewater systems engineering and extensive experience in regulatory review of wastewater water systems, so is very knowledgeable about DEP rule requirements and their application to wastewater systems. For these reasons, the testimony of Mathews and McLaurin is deemed more persuasive than that of Maynard and Hovstadius on the issue of system pressure capacity. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the E/One grinder pumps will exert pressures exceeding the systems' piping pressure capacity, causing system piping bursting or failure. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the E/One grinder pumps used in the systems design will function as anticipated, will not exert pressures that exceed the systems' piping capacity, and will not cause system piping to burst or fail. Wastewater Service During Power Outage Petitioners allege that because E/One grinder pumps require electric power to operate, they are inappropriate for use in the Florida Keys, due to the likelihood of power outages during significant weather events such as hurricanes. Petitioners allege that during power outages, sewer service to homes served by grinder pumps will be interrupted, in violation of DEP rules and technical manuals, including the Ten States Standards and the Design and Specification Guidelines for Low Pressure Sewer Systems. They further allege that continued use of residential wastewater systems during power outages will result in the release of sewage from grinder pumps wet wells into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps. The CRWS design and operating protocol contain measures specifically directed to these issues. Specifically, the neighborhood/area lift station design includes a quick connect riser pipe that will be used to periodically flush the systems and can be used in emergencies to pump water out of the lift stations into the force mains and to the treatment plant, thus preventing lift station overflow. Additionally, each residential grinder pump includes an outlet connection for a mobile generator. During a power outage, FKAA can pump out residential grinder pump wet wells using mobile generators, pump trucks, or vacuum trucks. As a practical matter, residential grinder pump wet wells can contain wastewater volumes of two days' normal use without pump out and, with conservative use, can go for longer periods without being pumped out before overflowing. If pump out becomes necessary, the pump design and FKAA's operating protocol provides for such service.36/ FKAA has over 150 trucks it can deploy to pump out residential pump wet wells and lift stations, and will purchase an adequate number (estimated at 30 to 40) of 10,000 kilowatt generators for emergency use. FKAA has determined that it will need thirty utility personnel crews working in two shifts to maintain the CRWS system, and has undertaken the planning and budgeting necessary to ensure adequate personnel availability during emergencies. Additionally, FKAA anticipates having volunteer assistance in such situations. In the event FKAA requires further assistance in addressing widespread pump out issues during emergencies, Layne Heavy Civil and Gianetti Contracting37/ are obligated by contract to provide generators to FKAA for use to pump out residential wet wells and lift stations. FKAA also is a member of FlaWARN, Florida's network for wastewater emergency response, through which wastewater utilities provide mutual assistance during emergencies. Through this membership, FKAA is ensured that it will receive assistance from other utilities as needed to address pump out and other wastewater related issues during emergencies. The wastewater collection systems also incorporate the Grinder Pump Guardian monitoring system by High Tide Technologies for each residential grinder pump and each neighborhood/area lift station. Under this monitoring system, each pump is continuously (24 hours a day, 7 days a week) wirelessly monitored. If a pump malfunctions, such as when wastewater inflow exceeds wet well capacity while the pump is running, alarm data is transmitted by satellite to a computer central server, which automatically notifies utility personnel of the specific type of malfunction by high water alarm, communication alarm indicating power failure, or alarm indicating excessive runtime or starts and stops. Notifications will include the street address location of the pump for which the alarm was sent, as well as the type of event triggering the alarm. This monitoring system will enable pump malfunctions to be immediately detected and rapidly addressed by maintenance personnel, significantly decreasing the likelihood of wastewater spill or release into homes or the environment. FKAA has undertaken extensive planning and activity to establish specific procedures and protocol for addressing collections systems operation, even though it is not required under DEP rules to provide this information until it submits a request to DEP for certification to place the CRWS into operation. By that time, FKAA will have fully prepared its operations and maintenance procedures and protocol addressing all aspects of CRWS operation, including operation during emergency circumstances. This information is required by DEP rule to be kept in a manual that is available for use by operation and maintenance personnel and for inspection by DEP personnel. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 604.500. Petitioners did not demonstrate that sewer service will be interrupted in violation of DEP rules. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that uninterrupted sewer service will be provided, including during extended power outages and other emergency circumstances, as required by DEP rules.38/ Shutoff Valves and Backflow Prevention Devices Petitioners allege that the systems design does not include backflow prevention devices, so that if lines become plugged, sewage will back up into residences and may, under certain circumstances, cause residential wastewater lines to burst. They presented Donald Maynard's testimony in support of this position. Maynard's testimony was contradicted by Mr. McLaurin's persuasive testimony and other credible evidence showing that the system design does contain backflow and shutoff valves to prevent wastewater from backing up from the force mains into the residential wet wells and into the residences served by the grinder pumps. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence that, in compliance with DEP rules and applicable technical manual requirements and standards, the systems design incorporates safety valves to prevent the backflow of wastewater into residences and spillage and release into the environment. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the systems, as designed, do not contain backflow and shutoff valves to prevent backflow of wastewater into residences, in violation of DEP rules and applicable technical manuals. Shaft Seal Leakage Petitioners allege that the grinder pumps' design violates DEP rules because the pumps do not contain shaft seal leakage device detectors. Petitioners' only evidence presented to substantiate this allegation is Hovstadius' testimony that he heard of an incident in which flushing dental floss into a sewage system resulted in the floss wrapping around the pump shaft, opening the seal, and allowing the pump motor to be flooded. However, Petitioners did not present any competent substantial evidence showing that not including shaft seal leakage devices on grinder pumps violates any applicable permitting requirements and standards. The competent, credible evidence establishes that shaft seal leakage devices are not required for the grinder pumps proposed to be used in the proposed collection systems, for two reasons: first, shaft seal leakage devices are not required for alternative wastewater collection systems; and second, the E/One grinder pumps that will be used in the systems are smaller than the five and ten horsepower pumps for which shaft seal leakage devices typically are required. Rather than including shaft seal leak detection devices, the systems instead incorporate the Grinder Pump Guardian monitoring system by High Tide Technologies for each residential grinder pump and each neighborhood/area lift station. As previously discussed, this monitoring system immediately notifies utility personnel of pump malfunction issues so that they can be rapidly addressed. Petitioners did not demonstrate that the lack of shaft seal detectors on the grinder pumps being used in the systems violates applicable DEP rules or requirements in the technical manuals applicable to alternative wastewater collection systems. Other System Design and Function Issues Petitioners allege other collection systems design flaws that they assert will cause system components to malfunction, resulting in environmental harm and property damage in violation of DEP rules. Dr. Hovstadius strongly criticized the use of E/One grinder pumps in wastewater collection systems to be located in the Florida Keys, due to the potential for flooding during storm surges. He contended that the pumps are not submersible for extended periods, so will leak and malfunction if submerged for long periods. Hovstadius opined that under such conditions, the pumps may short out and cease to function, causing sewage to back up onto the properties served by the pumps. In rebuttal, FKAA's witness Rudy Fernandez credibly testified that the E/One grinder pumps are submersible and will function properly while fully and continuously submerged. Mr. Fernandez is a licensed professional engineer in thirteen states, including Florida. He has approximately 40 years of public and private sector engineering experience in wastewater systems design, operation, and compliance. He is a member of the Water Environment Federation, having served on its technical practice committee at the time the committee published a revised version of the Manual of Practice No. FD-12, Alternative Sewer Systems (1986),39/ which applies to alternative collection/ transmissions systems pursuant to rule 62-604.400(4). As such, he is very knowledgeable about alternative wastewater collection systems, including the use of E/One grinder pumps in such systems. Although Dr. Hovstadius is an expert in pumping systems, his experience with E/One grinder pumps is relatively limited, particularly when compared to that of Mr. Fernandez. Further, Fernandez is very knowledgeable about the specific components of the CRWS, including the design and operation of the grinder pumps. By contrast, Hovstadius had only general knowledge about the CRWS, and was unaware of key details, such as the inclusion of safety check valves, to prevent sewage backflow into homes served by grinder pumps. Accordingly, Fernandez's testimony is deemed more persuasive than that of Hovstadius regarding E/One grinder pump submersibility. Petitioners have not shown that the E/One grinder pumps will malfunction as a result of being continuously submerged, thus releasing sewage into the environment and cause property damage. Petitioners also assert, through Hovstadius' testimony, that E/One grinder pumps are prone to malfunction from flushing common items such as baby wipes, dental floss, and tampons, or rinsing cooking grease down the kitchen drain. Rene Mathews credibly testified that such items are a problem for all types of wastewater system, not just low pressure systems or systems using E/One grinder pumps. To reduce the likelihood that such items are deposited into the wastewater collection system, FKAA will distribute flyers and host public education events to educate residents and the transient population regarding proper use of the wastewater collection systems. The O & M manual, which has been provided in draft form, includes a list of items that should not be introduced into any sewer system, and this list will be distributed to all properties served by the collection systems. Petitioners have not shown that E/One grinder pumps are any more susceptible to malfunction than other wastewater system components as a result of items being flushed or washed down drains. Additionally, FKAA has established that its systems operation protocol will include measures to reduce the likelihood of malfunction due to items being deposited in the systems. Petitioners also allege that E/One grinder pumps are inappropriate for use in the neighborhood/area lift stations. In support, they presented the testimony of Donald Maynard, who testified that having multiple grinder pumps in lift stations may be problematic during low occupancy periods in the Keys. The grinder pumps in each lift station function as a series, with a lead pump being activated at a particular wastewater level and each successive grinder pump thereafter activated by increasing wastewater levels in the lift station. Maynard contended that during low occupancy periods, the wastewater levels in the lift stations will be too low to activate the grinder pumps in the stations, causing sediments to accumulate and pipes to plug. Rene Mathews countered Maynard's position with credible testimony that grinder pumps are commonly used in designing lift stations in low pressure wastewater collection systems. She explained that the neighborhood/area lift stations have been designed so that the grinder pumps will be continuously submerged as required to meet the Class I, Division 2 NEC and NFPA Standards. Shop drawings submitted during construction will depict neighborhood/area lift station water levels sufficient to fully submerge the grinder pumps, in compliance with the lift stations' design. As additional support for their position that grinder pumps are inappropriate for use in the neighborhood/area lift stations, Petitioners cite a provision in the O & M manual stating that "grinder pumps are not designed to be small lift stations." This statement must be considered in context. The statement appears in the E/One grinder pump "Product Introduction" chapter in the Service Manual for the pumps, which is part of the O & M manual. The full discussion in which this statement appears reads: "Environment One Grinder Pumps are designed to grind and pump domestic sewage. The grinder pumps are not designed to be small lift stations. They are not capable of handling waters with high concentrations of mud, sand, silt, chemicals, abrasives, or machine waste." In context, it is apparent that this statement is directed at informing the user regarding the types of materials that should not be disposed of in a system using E/One grinder pumps; it does not state that E/One grinder pumps are inappropriate for use in lift stations. As previously discussed, FKAA's O & M manual contemplates public education and outreach efforts to help assure that materials and items that would damage the pumps, as well as other wastewater system components, are not discarded in the systems. To verify that the wastewater collections systems have been correctly designed for their intended use and will not cause environmental or property damage, FKAA retained Stephen Wallace to perform an independent analysis and evaluation of every aspect of the proposed systems. Mr. Wallace is a wastewater systems engineer having over 30 years of experience in hydraulic systems design. Over his career, Wallace has designed and constructed over 140 low pressure systems, including more than 100 systems using E/One grinder pumps. Although Wallace has not previously been involved with projects in the Florida Keys, while visiting the Keys, he personally observed physical and environmental conditions, such as high ground water levels, sandy soils, flat topography with threat of flooding, sensitive flora and fauna, and seasonal population fluctuations, that are comparable to those attendant to projects on which he has worked in Australia. Under Wallace's direction, a professional team consisting of engineering specialists in pumps and pump stations, low pressure wastewater systems design, and hydraulic modeling, and a mathematician independently analyzed and evaluated the CRWS low pressure systems design to determine whether they would provide long-term satisfactory performance. The team selected two representative project areas in Upper Sugarloaf Key and Ramrod Key and independently performed a hydraulic engineering analysis using a model specifically developed for modeling the performance of low pressure systems, then compared their results to the designs by FKAA's design engineers, Mathews Consulting and Chen Moore. Their results validated the designs prepared by Mathews and Chen Moore. Based on his team's analysis and evaluation, Wallace credibly and persuasively opined that the CRWS, as designed, will be successfully implemented and will not cause environmental pollution. FKAA witness Rudy Fernandez also testified, credibly, that the wastewater collection systems have been correctly designed and adequately cover all concerns that Petitioners have raised. Fernandez verified that the systems design includes safety valves to prevent backflow from the system into homes served by the systems. He concurred with Mathews and McLaurin that testing the transmission piping to 150 psi is sufficient to determine whether leakage points were created during construction, and confirmed that it is inappropriate to pressure test the pipes to failure because, as a practical matter, the system will not experience pressures high enough to cause pipe bursting or other failure. He agreed with Mathews' and Chen Moore's system design 4.0 peaking factor, and disagreed with Petitioners' witnesses' testimony that the pumps will exert pressure sufficient to cause system pipes to burst upon power restoration following an outage. Fernandez opined that there is a substantial likelihood that the systems, as designed, will function successfully, and that it is unforeseeable that the collections systems, as designed, will cause pollution. Petitioners failed to prove that including E/One grinder pumps in the wastewater collection systems is inappropriate and will result in systems' malfunction and consequent spillage and release of wastewater into the environment and onto the properties served by the systems. FKAA demonstrated, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the E/One grinder pumps will function normally when fully submerged and are appropriate for use in lift stations. Accordingly, including them in the systems' design will not cause the systems to malfunction and release wastewater into the environment and onto the properties served by the pumps, in violation of DEP rules. Petitioners' Standing Respondents challenge the standing of DTP40/ and the individual petitioners in these proceedings. DTP is a not-for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the state of Florida. Its mailing address is Post Office Box 1956, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. DTP's corporate purpose is to oppose the use of grinder pump systems proposed by FKAA and permitted by DEP as part of the implementation of the CRWS. In addition to challenging the Permits at Issue in these proceedings, DTP actively participated in hearings before the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") in an effort to convince the BOCC to reduce or eliminate the use of grinder pumps as part of the CRWS. DTP has approximately 265 members, a substantial number of whom own and/or reside on property that may be serviced by a grinder pump as proposed by the Permits at Issue. The evidence also establishes that a substantial number of DTP's members own or reside on property proximate to properties that may be served by grinder pumps. DTP alleges that, for a variety of reasons, using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps. This, in turn, would harm groundwater, the nearshore environment, and DTP's members' properties. A substantial number of DTP's members may be requested to grant an easement to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pumps that will serve their property. These members assert they will be injured by losing their ability to control who has access to their property. They also allege they will be injured due to the potential for collection systems malfunction alarms to interfere with their enjoyment of their property. As discussed above, grinder pumps require electricity to operate and therefore cannot operate during power outages unless alternative sources of electric power, such as generators, are used. Therefore, during extended periods of electrical outages, DTP members whose property is served by the grinder pumps may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Continued use of residential systems served by grinder pumps during extended power outages, absent pump out according to operating protocol, could result in discharge of raw sewage from the wet wells. If not promptly and adequately cleaned up, this may create a human and environmental health risk and adversely affect nearshore waters. A substantial number of DTP's members use and enjoy the nearshore waters of the lower Florida Keys for various water-based recreational activities including fishing, kayaking, boating, canoeing, bird watching, swimming, and lobstering. Petitioner Theresa Raven is a resident and owner of property on Big Pine Key. Her address is 29462 Geraldine Street, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. Her home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 18 is issued, Raven's property will be serviced by an E/One grinder pump. Accordingly, she will be asked to grant an easement over her property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages she may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Raven uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. She asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and her property. Petitioner Daniel Fitch is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2415, challenging the issuance of Permit 18. Fitch is a resident and owner of property on Big Pine Key. His address is 29462 Geraldine Street, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. His home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 18 is issued, Fitch's property will be serviced by an E/One grinder pump. Accordingly, he will be asked to grant an easement over his property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages he may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Fitch uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. He asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and his property. Petitioner Jim Skura is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in Case No. 14-2416, challenging issuance of Permit 19. Skura is a resident and property owner on Sugarloaf Key. His address is 19860 Caloosa Street, Sugarloaf Key, Florida 33042. His home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 19 is issued, Skura's property will be serviced by an E-One grinder pump. Accordingly, he will be asked to grant an easement over his property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages he may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Skura uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. He asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and his property. Petitioner Margaret Schwing is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2417, challenging the issuance of Permit 27. She is a resident and property owner on Big Pine Key South. Her address is 29756 Springtime Road, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. Her home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 27 is issued, Schwing's property will be serviced by an E/One grinder pump. Accordingly, she will be asked to grant an easement over her property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages she may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Schwing uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. She asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and her property. Petitioner Gail Kulikowsky is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in DOAH Case No. 14-2417, challenging the issuance of Permit 27. She is a resident and property owner on Big Pine Key. Her address is 30788 Pinewood Lane, Big Pine Key, Florida 33043. Her home is served by the CRWS. If Permit 27 is issued, Kulikowsky's property will be serviced by an E/One grinder pump. Accordingly, she will be asked to grant an easement over her property to FKAA for the installation and maintenance of the grinder pump, and during extended periods of electrical outages she may be asked to conserve water usage until electric power is restored. Kulikowsky uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based recreational activities such as swimming, snorkeling, boating, and nature observation. She asserts that using grinder pumps as part of the CRWS will directly cause or indirectly result in the release of raw sewage and wastewater into the environment and onto properties served by the pumps, causing harm to groundwater, the nearshore environment, and her property. Petitioner Deborah Curlee41/ is a member of DTP and an individual petitioner in Case No. 14-2420, challenging the issuance of Permit 25. She is a resident and owner of property on Cudjoe Key. Her address is 1052 Spanish Main Drive, Cudjoe Key, Florida 33042. Her property will not be served by an E/One grinder pump; however, she lives less than a quarter-mile from a proposed lift station and less than a mile from two other proposed lift stations. She is concerned that if there is a pump failure at these lift stations resulting in a sewage spill, the area in which she lives, including her property, would be negatively impacted and the sewage would flow into the groundwater and nearshore waters. She uses and enjoys the nearshore waters of Big Pine Key for water-based and other recreational activities, including fishing, boating, kayaking, snorkeling, picnicking, and engaging in nature observation and enjoyment activities as a member of entities whose purpose is to protect the environment. Entitlement to Permits at Issue As discussed above, FKAA met its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case demonstrating entitlement to the Permits at Issue by entering into evidence the applications and supporting materials for the wastewater collection systems and the notices of intent for each of the Permits at Issue. In addition, FKAA presented persuasive, competent, and substantial evidence far beyond that necessary to meet its burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to demonstrate entitlement to the Permits at Issue. As discussed above, Petitioners failed to prove, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the wastewater collection systems at issue, as designed, do not comply with DEP rules and applicable technical standards and requirements, resulting in environmental harm and property damage. On rebuttal, FKAA and DEP thoroughly addressed and rebutted each of the grounds that Petitioners allege justify denial of the Permits at Issue. Accordingly, Petitioners did not meet their burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p) in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: Approving the issuance of Permit No. 295404-018-DWC/CM (Permit 18), at issue in Case No. 14-2415; Approving the issuance of Permit No. 295404-019-DWC/CM (Permit 19), at issue in Case No. 14-2416; Approving the issuance of Permit No. 295404-027-DWC/CM (Permit 27), at issue in Case No. 14-2417; and Approving the issuance of Permit No. 295404-025-DWC/CM (Permit 25), at issue in Case No. 14-2420. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John H. Phipps Broadcasting Stations, Inc., owns approximately 10,600 acres of land bordering on Lake Jackson. The corporation owns roughly seventy percent of the waterfront property around Lake Jackson. The corporation's land is used for agriculture. Less than ten percent of the land is used in a minor grain operation involving the interspersion of cover via several small grain fields. Most of these grain fields are in self-contained basins creating no erosion or runoff problems. These fields are conducive to the propagation of wildlife, particularly quail and deer. The grain produced by these fields is used, at least in part, in the corporation's cattle operation. Approximately twenty-five percent of the corporation's land is used in a cattle breeding operation involving three to five hundred head of cattle. No feed lot operation is involved. The cattle are in pastures, the majority of which are bounded by the waters of Lake Jackson. The corporation fences to and into the water because of the fluctuating level of Lake Jackson and the necessity to contain their cattle. This practice has been ongoing for more than twenty-nine years. The corporation presently has no permits of an environmental nature in connection with the cattle operation. The testimony by Petitioner's witnesses is that the pasture cattle operation is very conducive to good water quality because it captures runoff and allows it to percolate. The remainder of the corporation's land is used in a timber operation which includes controlled burning to help contain erosion. Witnesses for Petitioner corporation testified that the water quality of Lake Jackson bordering the corporation's land is excellent. A high priority of the agricultural operation of the corporation is the maintenance of good water quality in Lake Jackson. Activities are not permitted on the corporation's land that degrade the water quality of the lake. Attempts are made to keep runoff from the lake. The evidence indicates that there are no discharges of water from the corporation's lands into Lake Jackson other than natural runoff. The testimony presented by Petitioner corporation at the final hearing was that the corporation intends to continue using the property as it is presently used and has no tentative plans for a different use of the property. Petitioner, Colin S. Phipps, owns approximately 1,000 acres bordering in part on Lake Jackson. He is also president of John H. Phipps Broadcasting Stations, Inc. Colin S. Phipps rents his acreage and shooting rights to an individual who farms the acreage. He testified that nothing was done on the property that presently requires permits from the Department of Environmental Regulation. John H. Phipps and John E. Phipps personally own parcels of land bordering on Lake Jackson. The three individual petitioners in this cause are officers of the corporate Petitioner. No evidence was presented to show activities on behalf of the petitioners on their property other than that set forth above. Further, it was the position of the petitioners that they did not foresee a change in the activities presently occurring on their property. It was their position that they had no tentative future plans for the property. They did indicate that they did not know what the future might bring. An experienced and qualified appraiser appeared on behalf of petitioners and testified that he had read the rules being challenged in this cause, was familiar with the subject property, and that in his opinion the vagueness of the proposed rules would dramatically and adversely affect the value of Petitioners' land. There are several problems with this opinion testimony. The witness did not testify that he had appraised the property. Rather, he testified that he was very familiar with the property. Thus, his testimony on the value of the land is speculation, albeit knowledgeable speculation, rather than the considered expert opinion of an appraiser. Further, the witness' opinion was based on his reading as a layman of the proposed rules and his speculation of their effect on the real estate market in which the subject lands might be offered for sale. The Hearing Officer found that the witness was a qualified appraiser with experience in appraising the economic impact of environmental regulations on waterfront property. Nevertheless, his interpretation of the proposed rules carries with it no aura of correctness for he is not, and, perhaps as all of us, cannot be, an expert in the interpretation of rules. The rules must speak for themselves and the witness can only speculate on the effect of different interpretations which might be given the rules. Therefore, the Hearing Officer concludes that the opinion of the witness is so speculative that his testimony is incompetent to support findings of fact as to the effect of the proposed regulations on the market value of Petitioners' real property.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent Laniger Enterprises of America, Inc. (Laniger), is liable to Petitioner Department of Environmental Protection (Department) for penalties and costs for the violations alleged in the Department's Notice of Violation, Orders for Corrective Action, and Administrative Penalty Assessment (NOV).
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida having the power and duty to protect Florida's air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Laniger is a Florida corporation that owns and operates the WWTP that is the subject of this case, located at 1662 Northeast Dixie Highway, Jensen Beach, Martin County, Florida. The WWTP is referred to in the Department permit documents as the Beacon 21 WWTP. The WWTP Laniger acquired the WWTP in 1988 in a foreclosure action. At that time, the WWTP was in a "dilapidated" condition and was operating under a consent order with the Department. After acquiring the WWTP, Laniger brought it into compliance with the Department's requirements. Laniger's WWTP is commonly referred to as a "package plant."3 The WWTP's treatment processes are extended aeration, chlorination, and effluent disposal to percolation ponds. The WWTP does not have a direct discharge to surface water. It was permitted to treat 99,000 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. Its average daily flow during the past year was about 56,000 gallons. The east side of the WWTP site is adjacent to Warner Creek. On the north side of the WWTP site, an earthen berm separates the WWTP's percolation ponds from a drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. Warner Creek is a tributary to the St. Lucie River. The St. Lucie River is part of the Indian River Lagoon System. The Indian River Lagoon Act In 1989, the St. Johns River Water Management District and the South Florida Water Management District jointly produced a Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan for the Indian River Lagoon System ("the lagoon system"). For the purpose of the planning effort, the lagoon system was defined as composed of Mosquito Lagoon, Indian River Lagoon, and Banana River Lagoon. It extends from Ponce de Leon Inlet in Volusia County to Jupiter Inlet in Palm Beach County, a distance of 155 miles. The SWIM Plan identified high levels of nutrients as a major problem affecting the water quality of the lagoon system. Domestic wastewater was identified as the major source of the nutrients. The SWIM Plan designated 12 problem areas within the lagoon system and targeted these areas for "research, restoration and conservation projects under the SWIM programs." Department Exhibit 2 at 11-13. Neither Warner Creek nor the St. Lucie River area near Laniger's WWTP is within any of the 12 problem areas identified in the SWIM Plan. With regard to package plants, the SWIM Plan stated: There are numerous, privately operated, "package" domestic WWTPs which discharge indirectly or directly to the lagoon. These facilities are a continual threat to water quality because of intermittent treatment process failure, seepage to the lagoon from effluent containment areas, or overflow to the lagoon during storm events. Additionally, because of the large number of "package" plants and the lack of enforcement staff, these facilities are not inspected or monitored as regularly as they should be. Where possible, such plants should be phased out and replaced with centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. Department Exhibit 2, at 64. In 1990, the Legislature passed the Indian River Lagoon Act, Chapter 90-262, Laws of Florida. Section 1 of the Act defined the Indian River Lagoon System as including the same water bodies as described in the SWIM Plan, and their tributaries. Section 4 of the Act provided: Before July 1, 1991, the Department of Environmental Regulation shall identify areas served by package sewage treatment plants which are considered a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System. In response to this legislative directive, the Department issued a report in July 1991, entitled "Indian River Lagoon System: Water Quality Threats from Package Wastewater Treatment Plants." The 1991 report found 322 package plants operating within the lagoon system and identified 155 plants as threats to water quality. The 1991 report described the criteria the Department used to determine which package plants were threats: Facilities that have direct discharges to the system were considered threats. Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal; systems located within 100 feet of the shoreline or within 100 feet of any canal or drainage ditch that discharges or may discharge to the lagoon system during wet periods were considered threats. * * * Facilities with percolation ponds, absorption fields, or other sub-surface disposal systems located more than 100 feet from surface water bodies in the system were evaluated case-by-case based on [operating history, inspection reports, level of treatment, and facility reliability]. Laniger's package plant was listed in the 1991 report as a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system because it was within 100 feet of Warner Creek and the drainage ditch that connects to Warner Creek. The Department notified Laniger that its WWTP was listed as a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system soon after the 1991 report was issued. The Department's 1991 report concluded that the solution for package plants threats was to replace them with centralized sewage collection and treatment facilities. To date, over 90 of the package plants identified in the Department's 1991 report as threats to the water quality of the lagoon system have been connected to centralized sewage collection and treatment systems. The 1999 Permit and Administrative Order On August 26, 1999, the Department issued Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit No. FLA013879 to Laniger for the operation of its WWTP. Attached to and incorporated into Laniger's 1999 permit was Administrative Order No. AO 99-008- DW43SED. The administrative order indicates it was issued pursuant to Section 403.088(2)(f), Florida Statutes. That statute pertains to discharges that "will not meet permit conditions or applicable statutes and rules" and requires that the permit for such a discharge be accompanied by an order establishing a schedule for achieving compliance. The administrative order contains a finding that the Beacon 21 WWTP is a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system and that the WWTP "has not provided reasonable assurance . . . that operation of the facility will not cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403, F.S., and Chapter [sic] 62-610.850 of the Florida Administrative Code." The cited rule provides that "land application projects shall not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in surface waters." Most of the parties' evidence and argument was directed to the following requirements of the administrative order: Beacon 21 WWTP shall connect to the centralized wastewater collection and treatment within 150 days of its availability and properly abandoned facility [sic] or provide reasonable assurance in accordance with Chapter 62-620.320(1) of the Florida Administrative Code that continued operation of the wastewater facility is not a threat to the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon System and will not cause pollution in contravention of chapter 403, F.S. and Chapter 62-610.850 of the Florida Administrative Code. * * * (3) Beacon 21 WWTP shall provide this office with semi annual reports outlining progress toward compliance with the time frames specified in paragraph 1 of this section, beginning on the issuance date of permit number FLA013879-002-DW3P. The administrative order contained a "Notice of Rights" which informed Laniger of the procedures that had to be followed to challenge the administrative order. Laniger did not challenge the administrative order. As a result of an unrelated enforcement action taken by the Department against Martin County, and in lieu of a monetary penalty, Martin County agreed to extend a force main from its centralized sewage collection and treatment facility so that the Laniger WWTP could be connected. The extension of the force main was completed in April 2003. The force main was not extended to the boundary of the Laniger WWTP site. The force main terminates approximately 150 feet north of the Laniger WWTP site and is separated from the WWTP site by a railroad. Correspondence Regarding Compliance Issues On August 21, 2001, following an inspection of the Laniger WWTP, the Department sent Laniger a letter that identified some deficiencies, one of which was Laniger's failure to submit the semi-annual progress reports required by the administrative order. Reginald Burge, president of Laniger and owner of the WWTP, responded by letter to William Thiel of the Department, stating that, "All reports were sent to the West Palm Beach office. Copies are attached." Mr. Thiel testified that the progress reports were not attached to Laniger's letter and he informed Laniger that the reports were not attached. Mr. Burge testified that he subsequently hand-delivered the reports. At the hearing, it was disclosed that Laniger believed its semi-annual groundwater monitoring reports satisfied the requirement for progress reports and it was the monitoring reports that Mr. Burge was referring to in his correspondence and which he hand-delivered to the Department. Laniger's position in this regard, however, was not made clear in its correspondence to the Department and the Department apparently never understood Laniger's position until after issuance of the NOV. On April 10, 2003, the Department notified Laniger by letter that a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system "is now available for the connection of Beacon 21." In the notification letter, the Department reminded Laniger of the requirement of the administrative order to connect within 150 days of availability. On May 9, 2003, the Department received a response from Laniger's attorney, stating that the administrative order allowed Laniger, as an alternative to connecting to the centralized wastewater collection and treatment system, to provide reasonable assurance that the WWTP was not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system, and Laniger had provided such reasonable assurance. It was also stated in the letter from Laniger's attorney that "due to the location of Martin County's wastewater facilities, such facilities are not available as that term is defined in the [administrative] Order."4 On May 29, 2003, the Department replied, pointing out that the administrative order had found that reasonable assurance was not provided at the time of the issuance of the permit in 1999, and Laniger had made no "improvements or upgrades to the facility." The Department also reiterated that the progress reports had not been submitted. On September 29, 2003, the Department issued a formal Warning Letter to Laniger for failure to connect to the Martin County force main and for not providing reasonable assurance that the WWTP will not cause pollution in contravention of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The progress reports were not mentioned in the Warning Letter. The Department took no further formal action until it issued the NOV in August 2005. Count I: Failure to Timely File for Permit Renewal and Operating Without a Permit Count I of the NOV alleges that Laniger failed to submit its permit renewal application at least 180 days prior to the expiration of the 1999 permit, failed to obtain renewal of its permit, and is operating the WWTP without a valid permit. The date that was 180 days before the expiration of the 1999 permit was on or about February 27, 2004. Laniger did not submit its permit renewal application until February 15, 2005. In an "enforcement meeting" between Laniger and the Department following the issuance of the warning letter in September 2003, the Department told Laniger that it would not renew Laniger's WWTP permit. It was not established in the record whether this enforcement meeting took place before or after February 27, 2004. When Laniger filed its permit renewal application in February 2005, the Department offered to send the application back so Laniger would not "waste" the filing fee, because the Department knew it was not going to approve the application. Laniger requested that the Department to act on the permit application, and the Department denied the application on April 6, 2005. The Department's Notice of Permit Denial stated that the permit was denied because Laniger had not connected to the available centralized wastewater collection and treatment system nor provided reasonable assurance that the WWTP "is not impacting water quality within the Indian River Lagoon System." Laniger filed a petition challenging the permit denial and that petition is the subject of DOAH Case 05-1599, which was consolidated for hearing with this enforcement case. Laniger's permit expired on August 25, 2004. Laniger has operated the plant continuously since the permit expired. Count II: Failure to Submit Progress Reports Count II of the NOV alleges that Laniger failed to comply with the requirement of the administrative order to provide the Department with semi-annual reports of Laniger's progress toward connecting to a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility or providing reasonable assurances that continued operation of the WWTP would not be a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. Laniger maintains that its groundwater monitoring reports satisfied the requirement for the semi-annual progress reports because they showed that the WWTP was meeting applicable water quality standards. The requirement for groundwater monitoring reports was set forth in a separate section of Laniger's permit from the requirement to provide the semi-annual progress reports. The monitoring reports were for the purpose of demonstrating whether the WWTP was violating drinking water quality standards in the groundwater beneath the WWTP site. They served a different purpose than the progress reports, which were to describe steps taken by Laniger to connect to a centralized sewage collection and treatment facility. Laniger's submittal of the groundwater monitoring reports did not satisfy the requirement for submitting semi-annual progress reports. There was testimony presented by the Department to suggest that it believed the semi-annual progress reports were also applicable to Laniger's demonstration of reasonable assurances that the WWTP was not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. However, the progress reports were for the express purpose of "outlining progress toward compliance with the time frames specified in paragraph 1." (emphasis added) The only time frame mentioned in paragraph 1 of the administrative order is connection to an available centralized wastewater collection and treatment facility "within 150 days of its availability." There is no reasonable construction of the wording of this condition that would require Laniger to submit semi-annual progress reports related to reasonable assurances that the WWTP is not a threat to the water quality of the lagoon system. Count III: Department Costs In Count III of the NOV, the Department demands $1,000.00 for its reasonable costs incurred in this case. Laniger did not dispute the Department's costs.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater (City) for violating City policies as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice (Notice) dated July 16, 2015.
Findings Of Fact On February 2, 2009, Mr. Bennett was hired by the Clearwater public utilities department as a water distribution technician I. In April 2015, Mr. Bennett was promoted to a public utilities technician II (Tech II). As a Tech II, Mr. Bennett’s job description included: repairing water leaks, testing backflows, keeping water flowing, and providing services to customers. Additionally, as a Tech II, Mr. Bennett could be called upon by the public water department to respond to after- hours emergency calls, including nights and weekends. On Sunday, April 26, 2015, Mr. Bennett was on-call for the public water department. A city customer called and reported a water leak at his residence. Mr. Bennett was dispatched to the customer’s residence. Mr. Bennett met the customer and cleared the area around the water meter. Mr. Bennett located the water leak outside the water meter box. Mr. Bennett told the customer that a plumber would charge anywhere from $100 to $1,000 to repair the leak because the service call was on a weekend. Mr. Bennett told the customer he would repair the leak for $300. Further, Mr. Bennett provided the customer with a cell phone number so that if the repair was not satisfactory or there was more work to be done, the customer could contact Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett repaired the leak using plumbing supplies from the public utility department truck. After the work was completed, the customer gave Mr. Bennett a personal check for $300. There is no dispute that Mr. Bennett cashed the check on April 27, 2015. After several days the customer texted Mr. Bennett that the cost for the repair was too high. Mr. Bennett did not respond to the text. Mr. Bennett completed a “City of Clearwater Water Leak Service Order” on the repair. The work order reflected that Mr. Bennett received the service call at 7:25 p.m., and he returned home at 9:10 p.m. Mr. Bennett recorded that he found a water leak "in box @ customer's side, repaired leak." Several weeks later, when the customer received his next city water bill, he called the city customer service center to complain. The customer expressed that, after checking with friends and looking at the cost of plumbing parts, the $300 he paid Mr. Bennett was too high for the repair. The customer provided a copy of his cancelled check to the service center. The Clearwater public utilities department does not charge customers for repairs. There is a city policy that the city will repair water leaks within the meter box, but that water leaks outside the meter box are the responsibility of the customer. Following the complaint, the city conducted an investigation into the customer’s water leak repair. Glenn Daniel, Mr. Bennett's supervisor, went to the customer’s residence to examine the area around the water meter. Mr. Daniel observed several new plumbing parts installed outside the meter box. Based on the type and condition of the newly installed pipes, Mr. Daniels determined that the new pipes were from the City's inventory. Mr. Bennett admitted that he made the repair to the water pipe. He proceeded to testify that he felt “funny” about taking and cashing the $300 check. Mr. Bennett claimed he returned the $300, in cash at 2 a.m. the next morning, by placing the cash under the customer’s doormat. Mr. Bennett failed to contact the customer to tell him the money was there. When the customer was asked to look for the money, it was not under the doormat. Mr. Bennett's testimony lacks candor and is not credible. Mr. Bennett also claimed that the telephone number the customer used to text him was not his telephone number. Sergeant Ramon Cosme, of the Clearwater police department, conducted an investigation of the alleged theft of city property. In the course of his investigation, Sergeant Cosme identified the telephone number as being associated to Mr. Bennett. Mr. Bennett was paid by the City for the overtime he worked on Sunday, April 26, 2015. The City has adopted a Performance and Behavior Management Program (PBMP) manual that applies to all employees and contains Citywide, Integrity, and Departmental standards of conduct. Also, pursuant to the Code of Ordinances (Code), the Civil Service Board has adopted a set of rules and regulations that apply to all positions in civil service, including Mr. Bennett's position. Among other things, those regulations set forth additional grounds for disciplining an employee. Each employee is required to review the policies and procedures documents and to acknowledge the understanding of those policies. Mr. Bennett acknowledged being advised about those policies during his employment with the City. Civil Service Board regulations allow an employee to present the circumstances which led to his discipline and other mitigating evidence. See Ch. 13, § 8, Rules and Regs. Pursuant to that regulation, Mr. Bennett requested a disciplinary determination meeting with the Department of Human Resources, which was conducted on July 10, 2015. Mr. Bennett attended the meeting with his union representative. After considering Mr. Bennett's explanation, David Porter,2/ on behalf of the Public Utilities Department, recommended that Mr. Bennett’s employment be terminated. On July 16, 2015, the City Manager notified Mr. Bennett that his employment was being terminated effective the following day, July 17, 2015. The evidence shows that Mr. Bennett repaired a water meter leak on the customer’s side of the meter by using city property, and he accepted $300 for the repair.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the City of Clearwater enter a final order terminating Mr. Bennett’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 13th day of April, 2016.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether International Paper Company (IP) is entitled to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. FL0002526 issued by Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and whether the Department should approve Consent Order No. 08-0358, for the operation of IP’s paper mill in Cantonment, Escambia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2008), to regulate discharges of industrial wastewater to waters of the state. Under a delegation from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Department administers the NPDES permitting program in Florida. IP owns and operates the integrated bleached kraft paper mill in Cantonment. FOPB is a non-profit Alabama corporation established in 1988 whose members are interested in protecting the water quality and natural resources of Perdido Bay. FOPB has approximately 450 members. About 90 percent of the members own property adjacent to Perdido Bay. James Lane is the president of FOPB. Jacqueline Lane and James Lane live on property adjacent to Perdido Bay. The mill's wastewater effluent is discharged into Elevenmile Creek, which is a tributary of Perdido Bay. Perdido Bay is approximately 28 square miles in area. U.S. Highway 90 crosses the Bay, going east and west, and forms the boundary between what is often referred to as the "Upper Bay" and "Lower Bay." The Bay is relatively shallow, especially in the Upper Bay, ranging in depth between five and ten feet. At the north end of Perdido Bay is a large tract of land owned by IP, known as the Rainwater Tract. The northern part of the tract is primarily fresh water wetlands. The southern part is a tidally-affected marsh. The natural features and hydrology of the fresh water wetlands have been substantially altered by agriculture, silviculture, clearing, ditching, and draining. Tee Lake and Wicker Lake are small lakes (approximately 50 acres in total surface area) within the tidal marsh of the Rainwater Tract. Depending on the tides, the lakes can be as shallow as one foot, or several feet deep. A channel through the marsh allows boaters to gain access to the lakes from Perdido Bay. Florida Pulp and Paper Company first began operating the Cantonment paper mill in 1941. St. Regis Paper Company acquired the mill in 1946. In 1984, Champion International Corporation (Champion) acquired the mill. Champion changed the product mix in 1986 from unbleached packaging paper to bleached products such as printing and writing grades of paper. The mill is integrated, meaning that it brings in logs and wood chips, makes pulp, and produces paper. The wood is chemically treated in cookers called digesters to separate the cellulose from the lignin in the wood because only the cellulose is used to make paper. Then the "brown stock" from the digesters goes through the oxygen delignification process, is mixed with water, and is pumped to paper machines that make the paper products. In 1989, the Department and Champion signed a Consent Order to address water quality violations in Elevenmile Creek. Pursuant to the Consent Order, Champion commissioned a comprehensive study of the Perdido Bay system that was undertaken by a team of scientists led by Dr. Robert Livingston, an aquatic ecologist and professor at Florida State University. The initial three-year study by Dr. Livingston's team of scientists was followed by a series of related scientific studies (“the Livingston studies"). Champion was granted variances from the water quality standards in Elevenmile Creek for iron, specific conductance, zinc, biological integrity, un-ionized ammonia, and dissolved oxygen (DO). In 2001, IP and Champion merged and Champion’s industrial wastewater permit and related authorizations were transferred to IP. In 2002, IP submitted a permit application to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) and relocate its discharge. The WWTP upgrades consist of converting to a modified activated sludge treatment process, increasing aeration, constructing storm surge ponds, and adding a process for pH adjustment. The new WWTP would have an average daily effluent discharge of 23.8 million gallons per day (mgd). IP proposes to convey the treated effluent by pipeline 10.7 miles to the Rainwater Tract, where the effluent would be distributed over the wetlands as it flows to lower Elevenmile Creek and upper Perdido Bay. IP's primary objective in upgrading the WWTP was to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus in the mill's effluent discharge. The upgrades are designed to reduce un-ionized ammonia, total soluble nitrogen, and phosphorus. They are also expected to achieve a reduction of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and TSS. IP plans to obtain up to 5 mgd of treated municipal wastewater from a new treatment facility planned by the Emerald Coast Utility Authority (ECUA), which would be used in the paper production process and would reduce the need for groundwater withdrawals by IP for this purpose. The treated wastewater would enter the WWTP, along with other process wastewater and become part of the effluent conveyed through the pipeline to the wetland tract. The effluent limits required by the proposed permit include technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) that apply to the entire pulp and paper industry. TBELs are predominantly production-based, limiting the amount of pollutants that may be discharged for each ton of product that is produced. The proposed permit also imposes water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) that are specific to the Cantonment mill and the waters affected by its effluent discharge. The WQBELs for the mill are necessary for certain constituents of the mill's effluent because the TBELs, alone, would not be sufficient to prevent water quality criteria in the receiving waters from being violated. The Livingston studies represent perhaps the most complete scientific evaluation ever made of a coastal ecosystem. Dr. Livingston developed an extensive biological and chemical history of Perdido Bay and then evaluated the nutrient loadings from Elevenmile Creek over a 12-year period to correlate mill loadings with the biological health of the Bay. The Livingston studies confirmed that when nutrient loadings from the mill were high, they caused toxic algae blooms and reduced biological productivity in Perdido Bay. Some of the adverse effects attributable to the mill effluent were most acute in the area of the Bay near the Lanes' home on the northeastern shore of the Bay because the flow from the Perdido River tends to push the flow from Elevenmile Creek toward the northeastern shore. Because Dr. Livingston determined that the nutrient loadings from the mill that occurred in 1988 and 1989 did not adversely impact the food web of Perdido Bay, he recommended effluent limits for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, and total phosphorous that were correlated with mill loadings of these nutrients in those years. The Department used Dr. Livingston’s data, and did its own analyses, to establish WQBELs for orthophosphate for drought conditions and for nitrate-nitrite. WQBELs were ultimately developed for total ammonia, orthophosphate, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus, BOD, color, and soluble inorganic nitrogen. The WQBELs in the proposed permit were developed to assure compliance with water quality standards under conditions of pollutant loadings at the daily limit (based on a monthly average) during low flow in the receiving waters. Petitioners did not dispute that the proposed WWTP is capable of achieving the TBELs and WQBELs. Their main complaint is that the WQBELs are not adequate to protect the receiving waters. A wetland pilot project was constructed in 1990 at the Cantonment mill into which effluent from the mill has been discharged. The flora and fauna of the pilot wetland project have been monitored to evaluate how they are affected by IP’s effluent. An effluent distribution system is proposed for the wetland tract to spread the effluent out over the full width of the wetlands. This would be accomplished by a system of berms running perpendicular to the flow of water through the wetlands, and gates and other structures in and along the berms to gather and redistribute the flow as it moves in a southerly direction toward Perdido Bay. The design incorporates four existing tram roads that were constructed on the wetland tract to serve the past and present silvicultural activities there. The tram roads, with modifications, would serve as the berms in the wetland distribution system. As the effluent is discharged from the pipeline, it would be re-aerated and distributed across Berm 1 through a series of adjustable, gated openings. Mixing with naturally occurring waters, the effluent would move by gravity to the next lower berm. The water will re-collect behind each of the vegetated berms and be distributed again through each berm. The distance between the berms varies from a quarter to a half mile. Approximately 70 percent of the effluent discharged into the wetland would flow a distance of approximately 2.3 miles to Perdido Bay. The remaining 30 percent of the effluent would flow a somewhat shorter distance to lower Elevenmile Creek. A computer simulation performed by Dr. Wade Nutter indicated that the effluent would move through the wetland tract at a velocity of approximately a quarter-of-a-foot per second and the depth of flow across the wetland tract will be 0.6 inches. It would take four or five days for the effluent to reach lower Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. As the treated effluent flows through the wetland tract, there will be some removal of nutrients by plants and soil. Nitrogen and phosphorous are expected to be reduced approximately ten percent. BOD in the effluent is expected to be reduced approximately 90 percent. Construction activities associated with the effluent pipeline, berm, and control structures in the wetland tract, as originally proposed, were permitted by the Department through issuance of a Wetland Resource Permit to IP. The United States Army Corps of Engineers has also permitted this work. Petitioners did not challenge those permits. A wetland monitoring program is required by the proposed permit. The stated purpose of the monitoring program is to assure that there are no significant adverse impacts to the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. After the discharge to the wetland tract commences, the proposed permit requires IP to submit wetland monitoring reports annually to the Department. A monitoring program was also developed by Dr. Livingston and other IP consultants to monitor the impacts of the proposed discharge on Elevenmile Creek and Perdido Bay. It was made a part of the proposed permit. The proposed Consent Order establishes a schedule for the construction activities associated with the proposed WWTP upgrades and the effluent pipeline and for incremental relocation of the mill's discharge from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. IP is given two years to complete construction activities and begin operation of the new facilities. At the end of the construction phase, least 25 percent of the effluent is to be diverted to the wetland tract. The volume of effluent diverted to the wetlands is to be increased another 25 percent every three months thereafter. Three years after issuance of the permit, 100 percent of the effluent would be discharged into the wetland tract and there would no longer be a discharge into Elevenmile Creek. The proposed Consent Order establishes interim effluent limits that would apply immediately upon the effective date of the Consent Order and continue during the two-year construction phase when the mill would continue to discharge into Elevenmile Creek. Other interim effluent limits would apply during the 12- month period following construction when the upgraded WWTP would be operating and the effluent would be incrementally diverted from Elevenmile Creek to the wetland tract. A third set of interim effluent limits would apply when 100 percent of the effluent is discharged into the wetland tract. IP is required by the Consent Order to submit quarterly reports of its progress toward compliance with the required corrective actions and deadlines. Project Changes After the issuance of the Final Order in 05-1609, IP modified its manufacturing process to eliminate the production of white paper. IP now produces brown paper for packaging material and “fluff” pulp used in such products as filters and diapers. IP’s new manufacturing processes uses substantially smaller amounts of bleach and other chemicals that must be treated and discharged. IP reduced its discharge of BOD components, salts that increase the specific conductance of the effluent, adsorbable organic halides, and ammonia. IP also reduced the odor associated with its discharge. In the findings that follow, the portion of the Rainwater Tract into which IP proposes to discharge and distribute its effluent will be referred to as the “effluent distribution system,” which is the term used by Dr. Nutter in his 2008 “White Paper” (IP Exhibit 23). The effluent distribution system includes the berms and other water control structures as well as all of the natural areas over which IP’s effluent will flow to Perdido Bay. Most of the existing ditches, sloughs, and depressions in the effluent distribution system are ephemeral, holding water only after heavy rainfall or during the wet season. Even the more frequently wetted features, other than Tee and Wicker Lakes, intermittently dry out. There is currently little connectivity among the small water bodies that would allow fish and other organisms to move across the site. Fish and other organisms within these water bodies are exposed to wide fluctuations in specific conductivity, pH, and DO. When the water bodies dry out, the minnows and other small fish die. New populations of fish enter these water bodies from Elevenmile Creek during high water conditions, or on the feet of water birds. IP's consultants conducted an extensive investigation and evaluation of animal and plant communities in the Rainwater Tract in coordination with scientists from the Department and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Among the habitats that were identified and mapped were some wet prairies, which are designated “S-2," or imperiled, in the Florida Natural Area Inventory. In these wet prairies are rare and endangered pitcher plants. IP modified the design of the proposed effluent distribution system to shorten the upper berms and remove 72.3 acres of S-2 habitat. The total area of the system was reduced from 1,484 acres to 1,381 acres. The proposed land management activities within the effluent distribution system are intended to achieve restoration of historic ecosystems, including the establishment and maintenance of tree species appropriate to the various water depths in the system, and the removal of exotic and invasive plant species. A functional assessment of the existing and projected habitats in the effluent distribution system was performed. The Department concluded that IP’s project would result in a six percent increase in overall wetland functional value within the system. That estimate accounts for the loss of some S-2 habitat, but does not include the benefits associated with IP’s conservation of S-2 habitat and other land forms outside of the effluent distribution system. IP proposes to place in protected conservation status 147 acres of wet prairie, 115 acres of seepage slope, and 72 acres of sand hill lands outside the effluent distribution system. The total area outside of the wetland distribution system that the Consent Order requires IP to perpetually protect and manage as conservation area is 1,188 acres. The Consent Order was modified to incorporate many of the wetland monitoring provisions that had previously been a part of the former experimental use of wetlands authorization. IP proposes to achieve compliance with all proposed water quality standards and permit limits by the end of the schedule established in the Consent Order, including the water quality standards for specific conductance, pH, turbidity, and DO, which IP had previously sought exceptions for pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-660.300(1). Limitation of Factual Issues As explained in the Conclusions of Law, the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the parties in these consolidated cases from re-litigating factual issues that were previously litigated by them in DOAH Case No. 05-1609. The Department’s Final Order of August 8, 2007, determined that IP had provided reasonable assurance that the NPDES permit, Consent Order, exception for the experimental use of wetlands, and variance were in compliance with all applicable statutes and rules, except for the following area: the evidence presented by IP was insufficient to demonstrate that IP’s wastewater effluent would not cause significant adverse impact to the biological community of the wetland tract, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. Following a number of motions and extensive argument on the subject of what factual issues raised by Petitioners are proper for litigation in this new proceeding, an Order was issued on June 2, 2009, that limited the case to two general factual issues: Whether the revised Consent Order and proposed permit are valid with respect to the effects of the proposed discharge on the wetland system, including Tee and Wicker Lakes, and with respect to any modifications to the effluent distribution and treatment functions of the wetland system following the Final Order issued in DOAH Case No. 05- 1609; and Whether the December 2007 report of the Livingston team demonstrates that the WQBELS are inadequate to prevent water quality violations in Perdido Bay. Petitioners’ Disputes Petitioners’ proposed recommended orders include arguments that are barred by collateral estoppel. For example, Jacqueline Lane restates her opinions about physical and chemical processes that would occur if IP’s effluent is discharged into the wetlands, despite the fact that some of these opinions were rejected in DOAH Case No. 05-1609. Dr. Lane believes that IP’s effluent would cause adverse impacts from high water temperatures resulting from color in IP’s effluent. There is already color in the waters of the effluent distribution system under background conditions. The increased amount of shading from the trees that IP is planting in the effluent distribution system would tend to lower water temperatures. Peak summer water temperatures would probably be lowered by the effluent. Petitioners evidence was insufficient to show that the organisms that comprise the biological community of the effluent distribution system cannot tolerate the expected range of temperatures. Dr. Lane also contends that the BOD in IP's effluent would deplete DO in the wetlands and Tee and Wicker Lakes. Her contention, however, is not based on new data about the effluent or changes in the design of the effluent distribution system. There is a natural, wide fluctuation in DO in the wetlands of the effluent distribution system because DO is affected by numerous factors, including temperature, salinity, atmospheric pressure, turbulence, and surface water aeration. There are seasonal changes in DO levels, with higher levels in colder temperatures. There is also a daily cycle of DO, with higher levels occurring during the day and lower levels at night. It is typical for DO levels in wetlands to fall below the Class III water quality standard for DO, which is five milligrams per liter (mg/l). An anaerobic zone in the water column is beneficial for wetland functions. DO levels in the water bodies of the effluent distribution system currently range from a high of 11 to 12 mg/l to a low approaching zero. The principal factor that determines DO concentrations within a wetland is sediment oxygen demand (SOD). SOD refers to the depletion of oxygen from biological responses (respiration) as well as oxidation-reduction reactions within the sediment. The naturally occurring BOD in a wetland is large because of the amount of organic material. The BOD associated with IP’s effluent would be a tiny fraction of the naturally occurring BOD in the effluent distribution system and would be masked by the effect of the SOD. It was estimated that the BOD associated with IP's effluent would represent only about .00000000001 percent of the background BOD, and would have an immeasurable effect. Dr. Pruitt’s testimony about oxygen dynamics in a wetland showed that IP’s effluent should not cause a measurable decrease in DO levels within the effluent distribution system, including Tee and Wicker Lakes. FOPB and James Lane assert that only 200 acres of the effluent distribution system would be inundated by IP’s effluent, so that the alleged assimilation or buffering of the chemical constituents of the effluent would not occur. That assertion misconstrues the record evidence. About 200 acres of the effluent distribution system would be permanently inundated behind the four berms. However, IP proposes to use the entire 1,381-acre system for effluent distribution. The modifications to the berms and the 72-acre reduction in the size of the effluent distribution system would not have a material effect on the assimilative capacity of system. The residence time and travel time of the effluent in the system, for example, would not be materially affected. Variability in topography within the effluent distribution system and in rainfall would affect water depths in the system. The variability in topography, including the creation of some deeper pools, would contribute to plant and animal diversity and overall biological productivity within the system. The pH of the effluent is not expected to change the pH in the effluent distribution system because of natural buffering in the soils. The specific conductance (saltiness) of IP’s effluent is not high enough to adversely affect the biological community in the fresh water wetlands of the effluent distribution system. IP is already close to maintaining compliance with the water quality standard for specific conductance and would be in full compliance by the end of the compliance schedule established in the proposed Consent Order. After the 2007 conversion to brown paper manufacturing, IP’s effluent has shown no toxicity. The effluent has passed the chronic toxicity test, which analyzes the potential for toxicity from the whole effluent, including any toxicity arising from additive or synergistic effects, on sensitive test organisms. Dr. Lane points out that the limits for BOD and TSS in the proposed NPDES permit exceed the limits established by Department rule for discharges of municipal wastewater into wetlands. However, paper mill BOD is more recalcitrant in the environment than municipal wastewater BOD and less “bio- available” in the processes that can lower DO. In addition, the regulatory limits for municipal wastewater are technology-based, representing “secondary treatment.” The secondary treatment technology is not applicable to IP’s wastewater. Sampling in the pilot wetland at the paper mill revealed a diversity of macroinvertebrates, including predator species, and other aquatic organisms. Macroinvertebrates are a good measure of the health of a water body because of their fundamental role in the food web and because they are generally sensitive to pollutants. Petitioners contend that the pilot wetland at the paper mill is not a good model for the effect of the IP’s effluent in the wetland distribution system, primarily because of the small amount of effluent that has been applied to the pilot wetland. Although the utility of the pilot wetland data is diminished in this respect, it is not eliminated. The health of the biological community in the pilot wetland contributes to IP’s demonstration of reasonable assurance that the biological community in the effluent distribution system would not be adversely affected. The effluent would not have a significant effect on the salinity of Tee and Wicker Lakes. Under current conditions, the lakes have a salinity of less than one part per thousand 25 percent of the time, less than 10 parts per thousand 53 percent of the time, and greater than 10 parts per thousand 22 percent of the time. In comparison, marine waters have a salinity of 2.7 parts per thousand. IP’s effluent would not affect the lower end of the salinity range for Tee and Wicker Lakes, and would cause only a minor decrease in the higher range. That minor decrease should not adversely affect the biota in Tee and Wicker Lakes or interfere with their nursery functions. The proposed hydrologic loading rate of the effluent amounts to an average of six-tenths of an inch over the area of effluent distribution system. The addition of IP’s effluent to the wetlands of the effluent distribution system and the creation of permanent pools would allow for permanent fish populations and would increase the opportunity for fish and other organisms to move across the effluent distribution system. Biological diversity and productivity is likely to be increased in the effluent distribution system. By improving fish habitat, the site would attract wading birds and other predatory birds. Although the site would not be open to public use (with the exception of Tee and Wicker Lakes), recreational opportunities could be provided by special permission for guided tours, educational programs, and university research. Even if public access were confined to Tee and Wicker Lakes, that would not be a reduction in public use as compared to the existing situation. IP’s discharge, including its discharges subject to the interim limits established in the Consent Order, would not interfere with the designated uses of the Class III receiving waters, which are the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. The wetlands of the effluent distribution system are the “receiving waters” for IP’s discharge. The proposed project would not be unreasonably destructive to the receiving waters, which would involve a substantial alteration in community structure and function, including the loss of sensitive taxa and their replacement with pollution-tolerant taxa. The proposed WQBELs would maintain the productivity in Tee and Wicker Lakes. There would be no loss of the habitat values or nursery functions of the lakes which are important to recreational and commercial fish species. IP has no reasonable, alternative means of disposing of its wastewater other than by discharging it into waters of the state. IP has demonstrated a need to meet interim limits for a period of time necessary to complete the construction of its alternative waste disposal system. The interim limits and schedule for coming into full compliance with all water quality standards, established in the proposed Consent Order, are reasonable. The proposed project is important and beneficial to the public health, safety, and welfare because (1) economic benefits would accrue to the local and regional economy from the operation of IP’s paper mill, (2) Elevenmile Creek would be set on a course of recovery, (3) the wetlands of the effluent distribution system would become a site of greater biological diversity and productivity, (4) the environmental health of Perdido Bay would be improved, (5) the Department’s decades-long enforcement action against IP would be concluded, (6) substantial areas of important habitat would be set aside for permanent protection, and (7) the effluent distribution system would yield important information on a multitude of scientific topics that were debated by these parties. The proposed project would not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife or their habitats. The proposed project would not adversely affect fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge. There is no Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan applicable to IP’s proposed discharge. The preponderance of the record evidence establishes reasonable assurance that IP’s proposed project would comply with all applicable laws and that the Consent Order establishes reasonable terms and conditions to resolve the Department’s enforcement action against IP for past violations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order granting NPDES Permit No. FL0002526 and approving Consent Order No. 08-0358. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 27th day of January, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Pinellas County operates a water system which serves a population of approximately 400,000. This figure includes some 250,000 individual meter accounts and 150,000 wholesale customers, including the Pasco County Water Authority 1/ and the Cities of Tarpon Springs, Clearwater, Safety Harbor and Pinellas Park. At the time of the hearing, Pinellas County was conducting negotiations with the Cities of Oldsmar and Dunedin to supply them with water. Like other suppliers of water within the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD, Pinellas County is required to obtain consumptive use permits (CUP) from SWFWMD. This petitioner currently operates two wellfields -- the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield Containing 1,925 acres and the East Lake Road Wellfield Containing 5,861 acres. In addition, Pinellas County receives water supplies from the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (WCRWSA), which operates the Cypress Creek Wellfield Containing 4,895 acres and the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield Containing 8,060 acres. On an average daily basis, the Pinellas County water system presently utilizes 45 million gallons of water per day (mgd), with a peak use of 65 mgd. Projections indicate that the estimated water demand for the Pinellas County water system will be an average of 54.3 mgd, and a peak use of 90.15 mgd by 1980. For the year 1982, the estimate is 60.06 mgd average and 98.71 mgd peak. For 1984, the estimate is 65.44 mgd average and 106.65 mgd peak. At the time of the hearing, the present permitted capacity available to Pinellas County was 73 mgd average and 100 mgd peak or maximum. Estimates of projected water demands for Pinellas County indicate a definite shortage of water during peak periods by the year 1984 and a cushion of only 1.29 million gallons during peak periods as early as 1982. Pinellas County has experienced water shortages in the recent past, resulting in emergency measures such as sprinkling bans during the daylight hours. Considering the possibilities of equipment breakdowns or extremely dry periods, a cushion of 1.29 mgd is not a sufficient surplus. The WCRWSA was formulated by an interlocal agreement under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and is authorized to acquire water and water rights, develop, store and transport water, and to provide, sell and deliver water for county or municipal purposes or uses. The members of the WCRWSA are Pasco County, the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County, the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. As noted above, the WCRWSA operates two wellfields -- Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch. Pinellas County actually owns the land at the Cross Bar Ranch. At the time of the hearing, the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield was permitted for 15 mgd average and 20 mgd peak. In August of 1979, the WCRWSA and Pinellas County, as co-applicants, filed an application for a modification of their consumptive use permit at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield to authorize an annual average withdrawal of 30 mgd and a maximum withdrawal of 45 mgd. Under the rules of respondent SWFWMD, an application for an increased use is treated as a new application. Rule 16J- 2.04(5), Fla. Admin. Code. Pasco County moved to intervene in the petitioners' CUP application process concerning the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. Among the issues raised by Pasco County in their Petition to intervene was whether the proposed consumptive use would exceed the water crop of land owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicants. At the time of the evidentiary hearing in the present cause, SWFWMD had not yet held an administrative hearing on the application for a CUP modification for the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. The application was pending both at the time of the filing of the petitions with the Division and at the time that all parties rested at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing. The petitions filed in the instant cause challenge the validity of SWFWMD'S Rule 16J-2.11(3), Florida Administrative Code. This rule is known as the water rule, and reads as follows: 16J-2.11 Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit. (3) Issuance of a permit will be denied if the amount of water consumptively used will exceed the water crop of lands owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. (Except where determined otherwise, the water crop [precipitation less evapotranspiration] throughout the District will be assumed to be three hundred sixty-five thousand (365,000) gallons per year per acre.) Another subsection of Rule 16J-2.11 provides that the governing board of SWFWMD may grant an exception to the water crop rule. Subsection (5) of Rule 16J-2.11 provides that (5) The Board for good cause shown may grant exceptions to the provisions of paragraphs (2), (3), (4), and (10) of this rule when after consideration of all data presented, including economic information, it finds that it is consistent with the Public interest. The caveat of the water crop rule is that only 1,000 gallons per acre per day may be withdrawn under any permit. The Cross Bar Ranch consists of 8,060 acres. Under the challenged rule, only 8,060,000 gallons per day could be withdrawn. Therefore, the application pending before SWFWMD for a CUP for 30 mgd average and 45 mgd peak far exceeds the water crop rule. The existing permit also exceeds the limitations of the rule. The water crop concept had its genesis in a report on the amount of available water in a certain portion of the respondent's water management district. The rule is applied district-wide by SWFWMD. In spite of its seemingly mandatory language, the rule is not ultimately implemented or interpreted in a mandatory fashion by the respondent. Instead, it is applied as an initial or threshold level of inquiry, or "first cut," and, if the other criteria for a permit can be satisfied, SWFWMD will grant an exception under subsection (5) of Rule 16J-2.11. With one possible exception, the respondent has never denied a permit solely because the application exceeded the water crop concept. It would not be hydrologically sound to deny a CUP solely on the basis of the water crop rule. Consumptive use permits can be adequately regulated without such a rule. No other water management district in Florida has promulgated or requires compliance with a water crop rule. The water crop concept is hydrologically unsound and cannot be properly applied to any specific piece of property. A generalization of the amount of water which is available throughout the district (1,000 gallons per acre per day) cannot reasonably be applied in individual consumptive use proceedings. This is due to the fact that the amount of water which can be withdrawn from any specific parcel of lad is dependent upon the amount of rainfall the land receives, soil types, the water table, the existence of confining layers, vegetation types and other variable hydrological factors. These factors vary widely throughout the subject water management district. If the water crop rule were strictly applied by SWFWMD, the petitioners would be required to purchase or otherwise acquire an additional 80,000 acres of land to supply their customers with the water now permitted to be withdrawn. This would obviously result in excessive financial burdens to the petitioners and, ultimately, consumers. Without objection by the respondent or the intervenors, evidence was adduced by the petitioners regarding the action of the Florida Joint Administrative Procedures Committee in its review of Rule 16J-2.11(3) in 1976. The undersigned makes no finding of fact regarding this evidence inasmuch as it deemed irrelevant and immaterial to the ultimate determination in this cause. As noted above, the City of St. Petersburg is a member of the WCRWSA. Because of recent water shortages, St. Petersburg has loaned to Pinellas County apportion of its allotment from a wellfield operated by WCRSWA. It is projected that the City of St. Petersburg will need additional supplies of water between the years of 1983 and 1985. The remaining intervenors are all charged with the responsibility to obtain sufficient water supplies within the district of SWFWMD. They are subject to the consumptive use permitting rules of SWFWMD. Evidence was offered on the issue of whether the water crop rule was strictly applied to Pinellas County at its East Lake Road Wellfield, which comprises 5,861 acres. At present, the amount of water withdrawal permitted is less than the water crop for the amount of acreage of the wellfield. Though there was evidence that SWFWMD inquired as to the control or ownership of the land, the actual permit application was not introduced into evidence nor was there sufficient evidence adduced by petitioner to illustrate the reasons for a permit for an amount less than that which would be permitted under the challenged rule.
Findings Of Fact Respondent owns and operates a waste water treatment facility at Polynesian Village Mobile Home Park, owns the land at this village, leases these lots to mobile home owners, and provides them with waste water treatment. He was last issued an operating permit on January 18, 1983, by Petitioner. Respondent posted an Operational Bond (Exhibit 2) in the amount of $7,500 with Northwestern National Insurance Company as surety to faithfully operate the treatment facility and comply with all Rules and Regulations of the Petitioner. Englewood Water District, petitioner, was established by special act of the Florida Legislature in Chapter 59-931, Florida Statutes, and is given authority in Section 4 thereof to regulate use of sewers, fix rates, enjoin or otherwise prevent violations of the act or any regulation adopted by Petitioner pursuant to the act, and to promulgate regulations to carry out the provisions of the act. Pursuant to this authority, Petitioner promulgated Waste Water Treatment Facilities Design, Construction and Operation Regulations dated June 19, 1980, and revised April 28, 1983. During an inspection of Respondent's waste water treatment facility on October 17, 1983, leaching was observed at both the north and south drain fields with effluent from the system rising to the surface. Samples of this effluent when tested showed a fecal coliform count of 2800/100 ml. The basic level of disinfectant shall result in not more than 200 fecal coliform values per 100 ml of effluent sample (Rule 17-6.060(1)(b)3a, F.A.C.). Following this test, Notice of Violation (Exhibit 4) was served on Respondent. No action was taken by Respondent to correct this condition and on January 6, 1984, a Citation (Exhibit 5) was issued to Respondent scheduling a hearing for January 26, 1984. Following the issuance of that Citation frequent inspections of the facility were conducted by employees of Respondent to ascertain if steps were being taken by Respondent to correct the deficiencies. Additionally, inspections were made by inspectors from Sarasota County Pollution Control. Inspections were conducted January 9, 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, and 31; February 1, 8, 13, 14, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29; and March 2, 5, 8, and 9, 1984. These inspections revealed what appears to be a "blow-out" in the south drain field where effluent bubbles to the surface and flows onto the adjacent streets and propert (Exhibits 9 and 11). Effluent tested from this source had fecal coliform counts as high as 9440/100 ml. During one of these inspections effluent from the treatment plant was being discharged directly onto the road to a drainage ditch adjacent to the plant (Exhibit 8). The coliform count of a sample taken from this ditch was 13500/100 ml. Respondent was issued a second Citation on March 2, 1984, and this hearing was held on the violations alleged in that Citation, to wit: creating a public nuisance and leaching from drain field. Respondent contends that he is dealing with the Sarasota County Engineer to correct the problems and, after failing in his attempt to get the county to provide drainage from his property, he is now in the process of installing drain pipes. Respondent contends that the natural drainage of surface waters from his land to adjacent land was stopped by development on the adjacent land and the heavy rains this winter has saturated his land and inhibited percolation in the drain fields. Accordingly, the effluent from his plant could not be absorbed by the drain field. Respondent also contends that the drain field worked fine for several years before the drainage problem arose and believes it will again work well when the drainage situation is corrected.
