Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application

******************************************************************** Date of Pre-Submittal Conference with Planning Commission staff: ____________________

Jurisdiction in which proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment is located: Unincorporated Hillsborough County City of Plant City

City of Tampa City of Temple TerraceType of Comprehensive Plan Amendment:

Map Amendment Text AmendmentComprehensive Plan Amendment Initiated by:

Private Sector Public Sector

Property Owner(s)

Name: Address: Phone E-mail:

Agent/Representative (if applicable)

Name: Address: Phone E-mail:

Affidavit to Authorize Agent (If applicable) Where the applicant is not identified as the owner(s) of the property as specified on the deed(s) submitted with the request, a signed Affidavit to Authorize Agent is required. See Appendix C.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

File Number:____________________ Date Received:_____ ______________

Planning Commission Staff :___ ____________ Date:__ __________

See attached Exhibit A

Geraci-Van Dyke Retail Center, LLCc/o Lauren Geraci, Esq., 514 N Franklin St, #106, Tampa, FL 33602813.690.5955lauren@lngeraci.com

See attached List of Agents/Representatives

CPA 17-09 Exhibit A

This Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment application is a continuation of the Hillsborough County-initiated Plan Amendment, Case No. 17-09, which the County has elected to convert into a private property owner application. The prior application, and all previous submittal and review materials/comments shall be carried forward from prior Case No. 17-09, and are hereby incorporated by reference into this now-private party application.

CCPA 17-09

List of Authorized Agents/Representatives Joel R. Tew Tew & Associates 35595 US Highway 19 North, Suite 921 Palm Harbor, Florida 34684 (727) 216-6575 (office) jtew@tewlaw.us Peter Hubbell, Principal WRA 4260 West Linebaugh Avenue Tampa, Florida 33624 (813) 265-3130 (office) phubbell@wraengineering.com Ty Maxey, AICP Maser Consulting, P.A. 5471 West Waters Avenue, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33634 (813) 207-1061, ext. 4924 (office) tmaxey@maserconsulting.com

&%&% &% &% &%&%

&%&%&% &%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&% &%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%&% &%

&% &%&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&% &%

&%

&%

&% &%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&% &%

&%&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&% &%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&% &%

&%&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&% &%&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%&%

&%

&%

&% &%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&% &%

&% &%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&% &%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&% &%

&%

&%&%

&%&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

&%

LEGENDSECTION/TOWNSHIP/RANGE

&% PRODUCTION WELL

REVISED PUBLIC POTABLE WATER SUPPLY WELL PROTECTION ZONE - ZONE 2

SCALE AS SHOWNAUGUST 2017 FIGURE IV-8

SWFWMD DWRMv3 FTMRTBW SECTION 21REVISED CAPTURE ZONE (3 MGD)

0 1,000 2,000500

SCALE IN FEET

µTBW SECTION 21 WRPA REVIEWWUP No. 20011771.001LUTZ, FLORIDAWRA PROJECT No. 1234

THIS MAP REVISES THE CURRENT ZONE 2 CAPTURE ZONESPRESENTED ON THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY WELLHEADPROTECTION AREAS MAP (2004) AS INDICATED ON FOOTNOTE 1.

FOOTNOTE 1

Footnote 1: See Site-Specific Figure IV-8 for Updated Section 21 Wellfield Analysis (2017)

Protection of groundwater and surface water resources to ensure a safe source of potable water supply for Hillsborough County was the motivation for the Wellhead Protection Ordinance, which was initially adopted by Hillsborough County in 1992, subsequently incorporated in the Hillsborough County Land Development Code (Part 3.05.00), and later revised and updated in 2004. Completed in 2002 by URS, now AECOM, the protection zones were based on groundwater flow modeling analysis using MODFLOW-96 (Harbaugh and McDonald, 1996) and MODPATH (Pollock, 1994). According to Land Development Code Section 3.05.02.D.2, these protection zones are subject to change.

Water Resource Associates, LLC (WRA) was tasked with the review of the adopted 2002 Hillsborough County Wellhead Protection Ordinance groundwater flow model, the associated simulated groundwater withdrawals in vicinity to project site location, and hydrogeologic characteristics utilized within the groundwater flow model. This groundwater flow model, believed to be created in MODFLOW-96 (Harbaugh and McDonald, 1996), was used to generate capture zones through the use of inverse particle tracking, believed to be created in MODPATH (Pollock, 1994). The original County model does not exist and is missing from the County files.

The District-Wide Regulation Model version 3 (DWRMv3) was developed specifically for the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) by Environmental Simulations, Inc. (esi), of Reinholds, Pennsylvania, in MODFLOW, the USGS three-dimensional (3D) finite-difference groundwater modeling code (Harbaugh and McDonald, 1996 through Harbaugh, 2005), and was based upon the USGS Peninsular Florida groundwater flow model (Sepulveda, 2002), Integrated Northern Tampa Bay (INTB) model (Geurink and Basso, 2013), and the District-Wide Regulation Model version 2.1 (esi, 2007). The DWRMv3 is more robust and built off a larger dataset than the original County model. The model incorporates the most recent hydrogeological data set within the SWFWMD. As the designer of the graphical user interface Groundwater Vistas, esi incorporated a modeling method to the DWRMv3 model that allows for the creation of grid-refined, site-specific models from the original DWRMv3 model. This method is the DWRMv3 Focused Telescopic Mesh Refinement (FTMR).

As indicated above, the DWRMv3 FTMR allows the user to focus on the area around the project site and create a new model grid that contains all of the attributes of the regional model, including aquifer characteristics, head distributions, river cells, drain cells, recharge, and wells within a refined grid spacing, which are user defined. For this modeling exercise, the DWRMv3 FTMR grid spacing within the project site was refined to the default minimum distance of 500 ft. by 500 ft. within the site boundaries and surrounding area. The refined grid spacing allows a more detailed analysis of potential simulated drawdown impacts in the immediate area of the project site and the adjacent wetlands, streams, ponds, and lakes. It should be noted that there were no modifications to the hydrogeologic parameters or head distributions included with the calibrated DWRMv3 model.

As noted, WRA evaluated the Tampa Bay Water (TBW) Section 21 Wellfield with the SWFWMD DWRMv3, as the 2002 Hillsborough County Wellhead Protection Ordinance groundwater flow model is no longer available. Mirroring the well capture zone analysis, the DWRMv3 FTMR model created based on WUP No. 20 011771.001 was also evaluated with inverse MODPATH particle tracking over a 10-year period. The Section 21 Wellfield withdrawals were simulated based on the well allocation percentage (i.e., how much was a production well used) for TBW Consolidated WUP No. 20011771.001 during the 2011 through 2016, as provided to the SWFWMD. This annual average daily (AAD) allocation percentage was then utilized to simulate a 3 million gallons per day (MGD) AAD wellfield withdrawal. As depicted in the attached Figure IV-8, the project location is outside of the simulated capture zone as estimated in MODPATH utilizing 100 particles with a 0.5 depth release and a 200-ft. particle release radius surrounding each of the active production wells.

{A0237870.DOCX }

CONCLUSION

Hillsborough County has not reviewed or updated its wellhead protection zone maps in over 15

years since the 2002 base study which was the predicate for the 2004 Wellhead Protection Ordinance.

This is despite the fact(s) that (i) the Ordinance expressly contemplated that such updates/revisions were

to be performed, (ii) the County was repeatedly reminded that a revised study/update should be

performed, and (iii) there have been significant and material advances in hydrologic modeling capabilities

and improved data collection, analyses and reports by Tampa Bay Water and the Southwest Florida Water

Management District.

From its inception, the Ordinance was based upon a broad-brush mapping approach that was

completely insensitive to impacts upon specific properties, and which did not have a reasonable scientific

basis for some of its impacts upon private property rights. For example, arbitrarily extending the

protection zones to the “next quarter-quarter section line” beyond any ascertained wellhead impact area,

just for governmental “comfort,” is not a defensible governmental regulatory impact upon private

property rights. Moreover, providing a private property owner whose land is directly impacted with such

indiscriminate regulatory determinations with an opportunity to establish, via more accurate, detailed

scientific analysis and current/accurate wellfield permit and withdrawal data, with the opportunity to

procure a more accurate, detailed “map revision” for its land, is a customary and appropriate remedy. For

example, such map revision process routinely is followed by FEMA for its “letter of map revisions,”

which are routinely granted when more accurate, site-specific data and analysis is provided by a property

owner to supplant and replace a “general map” reservation. Also, other local governments with some

form of wellhead protection ordinance/mapping regulations also have accepted such detailed site-specific

analysis and have approved such revised mapping for specific property locations.

To add to the injustice here, Hillsborough County simply has not enforced the Ordinance since its

inception. The County has uniformly (i) permitted new UST facilities (not to mention other prohibited

uses) within wellhead protection zones, (ii) allowed facilities with UST’s within wellhead protection

zones to continue to operate without the required operating permits under the Ordinance, and (iii) allowed

improvements to facilities with UST’s within wellhead protection zones without compliance with the

Ordinance. To now seek to enforce the Ordinance, based upon outdated, inaccurate maps, against the

Applicant’s property simply because it chose to follow the honest, correct approach to address the issue

directly with the County, is neither good policy nor lawful enforcement. Such discriminatory, non-

enforcement of the Ordinance precludes the County from enforcing it against the Applicant now.

With respect to the scientific basis for a map revision for the Section 21 wellfield protection

zones, the Applicant has presented substantial, competent evidence which has not been controverted.

WRA Engineering was involved as a County professional consultant in the original scientific work related

to the Ordinance in 2002-2004, has unique professional expertise and experience to analyze the current

Section 21 water use permit, the historical water withdrawal data, the environmental impacts upon the

minimum lake levels established for the surrounding lakes which are impacted by TBW’s wellfield

pumping, and the professional expertise and capability to perform the hydrologic modeling necessary to

apply the best-available science and data to the current mapping process. WRA Engineering has certified

its work as contained in this Application, which work is the best (and only) competent evidence available

upon which to establish current, accurate wellhead protection zone map(s) for this site–specific map

review and update.

The County previously accepted the WRA Engineering data and analysis as sufficient to perform

a map revision/update for the Section 21 wellfield protection zones, and in fact initiated its own County

application (HC CPA 17-09) to implement the updated maps for the Applicant’s property. Upon

{A0237870.DOCX }

objection to the map revision by Tampa Bay Water, and acting solely upon political motivation rather

than any contrary scientific analysis (which the County failed to perform itself for 15 years), the County

unilaterally elected to convert its own public application into a private application, and told the Applicant

that it would need to pursue the application as a private application. Such political decision simply is not

a competent legal basis upon which to render a decision in this matter. The fact remains that the County

staff reviewed and approved the WRA Engineering submittal package, which the County itself requested

from WRA Engineering as the scientific basis to support the County’s own Comprehensive Plan

Amendment application.

Several months of project delay and tens of thousands of dollars in expense have now been

incurred by the Applicant for the various data collection, wellfield permit and environmental impact

analyses, and hydrologic modeling to (i) provide the County with the scientific data/results it requested to

support the County’s own application, and (ii) to respond to Tampa Bay Water’s comments/requests that

do not have a legitimate factual or scientific basis, and which do not change the results here. The short

and concise scientific answers are as follows:

1. Tampa Bay Water’s original contention to the County that its Section 21 wellfield was

permitted by SWFWMD for a withdrawal limit of 10 mgd, average annual daily rate, is false.

And of course this was the permit withdrawal rate upon which the Section 21 wellhead

protection zones were based in 2004, not to mention the “extra quarter/quarter section” zone

extension which was made without any scientific basis whatsoever (purely arbitrary and

capricious regulatory action). So the entire premise behind the 2004 Ordinance now is wrong.

2. Tampa Bay Water’s current WUP (a consolidated SWFWMD permit) revision went into

effect in 2011, is a consolidated system-wide permit and does not assign a right to pump 10

mgd from the Section 21 wellfield. Instead, the consolidated WUP requires TBW to adjust

and control its withdrawals levels from its various wellfields, rivers, reservoirs, and

desalination plants so as to minimize adverse environmental impacts, which of course also is

a requirement of State law.

3. TBW’s Section 21 wellfield pumping has a direct and substantial impact on lakes within and

immediately adjacent to the wellfield, including Starvation Lake and Round Lake. The

hydrographs containing the actual, historical data from TBW and SWFWMD clearly

document the direct correlation/impact (adverse) of the Section 21 wellfield pumping upon

the Minimum Lake Levels (MLL’s) established by SWFWMD for these lakes.

4. TBW is well aware of the pumping limitations imposed by its WUP and the adverse impact

upon the MLL’s, as its own data clearly demonstrates that it has attempted since 2011 (except

for a very short, recent period, which creates serious questions about TBW’s motivations) to

comply with its WUP limitations and to minimize its adverse impact upon the MLL’s for

these lakes. In fact, contrary to TBW’s initial assertion that it had the right to pump 10 mgd

from the Section 21 wellfield, its own WUP reporting data to SWFWMD demonstrates that it

has, in fact, only pumped 2 mgd for the 5-year period of 2001 through 2016 (under its current

consolidated WUP). Even the 2 mgd historical average for the last 5 years has had some

adverse environmental impacts upon the MLL’s for the affect lakes, and the

residents/community have been required to augment those lakes to try to counter TBW’s

adverse environmental impact. The County also is well aware of sinkhole activity in the

Section 21 wellfield, as a direct result of the TBW pumping (even at 2 mgd rates).

5. SWFWMD’s periodic review of the TBW data/reports, and its own long range plan forecasts,

also document that Section 21 wellfield withdrawals cannot exceed 2 mdg to 3 mgd, at the

{A0237870.DOCX }

absolute maximum, without serious adverse impacts upon the MLL’s for the affected lakes.

And, as stated above, even 2 mgd to 3 mgd average annual daily withdrawal rates have

caused and will cause adverse environmental impacts to those lakes. Section 21 probably

should not even be used by TBW any longer, now that it has alternative water sources.

6. Consequently, to comply with the lawful requirements that any regulatory impacts upon

private property rights must be based upon competent, substantial evidence, and that any such

regulation must have a rational nexus and be reasonably related to the stated governmental

purpose, it is mandatory that the hydrologic modeling be performed based upon the real-

world regulations which control TBW’s pumping activities, and not upon a false narrative

which presumes a 10 mdg pumping level that is neither lawful nor acceptable governmental

practice.

7. At 2 mgd average annual daily withdrawal rates (which is the most reasonable engineering

assumption based upon actual WUP limitations and TBW historical withdrawal rate), and

even at a rate of 3 mdg (50% in excess of historical rate and at the upper-end of any

conceivable proper withdrawal rate for the Section 21 wellfield), the approved 10-year

tracking model demonstrates no potential impact to/from the Applicant’s property.

Therefore, a site-specific map revision/update must be approved for the Section 21 wellfield

protection zones. In fact, the expert sensitivity analysis performed by WRA Engineering, at

TBW’s request, demonstrates that no adverse impact can occur to/from the Applicant’s

property at any withdrawal rate below 5.2 mgd, which is more than double the actual,

historical, annual average daily withdrawals by TBW from the Section 21 wellfield over the

life of the current consolidated WUP (since 2011).

Based upon the foregoing, HC CPA 17-09B must be approved, and the Applicant’s proposed,

revised/updated map for the Section 21 wellfield protection zones (as applicable to Applicant’s property)

should be adopted by the County. Any other conclusion would be arbitrary and capricious, as it is based

upon politics or rank speculation, rather than the facts, science, or the law.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM

{A0237872.DOCX }4260 W. Linebaugh Avenue Tampa, Florida 33624 Phone: 813-265-3130

8043 Cooper Creek Boulevard, Suite 210 University Park, Florida 34201

Phone: 941-275-9721

2401 First Street, Suite 201 Ft. Myers, Florida 33901

Phone: 239-333-2004

www.wraengineering.com

August 29, 2017 To: Mr. Joel Tew, Esq. From: Michael C. Alfieri, P.G., P.Hg., CGWP Principal Hydrogeologist Tew & Associates Peter Hubbell 35595 US Highway 19 N, #921 Principal Palm Harbor, FL 34684 Re: Response to TBW Review Comments to County-Initiated Application

Executive Summary

Tampa Bay Water’s (TBW) consultant, Leggette Brashears & Graham (LBG), requested a sensitivity analysis regarding the TBW Section 21 Wellfield District-Wide Regulation Model version 3 Focused Telescopic Mesh Refinement (DWRMv3 FTMR) model evaluations. While LBG also suggested alternate model assumptions as to the particle release depth and radius, it was evident, and generally agreed upon during July 14, 2017, meeting between TBW, LBG, WRA, and Hillsborough County Staff at the TBW Corporate Office in Clearwater, Florida, that the primary controlling parameter which dictated the extent of the 10-year capture zone was the simulated withdrawal level(s) from the wellfield. Consequently, while WRA maintains that its previously-assumed particle release depth and radius are a more accurate and reasonable assumptions due to the specific characteristics of this site, for discussion purposes only we agreed to make the alternate assumptions requested by TBW’s consultant, and to perform the requested sensitivity tests based upon those requested TBW assumptions. Based on the historical withdrawal data provided to the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) by TBW, it is our professional opinion that the simulated 3 million gallons per day (MGD) capture zone evaluation, taking into account the alternative particle release depth of 0.5 and a radius of 200-ft. as suggested by TBW’s consultant, creates a representation of the upper withdrawal range which reasonably can or should be assumed for the Section 21 wellfield. Nevetheless, at this maximum withdrawal range and also utilitizing the alternate assumptions requested by TBW’s consultant, the 3mgd withdrawal rate sensitivity test still indicates no adverse impact to/from the subject property and the Section 21 wellfield. In fact, the sensitivity tests demonstrated no adverse impact to/from the subject property and the Section 21 wellfield, even using the revised assumptions requested by TBW’s consultant, up to a 5.2 mgd withdrawal rate, which far exceeds any realistic expectations for the Section 21 wellfield withdrawal based upon current regulatory limitations.

The June 1, 2017, LBG review referenced four areas of concern with the original submittal: (1) use of the Lake Package; (2) transient timeframes of particle release in MODPATH; (3) the MODPATH particle release depth; and (4) the MODPATH particle release radius. WRA notes that the Hillsborough County Wellhead Protection Ordinance (WPO) does not itself prescribe any methodology, and there is no standard or treatise regarding how the Hillsborough County WPO is to be updated nor is there a standard or treatise regarding the use of MODPATH or the assignment of particle release depths or release radius for wellhead protection. While the Lake Package was addressed with the latest version of DWRMv3 used during the sensitivity analysis, as this was a prior default used in the original model that WRA chose to use without any alteration, and the timeframes were adjusted per the LBG comment, the particle release depth and radius were thoroughly evaluated during the sensitivity analysis. The settings previously used by WRA were a release depth of 1 and a radius of 100-ft. The release depth of 1, which does not result in

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM RESPONSE TO TBW REVIEW COMMENTS

TO COUNTY-INITIATED APPLICATION HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA

WRA PROJECT No. 1234 PAGE 2

{A0237872.DOCX }

an error as indicated by LBG, but rather a warning, allows for simulated particles to rise faster to the overlying layer. This was chosen by WRA as more accurate and site-specific, based upon the lack of adequate confinement in the Section 21 wellfield. Thus allowing the higher release point better reflected actual conditions and also created a worst-case scenario more representative of the karst conditions at the wellfield. Similarly, the 100-ft. radius was selected because it was evident that the wells at this specific location penetrated conduits and/or other transmissive karst features, and therefore a tighter release radius was more representative of potential travel paths within these potential features. Nevetheless, for sensitivity-testing purposes, only, WRA agreed to revise the model assumptions to the LBG-suggested release depth of 0.5 and radius of 200-ft., and then WRA evaluated a wide-range of withdrawals from the Section 21 wellfield to determine the most representative 10-year capture zone, based on the TBW actual withdrawal data provided to the SWFWMD for Section 21. Each of these simulations are briefly discussed below.

• Assuming Section 21 was a new water use permit application, WRA optimized well withdrawals until 0.495-ft. of drawdown in Layer 4 (upper Floridan aquifer – Suwannee Limestone/Ocala Permeable Zone) abutted the boundary of a minimum flow and level (MFL) water body, as impacts to MFLs are prohibited by the SWFWMD as indicated within TBW Consolidated Water Use Permit (WUP) No. 20011771.001. The maximum total annual average daily (AAD) allocation achieved in this evaluation without impacting a MFL was 1.17 MGD. The 10-year capture zone is presented on Figure VI-1. All particles terminated within Layers 4 and 5, the upper Floridan aquifer (UFA; light and dark blue pathlines).

• TBW Consolidated WUP No. 20011771.001 is the most current permit revision. The first 5-years of use (2011 through 2016) was evaluated, based on withdrawal data provided by TBW to the SWFWMD, which was approximately 2 MGD AAD. The 10-year capture zone is presented on Figure VI-2. All particles terminated within the UFA.

• Based on the well allocation percentage (i.e., how much was a production well used) for TBW Consolidated WUP No. 20011771.001 during the 2011 through 2016, the allocation was projected up to 3 MGD AAD. The 10-year capture zone is presented on Figure VI-3. All particles terminated within the UFA.

• Evaluating AAD of Consolidated WUP 20011771 revisions 00 and 001 from 1999 through 2016, Figure VI-4 presents the 10-year capture zone, based on withdrawal data provided by TBW to the SWFWMD (4.7 MGD AAD). All particles terminated within the UFA.

• Based on the well allocation percentage (i.e., how much was a production well used) for TBW Consolidated WUP No. 20011771.001 from 2011 through 2016, the allocation was projected and incrementally increased to the point where the 10-year capture zone horizontally reached the location of the proposed underground storage tank (UST), which would be vertically located within the surficial sediments (model Layer 1). The 10-year capture zone presented on Figure VI-5 is representative of 5.2 MGD AAD. All particles terminated within Layers 4 and 5 (UFA) not the surficial sediments (model Layer 1).

• Evaluating the extent of a hypothetical release at the UST location, forward particle tracking was evaluated for the 2 and 3 MGD AAD simulations. For these evaluation, a particle release depth of 0.5 and a radius of 50-ft. was utilized to surround the proposed USTs. As depicted on Figures VI-6 and VI-7, respectively, the particles remain within the surficial aquifer (model Layer 1; yellow pathlines) and do not reach the UFA in 10-years. It should be noted that this evaluation does not account for degradation of the release due to naturally existing microbes in the sediment, adsorption, or advection and therefore should be considered a conservative evaluation.