The Issue Whether the subject site is within Petitioner's permitting jurisdiction and whether an earthen dam constructed at the subject site required a permit? Whether Respondent should be required to remove the earthen dam and/or be required to pay Petitioner's investigative costs?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida that regulates dredge and fill activities conducted in wetlands within its statutory jurisdiction as set forth in Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes. Respondent owns the subject property, which is located in the 200 block of Jan Drive in Section 18, Township 4 South, Range 13 West, Bay County, Florida. On July 22, 1999, Mr. Keisker met informally with Respondent at Respondent’s request and made a field visit to the subject property. Mr. Keisker told Respondent that he thought the subject property was within Petitioner’s permitting jurisdiction. Although Mr. Keisker took soil samples, surveyed the plant life of the area, and observed the hydrology of the area, his visit was not intended to be an official determination that the subject property was within Petitioner's permitting jurisdiction. There is no dispute that an earthen dam was constructed across the unnamed creek, described in findings of fact paragraph 5, in late 1999 or early January 2000. The central issue in dispute is whether the site of the earthen dam is within Petitioner’s permitting jurisdiction. Respondent asserts that the area at issue is a drainage ditch that did not naturally occur and is not within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that the area is an unnamed creek in a historical, natural wetland that is within its permitting jurisdiction. The greater weight of the credible, competent evidence established that Respondent’s property contains an unnamed creek that is located in an area of historically natural wetlands that was likely excavated in the 1970's by the local Mosquito Control District. This area of natural wetlands drains and connects into Rogers Pond and Calloway Bayou, which are Class III waters of the State of Florida. The site is within the permitting jurisdiction of Petitioner. 2/ Respondent did not receive a permit prior to the construction of the earthen dam. Construction of the earthen dam constitutes unpermitted fill activity in a wetland within Petitioner's regulatory jurisdiction. Shortly after Petitioner received a complaint in January 2000 that it had been constructed, the dam was partially breached as the result of a heavy rain event. To prevent further pollution of the unnamed creek, the remaining portion of the earthen dam should be removed by non- mechanical means. Mr. Keisker testified that he calculated Petitioner’s investigative costs based on the amount of time he expended in investigating this matter multiplied by his hourly rate of pay. In calculating his hourly rate of pay, he took his annual salary and added to that 52 percent of his annual salary for fringe benefits. He then divided that sum by 2000, which represents 50 work weeks of 40 hours per week. He used 50 weeks to calculate the hourly rate to adjust for two weeks of paid vacation. Based on his calculations, Mr. Keisker testified that Petitioner incurred costs and expenses in excess of $750.00 during its investigation of this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the findings and conclusions contained herein and requiring Respondent to remove the remaining portions of the earthen dam by non-mechanical means. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2001.
Findings Of Fact The Applications. Permit DC51-189086 (Moon Lake Road Site). The County's application for Permit DC51-189086 was filed on 11/13/90. It sought to construct Moon Lake Road WWTP, Sprayfield, and Percolation Pond System. The design treatment capacity sought for Moon Lake Road WWTP was .800 MGD, for the sprayfield was .215 MGD, and for the percolation pond system was .185 MGD. The application for Permit DC51-189086 was denied on 2/13/92. Notice of the proposed agency action was published in accordance with Department requirements, and the County timely petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. On 11/16/93, the County amended its application for Permit DC51-189086 to exclude the proposed Moon Lake Road WWTP, in order to defer construction of the WWTP to a later date. On 1/5/94, the County amended its application for Permit DC51-189086 to withdraw the request for a surface water permit and a stormwater permit. Due to the recent interagency agreement between the Department and SWFWMD, the County decided to defer surface water and stormwater permitting for this facility until after the construction permit was issued. Permit DO51-194674 (Wesley Chapel WWTP/Oakley Grove Site). The County's application for Permit DO51-194674 was timely filed on 2/12/91. The application sought authorization to operate the County's Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) at .750 MGD and Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System at .600 MGD. The application for Permit DO51-194674 was denied by the Department on 7/18/91. The notice of permit denial alleges that the County failed to submit requested additional information, that an inspection of the site had revealed a 6-inch irrigation pipe undermining a percolation pond berm, and that the Certificate of Completion of Construction did not accurately reflect observed aspects of the disposal area. The County timely petitioned for administrative hearing. The application for Permit DO51-194674 was amended on 11/16/93 to limit the treatment capacity of Wesley Chapel WWTP to .600 MGD. Permit DO51-199516 (Ryals Road Site). The portion of this case concerning Permit DO51-199516 involves the County's request to reactivate operations at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The requested disposal capacity is .1075 MGD, which is about half of its disposal capacity when it previously was in operation. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System is a reuse facility owned by the County, and constructed in 1985 as a replacement for nearby Oaks Royal Percolation Pond, where a sinkhole had developed. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-100407) for the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1985. The Department granted the application for Permit DC51-100407 on 7/10/85. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System's permitted disposal rate was about .200 MGD. Construction of Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was completed in 1986, and operation began immediately thereafter due to the appearance of a new sinkhole at the Oaks Royal Percolation Pond. The Department was advised of the new sinkhole in the Oaks Royal Percolation Pond in 1/86 and in 2/86 and was advised that reclaimed water from Oaks Royal WWTP was being diverted to Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The Ryals Road Percolation Pond System operated from 1986 through 1989. It received reclaimed water from Oaks Royal WWTP. A sinkhole developed in Ryals Road Percolation Pond System in 1987. The County backfilled the sinkhole and advised the Department of the problem. The County's initial operation permit application (#DO51-142683) for Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1989. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DO51-142683 in 8/89. It does not contain any permit conditions dealing with the potential for sinkhole formation at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. At the time, the Department anticipated that the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System would be in operation for only a year or two. The County operated Ryals Road Percolation Pond System under Permit DO51-142683 until sometime in 1990, without further sinkhole or land subsidence problems. Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was taken out of service in 1990, when Oaks Royal WWTP was abandoned. Oaks Royal WWTP was taken out of service because, after completion of Southeast WWTP, it no longer was needed. On a routine monitor well sampling report to the Department dated April 30, 1990, the County's laboratory supervisor noted that the Oaks Royal WWTP had been taken out of service prior to January, 1990. On a subsequent report dated May 29, 1990, the County's laboratory supervisor noted that monitor wells at the Ryals Road site had been destroyed and that no ground water samples could be taken or reported. This report also noted that no arrangements were being made to replace the monitor wells since the Oaks Royal WWTP was "no longer on-line." The County never formally withdrew or surrendered its operation permit DO51-142683 for the operation of the Oaks Royal WWTP and Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. The Department never took action to revoke or terminate the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit and never gave the County notice of intent to do so. The County first notified the Department of its intent to "revive" the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System through letters dated 4/12/91 and 4/18/91. The County attempted to reactivate the facility by letter rather than permit application because it believed the facility was already authorized to operate pursuant to Permit DO51-142683. After receiving no response to its 4/91 letters, the County sent the Department a follow-up letter dated 6/10/91 again asking to "revive" Ryals Road Percolation Pond System. This letter refers to the County's request to reactivate the system as a "minor modification" to Permit DC51-150232C, which authorized construction activities at the County's Southeast WWTP. The letter sought a minor modification of the construction permit instead of an amendment to Permit DO51-142683 because the County was unsure of the status of the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System operation permit and had been advised by Department employees that this would be the most expeditious way to handle its request. The County's request for a minor modification was assigned permit identification number DO51-199516, and the "O" signifies an operation permit application. The County does not know why its request to reactivate Ryals Road Percolation Pond System was treated by the Department as a new operation permit application. The County first learned that its request to reactivate Ryals Road Percolation Pond System had been assigned a new operation permit identification number when it received notice of permit denial. The "application" for Permit DO51-199516 was denied on 8/26/91. The County timely petitioned for a formal administrative hearing. The Notice of Permit Denial for Permit DO51-199516 alleged that Ryals Road Percolation Pond System is not suitable for rapid rate disposal due to the high potential for subsidence activity, that this potential is demonstrated by the appearance of sinkholes in 1985, 1986 and 1987, and that boring logs and other information in the ground water monitoring plan shows a potential for sinkhole formation. Regardless of the confusion in processing the County's request regarding the Ryals Road site, the County announced clearly and unequivocally at final hearing that it no longer wanted its request to reactivate the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System to be treated as a request for a modification of Construction Permit DC51-150232C (for construction of the Southeast WWTP). Rather, it wanted its request for minor berm restoration work to be treated as exempt activity under F.A.C. Rule 17-4.040(1)(a), and it wanted the installation of new groundwater monitoring wells to be handled under Ground Water Monitoring Plan Condition 3 of Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit). Alternatively, and only if it was determined that Permit DO51-142683 no longer was in effect, the County wanted its request to be treated as a request for a modification of Construction Permit DC51-150232C (for construction of the Southeast WWTP) or as an application for a new operation permit. Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit) expired on August 5, 1994. Drainage Ditches in Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Percolation Pond Systems. Drainage ditches are present at the Oakley Grove and several other County Percolation Pond Systems; they are proposed for the Moon Lake Percolation Pond System. (Drainage ditches are not present at the Ryals Road Percolation Pond System.) A "relief drainage" system is a system of drainage ditches used to lower a high water table, which is generally flat or of a very low gradient. There are 4 types of relief drainage ditch systems: parallel, herringbone, double main and random. Correspondence between the County's consultants and the Department usually described the on-site drainage ditches at the County's percolation pond systems as "perimeter ditches." Although the County's ditches do not necessarily completely surround each pond, it is a fair description of the ditches. They are a network of ditches that, together, surround the sites. The network varies to some degree from site to site. Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System is designed to have double main type drainage ditch system; Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System has a random type ditch system. The County's consultants began referring to the ditches as "perimeter ditches" in part because it was a term used by members of the Department's staff. But both the Department and the County knew what was meant by "perimeter ditches" or similar terms, and the County only stopped using those terms in furtherance of its legal arguments in this case. Ground water will seep into the relief drainage ditches at the County's percolation pond system. During and after any rainfall event, water infiltrating into the ground in close proximity to a drainage ditch will be encouraged to seep into the ditch. During seasonally wet periods, when ground water elevations tend to rise above normal levels, ground water both on and off- site will seep into the ditches. After extreme rainfall events delivering large volumes of water to the site, elevated ground water mounding would occur and ground water will seep into the drainage ditches. The invert elevations of the relief drainage ditches located at the County's percolation pond systems were set to the approximate normal water level elevation. As a result, the ditch inverts will normally be wet, and ground water normally will seep into ditches in normal weather conditions even if the water table is not being recharged by reclaimed water. The principal design goals for the drainage features located at the County's percolation pond systems are: (a) ditch construction provides an inexpensive source of fill material; (b) using on-site ditch material allows pond bottoms to be kept higher above the water table; (c) ditches buffer adjacent property from recharge impacts; (d) ditches buffer the site from adjacent land use practices; (e) ditches provide a constant boundary condition by flattening seasonal fluctuation in rainfall, runoff, water table elevations and the potentiometric surface of the deeper aquifer system; (f) ditches serve to quickly drain rainfall that may hinder the recharge performance of the percolation ponds; (g) ditches provide a visible indication of site performance; and (h) ditches are part of the site's stormwater and overflow system. Although the collection of reclaimed water in the ditches is not the primary goal of these drainage features, it is recognized that some reclaimed water would be collected in the ditches as a result of the use of the drainage features to improve the performance of the percolation ponds, depending on the application rate and weather conditions. It is possible that reclaimed water applied to the percolation ponds will percolate into the ground and combine with native ground water, and that the resulting mixture will infiltrate the drainage ditches. As with all land application systems, water applied to percolation ponds will migrate downgradient in the surficial aquifer system and blend with other waters recharging this system. Surface waters downgradient from percolation pond cells, whether in the relief drainage ditches or off-site, will receive a blend of rainwater, direct runoff, water originating from the percolation ponds and ground water, in various proportions. Most surface water is designed to leave the Oakley Grove site at the eastern discharge point. Surface water leaving the site at this point flows east under Interstate 75 and into a forested wetland, approximately 150 acres in size, located to the east of I-75. Surface water then flows from the southwest corner of the wetland into a linear wetland and channel system, which conveys water west, ultimately discharging into Big Cypress Swamp, another wetland system several thousand acres in size. The other discharge point is from the southwestern corner of the Oakley Grove site. From the southwest outfall, surface water flows into a wetland and channel system that conveys water west and then north into Big Cypress Swamp. Surface water also is designed to discharge from the Moon Lake Road site via two outfalls. Both are located on the east side of the site. Discharges would enter an adjacent cypress wetland system consisting of hundreds of acres and meander approximately two miles in a northeasterly direction to a point of intersection with the upper reaches of the Pithlachascotee River. Status of Reclaimed Water Travelling 100 Feet or More from Percolation Pond Cells to Drainage Ditches. The Department generally uses 100 feet as the allowable setback distance between a land application system and adjacent surface water. This practice is derived from Department rules and from the Department's expectation that effluent percolating into the ground water and travelling 100 feet through the soil no longer will have the characteristics of effluent, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. One hundred feet generally is recognized in the engineering field as usually sufficient area to permit adequate treatment, dilution and mixing of effluent as it travels through the soil matrix so to be virtually indistinguishable from normally occurring ground water, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. The treatment, dilution and mixing of effluent occurs through a variety of chemical, biological, absorptive and physical processes that are well documented in the field of sanitary engineering. Although the Department generally uses 100 feet as the allowable setback distance between a land application system and adjacent surface water, the facts of individual cases must be considered to determine whether treatment afforded by 100 feet of travel through the ground makes reclaimed water "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water so as to be virtually indistinguishable from naturally occurring ground water, for permitting purposes, when it reaches the surface water body. This is reflected in the fact that Department's rules make 100 feet the minimum setback distance. In contrast to diffuse discharges to nearby surface water bodies, the Department's rules treat discharges to surface waters via a ditch system that collects and concentrates reclaimed water differently. By rule, such discharges require a surface water discharge permit. If reclaimed water travels through the ground far enough before infiltrating drainage ditches, it would be treated and diluted to the point that it is in fact indistinguishable in chemical or biological composition from native ground water and no longer should be considered reclaimed water or effluent. How far is the dispositive question in determining whether a surface water discharge permit will be required. Setback Distance from On-Site Ditches to Percolation Ponds at Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road Sites. Relief drainage ditches at Moon Lake Percolation Pond System are designed to be located 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, measured from the toe of the slope of the pond to the ditch invert. Relief drainage ditches at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System also were designed to be located 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, measured from the toe of the slope of the percolation pond to the ditch invert. However, primarily as a result of changes to the drainage system required by SWFWMD as part of its permitting process, and minor siting imperfections which occurred during construction, parts of the drainage ditch system at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System are located closer than 100 feet from the percolation ponds. To locate all Oakley Grove drainage ditches 100 feet or more from the percolation ponds, it will be necessary to reduce the size of the ponds. In the new configuration, the design loading rate would have to be increased to .8 from .58 gpd/ft2 (gallons per day per square foot) of pond bottom in order to maintain the .600 MGD design loading capacity of the Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System. Even assuming the predicted hydraulic capacity of Oakley Grove site, the actual disposal capacity for the site cannot be determined until it is determined how much of a reduction in pond size is required. The County has not made those determinations yet. Seepage of Reclaimed Water from Percolation Ponds at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System to Drainage Ditches. Although constructed with a design disposal capacity of .600 MGD, until recently the County has loaded the ponds at Oakley Grove under the Oakley Grove construction permit at an actual average rate of approximately .200 MGD. (Maximum actual loading has been approximately .250 to .270 MGD.) This average loading rate required effluent to be loaded onto the ponds at the rate of approximately .19 gpd/ft2 of pond bottom. In November, 1993, the County stopped loading the ponds at Oakley Grove. During site visits to Oakley Grove on 4/15/91, 7/11/91, 7/12/91, 8/27/91, 10/12/93 and 12/7/93, Department personnel observed that ditch inverts, and some points even higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts, were wet and that water had collected in some the ditches, while other ditches and surface water outfalls were not wet. The wet ditches and berms seemed to correspond with the loading of ponds. Rainfall at the Oakley Grove site during the 10-day period immediately preceding these Department site visits was as follows: Site Visit Inches of rainfall Gallons of rainfall 4/15/91 3.58 9,786,659 7/11/91 5.41 14,789,337 7/12/91 5.60 15,308,742 8/27/91 2.91 7,955,078 10/12/93 1.02 2,788,378 12/7/93 0.03 82,011 The precise source of all of the water saturating the wet berms and ditch bottoms observed by the Department personnel was not clear from the evidence. Some of the wet berms and ditch bottoms probably were the result of rainfall that collected in portions of the ditch system due to uneven grading during construction, modifications to the ditch system required by SWFWMD, and the County's maintenance practices. But the evidence also suggests that seepage was occurring from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches, in some cases at points higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts. It also was not clear from the evidence whether the apparent seepage from the percolation ponds into the drainage ditches was occurring more or less than 100 feet from the toe of the slope of the percolation ponds. If less, the seepage may be an indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site is not as great as predicted by computer flow models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. Oakley Grove was designed to recharge the surficial aquifer without short-circuiting the designed 100 foot setback from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches, even at the design disposal capacity of .600 MGD. (Cady Prefiled, 175). The evidence of seepage at .200 MGD is an indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site may not be as great as designed. Based on the assumed hydraulic capacity of the site, water balances prepared by the County assert that none of the water in the ditches would come from the percolation ponds at .200 MGD, or even at .300 MGD. The evidence of seepage at .200 MGD is another indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site may not be as great as predicted by models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. The Oakley Grove relief drainage ditches were authorized by a SWFWMD Management and Storage of Surface Water ("MSSW") Permit (i.e., Permit #405124, issued 7/12/89). This permit established two surface water quality monitoring sites for the off-site discharge of water from the relief drainage ditches and requires that any water discharged off-site meet surface water quality standards. The County has collected data from these monitoring sites since 1991. This data does not indicate any violations of surface water quality standards due to the discharge of water from the relief drainage ditches to off- site receiving waters. (SWFWMD has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action against the County as a result of discharges from the relief drainage ditches to receiving waters, and Permit #405124 remains active.) However, the data indicate that the surface water quality has been worse, with respect to several parameters, than the quality which the County predicts for application rates of .300 MGD and higher (for NOx-N, as high as .600 MGD.) This may be another indication that the hydraulic capacity of the site is not as great as predicted by models run in support of the application for a construction permit for the Oakley Grove site. MGD. No load testing was done at Oakley Grove at more than .250 to .270 Even at the historical loading rate, the evidence did not reflect that the County undertook to determine whether, under different weather conditions, reclaimed water was coming to the surface either in the drainage ditches or higher on berms on the pond side of ditch inverts. Nor was there evidence that systematic testing of the water quality in the ditches was conducted. In light of the evidence of seepage into ditches, either more or less than 100 feet from the toe of the slope of ponds, it was not proven that the site has the capacity to accept effluent at the design rate of .8 gpd/ft2 of pond bottom. It was, however, proven by evidence introduced as Department Exhibit 32 that .075 MGD is a hydraulic loading rate at which no discharge to the on- site ditch/swale features would occur under normal wet season groundwater conditions. Alleged Settlement Offer. Department Exhibit 32 is a January 27, 1992, letter from the County to the Department. It enclosed a letter to the County from the County's engineering consultant and an engineering report from a new hydrogeologic consultant to the County. The January 27, 1992, letter referenced a December 16, 1991, meeting "concerning acceptable rated disposal capacity" for the Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System and states that the enclosed hydrogeology report "verifies the rated capacity [for Oakley Grove] at 75,000 gpd." (The report stated that its purpose was "to estimate a hydraulic loading rate at which no discharge to the on-site ditch/swale features would occur under normal wet season groundwater conditions.") It concluded that a hydraulic loading of the Wesley Chapel WWTP can be justified by combining the 75,000 gpd disposal capacity for Oakley Grove with the 100,000 gpd already permitted for the Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System. Nowhere is Department Ex. 32 in fact identified as a settlement offer or as having any connection to a settlement offer in this or any other case. It is found that Dept. Ex. 32 was part of the process by which the parties successfully negotiated the settlement of the County's permit for construction of a modification to the Wesley Chapel WWTP, Permit Application No. DC51-205143. The Department issued a permit for construction of a modification to the Wesley Chapel WWTP (with a .075 MGD limit on disposal at Oakley Grove) on August 31, 1992. The County acceded to reduction of the actual disposal capacity at Oakley Grove pending the disposition of its application for an operation permit for Oakley Grove, and construction of the modifications was completed in late 1993. Ground Water Quality at Oakley Grove. During the time that Oakley Groves has been in operation, monitor wells have detected no violations of G-II ground water quality standards except for nitrates. Analysis of initial ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System in approximately January, 1991, detected no nitrate violations. The first quarterly reports after the County started loading the ponds began showing exceedances for nitrates. Exceedances continued to be reported in every quarter until the County stopped loading the ponds in November, 1993. Analysis of ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System demonstrates that nitrate concentrations have gone down over time. On average for the entire Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System, including upgradient background monitoring wells, nitrate concentrations have remained below the 10 mg/l Class G-II ground water quality standard for nitrate from approximately August, 1992, until the County stopped loading the ponds in November, 1993. The most recent quarterly sampling of the monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System occurred in 11/93. The report was submitted to the Department in 1/94. It showed no exceedances of the Class G-II ground water quality standard for nitrate in any of the monitor wells. However, it is not clear from the evidence whether the reports reflected the effects of reclaimed water being applied to the site. The reclaimed water applied to Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System probably is not the sole reason for the elevated nitrate concentrations that have been reported. Agricultural fertilizer was used at the site prior to acquisition by the County. Nitrates from the fertilizer have remained in the soil matrix. The loading of the ponds began to liberate the nitrates from the soil matrix and to flush the nitrates downgradient to the monitor wells. As the preexisting nitrates have been flushed out, nitrate levels have dropped. Analysis of ground water samples collected from monitor wells at Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System suggests that operation of the facility at historical loading rates (approximately .200 MGD) probably will not result in continued ground water quality violations. Systematic load testing would help answer the question more definitively. Surface Water Quality Considerations. The County did not intend for its percolation pond disposal systems either at Oakley Groves or at Moon Lake Road to result in a surface water discharge that would require a surface water discharge permit, and it has not applied for one at either site. Not having applied for a surface water discharge permit, the County has not submitted either a water quality-based effluent limitation (WQBEL) study or a plan to do a WQBEL study. In lieu of a WQBEL study, the County presented evidence of surface water quality consisting primarily of an evaluation of estimated predicted contributions, concentrations and characteristics of inputs entering the drainage ditches and a prediction of water quality characteristics at the point of discharge, given various application rates. Procedures commonly used and relied upon by water resource and sanitary engineers can be used to estimate the predicted quality of water discharged off-site from the relief drainage ditches under various reclaimed water application rates. The County utilized these procedures to predict, first, expected quality of water in the drainage ditches and, second, quality of water expected to be discharged off-site under various reclaimed water application rates. In applying the procedures, the County used lower removal efficiencies than those allowed in the EPA Design Manual and did not take into account additional pollutant removal efficiencies that will occur as the water in the ditches migrates off-site, resulting in higher predicted levels of contaminants in the water discharged off-site. The County also assumed the accuracy of the studies and models supporting the disposal capacities for the sites. Utilizing these procedures and assumptions, the County's evidence estimated the following predictions for Oakley Grove: --At an application rate of .300 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N (ammonia) = 0.129 mg/l; NOx- N (nitrite-nitrate)= 0.141 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.177 mg/l; total nitrogen = 0.477 mg/l; CBOD5 (carbonaceous biological oxygen demand)= 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.04 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 21 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .400 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.199 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.233 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.192 mg/l; total nitrogen = 0.672 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.056 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 20 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .500 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.549 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.695 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.268 mg/l; total nitrogen = 1.65 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.25 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 15 per 100 ml. --At an application rate of .600 MGD, it was estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Oakley Grove site would be: NH3-N = 0.759 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.975 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.314 mg/l; total nitrogen = 2.23 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.36 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 12 per 100 ml. --At all reclaimed water application rates at the Oakley Grove site, it was estimated that TSS (total suspended solids) in the reclaimed water would be completely removed during migration through the soil before it reaches the relief drainage ditch. Utilizing the same procedures and assumptions, the County's evidence estimated that the water quality characteristics of any off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Moon Lake Road site at the design application rate of .185 MGD would be: NH3-N = 0.769 mg/l; NOx-N = 0.995 mg/l; organic nitrogen = 0.297 mg/l; total nitrogen = 2.25 mg/l; CBOD5 = 0.2 mg/l; total phosphorus = 0.37 mg/l; and fecal coliform = 3 per 100 ml. At the reclaimed water application rate proposed for Moon Lake Percolation Pond System, the County estimated that TSS in the reclaimed water would be completely removed during migration through the soil before it reaches the relief drainage ditch. Using those predictions of the water quality characteristics of off- site discharges from the relief drainage ditches, the County presented evidence that predicted generally and in a conclusory fashion that surface water discharges would not adversely impact the environment downstream. However, as already indicated, water quality monitoring for SWFWMD indicates water quality that has been worse at historical application rates, with respect to some parameters, than the quality which the County predicts for application rates of .300 MGD and higher (for one parameter, as high as .600 MGD). County Ex. 162 summarized the surface water monitoring results at Oakley Grove for November, 1992, through November, 1993: East Outfall at I-75: NH3-N range less than 0.07-0.721 mg/l, and mean 0.157 mg/l; NOx-N range, less than 0.1-3.04 mg/l, and mean 0.416 mg/l; organic nitrogen range 0.250-1.10 mg/l, and mean 0.558 mg/l; total nitrogen range 0.510- 3.77 mg/l, and mean 1.31 mg/l; CBOD5 range less than 1-2.0, and mean 1.1 mg/l; total phosphorus range 0.020-0.190 mg/l, and mean 0.054 mg/l; T.S.S. range 1-16 mg/l, and mean 3.1 mg/l; and fecal coliform range 1-5300 per 100 ml, and mean 352 per 100 ml. South Outfall at Trailer Park: NH3-N range less than 0.07-0.270 mg/l, and mean 0.125 mg/l; NOx-N range, less than 0.1-0.810 mg/l, and mean 0.285 mg/l; organic nitrogen range 0.285-1.01 mg/l, and mean 0.631 mg/l; total nitrogen range 0.533-1.85 mg/l, and mean 1.04 mg/l; CBOD5 range less than 1-3.0, and mean 1.4 mg/l; total phosphorus range 0.010-0.120 mg/l, and mean 0.053 mg/l; T.S.S. range 1-16 mg/l, and mean 3.9 mg/l; and fecal coliform range 2-560 per 100 ml, and mean 50 per 100 ml. In addition, contrary to the County's predictions, estimates and arguments that surface water discharges from the Oakley Grove site will be "virtually indistinguishable from naturally occurring ground water," the surface water quality monitoring for SWFWMD at historical application rates indicates that water quality has been clearly distinguishable from naturally occurring ground water. The surface water discharges from the Oakley Grove site clearly have had higher levels of NOx-N and organic nitrogen than the water quality measured at the background monitoring station. In addition, pH levels have been significantly higher (approximately 7.35 versus 5.81). As previously found, the evidence suggests that seepage from the percolation ponds to the drainage ditches has occurred at the Oakley Grove site at application rates of approximately .200 MGD. That evidence belies the assumptions underlying the County's surface water quality predictions at Oakley Grove and suggests that the site may not have the hydraulic and disposal capacities on which the surface water quality predictions for Oakley Grove were based. Until the actual hydraulic capacity and disposal capacity of the Oakley Grove site are determined, it is not possible to accurately predict the quality of water discharged off-site from the relief drainage ditches under various reclaimed water application rates (except that there was evidence to prove that no seepage into the ditches would occur at application rates of up to .075 MGD.) In contrast to the Oakley Grove site, no load testing of the Moon Lake Road site is possible until it is constructed. The County presented evidence that nitrogen would be absorbed by plants and sediments downstream from the point of discharge. However, the evidence assumed that discharges would take place only in the wet season. Potential downstream impacts resulting from a dry season discharge would depend upon: (1) the amount of water coming off the site; (2) the amount of water in the receiving wetlands; (3) the duration of the discharge; and (4) the frequency of the discharge. The County's evidence did not examine the impact of discharges under those conditions. The County did not present evidence quantifying the amount of anticipated inorganic nitrogen discharge, the rate of uptake in sediments or plants, and the impacts downstream. The potential for imbalance of flora and fauna downstream, the biological integrity downstream, and degradation downstream likewise were addressed only in a general and conclusory fashion. No in-depth study of downstream biology was completed by the County. As for pH, there was evidence that the background wetland had a pH of 5.81 in standard units, while the ditch discharge has had a pH of 7.35 in standard units. Standard units of pH are logarithmic values. The numbers are actually powers of 10 and cannot simply be added together and divided by 2 to get an average pH. To get an average pH, you have to convert the pH from the logarithmic value to the actual concentration of the hydrogen ion, take the average, and then convert the average to a logarithmic value. Using this method, the average of a pH of 5.81 standard units and a pH of 7.35 standard units equals 6.1 standard units. Wetlands are very sensitive to the decreases in acidity reflected by higher pH values. The County's predicted surface water quality analyses did not address pH at all. The County's evidence did not include an examination of existing downstream conditions and projecting potential discharge impacts. The County did not model dissolved oxygen downstream of discharge points and did not survey the biological community of the receiving waters regarding any discharge to determine what impact, if any, a potential discharge would have on waters of the state. Surface water quality considerations were not assessed in relation to the volume and frequency of the discharge. In addition, the County did not sample and analyze water quality in downstream receiving waters. Other Considerations at Moon Lake Road In evaluating the County's Moon Lake Road application for completeness, the Department requested that the County conduct a fracture trace analysis and, if it indicated a higher likelihood of subsidence or sinkholes, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) study. The County refused to do either, citing a desire to save County taxpayers money. Karst geology is typical in Pasco County. The County's site specific study of the Moon Lake Road site indicates the potential for karst activity by the presence of depressional features within and immediately adjacent to the site. It also indicates the presence of sinkholes on an immediately adjacent property. Starkey Wellfield is a regional public water supply wellfield located in Pasco County, which is part of the water supply network operated by West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority ("WCRWSA"). Starkey Wellfield currently operates under a consumptive use permit ("CUP") issued in 1988. The CUP authorizes the production of water from this facility at the annual average rate of 15 MGD and the maximum rate of 25 MGD. The nearest production well at the Starkey Wellfield is located slightly over half a mile from Moon Lake Road Sprayfield and slightly less than three-quarters of a mile from the Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System. Water levels at the Moon Lake Road site probably will decline only about 0.7 foot due to the production of water from Starkey Wellfield. This decline is too small to significantly increase the potential for sinkhole formation or subsidence at the Moon Lake Road site. If the Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond System and Sprayfield can be operated in a safe and environmentally sound manner, it might be able to provide valuable recharge to the water table and the lower lying aquifer units. (This could reduce impacts caused by the wellfield.) But if there already is a sinkhole, or the high potential for one, at the Moon Lake site, use of the site for the disposal of reclaimed water could have a serious adverse effect on the Starkey Wellfield public water supply. Under these circumstances, it is found that the County has not yet given reasonable assurances that the Moon Lake Road site can be operated in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Evidence on Elements of Estoppel. The "Representations." Prior to the filing of the pending Oakley Grove operation permit application and Moon Lake Road construction permit projects, the Department had evaluated and permitted other similar County percolation pond systems (utilizing a system of drainage ditches to improve performance during wet weather conditions) in other locations. Saddlebrook Village Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System has a design disposal capacity of .15 MGD and a permitted capacity of .098 MGD. The initial construction permit application (#DC51-140007) for this facility was filed in 9/87. The Department issued Permit DC51-140007 on 12/21/87. Specific Conditions 7 and 8 of Permit DC51-140007 address the relief drainage ditch system. These conditions require sampling and analysis of any off-site discharge from these ditches for primary drinking water standards, flow, dissolved oxygen ("DO"), pH, biological oxygen demand ("CBOD5") and total suspended solids ("TSS"). The County accepted those conditions. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System was constructed pursuant to Permit DC51- 140007. Thereafter, the County applied for a construction permit (#DC51-145550) in 2/88 to expand the system's disposal capacity to .250 MGD. The application sought to construct additional percolation pond basins and extend the ditch system to the new pond area. The Department approved the County's application for Permit DC51- 145550 on 7/26/88. The permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue finding that the County had provided reasonable assurances that the modified facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Specific Conditions 6, 6A and 7 of Permit DC51-14550 address the drainage ditch system. These conditions limit flow out of the drainage ditches to the rainy season and then only when the perimeter ditch flow does not exceed the upstream flow of the receiving water. The conditions also establish maximum effluent limits of 5 mg/l for CBOD5 and TSS, 3 mg/l for total nitrogen, 1 mg/l for total phosphorus and non-detectable for fecal coliform. Finally, the conditions require sampling and analysis of any off-site discharge from these ditches for flow, primary and secondary drinking water standards, dissolved oxygen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, fecal coliform, pH, CBOD5, and TSS. The County accepted those conditions. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System has operated pursuant to Permit DC51-145550, as needed through the final hearing. The surface water quality information required pursuant to Specific Conditions 6, 6A and 7 of Permit DC51-14550 has been presented to the Department. Off-site discharges from the drainage ditches have not resulted in violations of water quality standards or violations of Permits DC51-140007 and DC51-14550. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action due to discharges from the relief drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. Saddlebrook Village Percolation Pond System was never upgraded to the .250 MGD capacity authorized by Permit DC51-14450. The County never applied for an operation permit covering this facility because the evolution of its wastewater system and changes in land use patterns resulted in the development of other disposal sites. Shady Hills Shady Hills Percolation Pond System is another of the County's percolation pond sites. Its design disposal capacity is .650 MGD, and its permitted capacity is .400 MGD. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-160307) for Shady Hills Percolation Pond System was filed in 1/89 or 2/89. The Department approved the County's application for Permit DC51- 160307 on 6/7/89. Permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 5/18/89 finding the County provided reasonable assurances that the facility could be constructed and operated according to applicable rules and standards. Initially, Permit DC51-160307 did not contain special conditions addressing the presence of drainage ditches. However, it was amended on 7/24/89, and the amended permit was assigned identification number DC51-160307A. Specific Conditions 3 and 4 of Permit DC51-160307A address the drainage ditch system and require that the drainage ditch system must be maintained to preclude off-site discharge of pollutants and that any water discharged off-site must meet state water quality standards. Shady Hills Percolation Pond System was constructed pursuant to Permit DC51-160307A, and has operated from late 1990 to present. Off-site discharges from the drainage ditches have not resulted in violations of water quality standards or violations of Permit DC51-160307A. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action as a result of discharges from the relief drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. The County never applied for an operation permit covering Shady Hills Percolation Pond System because the associated WWTP is being expanded and the County decided to wait until the expansion program is completed to obtain the operation permit. Lake Padgett Lake Padgett (a/k/a, Land O'Lakes) Percolation Pond System is another of the County's percolation pond sites. Its design and permitted disposal capacity is 1.0 MGD. The initial construction permit application (#DC51-159899) for the facility was filed in 1989. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DC51- 159899 on 5/16/89. The permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 4/27/89 finding that the County had provided reasonable assurances that the facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Specific Condition 15 of Permit DC51-159899 addresses the drainage ditches. It requires that any discharge of water from the ditch system to receiving waters must comply with Section 403.086, Florida Statutes (Grizzle- Figg standards). The Lake Padgett Percolation Pond System was constructed and operated pursuant to Permit DC51-159899. The County obtained an operation permit (#DO51- 205681) for the system on 3/26/92. Specific Condition 20 of the operation permit addresses the relief drainage ditch system, and requires that any discharge of water from the ditch system to the receiving waters comply with Section 403.086. The facility has operated pursuant to Permit DO51-205681 since 3/26/92 to present. Off-site discharges from the relief drainage ditches at the Lake Padgett Percolation Pond System have not resulted in violations of Permit DC51- 159899 or Permit DC205681. Also, the Department has never instituted an enforcement or compliance action as a result of discharges from the drainage ditches to off-site receiving waters. Construction of Oakley Grove The County conducted a site specific hydrogeologic and soil survey and effluent disposal study for the Oakley Grove site in late 1988. The County's initial construction permit application (#DC51-159755) for Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System was filed with the Department in 1/89. The Department granted the County's application for Permit DC51- 159755 on 6/22/89. The design and permitted disposal capacity for Oakley Grove is .600 MGD. The Oakley Grove permit issuance was preceded by an Intent to Issue dated 6/2/89 finding that the County had provided reasonable assurance that the facility could be constructed and operated in accordance with applicable rules and standards. Permit DC51-159755 does not contain any special conditions addressing the drainage ditches. One reason for this is that the surface water management permit issued by the Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD") for this site contains conditions requiring the County to monitor any off-site discharges from the drainage ditches and prohibiting any violation of surface water quality standards. Consequently, there was no need for the Department to impose a similar permit condition. Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System was constructed under Permit DC51-159755. It was completed in 4/91 and has operated under that permit until approximately November, 1993. Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System's actual disposal rate during the period of operation has been about .200 MGD. The "Detrimental Reliance." The County paid $1,200,000 to acquire the Oakley Grove site. The County declined to purchase other potential sites that also would have cost about $1,200,000 in 1988, but would have cost about $1,800,000 in 1993. Total costs for property acquisition, engineering and construction at Oakley Grove have been approximately $2,800,000. In addition, the Shady Hills, Lake Padgett, and Handcart Road Percolation Pond Systems were constructed or modified at a cost of about $2,600,000 after issuance of the construction permit for the Oakley Grove project. To the extent that the County is unable to use the .600 MGD design disposal capacity at Oakley Grove, and cannot replace the deficit, the County will have insufficient disposal capacity. It would cost the County over $500,000 to modify the Oakley Grove site so that it could make some other practicable use of the property, and it would take about 18 months and about $2,800,000 to construct and place into operation a replacement disposal facility. During the time it would take to construct and place into operation a replacement disposal facility for Oakley Grove Percolation Pond System, the County would have inadequate wet weather disposal capacity unless it can replace the deficit. The County began planning a percolation pond system for the Moon Lake Road site in 1988, and paid $600,000 to acquire the site. The County does not own any of the potential effluent disposal sites that it passed over when acquiring the Moon Lake Road site. It would have cost about $660,000 to acquire a similar site in 1993. If the County is not permitted to construct the Moon Lake Road site, it cannot make any practicable use of that site. It would take about 18 months and about $500,000 to construct and place into operation a replacement wastewater effluent disposal facility for the Moon Lake Road site. During that time, the County would have inadequate wet weather disposal capacity unless it can replace the deficit. Alleged Default Permit for Moon Lake Road. Upon receipt of the application for Permit DC51-189086, the Department sent the County a letter dated 12/12/90 requesting additional information. The 12/12/90 request for additional information cited some specific rules although not for each item of additional information sought. The County's consulting engineer responded, on behalf of the County, to the request for additional information by letter to the Department's Permitting Engineer, dated 2/28/91. The County response stated that the County disagreed with the Department's "judgment" that the County's application was incomplete. But it also stated in pertinent part: However, recognizing that responsible professionals disagree and the extent to which you are responsible for rejecting this work, we have attached appropriate information and clarifying responses to aid you in discharging your professional duty. . . . Assuming we receive authorization from our client and that you accept full professional responsibility for the decision we will consider modifying our documents accordingly. In any event we feel comfortable requesting that you consider our permit application complete. On 3/26/91, the Department requested additional information. Again, the request cited some specific rules although not for each item of additional information sought. The County never responded. Meanwhile, the parties began to discuss settlement. Finally, on 2/13/92, the Department issued its notice of intent to deny the application. Subject Matter Index of Agency Orders. The Department has no subject matter index of any of its orders taking action on permit applications between 1975 and 1981. After 1981, the Department has had a subject matter index of its orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings. There never has been a subject matter index of Department orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has not been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings. It would be impracticable, if not impossible, for the County to research such orders without a subject matter index. There is no central repository or computer database for all Department permit decisions. Some of its permitting files are located in its main Tallahassee office but many also are located in its seven district offices. Regardless of whether there is a central repository or computer database for orders taking action on permit applications rendered in cases where there has been a request to initiate formal or informal administrative proceedings, there is no evidence that, after 1981, there have been any such orders reflecting the Department's actual permitting practice with respect to percolation pond systems with drainage ditches. It was not proven that the County was unable, by reason of permitting files being located in both the main Tallahassee office and the various district offices, to research the Department's actual permitting practice with respect to percolation pond systems with drainage ditches. Research at the seven district offices would have been more costly than if all files were centrally located, but there is no reason in this case to believe that the additional cost would have been prohibitive. Alleged Biased Review. David Rhodes is an unlicensed environmental specialist employed by the Department's Southwest District Office. His responsibilities mainly consist of reviewing geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of permit applications. He was the Department's primary reviewer for geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of the County's applications for Permit DO51-194674 (Oakley Grove) and Permit DC51-189086 (Moon Lake Road), as well as Permit DC51-169994 (Handcart Road Percolation Pond System). He recommended denial of all three permit applications. On 2/18/91, David Rhodes contacted a County employee, Marshall Hughes, concerning the County's construction permit application for the Handcart Road Percolation Pond System and suggested "off-the-record" that the County discharge its geotechnical consultant, Richard Mortensen, and replace the proposed percolation pond system with a sprayfield. The County declined to terminate Mortensen. When Mortensen learned of David Rhodes's attempt to have the County fire him, Mortensen contacted David Rhodes's supervisor, Judith Richtar, on 3/4/91 to discuss this incident. Richtar told Mortensen that she was unaware of the matter, but would look into it and get back in touch with him. When Mortensen did not hear from Richtar for two weeks, he called her. She told him that David Rhodes had denied everything. Mortensen later learned that David Rhodes made comments and insinuations to two of his other clients disparaging his work performance and suggesting that his engineering firm was not competent. Mortensen was not satisfied with Richtar's handling of his complaint. On 4/25/94, he contacted Richtar's superior, Dr. Richard Garrity. Garrity asked for a letter detailing the incident. Mortensen wrote Garrity a letter dated 5/29/91 describing David Rhodes's communication with Hughes and requesting that Richtar be disciplined for her handling of this situation. David Rhodes was suspended by the Department without pay; however, Richtar was not disciplined. David Rhodes also wrote Mortensen a letter of apology for his communication with Marshall Hughes. The letter states his comments to Hughes should not be interpreted as a personal vendetta against Mortensen's engineering firm and that he hoped the incident could be put behind them so they could continue working on future projects. Rhodes admitted that he felt embarrassed after Garrity suspended him without pay and suggested that he write a letter of apology to Mortensen. About 3 months after David Rhodes's letter of apology, another Department employee, Joe May, filed 5 complaints with DBPR against Mortensen's P.E. license. The complaints identified the Handcart Road, Moon Lake Road, Oakley Grove, Lake Padgett and Westchase projects. (All of these are County projects, except for Westchase.) The complaints identified Richtar as a "contact person." Richtar knew about May's complaints before they were filed with DBPR and acquiesced to being identified in them as a contact person. Like David Rhodes, May is an unlicensed environmental specialist employed in the technical support section of the Department's Southwest District Office in Tampa. His responsibilities include reviewing geotechnical and hydrogeologic information submitted in support of permit applications. However, he had no permit review involvement with respect to the Oakley Grove, Moon Lake Road, Handcart Road and Lake Padgett projects. Instead, the hydrogeological aspects of those projects were assigned to May's colleague, David Rhodes. Mortensen's attorney responded to May's 5 complaints in January, 1992. Copies of Mortensen's technical reports were attached to the response, including the site specific studies he had prepared for the Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road sites. DBPR referred May's complaints and Mortensen's technical reports to an independent engineering firm, Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants, Inc. for review. This firm prepared a report on January 21, 1993. The report exonerated Mortensen and found that May's complaints were without merit. DBPR took May's 5 complaints before a probable cause panel of the Board of Professional Engineers. The panel found there was no probable cause to pursue them. Mortensen was informed of this finding by DBPR's 8/31/93 letter. The Department has allowed David Rhodes to remain on the permit review team on the County's permit applications for the Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road Percolation Pond Systems despite the fact Mortensen is the geotechnical consultant on these projects. It is not found that the continued presence of Rhodes and Richtar on the permit review team for the County's permit applications demonstrates the Department's prejudice against the County and its consultants. It is not found that the Department's decisions to deny the County's permit applications in this case were interposed for an improper purpose or that the denials were based on the permit reviewers' personal animosity against the County and its consultants, rather than on the merits of the facilities. However, relieving Rhodes and Richtar of their responsibilities with respect to these projects, if feasible, would have served to remove any appearance of bias and impropriety and also might have facilitated the resolution of these applications through more open and effective communication and cooperation.
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 as follows: In Case No. 92-1604: Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DC51-189086) to construct a sprayfield reuse disposal system at .215 MGD and a rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at .185 MGD at Moon Lake Road, subject to reconsideration after completion and review of a fracture trace analysis, a ground penetrating radar analysis (if needed), and an appropriate WQBEL study. If the application subsequently is granted, including among the specific conditions (1) a requirement for systematic load testing and monitoring of ground and surface water quality under the construction permit, as a condition for issuance of an operation permit, and (2), if appropriate, requiring monitoring, reporting and safely repairing subsidences, collapse features and sinkholes in and around discharge points. See, e.g., Specific Condition 12, Hudson WWTP Permit DC51-130307 (County Ex. 170). Case No. 92-1653: Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Oakley Grove rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at 0.600 MGD, subject to reconsideration after completion and review of: (1) additional systematic load testing, (2) systematic monitoring of ground and surface water quality, and (3) an appropriate WQBEL study. Granting the County a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Oakley Grove rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at 0.075 MGD, thereby supporting the operation of its Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant to the extent of .075 MGD pending load testing, systematic monitoring and load testing and reconsideration of the application for an operation permit for more capacity, up to .600 MGD. Denying the County's amended application for a permit (application no. DO51-194674) to operate its Wesley Chapel Wastewater Treatment Plant at .600 MGD and limiting its capacity to the available permitted disposal capacity. Case No. 92-1654: Denying, as moot, the County's application for a permit (application no. DO51-199516) to reactivate the operation of its Ryals Road rapid rate infiltration basin reuse (percolation pond) disposal system at .1075 MGD. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of October, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Speculative and unnecessary. 6.-12. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 14.-30. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31.-34. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 35.-43. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 44. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 45.-53. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 54. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, additional testing and evaluation should have been done. 55.-58. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 59. Rejected as not proven. 60.-61. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 62. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, additional testing and evaluation of soil permeability should have been done. 63.-76. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. Incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. ("Southwest" in 76. should be "Southeast.") 77.-79. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 80.-92. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 95.-113. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Conclusions of law. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary; second sentence, conclusion of law. Conclusions of law. 117.-122. Accepted but generally subordinate and unnecessary. (There is no indication in this case that the Wesley Chapel WWTP cannot operate as designed, as permitted for construction, and as constructed, subject to available disposal capacity.) 123.-148. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. As to (c) and (d), rejected as not proven (Oakley Grove, without WQBEL studies, and Ryals Road without further investigation into significance of down-warping.) Otherwise, accepted: as to Ryals Road, moot, subordinate and unnecessary; as to Oakley Grove, incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. As to (c) and (d), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies and fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, GPR. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 154.-155. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 156.-158. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 159. Rejected as not proven that the use of the label "perimeter ditches" is "not accurate" or that the County used the term only because the Department did. Rather, both the Department and the County knew what was meant by "perimeter ditches" or similar terms, and the County only stopped using those terms in furtherance of its legal arguments in this case. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 160.-161. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 162. Accepted in the sense that the collection of reclaimed water in the ditches was not the primary goal of the drainage system. However, it was recognized that the collection of some reclaimed water in the ditches, especially under some weather conditions, was a necessary result of the use of the drainage features to improve the performance of the percolation ponds. 163.-166. Accepted and incorporated. 167.-169. Rejected as not proven that the Department has "changed position" without promulgating any rule. The County's own permitting experience has shown that the Department has had concerns about the performance of percolation pond systems with perimeter drainage features. Those concerns have evolved over time. Before April, 1989, those concerns were given expression in special conditions in permits. In April, 1989, F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522 were promulgated. The evidence does not prove that, before 9/15/89, the Department would not ever consider water in drainage ditches 100 feet from percolation ponds to be "reclaimed water." Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that approval or denial would be "automatic." The question was whether WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied. Rejected as not proven that WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied even if no reclaimed water ever made it into the ditches. 173.-174. Accepted but unnecessary. (Current practice simply reflects the application of the current rules.) Rejected as not proven that the Department position had "completely changed," that the Department was "inalterably opposed to the ditches," or that the Department had before it the "reasonable assurances" provided at the other sites. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Again, rejected as not proven that WQBELs or Grizzle-Figg standards would be applied even if no reclaimed water ever made it into the ditches. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven; also, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven that the Department stipulated that F.A.C. Rule 17-610.517(2) does not apply. Also, conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 186.-187. The implication that the Department does anything other than follow F.A.C. Rule 17-610.521 is rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 188.-190. Rejected as not proven that reclaimed water infiltrating ditches at Oakley Grove and Moon Lake Road has been or will be "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water. Otherwise, generally, accepted, and 100 feet should be enough in most circumstances. But the facts of individual cases must be considered to determine whether treatment afforded by 100 feet makes reclaimed water "virtually indistinguishable" from other ground water so as to no longer be considered reclaimed water. Also, the concentration of discharges via a ditch system is another factor to be considered. 191.-192. Accepted and incorporated. 193.-194. Rejected as not proven that they could be modified "easily" or without decreasing the permittable disposal capacity. Accepted (assuming they are built as designed) and incorporated. Last word should be "dry"; otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 198.-201. Rejected in part as being subordinate to facts not proven and contrary to those found. (Cady's testimony explained some of the wet ditch bottoms, but not all of them, and not the wet slopes of the berms.) Other parts, accepted and subordinate to facts found. 202.-206. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, the approach makes certain assumptions, and the estimates or predictions will not be accurate if the assumptions are not. In the case of Oakley Grove, the assumptions concerning hydraulic capacity do not appear to have been accurate.) 207.-211. Rejected as not proven. See 202.-206., above. 212. Accepted and incorporated. 213.-219. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. But see 202.-206., above. 220.-226. Rejected as not proven as to Oakley Grove. See 202.-206., above. Accepted as to Moon Lake Road. Accepted as predictions based on the given assumptions, particularly as to hydraulic capacity of the site. 227.-230. Recitation of the experts' opinions, accepted as accurate recitations. Rejected that plant-life utilization of inorganic nitrogen allays Fricano's concerns. To the exact contrary, his concern is that plant-life will utilize the inorganic nitrogen in ways organic nitrogen would not be used, leading to undesirable environmental impacts. Also, rejected as not proven, without required WQBEL studies, that there will be no adverse environmental impact in downstream receiving waters. 231.-232. Accepted and incorporated. 233.-234. Rejected as not proven. (The County expert's opinion assumed only wet weather discharges. Also, not proven, without required WQBEL studies, that there will be no adverse environmental impact in downstream receiving waters.) 235.-239. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 240.-243. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 244. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 245.-248. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 249. Rejected as not proven that this can be done "easily." See 193.- 194., above. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 250.-251. Rejected as not proven. 252.-253. For both: last two sentences, rejected as not proven; the rest, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (F.A.C. Rule Chapter 17-600 forms did not apply.) Second and fourth sentences, rejected as not proven. The rest is accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. 257.-258. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 259. Rejected as to the location of some ditches within 100 feet of the percolation ponds. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 260.-261. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 262. Rejected as not proven. 263.-269. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 270. Rejected as not proven. 271.-279. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (The "change in policy" is reflected in F.A.C. Rules 17-610.517(2) and 17-610.522.) Accepted and incorporated. As to (b) and (c), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. As to (c), rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 287.-289. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 290. Accepted and incorporated. 291.-293. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 294.-295. Conclusions of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 299.-301. Accepted and incorporated. 302. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 303.-308. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven. (The SWIM plans were not in evidence, and it is not clear whether they incorporate by reference the permitting requirements at issue in these proceedings.) 311.-312. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 316.-317. As to (g) and (h), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 318.-323. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 324. Conclusion of law. 325.-326. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (He disagreed with some of their opinions and the bases of some of the opinions.) First sentence, rejected as not proven; rest, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 330.-331. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 332. Rejected as not proven. 333.-334. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 335. Last sentence of 335., rejected as not proven; otherwise, accepted. 336.-350. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. 351. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 352.-353. Subordinate and unnecessary. See 353. Rejected as not proven that Oakley Grove has operated as predicted by the modeling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Oakley Grove has operated as predicted by the modeling. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 361.-362. Rejected that it was an offer to settle this case. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 363.-367. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 368.-371. Accepted and incorporated. 372.-401. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 402. Rejected as not proven. (They result from a combination of the nitrates in the reclaimed water and nitrates imbedded in the soil matrix from prior agricultural use. Also, unlike the Oakley Grove site, nitrate exceedances were observed at Wildcat Grove before application of any reclaimed water.) 403.-405. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 406. Rejected as not proven that reclaimed water was being applied at the time. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 407. Rejected as not proven when nitrate exceedances will end. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 408. Rejected as not proven. See 406., above. 409. Rejected as not proven. See 407., above. 410.-416. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 417. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 418.-421. Rejected as not proven. 422. Accepted but unnecessary. 423. Rejected as not proven that their concerns are "unfounded" unless the source of reclaimed water is restricted to Deer Park WWTP. Otherwise, accepted but unnecessary. 424. Assuming performance in accordance with the application, accepted but unnecessary. 425.-430. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 431. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate and unnecessary; second sentence, rejected as not proven. 432.-445. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (Without the fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR requested by the Department.) First sentence, rejected as not proven; second sentence, conclusion of law. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. 457.-465. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 466.-470. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 471. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated; rest, rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. 472. Rejected as not proven. See 310., above. 473.-475. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 476. Rejected as not proven. 477.-478. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (that the discharges are.) As to (d), rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL studies. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven and as conclusion of law. 484.-485. Rejected as not proven. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. (He disagreed with some of their opinions and the bases of some of the opinions.) Ultimate and penultimate sentences, rejected as not proven. The rest is accepted (although the fourth sentence is not complete) and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted and incorporated; rest, rejected as not proven. 491.-493. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 494. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 495. First sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary; second sentence, rejected as not proven. 496.-499. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 500. Last sentence, rejected as not proven; rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 501. Accepted but largely subordinate and unnecessary. (Also, Saddlebrook was permitted under different rules; now, the special conditions can only be established after WQBEL studies.) 502.-504. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. (However, it is understood that the constant head cell approach proved acceptable for purposes of estimating hydraulic capacity of the site but that it still did not accurately portray what would happen in the ditches and adjacent wetlands.) 505.-509. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 510. Rejected as not proven that the criticism was immaterial. See 502.- 504., above. 511. Last sentence, rejected as not proven that the DBPR consultant found the investigation and analysis to be "in accordance with sound engineering principles." Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 512.-524. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 525. Rejected as not proven that it would without fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR. (Accepted that it might.) 526. Rejected as not proven that he was directed to "speak in favor of the County's permit application." 527. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 528. Except that 500 feet is a minimum setback distance, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 529.-530. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 531. Rejected as not proven without fracture trace analysis and, if then indicated, the GPR. See 525., above. 532.-534. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 535. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 536.-537. Rejected as not proven without WQBEL study. 538.-543. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 544. Rejected as not proven. (Rather, the County stated that it wanted its request for minor berm restoration work to be treated as exempt activity under F.A.C. Rule 17-4.040(1)(a) and that it wanted the installation of new groundwater monitoring wells to be handled under Ground Water Monitoring Plan Condition 3 of Permit DO51-142683 (the Oaks Royal/Ryals Road operation permit).) 545.-546. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 547.-552. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 553.-557. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot and unnecessary. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (due to possible subsidence features.) Also, moot and unnecessary. Accepted but moot and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven (due to possible subsidence features.) Also, moot and unnecessary. 563.-566. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 567. Subordinate to facts not proven. 568. First sentence, rejected as not proven. Also, rejected as not proven that the Ryals Road sinkhole was "small." Otherwise, accepted. All moot and unnecessary. 569. Rejected as subordinate to facts not proven. 570. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted. All moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 571.-573. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence and word "stable," rejected as not proven. (He stated that the clay was "competent" and that the GPR could detect sinkholes down to 20 feet, but he did not comment specifically on the significance of the down- warping across the site and in the southeast corner.) Otherwise, accepted. All moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that it is "unknown." The evidence is not clear, but Richtar thought the sinkholes at Oaks Royal opened after construction. Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate, in part to facts not proven and in part to facts supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Except for characterization of sinkhole as being "small," accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Last sentence, rejected as not proven. (It is not a substitute for further investigation into the cause of the down-warping across the site and in the southeast corner.) Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. 581.-582. First sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Second sentence, rejected as not proven and conclusion of law. 583. Second sentence, rejected as not proven. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 584. First and last sentences, rejected as not proven. Rest, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 585. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 586. Accepted (assuming no new capacity) and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 587.-588. Rejected as not proven. (It assumes no new capacity.) 589.-590. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 591. Rejected as not proven. 592.-593. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 594. Rejected as not proven. 595. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 596. Third sentence, not proven. Rest, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 597.-599. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 600. Accepted (assuming no new capacity) but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 601. Rejected as not proven. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 602. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 603.-604. Rejected as not proven. Rejected as not proven that he is "one of the most vocal opponents." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes contacted Hughes or that it was Rhodes's primary purpose to suggest Mortensen's discharge. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes was attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes suggested Mortensen was incompetent. (Mortensen alleges he made "comments and insinuations" that "basically suggested that MEI was incompetent.") Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 610.-620. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 621. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes was attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 622. Rejected as not proven that Rhodes and Richtar were attempting to have the County "fire" Mortensen. Also, rejected as not proven that the "Department" will not be "truly impartial." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Relieving Rhodes and Richtar of their responsibilities with respect to these projects, if feasible, would have served to remove any appearance of bias and impropriety and also might have facilitated the resolution of these applications through more open and effective communication and cooperation. 623. Rejected as not proven. Also, subordinate and unnecessary. (The issue is whether they should be granted, not whether the reviewers should have recommended that they be granted.) Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. The Department's proposed findings of fact are numbered separately by facility: Oakley Grove Accepted and incorporated. "Rimmed" rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 3.-8. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (No "wastewater" would discharge from the ditch system.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that this was "revealed" by staff inspections. (Under certain conditions, and at certain application rates, it was expected.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. At the time of some if not all of the Department inspections, water was being diverted from some of the main stormwater collection ditches. 13.-18. Generally accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 19. "Wastewater effluent ponds" is inaccurate description. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. 20.-24. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 25. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found, and as conclusion of law, that it is "typical." (The proposed finding seems to be describing a Level II WQBEL study.) 26.-29. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. (29. again seems to refer to a Level II WQBEL study.) 30. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 31.-36. Accepted. Largely subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. 40.-42. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. If "different nitrogen" means other than inorganic, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as unclear what "distinguishes the type and amount of nitrogen" and what "numerous conditions" means. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 47.-49. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 52.-55. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 56. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 57.-58. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Rejected as conclusion of law and as not proven what is "typical." Accepted and subordinate to facts found. 61.-62. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 63.-82. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary or conclusion of law. 83.-102. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 103. Rejected as not clear from the evidence whether reclaimed water was being applied on those dates. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 104.-106. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 107.-110. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (These violations were temporary aberrations in otherwise proper operation of the facility. They were corrected and do not bear significantly on the question whether the County has given reasonable assurances.) Last sentence, rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (The manual was maintained at a different location.) Moon Lake Road 1.-13. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 14. One was proposed in evidence presented at the hearing but not in the application. 15.-19. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 20.-24. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 25.-26. Conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. "Any" is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated. 30.-32. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. First sentence, unclear; second sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Accepted. Subordinate to facts found. 36.-38. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. "Effluent" rejected to the extent that it infers something other than "reclaimed water." Rejected as to Deer Park WWTP; accepted as to the others. Accepted and incorporated. 41.-43. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 44.-49. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 50.-52. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that the rainfall/evapotranspiration differences are great enough to have a significant impact on site capacity. The Tampa Airport data was the best to use at the time of the application. Other, closer data became available later and were considered as part of the County's rebuttal case. 53. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found that the design of the model (constant head cells, boundaries, and single- layer) has a impact on site's hydraulic capacity. (It is understood that the significance of the design of the model is that it does not show flow into the ditches and adjacent wetlands or the relationship between surficial and Floridan aquifers.) 54.-55. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 56. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. 57.-58. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. See 53., above. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 61.-63. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. 64.-65. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 66. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and facts found. See 50.-52., above. Limiting storage needs to the .215 MGD design sprayfield capacity only, there is no real question as to the needed storage capacity. Neither differences in the rainfall/evapotranspiration data nor differences in the source of the reclaimed water would make storage capacity deficient. Ryals Road 1.-10. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found and to the greater weight of the evidence that it was "effectively withdrawn." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not supported by the evidence that a $400 fee was paid on July 12, 1991. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 13.-14. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 15.-26. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 27. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Also, moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 28.-33. Accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. 34. Rejected as not supported by the evidence that the residential density is "high". Otherwise, accepted but moot, subordinate and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire David M. Caldevilla, Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert & Bales, P.A. P.O. Box 2350 Tampa, Florida 33601-2350 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Francine M. Ffolkes, Esquire Keith C. Hetrick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, Esquire General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact DOT has been engaged for some years in a program to improve U.S. Highway 1, which runs through the Florida Keys. The program has involved highway paving, and reconstruction of most of the bridges. The roadway and bridge construction projects require large amounts of fill material. DOT has experienced an increase in the cost of obtaining fill material in the Florida Keys. To lessen the cost of the fill material DOT is seeking to open a borrow pit on Dudjoe Key. The pit, and an adjoining roadway would cover approximately fourteen acres. DOT initially filed a permit application with DER, seeking approval to construct the pit. DER ultimately issued a notice of intent to deny the application on the grounds that reasonable assurances had not been given that the short-term and long-term effects of the proposed project would not violate water quality standards set out in DER's rules and regulations. DOT thereafter filed a request for variance from the water quality standards so that the pit could be permitted. This proceeding ensued. Petitioner is a Florida corporation which does business in Monroe County, Florida. Petitioner has engaged in numerous public road and bridge construction projects in the Florida Keys and in the selling of fill material for road and bridge construction projects. Petitioner currently owns and operates a "borrow pit" on Cudjoe Key. Petitioner's pit is located within one- half mile of DOT's proposed pit. The purpose of the DOT pit would be to provide fill material which the Petitioner currently provides from its Cudjoe Key pit. DOT originally asserted that operation of a state borrow pit would result in savings of nine million dollars. This assertion has been scaled down to three million dollars, and more recently to 1.5 million dollars. Basically, DOT asserts that fill from a state-owned pit would be cheaper because the operation costs would be approximately the same, but no royalty would need to be paid for the material. DOT sought to establish the amount of potential savings at the hearing through two kinds of analysis: First, DOT offered the testimony of its former cost estimator as to the costs per cubic yard of fill from a state-owned pit as opposed to fill from a private contractor pit; and second, DOT offered bid submissions that have been made by contractors in recently bid projects in the Keys, and which had alternative bids for state-owned and private contractor supplied fill material. DOT's estimator calculated that the State would save approximately 1.5 million dollars through operation of a state-owned borrow pit. The testimony, however, is not of probative value, and cannot serve as the basis for a finding to that effect. In the first place, many of the estimator's figures were determined through private conversations that he had with various unnamed contractors. This hearsay evidence is not cumulative nor corroborative of other evidence, and cannot therefore serve as the basis for a finding of fact (See discussion at Paragraph 2 of the Conclusions of Law, infra.). Furthermore, the estimator underestimated the heavy equipment that would be required to operate the borrow pit; underestimated the cost of the equipment; did not include insurance, social security, and overtime in labor costs; overestimated by twice the number of swings that a dragline would be able to make; and underestimated the cost of moving equipment to the site. Methodology used by the State's estimator would appear to be the best that is available to the State in making initial estimates as to the cost of proposed road-building projects. The State does not have the detailed cost information available to it that private contractors have. While useful for the purpose of making preliminary estimates of the cost of proposed projects, the methodology is not adequate to support a finding of fact based as it is upon hearsay, and containing numerous miscalculations. The second line of analysis offered by DOT to establish the amount of possible savings was a comparison of recent bids submitted by contractors. Special provisions drafted by DOT for the Park and Bow bridge projects using two alternatives for embankment or fill material. Alternate "A" in the bid called for state-furnished material. The low bidder on the project was Atlantic Foundation Company, Inc. Under Alternate "A", Atlantic bid a price of $9.35 per cubic yard for embankment material, and $12.00 under Alternate "B". This would have resulted in a total of $222,574.00 lest using the Alternate "A" bid on the Park and Bow projects. The second low bidder, MCC of Florida, Inc., bid $11.13 for material under Alternate "A", and $14.02 under Alternate "B". Alternate "A" would have been $247,752.00 cheaper under the MCC bid. Petitioner was the next low bidder, and it bid $10.05 per cubic yard under Alternate "A", and $10.25 under Alternate "B". Hardaway Constructors, Inc., was the only other bidder, and it offered $10.00 under Alternate "A", and $10.25 under Alternate "B". The potential savings in favor of Alternate "A" under all of these bids is reduced somewhat by clearing and grubbing costs which were bid separately by the contractors. Clearing and grubbing costs would actually have made Alternate "B" cheaper under the bids submitted by Petitioner and Hardaway. Clearing and grubbing costs would not, however, continue as a cost item in subsequent projects, because once clearing and grubbing is accomplished, it would not need to be done again. DOT seeks to apply bid differentials submitted for the Park and Bow Channel jobs to determine the potential saving the State could realize by using a state-owned landfill for the remaining road and bridge projects in the Keys. Approximately 402,039 cubic yards of embankment material will be needed to complete the remaining projects. Using the high differential between Alternates "A" and "B" submitted for the Park and Bow Channels (that submitted by MCC), which was $2.89 per cubic yard, the potential saving would be $1,161,892.00. Using the low differential (twenty cents per cubic yard as submitted by Petitioner), savings would be $80,407.00. Subsequent to the hearing, DOT awarded the Park and Bow Channel construction to the low bidder, Atlantic Foundation, Inc. The Alternate "B" proposal was accepted. DOT did not accept that proposal because of a preference to do that, but rather so that the otherwise advantageous bid could be accepted despite the pendance of this proceeding. During the hearing, bids were opened for two new road and bridge projects in the Keys: the Kemp and Torch-Ramrod Channel Projects. The apparent low bidder on these projects was the Petitioner. Petitioner bided a price of $11.00 for embankment material if provided by a private contractor, and $10.80 if provided from a state-owned pit for the Kemp project, and $10.40 and $10.20 respectively for the Torch-Ramrod Project. The differences between the two reflect differences in hauling distance. The price differentials for contractor versus state provided embankment material in projects that have already been let cannot be used to determine with any precision the amount of saving that would inure to the State through opening its own borrow pits. Potential savings depend upon many factors. The primary of these factors is which contractor happens to make the lowest bid for the project, and this in turn depends upon the contractor's cost figures for many items other than embankment material will receive the bid only if the total bid is lower than that submitted by other contractors. It is clear that opening a state-owned borrow pit would result in some savings. It appears that $10.00 per cubic yard is the lowest possible price that could be expected for contractor- provided fill material. It appears that state-furnished material could reach a price as low as $7.00 per cubic yard, although none of the bids submitted up to the time of the hearing reflected such a price. It appears that the highest potential saving would be less than the approximately one million dollars that would have been saved if the price differential reflected in the Atlantic Foundation bid on the Park and Bow Channel projects became the differential in all subsequent projects. It also appears that the saving would be somewhat more than the eighty thousand dollar saving that would inure if the price differential reflected in the Petitioner's bid on the Park and Bow projects remained consistent. Beyond these parameters, the evidence would not support a finding as to the amount of savings. The fourteen-acre site of the proposed borrow pit is presently comprised entirely of tidally inundated wetland areas. Approximately two-thirds of the area has average water depths up to six inches. The southeastern portion of the site is dominated by buttonwood, and red, black and white mangrove. All of these species are wetland indicator species under DER's rules and regulations. A large number of mollusks inhabit the area, and it is a feeding area for birds, and for deer. The area of the proposed borrow pit is within the Key Deer Refuge, which is managed by the Refuse Division of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. There is now a stable herd from 350 to 400 Key deer, an endangered species, and they feed primarily on mangrove. There are 15 to 20 deer in the Cudjoe Key area. The deer do presently feed in the area of the proposed borrow pit. The proposed pit, including the access roads, would comprise approximately fourteen acres. It would be located landward of a berm so that there would not be a constant exchange of waters between the pit and surrounding areas. There would be an initial two-foot drop form the edge of the pit, and then a slope of five-to-one extending into the pit. A ten-to-one slope would be preferable because ultimately vegetation would be ore easily established in such a slope area. The term "Borrow pit" is actually a euphemism for a mining operation. Material would be extracted from the pit to be used as embankment material on the Keys road and bridge projects. The pit would ultimately reach a depth of more than thirty feet. Construction of the borrow pit would result in obliteration of approximately fourteen acres of a natural wetland environment in the Keys. All the flora and fauna presently on the site would be destroyed. During the time that the pit is being constructed and actively operated, violations of DER's standards for turbidity, lead, oils and greases, and transparency would be likely. Once the mining operation terminates, these short-term impacts would lessen; however, violations of the Department's dissolved oxygen standards would be likely as long as the pit exists. A viable biologic community could be established along the fringes of the pit, but in the deeper areas, low dissolved oxygen levels would be a limiting factor. Other mining operations in the Keys and elsewhere in Florida confirm the likelihood of dissolved oxygen violations. Loss of the fourteen acres of feeding ground for the Florida Key deer would be a significant loss in terms of preservation of that species. The proposed borrow pit is located adjacent to U.S. Highway 1. On the other side of the highway, there is a housing development. Operation of the borrow pit, especially blasting activities would inevitably prove a nuisance to residents of that area. One witness testified that blasting would likely cause damage to the residences, but this was not confirmed by competent, scientific evidence.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondents, Kelly Endres and Ifrain Lima (Endres/Lima), are entitled to an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) that would allow use of 0.535 acres of previously impacted wetlands for the construction of a single-family residence and associated structures, a 30' x 30' private dock with a 4' access walkway, and a 12' wide boat ramp (Project) at 160 Long Acres Lane, Oviedo, Florida (Property).
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are based on the stipulations of the parties and the evidence adduced at the final hearing. The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the state statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's air and water resources. The Department administers and enforces certain provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated, thereunder, in the Florida Administrative Code. Under that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Respondents Endres/Lima own the Property and are the applicants for the ERP at issue in this consolidated proceeding. Petitioner Meier is a neighboring property owner to the south of the Property. Petitioner Meier's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. Petitioner Meier is concerned that the NOI provides inadequate environmental protections and that there will be flooding on adjacent properties from the Project. Petitioner Hacker is the neighboring property owner adjacent to the south of the Property. Petitioner Hacker's property includes a single-family residence with accessory structures and is located on Long Lake. He is concerned with the completeness of the application for the Project, the calculation of wetland impacts, that reasonable assurances were provided, and that the Department's NOI ignores willful negligence and allows disparate treatment of Respondents Endres/Lima. Petitioner Kochmann is a property owner with a single-family residence and accessory structures located on Long Lake. She is concerned that the NOI is based on a misleading application and provides no evidence that the Respondents Endres/Lima made reasonable efforts to eliminate and reduce impacts detrimental to the environment. History of the Project and Application On April 12, 2018, Respondents Endres/Lima applied for an ERP for proposed wetland impacts associated with a planned single-family home on the Property. This was the first ERP application for the Property. The Department sent a Request for Additional Information (RAI) on April 24, 2018, and a second RAI on November 2, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima provided a Mitigation Service Area Rule Analysis for "As If In-Basin" for the Lake X Mitigation Bank for the St. Johns River Water Management District Basins to the Department via email on May 10, 2018. Respondents Endres/Lima submitted revised plans to the Department on September 19, and October 30, 2018. On January 7, 2019, the Department denied the ERP application. The Department and Respondents Endres/Lima, on July 18, 2019, entered into a Consent Order (CO). The Department found, and Respondents Endres/Lima admitted, that approximately 0.80 acres of jurisdictional wetlands were dredged and filled without a valid ERP from the Department; and was done with improperly installed erosion and sedimentation controls. On August 22, 2019, Respondents Endres/Lima submitted a second ERP application. The Department sent an RAI on September 20, 2019, to which Respondents Endres/Lima responded on December 19, 2019. In addition, Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.60 of forested Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) wetland credits from the Lake X Mitigation Bank and provided the Department with an updated site plan and Lake X Mitigation Bank credit reservation letter. The Department issued an NOI on February 7, 2020, which was timely published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima provided timely proof of publication to the Department on February 13, 2020. Consent Order and Compliance A warning letter was issued to Respondents Endres/Lima on January 30, 2019, for the dredging and filling of approximately 0.80 acres of forested wetlands and improper installation of erosion and sedimentation control. The CO, executed on July 18, 2019, required Respondents Endres/Lima to cease any dredging, filling, or construction activities on the Property, submit an application for an Individual ERP within 30 days, and pay $5,599.00 in penalties and the Department's costs and expenses. After the issuance of an ERP, Respondents Endres/Lima were also required to implement the restoration actions outlined in the CO. Respondents’ Endres/Lima’s application, dated August 19, 2020, was submitted to the Department on August 22, 2020. Respondents Endres/Lima paid the CO's penalties and costs, and had multiple meetings with the Department to complete the requirements of the CO. Respondents Endres/Lima’s expert, Mr. Exner, testified that he began working on a restoration plan for the Property, which will be provided to the Department once an ERP is issued. Permitting Criteria The Department reviewed the complete application and determined that it satisfied the conditions for issuance under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-330.301, and the applicable sections of the ERP Applicant's Handbook Volume I (AH Vol. I). The Department also considered the seven criteria in rule 62-330.302 and section 373.414(1)(a), and determined that implementing the Project would not be contrary to the public interest. Water Quantity, Flooding, Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Respondents’ Endres/Lima's civil engineering expert, Mr. Herbert, testified that according to the drainage design, the Property would have swales on either side of the proposed residence to slope water away from the residence. There would also be a conveyance swale on the north property boundary to convey water from the street area and front yard toward the restoration and wetland areas with ultimate discharge to Long Lake. He stated that the elevation of the road at the front of the Property would be at 47.4 feet, and the elevation at the terminus of the swale would be at 45 feet. This would allow a 2.4-foot vertical fall for the swales to convey water to the lake. The design would preserve pre-development surface water flow over the Property to Long Lake, which is the lowest elevation in the area, and will ensure that storm water does not flood adjacent properties. Mr. Herbert also testified that the Project design would maintain pre-development water storage capacity. The imported fill that is currently on the Property in the flood plain would be removed and reshaped so that the lake elevation would be maintained and water can flow correctly. Elimination or Reduction of Impacts and Mitigation Respondents Endres/Lima provided the Department with design modifications to reduce impacts associated with the Project. These included a 15-foot restoration buffer along the lake front's northern shoreline, an elevated access walkway five feet above the wetland restoration area to the proposed dock, limiting the width of the access walk to four feet, and limiting the boat ramp width to a single-lane. In June 2015, an informal wetlands determination was conducted for the Property. The informal determination concluded that the entirety of the Property were wetlands. However, this was an informal determination and was not binding. In October 2016, before the first permit application was submitted, Mr. Exner did a wetlands delineation flagging prior to the Property being cleared or disturbed. Mr. Exner testified that, in his opinion, the Property was not all wetlands because large pines near the road had no high water marks, adventitious growth around the bases, or evidence of pine borer beetles along with other indicators of upland habitat. This wetland delineation was part of the permit submittal, was shown on the plans, was accepted by the Department, and was used for the preparation of the UMAM scoring. Mr. Exner's wetland delineation line was used by the Department to help determine and map the wetland impacts identified in the CO. The direct impact area was assessed at 0.54 acres with a secondary impact area of 0.02 acres for a total impact of 0.56 acres, and a functional loss score of 0.364. Respondents Endres/Lima reserved 0.6 forested UMAM mitigation credits, almost double the amount of functional loss under the UMAM assessment, agreed to purchase 0.46 credits. The excess mitigation bank credits implement part of a plan that provides regional ecological value and greater long-term ecological value than the area of wetland adversely affected. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts The Project's UMAM analysis assessed 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet, of secondary impacts. These impacts would be fully offset by the mitigation proposed for the Project. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Mahnken, noted three areas where he thought the application was incomplete. The first was that the site plan did not call out the location of the secondary impacts. However, Part III: Plans of Section B of the application, does not require that the site plan show the location of the secondary impacts. The application requirements for "plans" requires only the boundaries and size of the wetlands on the Property and provide the acreages of the upland areas, wetland impact areas, and the remaining untouched area. Second, Mr. Mahnken questioned the calculation performed to determine the secondary impact acreage. However, Mr. Mahnken read the information incorrectly and stated that the secondary impact area was 0.002 acres, or 87 square feet, when the UMAM score sheet clearly showed that the secondary impact area is 0.02 acres, or 870 square feet. In addition, the Department's witness, Ms. Warr, testified that even if the Department were to use Mr. Mahnken's analysis, the result would have been the same, i.e., the requirement to purchase 0.46 mitigation credits. Thus, Petitioners failed to support their claim that the Project would have adverse secondary impacts. Third, Mr. Mahnken asserted that cumulative impacts were not adequately addressed. He testified that the assessment for the Property using spill over benefits, in his opinion, was not enough to fully offset the impacts of the Project. Mr. Mahnken acknowledged, however, that his opinion was open to debate, and that he had not conducted any rigorous hydrologic evaluation in reaching his opinion. Respondents Endres/Lima had submitted a report prepared by Breedlove, Dennis & Associates (BDA Report) with their application in order to demonstrate compliance with section 10.2.8, ERP AH Vol. I, regarding cumulative impacts. The BDA Report utilized peer-reviewed hydrologic data that was reviewed and approved by the South Florida Water Management District, and was accepted by the Department pursuant to section 373.4136(6)(c). This was consistent with the Property's location within the mitigation service area for the Lake X Mitigation Bank. The Project is located within the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, which is a nested basin within the larger St. Johns River [Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva] drainage basin. The Lake X Mitigation Bank is located outside of the Econlockhatchee River drainage basin, but the Project is located within the Lake X Mitigation Bank service area. The BDA report determined that: In summary, the Lake X Mitigation Bank is a regionally significant mitigation bank site that has direct hydrological and ecological connections to the SJRWMD basins, to include the cumulative impacts basin in which the subject property is located (i.e., SJRWMD Basin 19). The size, biodiversity, and proximity of the mitigation bank site to the SJRWMD basins, and the regionally significant hydrological connection between the mitigation bank site and the contiguous SJRWMD mitigation basins, supports the use of this mitigation bank site “as if in basin” mitigation for the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project. Additionally, the evaluation of factors, to include connectivity of waters, hydrology, habitat range of affected species, and water quality, demonstrates the spillover benefits that the Lake X Mitigation Bank has on the St. Johns River (Canaveral Marshes to Wekiva) mitigation basin, which includes the Econlockhatchee River Nested basin, and demonstrated that the proposed mitigation will fully offset the impacts proposed as part of the Lima/Endres Wetland Fill Project “as if in-basin” mitigation. The Lake X Mitigation Bank will protect and maintain the headwaters of two regionally significant drainage basins [i.e., the Northern Everglades Kissimmee River Watershed and the Upper St. Johns River Watershed (to include the nested Econlockhatchee River basin)], and will provide resource protection to both river systems (SFWMD Technical Staff Report, November 29, 2016). Furthermore, the permanent protection and management of the Lake X Mitigation Bank will provide spillover benefits to the SJRWMD basins located within the permitted MSA. Mr. Mahnken stated that his review of the Project did not include a hydrologic study and only looked at basic flow patterns for Long Lake. By contrast, the BDA Report included an extensive hydrologic study, looked at all required factors in section 10.2.8(b), ERP AH, Vol. I, and determined that the Project would be fully offset with the proposed mitigation. Thus, Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Water Quality Rule 62-330.302(1)(e) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the state water quality standards will be violated. The conditions of the ERP would require the use of best management practices including a floating turbidity curtain/barrier, soil stabilization with grass seed or sod, and a silt fence. Respondent Endres/Lima's experts, Mr. Herbert and Mr. Exner, testified that there is an existing turbidity barrier in the lake around the property and a silt fence around the east half of the Property. While these items are not required by the Department until construction of the Project, part of the silt fence and the turbidity barrier are already installed on the Property and will be required to be repaired and properly maintained in accordance with the conditions of the ERP and Site Plan SP-2. Mr. Herbert testified that the Property will be graded in a manner that will result in a gentle sloping of the lake bank in the littoral zone, which would allow revegetation of the lake bank. Outside of the restoration area and the undisturbed wetlands, the backyard would be covered with grass to prevent migration of sand and soil discharging into the lake. Mr. Exner testified that the grass swales proposed for the Project would provide a considerable amount of nutrient uptake and filtration of surface water on the Property. Also, in the restoration area next to the lake, the restoration plan includes a dense planting plan with native species that have good nutrient uptake capability. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife Rule 62-330.301(1)(d) requires that Respondents Endres/Lima provide reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and listed species by wetlands and other surface waters. Mr. Exner testified that, in his review of the Property, he did not identify any critical wildlife habitat. He visited the Property multiple times and he did not see any osprey nests, deer tracks, animal scat, gopher tortoises, or sand hill cranes. The Department's Ms. Warr testified that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission database was reviewed, and did not show any listed species in the area. Publication of Notice Petitioners argued that the notice published in the Sanford Herald on February 9, 2020, did not meet the requirements of section 373.413(4). Despite the notice having no effect on their ability to timely challenge the proposed ERP, Petitioners argued that the published notice was insufficient because the notice itself did not provide the name of the applicants or the address of the Project, only a link to the Department's permit file. Unlike the notice required in section 373.413(3), where a person has filed a written request for notification of any pending application affecting a particular designated area, section 373.413(4) does not specify the contents of the published notice. Section 373.413(4) does not require the published notice to include the name and address of the applicant; a brief description of the proposed activity, including any mitigation; the location of the proposed activity, including whether it is located within an Outstanding Florida Water or aquatic preserve; a map identifying the location of the proposed activity subject to the application; a depiction of the proposed activity subject to the application; or a name or number identifying the application and the office where the application can be inspected. In response to the published notice, the Department received approximately ten petitions challenging the NOI, including the petitions timely filed by Petitioners. Therefore, Petitioners were not harmed by any information alleged to have been left out of the published notice. Ultimate Findings Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property; and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project complied with elimination and reduction of impacts, and proposed more than adequate mitigation. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to water resources; and unacceptable cumulative impacts to wetlands and other surface waters within the same drainage basin. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving water bodies. Respondents Endres/Lima provided reasonable assurance that the Project will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species by wetlands, or other surface waters. Petitioners failed to prove lack of reasonable assurance by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a Final Order granting Respondents’ Endres/Lima's ERP application. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES 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 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2020. Jay Patrick Reynolds, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Neysa Borkert, Esquire Garganese, Weiss, D'Agresta and Salzman 111 North Orange Avenue Post Office Box 398 Orlando, Florida 32802 (eServed) Tracy L. Kochmann 249 Carolyn Drive Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Shelley M. Meier 208 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Brian Hacker 170 Long Acres Lane Oviedo, Florida 32765 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Justin G. Wolfe, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Legal Department, Suite 1051-J Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Noah Valenstein, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing relating to the issue of jurisdiction, the following relevant facts are found: On or about March 28, 1979, respondents T.V. Rodriquez and Trafalgar Developers of Florida, Inc. filed with the Department of Environmental Regulation an application for a permit to conduct dredge and fill activities on a 2.3 acre area located within a 495 acre planned unit development in Orlando. The 2.3 acre tract is located in a cypress swamp area in the northeast portion of the development site. The application sought authority to excavate 2,000 cubic yards of material for the installation of a five foot diameter drainage culvert, and to backfill the installed pipe with 3,000 cubic yards of fill material. All of the construction activity was to be confined to the 2.3 acre tract which, as noted above, was a cypress swamp area interior to the project boundaries. While there were no other property owners immediately adjacent to the cypress swamp upon which the dredging and filling was to occur, the applicants did provide for notification purposes the names of two property owners which were the closest, although not adjacent, to the proposed project site. Neither the petitioners nor the intervenors in this proceeding were among the two names provided. The Department of Environmental Regulation reviewed the application and, on April 5, 1980, requested further infor- mation. Upon receipt of this information, an employee of DER, Jim Morgan, conducted a field inspection of the dredge and fill site on May 10, 1979. It was Mr. Morgan's conclusion that the proposed project would result in the elimination of approxi- mately three percent of the wetlands associated with the eastern boundary of the 495 acre development, and would not significantly impact the remaining portion of the wetland community. Mr. Morgan recommended that the application be approved, with two specific conditions. One condition pertained to the containment of turbidity at the project site if the site is inundated during construction. The other condition pertained to a proposed swale for outfall of a planned ditch system for the drainage of the 495 acre planned unit development. On May 18, 1979, the Department of Environmental Regulation issued Permit No. 48-18682-4E to respondents to excavate 2,000 cubic yards of material for the installation of a five foot diameter drainage culvert and to backfill the installed pipe with 3,000 cubic yards of fill material suitable for use as-a golf course foundation. The permit contained the specific conditions recommended by Mr. Morgan. Specific Condition Number 1 reads as follows: "(1) The drainage plan for this proposed 495 acre planned unit development will require the lowering of the water table via way of a planned ditch system, thus making development feasible. This ditch system will ultimately [sici discharge to an existing county canal via way of a proposed swale, which is exempt from this department's per- mitting pursuant to Chapter 17-4.04(10)(k). A swale conveys water only during and immediately after the advent of a storm. This installation must conform to this explicit definition, otherwise, additional dredge and fill permits will be required, including the entire development's drainage facility. Upon completion of the development, this department shall be notified and periodic inspections will be performed by the department's staff to determine if the outfall conforms with the definition of a swale." By letters to DER dated August 20, 1979, the petitioners herein stated that they had just been informed on August 17, 1979, of the issuance of the subject permit to the respondents. Their original letters to the DER, as well as their amended and restated petition, claim that, as owners of property located adjacent to the property upon which the drainage project would be conducted pursuant to the subject permit, they were entitled to notice prior to the issuance of the permit and that their substantial interest will be affected by the drainage project authorized by said permit. The petitioners Frances Bandy and Charles R. Bandy own Lot 14 in Golden Acres which is a considerable distance from the 2.3 acre tract upon which respondents are permitted to conduct dredging and filling activities. The petitioners Anna and Lee Rowe and Fay M. Handy own Lots 20 and 21 in Golden Acres, as well as a five acre lake. These lots and lake are even further from the permitted dredge and fill site. None of the petitioners own property which is adjacent to the permitted 2.3 acre site. Betty J. Hardy, Wayne Hardy and Vista Landscaping Inc. moved to intervene in this proceeding by motion dated March 5, 1980. An amended motion to intervene was filed on March 17, 1980, adding Julian T. Hardy as a named party intervenor. The intervenors own and have a business interest in property located a considerable distance south of the permitted 2.3 acres. The intervenors conduct a wholesale nursery business on their property. Their complaint lies with the effect that the proposed drainage of the entire 495 acre development and the alleged drainage ditch located on property contiguous to their property will have on their property and business interests. As of the time of the hearing on March 18, 1980, construction pursuant to the permit issued on May 18, 1979, was approximately ninety-five percent (95 percent) complete.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioners request for an administrative hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1) be dismissed, with prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. Respectfully submitted and entered this 22nd day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Cleatous J. Simmons Lowndes, Drosdick and Doster Post Office Box 2809 Orlando, Florida 32802 Roger D. Schwenke Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanual, Smith and Cutler, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601 Stanley J. Niego Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Jacob Varn Secretary, Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Application No. 76-00292 is for a consumptive use permit for one well located in the Green Swamp, Lake County. The water withdrawn is to be used for industrial purposes. The application seeks a total withdrawal of 3.642 million gallons per day average annual withdrawal and 5.112 million gallons maximum daily withdrawal. This withdrawal will be from one well and a dredge lake and constitutes in its entirety a new use. The consumptive use, as sought, does not exceed the water crop as defined by the district nor otherwise violate any of the requirements set forth in Subsections 16J-2.11(2) , (3) or (4), Florida Administrative Code. The Southwest Florida Water Management District's staff recommends issuance of a permit with the following conditions: That the applicant shall install totalizing flowmeters of the propeller-driven type on the subject well. The applicant shall record the pumpage from the subject well on a weekly basis and submit a record of that pumpage to the district quarterly beginning on January 15, 1977. The permit shall expire on December 31, 1980. The procedural requirements of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto, have been complied with as they pertain to this application. The intended consumptive use appears to be a reasonable, beneficial use which is consistent with the public interest and will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that a consumptive water use permit in the amounts and manner sought for by the subject application be issued subject to the conditions set forth in paragraph 3 above. ENTERED this 5th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHRIS H. BENTLEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Florida Rock Industries, Inc. Staff Attorney Post Office Box 4667 Southwest Florida Water Jacksonville, Florida Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP or Department) should exempt Petitioner's alleged maintenance-dredging from wetland resource permitting under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e).1
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has applied for a maintenance-dredging exemption from wetland resource permitting for two channels in Goose Bayou on the two ends of a U-shaped upland cut canal adjacent to Goose Bayou. Rule 62-312 provides in pertinent part: No permit shall be required under this chapter for dredging or filling . . . for the projects listed below. * * * (e) The performance of maintenance dredging of existing manmade canals, channels, and intake and discharge structures, where the spoil material is to be removed and deposited on a self-contained, upland spoil site which will prevent the escape of the spoil material and return water from the spoil site into surface waters of the state, provided no more dredging is performed than is necessary to restore the canal, channels, and intake and discharge structures to original design specifications, and provided that control devices are used at the dredge site to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. This exemption shall apply to all canals constructed before April 3, 1970, and to those canals constructed on or after April 3, 1970, pursuant to all necessary state permits. This exemption shall not apply to the removal of a natural or manmade barrier separating a canal or canal system from adjacent waters of the state. Where no previous permit has been issued by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers for construction or maintenance dredging of the existing manmade canal or intake or discharge structure, such maintenance dredging shall be limited to a depth of no more than 5 feet below mean low water. There was no evidence of any dredging or application for dredging in the vicinity of the proposed alleged "maintenance- dredging" prior to 1971. There was evidence and a stipulation that Heritage Homes of Fort Walton, Inc. (Heritage Homes), applied to the State of Florida in or around 1971 to dredge two navigation channels in Goose Bayou for a project known as Venetian Villas and to remove two plugs separating a land-locked U-shaped canal from Goose Bayou. The navigation channels were to be 50 feet wide by five feet deep. The southern channel was to be 640 feet long, while the northern channel was to be 450 feet long. This proposal did not receive any governmental authorization. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that in 1973, based on the proposed project modifications, the State of Florida Department of Pollution Control (DPC), a predecessor of DEP, issued water quality certification, and the State of Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (BOT) issued a permit for the project, as modified. It appears that the issuance of the water qualify certification and BOT permit was part of some kind of settlement reached between Heritage Homes and the State of Florida for dredge-and-fill violations. It appears that the settlement also involved the conveyance of ten acres of land to the State of Florida in lieu of payment for the spoil used in filling the marsh lands between Goose Bayou and the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, at some point in time, the DPC certification and a BOT permit were transferred from Heritage Homes to West Florida Construction Company (West Florida). There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, as of July 13, 1973, neither Heritage Homes nor West Florida had applied to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for a permit. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, over time and after receiving comments from various governmental agencies, West Florida's proposed project changed to involve a yacht basin/marina, a proposed southern channel, elimination of the proposal for a northern channel, and plugging the U-shaped canal to keep it separate from Goose Bayou. The location of the single, southern channel under this proposal was different from the proposed location of the southern channel under the Heritage Homes proposal, which was to start at the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. Instead, under West Florida's proposal, the single, southern channel was to be located directly north of the southernmost arm of the U-shaped canal. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, by August 21, 1974, West Florida applied to the Corps for a permit to dredge the single, southern channel (50 feet wide, 565 feet long, and four feet deep), to keep the northern canal plugged, and to construct a yacht basin/marina. There was evidence and the parties stipulated that, the United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended several changes to the project before they could recommend that the Corps issue a permit for the 1974 application; however, it does not appear that the recommended changes were ever made or that the Corps ever took any action on the 1974 application or issued any permit for the proposed project. At some point in time after 1974, the two plugs were removed, which connected the U-shaped canal to Goose Bayou. There is now a wide, shallow channel from the waterward ends of the U-shaped canal into Goose Bayou. The evidence did not prove that these channels, which Petitioner now seeks to maintenance- dredge, were ever dredged by man. Their width and shallow depth are more consistent with natural scouring from surface water runoff leaving the canal system at low and extreme low tides than with dredging. There was no evidence of soil borings, which could have verified whether the channels had been dredged by man. Even if originally dredged, there was no evidence that a dredged channel had been maintained over the years. Mr. Stoutamire testified that DEP does not consider maintenance- dredging to include the restoration or rebuilding of a channel that has not been maintained and no longer exists. This interpretation of the maintenance-dredging exemption is reasonable. Mr. Stoutamire also testified that DEP interprets the last sentence of Rule 62-312.050(1)(e), limiting maintenance- dredging to no more than five feet below mean low water where no previous permit has been issued, to refer to canals constructed before April 3, 1970, since maintenance-dredging of canals constructed after that date would not be exempt if not previously permitted. This interpretation is reasonable.2 Petitioner's application did not state that control devices would be used to prevent turbidity and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during dredging.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner a maintenance-dredging exemption under Rule 62- 312.050(1)(e). DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2009.
Findings Of Fact On or about March 7, 1986, Petitioner submitted an application for a variance from the open space and rear set-back line requirements applicable to property located at 2612 U.S. 19 North, Clearwater, Florida. The subject property is zoned CC (commercial center). Petitioner's application requests a variance to provide 12.33% open space instead of 25%, and to construct a building 30 feet from the rear property line rather than 50 feet as required by the Land Development Code for property zoned CC. On or about April 24, 1986, the Development Code Adjustment Board denied Petitioner's application for a variance, and Petitioner timely appealed on May 6, 1986. The only evidence in support of its application offered by Petitioner was the testimony of Robby Tompkins. He testified that Petitioner's application is "unique" because Petitioner was 90% complete with its architectural plans for the renovation and modernization of the subject property when the current ordinance took effect, and Petitioner therefore urges that the current ordinance should not apply. Additionally, Petitioner argues that there will be no injury to the public as a result of the variance, and in fact the project will add 6800 square feet to its shopping center. Tompkins admitted that an increase in financial return was the primary reason Petitioner has sought the variance. Finally, he stated that if Petitioner complies with the 25% open space requirement, there will not be enough parking to meet Code provisions, and if sufficient parking is provided, there will not 25% open space.
The Issue Whether or not Petitioners should be ordered to pay reasonable costs and attorney's fees to the Respondent North Peninsula Utilities Corporation, and, if so, the determination of the amounts of costs and attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact A brief background of the parties' history is important to disposition of the attorney's fees and costs motion. Petitioner Thomas Visconti is a resident of Seabridge Subdivision and is provided with wastewater treatment service by Respondent NPU. His property is not adjacent to NPU's treatment facility and the record does not establish that Mr. Visconti owns or operates any potable water wells within the vicinity of NPU's facility. See Finding of Fact 19, infra., concerning absence of any potable wells that could be affected by rerating the percolation pond. SCA is a homeowner's corporation which does not own property adjacent to the NPU facility, but which allegedly has members who do. The authority of the SCA vice-president to file the initial petition in November 1993 is subject to some conjecture, since the way this was done was because the SCA president informally delegated all duties to the vice-president while the president was out of state and all or most of the members signed the petition. There is no evidence the SCA bylaws permitted either such a delegation or the act of filing the Section 120.57(1) F.S. petition. Although an amended petition months later cured the "authority to file" problem, no evidence ever established which, if any, association members owned property adjacent to the NPU facility. Respondent NPU has owned and operated its Seabridge wastewater treatment plant since 1989. At that time, the plant had been rated at .9 MGD because of the previous owner's decision to economize by using an extended aeration form of treatment rather than contact stabilization method for which the plant had been designed. If the previous owner had utilized the contact method, the facility would have been rated at .157 MGD. The capacity of the plant percolation ponds at the time NPU acquired the facility was .157 MGD. In 1991, NPU applied for and received a Department of Environmental Regulation (DER, predecessor agency to DEP) permit to expand the facility to a treatment capacity of .210 MGD. Legal and appropriate notice of the Department's Intent to Issue was provided to the public. It was never formally challenged pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S., and the DER permit became final. Mr. Visconti and SCA felt abused by the agency and by NPU because they, Visconti and SCA, had missed that window of opportunity to challenge the 1991 plant expansion permit. Thereafter, they proceeded to fight NPU on the expansion and every other issue in whatever forum was available, notably before the Volusia County Commission and the Florida Public Service Commission. Mr. Visconti, acting as head of the SCA Sewer Committee, wrote a March 10, 1993 letter to DEP that stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Seabridge Civic Association, Inc. (hereafter "SCA") wishes to apprise you that SCA hereby intends to petition the DER for an administrative hearing(s) upon your giving any Notice of Intent to Issue any further permits, particularly any future 0.210 MGD Operating Permit, for the "Seabridge Subdivision" Sewer Treatment Plant. The letter, confirmed by Mr. Visconti's and Mr. Tyde's oral testimony, shows that Mr. Visconti and SCA intended to oppose any permit NPU applied for, regardless of its purpose, and that they knew of the original .210 MGD permit at that time. It goes on to protest sewer connections and previously finalized old permits. Mr. Visconti also wrote a July 2, 1993 letter to DEP, limiting communication, which stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Effective after today, please be advised that the official single point communication link between DER and SCA is with SCA President Charles Dassance. NPU's consulting engineer submitted "as-built" plans of the expansion in early 1993 after the NPU plant expansion construction had been completed. The percolation pond had been expanded to a lesser degree than that authorized by the 1991 DER permit because NPU had had to accommodate Volusia County setback requirements which eliminated approximately 11,000 square feet of pond bottom. NPU's engineer timely made the Department aware of the discrepancy and discussions occurred with the Department as to how to resolve it. NPU's engineer commissioned a groundwater engineering company to prepare a report to justify effluent disposal capacity of the percolation pond at the rate of .210 MGD, which was done on April 12, 1993 by PSI/Jammal & Associates ("the April Jammal report.") Not satisfied that the model used by Jammal for the April report could be verified by computer means available to the Department, DEP required a corroborating mounding analysis which was submitted on July 23, 1993 ("the July Jammal report.") In the meantime, DEP limited the percolation pond loading rate to .151 MGD until the applicant could justify a higher loading rate. NPU's 1991 construction permit for .210 MGD had expired in July of 1993. Needing a vehicle by which the review of the applicant's request to rerate the pond could take place, DEP required submittal of a construction permit application, which NPU subsequently filed on August 11, 1993 at the Department's Orlando office. To demonstrate reasonable assurance for the rerating authorization, NPU submitted the July 23 mounding analysis and showed that the loading rate would not be greater than 5.6 gallons per day per square foot. Percolation is considered to be excellent at the Seabridge treatment plant site because of the soil types underlying it, and the 5.6 figure is within the parameters of DEP's current rules. On October 26, 1993, DEP issued its Notice of Intent to issue the rerating permit for .181 MGD, calculated by multiplying the pond bottom area by the loading rate of 5.6 gpd2, which constituted a reduction from the 1991 .210 MGD loading rate approval. The Notice was published on November 11, 1993, and both Petitioners received individual Notice of the Intent to Issue. On November 22, 1993, SCA filed its petition challenging the proposed rerate authorization. Petitioner Visconti timely filed his petition on November 26, 1993. To establish substantial interests, Petitioners generally alleged that the noise, odor, and unsightliness of the plant would be increased if the rerating were to be approved. They also alleged adverse effects to property values, disparities in the technical information NPU had provided in support of its rerating application, and improper procedures employed by DEP in that it had not coordinated with Volusia County. Petitioners' asserted that their "proper purpose" for filing their petitions was that they had seen a 1993 letter of the DEP Regional Director to the effect that the pond was only licensed for .151 MGD and they assumed a new permit application for .181 MGD would constitute a dangerous increase. This assertion is spurious because both Mr. Visconti and Mr. Tyde admitted they had not even seen the rerate application before filing their petitions and that they did not know what the rerate application said until well into the formal administrative hearing process. Assuming, arguendo that the prior letter and DEP's Notice of Intent on its face could have misled Petitioners into believing there would be an increase from .151 MGD to .181 MGD instead of a decrease from .210 MGD to .181 MGD, that, alone, does not demonstrate a proper purpose in light of all the contrary and clarifying information available to Petitioners upon reasonable inquiry and which they chose to ignore. Because of the allegations of technical disparity and improper procedure, Visconti's petition was sustained against NPU's motion to dismiss with one paragraph struck. The SCA petition was dismissed for lack of showing of substantial interest and the amended SCA petition was challenged by NPU on the same basis, with ruling reserved for the recommended order. (See, the April 8 and June 6, 1994 orders, discussed supra.) After acknowledging on June 15, 1994 that NPU could demonstrate reasonable assurances, Petitioners presented evidence with regard to whether they had conducted a "reasonable inquiry" prior to filing the November 1993 petitions, but presented no proof as to their allegations of substantial interest contained in their petitions. Based on the evidence, it is found that neither Petitioner had any substantial interest which gave them standing to proceed with their challenges. Prior to filing their petitions, neither Petitioner had looked at NPU's August 1993 permit application. Between the Notice of Intent to Issue and filing their petitions, neither Petitioner contacted either DEP or NPU, nor conducted any review of the DEP files for data in support of their contention that the rerate authorization had been improperly granted by DEP. Petitioner SCA relied entirely on research conducted by Mr. Visconti when he had been chairman of SCA's Sewer Committee prior to July 2, 1993. Mr. Visconti's last review of NPU's files at the Department had been in June 1993, two months before the rerate application was even filed. Mr. Visconti ostensibly filed his petition upon his own opinion that the pond capacity was being increased from .151 to .181 instead of decreased from .210 to .181. His testimony was evasive or obstructionist in replying to reasonable questions concerning his area of expertise for forming his opinion, except to say that as a management consultant for unspecified high technology companies on how to manage their programs for federal, state, and local governments, he could interpret rules as well as anybody. As to his interpretation of DEP rules, however, he testified that he did not know precisely what the DEP capacity rules were; he did not ask any questions of DEP after the notice of intent to grant was issued, and he relied on hearsay from other SCA members. He never contacted NPU or their engineers after the rerate application. He opposed NPU's entitlement to the rerate permit even if NPU met all DEP rules, and he intended that his petition would cause the plant to go back the way it was before the 1991 expansion. He knew that the F.A.C. standard had changed to permit 5.6 GPDs, but he still objected to granting the permit on the terms contained in the rule. Mr. Visconti further testified that he knew in 1991 that a permit for .210 capacity had been issued and that the 1991 assessment was that percolation was excellent at the site. Although he had not seen the new permit application before filing his petition, he testified that he would not have cared if the application had said it reduced from .210 to .181, because he would still believe it was an increase. He never checked to see if the Intent to Issue had reconciled his pre-application concerns. He told himself the rerate would possibly increase pollutants. He did not know if June 1993 letters he relied on concerning a permit expiring and a .151 capacity of the pond had anything to do with the new permit application; he did not ask anybody, but just decided that they did. He admitted he intended to contest any and every permit NPU ever applied for regardless of what the permit was for. Despite the fact that the percolation pond has no equipment in it, he felt it was just "logical" that noise would increase. He admitted that he has never even looked over the fence, and so his petition's complaint of unsightliness was based solely on the already completed plant expansion, not the 1993 rerate application for the percolation pond which his petition challenged. He never asked DEP or any lawyer if noise, odor and aesthetics constitute pollution concerns; he assumed DEP personnel were incompetent; he decided DEP was withholding information from him because DEP did not keep all old permits for one facility or site in a single file and because papers he had seen in Public Service Commission and Volusia County files were not always in DEP files. He did not verify if the allegation in his petition that NPU did not own the land had been resolved before he filed his petition. He did not know that it had been resolved. Mr. Visconti left town for the entire five months immediately after filing his petition, with no concern as to how this might affect litigation. Mr. Tyde, now president of SCA, also testified that he filed the SCA petition because he believed there was to be an expansion of the plant. He specifically testified that he relied on Mr. Visconti's old research, except that he massaged some figures of his own based on standards of the Department of Health and Rehabilitation so as to compare that agency's condominium connection requirements with single family dwelling connections. Apparently, SCA opposes the influx of condominiums to its area. However, this subject matter has no real nexus to the gallonage one NPU percolation pond can accommodate under DEP rules, and it only goes to the Petitioners' belief that any change, starting with the 1991 expansion permit, impacts on property values and plant capacity and is simply a bad thing. Mr. Tyde filed SCA's initial petition without knowing if the SCA by-laws permitted him to do so. He decided there was expansion solely on the basis of a DEP letter that had been written before the current application was made. He believed erroneously that the words "rerating" and "increase" are synonymous. He never contacted anybody at DEP to verify his analysis; he filed the petition within nine days of the Notice of Intent to Issue, concentrating not upon the validity of the allegations but upon format. He knew there were no potable wells that would be affected by the plant so that paragraph six of SCA's amended petition drafted to further explain the disparities which were alleged environmental dangers could not possibly be correct. The intent of the SCA petition was not to challenge the pond rerating but to revert the area to what it had been before NPU's completed 1991-1993 expansion, and it was filed with the knowledge that NPU had spent a lot of money to complete that construction and would have to spend more to litigate the pond rerate application. When Petitioners admitted on the day scheduled for formal hearing on the merits that NPU and DEP would be able to show reasonable assurance for granting the permit, they thereby admitted that their petitions' allegations of disparities in the technical information NPU had provided could not be substantiated. Evidence at the fees hearing showed their allegations about data disparities were irrelevant to the pond rerate permit because the "disparities" the Petitioners were concerned about related to the collection or treatment processes of the plant, the permit for which had long-ago become final, or they were irrelevant because they were related to potential enforcement actions if something went wrong at the plant or if NPU operations violated DEP rules. The so-called "disparities" did not concern the percolation pond's capability. No reason to file any violation/enforcement action against NPU existed at the time the petitions were filed. Because the NPU facility was never involved in a DEP enforcement proceeding and was in constant touch with DER per the procedures outlined in Findings of Fact 5, and 7-9 and 20 supra, it is found that the "as built" construction of the pond at less than the originally authorized maximum capacity did not provide evidence that DEP had not followed its own rules for processing NPU's 1993 permit application and for its Intent to Issue. With regard to the procedure (mounding calculations) employed by DEP in approving the rerate, it was shown that Mr. Visconti waited until February 1994 to discuss his 1993 materials with a college professor of geology, another professor, and a professional engineer. Only in February 1994, three months after filing the petitions, did Mr. Visconti present these "experts" with the 1993 data, and even then he asked them about hypothetical flows from values he made up. When they could not give him any definitive answers, he claimed that DEP had withheld information and moved to continue the administrative proceeding. In considering the evidence, the candor and demeanor of all the witnesses has been weighed and the issue of whether or not DEP impeded Petitioners' access to agency files at any time is resolved against Petitioners and in favor of the agency. In so doing, consideration has been given to the evidence that SAC allowed Mr. Visconti to "take the point" on all investigations instead of doing anything on its own. That Petitioners, as laymen, may have been confused by DEP's use of discreet files for each of the successive permits applied for by NPU and granted or denied by the agency has been considered. The undersigned also appreciates that Mr. Visconti never understood that after some permits were granted, only microfilm copies of certain preliminary items remained. However, even so, Mr. Visconti's own testimony is to the effect that he was so fixated on the idea of a "conspiracy" or "collusion" between DEP and NPU that he rejected all explanations by DEP personnel and persisted in the ideation that DEP's failure to copy him with copies of all correspondence between the applicant and the agency pointed to collusion. He assumed, without good legal cause, that if something he had previously seen or thought should be in the agency file was not, in fact, in the agency file, he therefore had a right to file a petition against any permit application. Likewise, he decided, also without good legal cause that if there were anything in the agency file that caused him "concern" or which was different than the current permit application papers but which applied to any prior permit, he had a right to challenge the current permit application. The single instance of lack of cooperation and courtesy by one DEP employee as related by Ms. McCarthy concerning one telephoned question is accepted, but that single incident is not enough to swing the balance and absolve Petitioners of making a reasonable investigation before they filed their petitions. There is no evidence that the single question related to this permit; it was asked before the application for this permit was made and before the Intent to Issue was published; and the question apparently was never repeated. None of this evidence established any proper purpose in Petitioners for alleging data disparities or procedural irregularities, however defined. NPU presented evidence it had employed its attorney and agreed to pay certain fees and that its attorney's fees and costs are reasonable with the exception of the billings between October 5 and October 29, 1993. The allowable amount totals $24,690.00 in attorney's fees and $2,434.83 in costs. Petitioner Visconti established no evidence with regard to his counter motion for attorney's fees upon any legal theory whatsoever. DEP established no independent motion, entitlement, or amount of fees and costs.
