The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit application should be granted?
Findings Of Fact On July 29, 1987, Petitioner applied for a septic tank permit for a proposed individual sewage disposal system to serve a single family residence on Lot 40, Block P, Killearn Lakes Unit I (Unit 1), in Leon County, Florida. A septic tank system consists of a tank and a drainfield which is wholly or partly underground. The decision of whether to grant a septic tank system permit is greatly influenced by the elevation of the wet season water table in the area where the septic tank system will be located. Under normal circumstances, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by taking a boring of the ground in question using an auger. If water is found at the time the boring is conducted, that is an indication of where the water table is located. If no water is found, the elevation of the wet season water table can be determined by examining the soil removed from the ground for signs of mottling. Mottling is the discoloration of the soil caused by the interaction of water with the minerals in the soil. The process of mottling takes place over hundreds of years. Therefore, a rapid change in conditions may cause the elevation of the wet season water table to be different than what would be indicated by mottling. Because of the development of Unit I and the drainage method used in Unit I (sheetflow), the elevation of the wet season water table in Unit I is estimated to be between 12 and 20 inches higher than what is indicated by mottling. On July 7, 1987, a boring was taken on an indeterminate area on Lot 40, by Certified Testing, Inc., a private engineering firm. The evaluation of the boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 60 inches. On August 3, 1987, Ms. Teresa A. Hegg, an Environmental Health Specialist with HRS, took two borings on Lot 40. The first boring was taken in an area other than where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 45 inches. The second boring was taken in the area where the septic tank system's drainfield would be located. This boring resulted in mottling being present at a depth of 22 inches. Based on the boring taken at the proposed site for the septic tank system, showing mottling at 22 inches, and the estimate that the wet season water table in Unit I is from 12 to 20 inches higher than mottling would indicate, the estimated wet season water table for Lot 40 is between 2 to 10 inches below the ground surface. Unit I has a history of septic tank system failures. Unit I was platted prior to January 1, 1972. There exists a very high probability that any septic tank system, even a mound system, installed in Lot P-40 will fail.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent issue a final order denying Petitioner's application for a septic tank permit. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4085 The Respondent has submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection First phrase accepted. Remainder of paragraph supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. First two sentences accepted. Third sentence supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 5,6,7,8,9,10 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. Accepted. 13,14 Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. 15. First sentence accepted. Second sentence rejected; the wet season water table on Lot P-40 is from 2-10 inches below grade. Third sentence accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Salvatore A. Carpino, Jr., Esquire One Urban Centre, Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 John R. Perry, Esquire Assistant District II Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monore Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) should issue an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) for the redevelopment of property owned by G5 Properties, LLC (G5).
Findings Of Fact The property owned by G5 east of U.S. 41 and south of Sunrise Boulevard in Fort Myers was developed as separate parcels by different owners in the 1970’s and 1980’s under the stormwater management regulations in effect at that time. Similarly, the Duke’s property to the south was developed in that era under the same stormwater management regulations. The properties do not meet current ERP regulations. G5 acquired the two parcels comprising its property with the intention of redeveloping it, primarily by constructing a two-story medical office building on what was the southern parcel. G5 applied to upgrade the surface water management system on the property, primarily by installing a detention pond on the southern parcel and directing surface water flow from a designated sub-basin on the southern parcel into the detention pond. The detention pond was to serve the dual purposes of storage and water quality treatment. It was properly sized to store and treat the runoff from the sub-basin in a 25-year/3-day (the proper design) storm. Discharge from the detention pond was to be into the existing stormwater conveyance (an underground pipe) in the road right-of-way along the eastern property line (west of Austin Street). From there, water flows south into a drainage ditch to the south of the Duke’s property. From there, water flows west to Whiskey Creek and eventually into the Caloosahatchee River. (The River is impaired; neither the Creek nor the River are designated as Outstanding Florida Water). Although most of the redevelopment of G5’s medical office building is on what was the southern parcel, and most of the stormwater falling on the southern parcel is directed into the detention pond, there is a covered portico entrance on the north side of the medical office building with a driveway that ramps up to the entrance from the west and ramps down away from the entrance to the east. The covered portico and ramped driveway extend onto what was the northern parcel. Some of the surface water runoff from the driveway flows to the west into the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) swale in the U.S. 41 right-of-way, as it did before redevelopment; some of the surface water runoff from the driveway flows to the east and north, onto what was the northern parcel of G5’s property. Except for this runoff flow from the driveway, the drainage patterns on the northern parcel remain practically the same, the only differences being the replacement of a small amount of impervious surface with new impervious surface (pavement) and a small amount of impervious surface with pervious surface. G5’s redevelopment of its medical office building includes a driveway along the south side of the building, just north of the Duke’s property, leading to parking on the south and east side of the building. Some of the surface water runoff from the entrance to the driveway flows to the west into the DOT swale in the U.S. 41 right-of-way, as it did before redevelopment. G5’s ERP does not provide for any storage or water quality treatment for runoff from the northern parcel, except for the addition of removable (for cleaning) filter inserts for the storm drains in that part of the property. During the application process, G5 modified its proposal to deepen the detention pond. This was done to allow the redeveloper of the Taco Bell half a mile to the south of the Duke’s property to take credit for additional storage and water quality treatment in order to get a Lee County permit for its project. The Taco Bell also was developed under the old stormwater management regulations, but its redevelopment was able to use a SFWMD “No Notice General Permit” because it impacted no wetlands, was less than ten acres, and had less than two acres of impervious surface. However, it needed a Lee County stormwater permit, which it could not get without additional water quality storage and treatment. Lee County allowed the Taco Bell redevelopment project to take credit for an increase in the depth of the detention pond at the G5 site and issued its permit. Although Taco Bell got credit for water quality storage and treatment at the G5 property, no surface water runoff from the Taco Bell site actually reaches G5’s detention pond, or even the Duke’s property. It flows north through the pipe along Austin Street to the drainage ditch to the south of the Duke’s property, and from there to Whiskey Creek and the Caloosahatchee River. However, the deeper detention pond would provide additional storage and water quality treatment for the G5 site for storms bigger than the design storm. Petitioner’s surveyor testified that there are up to four places along the property line between the G5 property and the Duke’s property where topography indicates that some surface water runoff can flow from the G5 property across the property line to the Duke’s property, post-redevelopment. His testimony was based on a comparison of spot elevations he took in the vicinity of the property line with elevations taken by other surveyors. In addition, the surveyor could not say how much flow would occur in a 25-year, 3-day storm. There was persuasive testimony from G5’s engineer that the flow from one of the four locations identified by Petitioner’s surveyor (in the southeast corner of the southern parcel of G5’s property) existed pre-redevelopment. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, this testimony actually did not contradict other testimony of the engineer that all runoff from the new pavement on the southern parcel of the G5 property was intended to flow into the new detention pond. In that location in the southeast corner, G5’s redevelopment project removed pavement, added 4-inch high curbing along the edge of the new pavement, and added grass between the curb and the property line (which would tend to reduce runoff onto the Duke’s property). Another location identified by Petitioner’s surveyor was between the new office building and the property line. The surveyor related a water stain on the pavement and an exposed tree root ball to significant standing water and high flow conditions. Petitioner contends that this occurs because an asphalt overlay, four-tenths of a foot thick, was placed on top of the existing pavement in that area. To the contrary, G5’s engineer testified that the surface water management system functions as it should and that the overlay did not change the grade but was “just to benefit the existing asphalt from deteriorating any more.” The water stain could be attributable at least in part to landscape irrigation, and the tree root may have been exposed mechanically. Even if the surveyor’s testimony proved that there is some water flow in that area, he could not testify as to the quantity of flow. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, G5 provided reasonable assurances that its surface water management system functions properly and that post-redevelopment runoff from the G5 property onto the Duke’s property does not exceed pre- redevelopment conditions. Petitioner cites significant standing water on the Duke’s property after a heavy rain on January 26, 2011, as proof that the G5 redevelopment has caused flooding of the Duke’s property. However, there was no standing water on the G5 property, and hardly any water in the detention pond. The standing water on Petitioner’s property was above two storm drains on the western part of the Duke’s property, which drain into the same pipe as the storm drains on the western side of the G5 property and the outfall structure discharging from the detention pond on the G5 property. The standing water on the Duke’s property probably was caused by clogs in the drains in the Duke’s stormwater management system, not by G5’s redevelopment. Mr. Harrow claimed that the Duke’s property was inspected when purchased, its stormwater management system was functioning properly, and it was properly maintained. But he also testified that maintenance ceased at some point and that it would require an engineer to correct what is wrong with it now, which Mr. Harrow believed to be cost-prohibitive and the responsibility of G5, not Petitioner. Petitioner contends that no ERP should issue for G5’s redevelopment project without the participation of Taco Bell in the operation and maintenance of the G5 detention pond. To the contrary, the Taco Bell permit might be deficient if Taco Bell has no control over the operation and maintenance of G5’s detention pond, but there is no reason why Taco Bell has to participate in the operation and maintenance of G5’s detention pond. By a preponderance of the evidence, G5 provided reasonable assurances that it has the legal and financial ability to operate and maintain its system, including the detention pond. If a new development, G5’s redevelopment project (which includes all 3.41 acres in the northern and southern parcels of the G5 property) would not meet the criteria for issuance of an ERP because there was no demonstration that there is enough water quality storage and treatment. However, because of the addition of water quality storage and treatment for the southern parcel and the addition of filters for the drains on the property, the redevelopment of the site resulted in a net improvement in water quality storage and treatment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that SFWMD deny G5 an ERP for its redevelopment for failure to meet BOR requirements as to water quality storage and treatment. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2011, 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 25th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret M. Craig, Esquire Bricklemyer Smolker & Bolves, P.A. 500 East Kennedy Boulevard, 2nd Floor Tampa, Florida 33602-4936 Matthew D. Uhle, Esquire Law Office of Matthew D. Uhle, LLC 1617 Hendry Street, Suite 411 Fort Myers, Florida 33901-2926 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Sr., Esquire South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007 Tommy B. Strowd, Interim Executive Director South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road, Mail Stop Code 1410 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-3007
Findings Of Fact Respondent TCI has more than 70 homes completed or under construction in furtherance of plans to build 141 single family residences as part of Tymber Creek Phase I, a development in Volusia County. The development site is partially bounded by the Little Tomoka River, a natural body of water which is navigable in fact. The site of the construction respondent DER proposes to permit is home to wildlife of various kinds, including woodpeckers, great horned owls, herons, mussels, manatees, snakes, turtles and alligators. At the present time, boat traffic on the Little Tomoka River is negligible. The dock TCI proposes to build would have a total area of 120 square feet and would not impede the flow of the river. It would protrude over the water no more than five feet along the bank of the river at a point where the river widens, described by some of the witnesses as a lagoon, and would not constitute a hazard to navigation. With respect to the dock, the foot bridges, the boat ramp and the removal of the agreed upon portion of unauthorized fill, the permit DER proposes to issue would be before the fact. According to DER's appraisal of TCI's original, revised permit application, which was received in evidence as DER's exhibit No. 5, TCI made revised application, on November 29, 1977, for "after-the-fact approval for the placement of approximately 3500 cubic yards of fill After TCI had filled, it constructed parking and recreational facilities. In evaluating TCI's application, Steve Beeman, a DER employee, described the site in January of 1978: Approximately 1.6 acres of filled flood plain is presently covered by a sports complex including tennis courts, swimming pool and recreation building and an asphalt parking lot. An additional 3000 square feet has been filled and paved (asphalt was applied after receipt of DER cease and desist notice) for [access to] a [proposed] boatramp and parking area, and approximately 14,000 square feet of swamps have been filled in the construction of a 1800+ feet "natural trial". DER's exhibit No. 5. By letter dated February 22, 1978, respondent DER notified respondent TCI of its intent to deny TCI's initial application, as revised. Among the reasons DER gave for its intended denial were expected violations of various water quality standards, including a prohibition against oils and greases in concentrations greater than 15 mg. per liter ("or that no visible oil, defined as iridescence, be present to cause taste or odors, or interfere with other beneficial uses.") DER's exhibit No. 4. Rule 17-3.05(2)(r) , Florida Administrative Code. This water quality standard violation was anticipated because of "the [projected] focussing of stormwater runoff into the Little Tomoka River, across paved surfaces, which are high in petroleum based pollutants." DER's exhibit No. 5. In its notice of intent to issue a permit, DER proposes to authorize TCI "to realign (straighten) existing boatramp access road." DER's exhibit No. Mr. Wheeler's letter to Mr. Shirah of April 6, 1978, DER's exhibit No. 2, describes the proposed access road change as part of "discussions and agreements concerning resolution of the initial unauthorized fill and subsequent after-the- fact application." A drawing attached to this letter indicates that the contemplated alteration of the roadway would decrease the amount of paved surface to some unspecified extent. Another part of these "discussions and agreements concerned removal of some 1900 cubic yards of fill. Most of the fill designated for removal had been placed with the idea of creating a dry pathway through the marshy area separating the Little Tomoka River from an asphalt parking area. So placed, the fill dirt acts as a dike, preventing the preexisting communication between the waters of the Little Tomoka River and the waters of the adjacent marsh. At the hearing, Mr. Wheeler testified that, if revised in accordance with DER's exhibit No. 2, TCI's project would pose no threat to water quality, but he conceded that the effects of gasoline boat motors were not considered. An increase in beat traffic would likely result in an increase in oils and greases in the waters of the Little Tomoka River.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent DER, deny the permit is proposed to issue to respondent TCI in letters to petitioners dated April 7, 1978. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of August, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Segundo J. Fernandez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida Judson I. Woods, Jr., 32301 Esquire Post Office Box 1916 Ormond Beach, Florida 32074 Tymber Creek, Inc. c/o Stan Shirah Route 40 Twin River Drive Ormond Beach, Florida 32074
Findings Of Fact On December 28, 1984, Respondents Newton and Taylor applied to the Franklin County Public Health Unit for permits authorizing construction of septic tanks and drain field systems on properties they own adjoining the Apalachicola River. Respondent Newton filed two applications for two contiguous lots he owned on the river, while Taylor's application was for a parcel of property approximately 200 feet north of Newton's property, also adjoining the river. Sometime during the following two weeks, Donald Shirah, then environmental health specialist with the Franklin County Public Health Unit, a subdivision of HRS, performed a site evaluation of the sites referred to in the permit applications. The site evaluation performed by Mr. Shirah indicated that on each lot soil composition consisted of gray sand down to 45 inches, with "mottling" at 45 inches and wet soil from 46 inches to 60 inches. The soil composition reflected a wet season high water table lying at 45 inches below the ground surface. The soil report further indicated that the percolation rate of 2 units per minute was "an excellent percolation rate." Based on these tests, Shirah approved the sites for construction of the septic tanks and drain fields and established the points on the property where the septic tanks should be located. Thereafter, in May, 1985, the District II office of HRS, which directs the Franklin County Public Health Unit in matters concerning septic tanks and their installation, directed the Public Health Unit to reevaluate certain septic tank construction permits. Consequently, a letter from the Department went to all permit holders in Franklin County on August 5, 1985, including the Respondents. This letter informed them that their permits were subject to reevaluation. A considerable public furor ensued and, in an attempt to abate the discord and explain its intended action, HRS arranged a meeting with some of its public health officials and the Franklin County Commission on August 14, 1985. Respondent Newton attended this public hearing and exhibited his existing permit to HRS personnel in attendance. E. Charlton Prather, M.D., the state health officer for HRS, in attendance at this meeting, assured Respondent Newton that because his application had been made in 1984, prior to the designation of Franklin County as an "area of critical state concern," (effective July 1, 1985) and prior to the amendments to Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, effective February 5, 1985, that his septic tank permits were still valid. Thereafter, Newton arranged with a contractor, to have the septic tanks installed, which was accomplished in approximately late October, 1985. Newton had received a letter on October 11, 1985, from the Franklin County Public Health Unit, instructing him to contact the County Public Health Unit before proceeding with construction of his septic tank systems. Notwithstanding this letter, and in reliance on Dr. Prather's assurance that his permits were valid, Newton proceeded to install his septic tank systems. The installations were completed, and Newton paid the installer for the work on or before November 5, 1985, some two weeks after installation. The installation of the systems came to the attention of the Franklin County Public Health Unit on approximately December 10, 1985, when the septic tank installer informed Gerald Briggs, the environmental health specialist with the Franklin County Public Health Unit, that Newton's septic tank systems had been installed and were ready for inspection. Mr. Briggs gave the final inspection and informed the installer that the tanks were installed in accordance with the specifications contained in the permits. He also informed the installer that he could not issue final approval of the systems because they were located within 20 feet of "marsh land" and that, because he observed standing water on or about the site, the soil conditions were such that the system would not operate properly. Mr. Briggs discussed the situation with environmental health director, John Kinlaw, who decided that the permits should be revoked because they were located within a "wetland" area as defined by the rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation; so called "jurisdictional wetlands." Mr. Briggs made measurements and examination of the soil and water conditions at the site and his measurements revealed standing water at a depth of 12 to 15 inches below the surface, contrary to the findings of Mr. Shirah, who performed the inspection which resulted in the issuance of the permits. Mr. Briggs also observed a "marsh are all visible within 20 feet of the systems characterized by a growth of "marsh grass." Mr. Briggs' inspection was made at a time shortly after the hurricane which struck this area in late November of 1985, characterized by a severe and extensive period of rainfall. Mr. Briggs also observed mottling near the surface of the soil, at all three sites, which indicates water being present intermittently, such that the soil, being alternately wet and exposed to air, oxidizes, leaving a rust colored stain. The septic tanks were installed at about a 5 1/2 or 6 foot depth. There is about 2 to 3 feet of fill sand at the site, below which the installer had to dig to place the tanks. The fill sand is underlain by muck at a depth of 4 to 6 feet below the ground surface. As a necessary part of the installation of the tanks, some of that muck had to be excavated and placed on top of the ground in the vicinity of the tanks and remained on or near the surface of the ground at the time of Mr. Briggs' inspection. The water table exists at a level of approximately 4 feet below the ground surface and when that wet muck was excavated, some of it necessarily remained visible on the surface of the sites in question. The systems constructed on Newton's lots are between 110 and 115 feet from the mean high water line of the Apalachicola River. The site description contained in the applications for the systems stated that the sites were to be 152 feet from the river. Nevertheless, there is no question that the sites are more than 75 feet from the Apalachicola River and that inspector Shirah assured the respondents that their sites were appropriately located. Indeed, he assisted in the location of them and informed the Respondents that the systems met pertinent regulatory requirements. That decision resulted in the issuance of the construction permits. Mr. Shirah established that the septic tank systems met all pertinent criteria concerning setback distances from lakes, streams, canals or other surface water bodies, including the Apalachicola River. Roger Newton, a Respondent and Bob Engle, former director of research for the Department of Natural Resources, both testified concerning their familiarity with the property in question and the general physical description and topography of the land. The general physical nature of the property in 1987 was the same as it was prior to and at the time of the issuance of the permits on January 14, 1985. They established that there was no lake, canal, stream or surface water within 75 feet of the septic tank systems or sites in question. A consent order was introduced into evidence which reveals, as a result of prior litigation in Franklin County Civil Case No. 75-55, that the Department of Environmental Regulation and the Army Corp of Engineers issued permits to the former owners of the property, which authorized them to fill the land at issue to a depth of 150 feet from the bank of the Apalachicola River westward. That fill was placed over the westward portion of this property, including the septic tank and drain field sites in question, to a depth of 2 to 3 feet. This had the result of raising the property to an elevation of approximately 10 feet above the surface waters of the Apalachicola River, which elevation dropped slightly to a road going through the middle of the lots, and remaining level thence westward to a point where the lots terminate in a marsh area. The consent order in evidence does not establish on its face that the fill was actually placed in a jurisdictional wetland area, for purposes of the Department of Environmental Regulation's jurisdiction over the landward extent of state water as defined by the vegetative index contained in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The testimony of a representative of the DER does not establish what dominant vegetational species might prevail on the sites in question which would render those sites within jurisdictional wetlands of the DER. The representative of the DER established that a jurisdictional wetland may be commonly referred to as a "swamp" or "marsh" and that, under prevailing policy of the DER, the fact that fill dirt has been placed on land does not render such land non-jurisdictional. Although this witness described DER's policy that issuance of a dredge and fill permit implies that the land in question is jurisdictional wetland, the fact remains that the face of the circuit court consent order in evidence does not establish that this indeed was jurisdictional wetland at the time the consent order was entered, nor at the present time. The consent order was the result of a settlement of that litigation, in effect a negotiated contract between the parties by which the dredge and fill permit was issued, in 1978. Further, although HRS purportedly has a policy that the term "surface waters," for purposes of the rules cited herein, includes within its ambit "swamps and marshes," the fact remains that in Rule 10D-6.42(38), the admitted 1985 clarification of that policy, surface water is defined as "...a recognizable permanent body of water, including swamp or marsh areas, contained within a recognizable boundary or bank..."(emphasis supplied). The septic tanks in question are not within 50 feet (for purposes of the pre-February 1985 rules) nor even within 75 feet of a swamp or marsh area which is contained within a recognizable boundary or bank. Even if marsh grass, (the species of grass has not been established) was observed growing within 20 feet of the septic tanks in question, it has not been established that was the boundary of a swamp or marsh area or other form of surface water body for purposes of the HRS rules in question. The testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses that marsh grass was observed growing close to the septic tanks does not overcome the showing by witnesses Newton and Engle that the actual water body, consisting of the marsh lying westward of the lots and disposal systems in question, was not within 75 feet of those systems. In addition to the question of the setback distance of the septic tank systems from the surface waters in question, it has not been established that this property is wetland within the DER's jurisdiction. The Petitioner purports to regulate the location of the systems by reference to Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, whereby the DER, by the use of the vegetative index, defines wetlands or the landward extent of state waters. Thus HRS seeks also to justify revocation of the permits on the basis that these tanks are located not 50 feet or less from a marsh, but rather in it. As found above however, such has not been proven to be the case. Although HRS purports to have a policy that any change which takes place on a piece of property, for which a septic tank permit has been issued, which creates a discrepancy between the actual state of the land and that represented on the permit application, renders the permit invalid, that situation has not occurred. In fact, it was shown that the fill in question has been on the property much longer than the period of time since the permit application and that the configuration and topography of the property remains the same as prior to December, 1984. Finally, it has not been proven that the surface waters observed standing on the lands of Newton and Taylor, shortly after the extensive rainfall associated with the hurricane in November, 1985, are such waters as contemplated by Rule 10D-6.046(3) or 10D-6.042(38). There has been no proof that this was other than rainfall nor that the water remained on the surface of the land in question for more than 24 hours. See Rule 10D-6.046(3), Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaints filed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services seeking revocation of the septic tank construction permits issued to Jack Taylor and Roger Newton be dismissed in their entirety. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 86-0922, 86-1528 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. 4-6. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in its entirety supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not dispositive of material issues presented. 12-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of any material issue presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and contrary to the competent substantial evidence of record. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-6. Accepted. Accepted in part, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issues presented. Accepted, but not in itself dispositive of any material issue presented. Accepted, but not dispositive of any material issue presented and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected as contrary to competent substantial evidence of record and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 13-14. Accepted. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law and not a finding of fact. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire HRS District II Legal Counsel Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 John R. Perry, Esquire Suite 200-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. Ben Watkins, Esquire 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 John A. Kinlaw Environmental Health Director Franklin County Public Health Unit Post Office Box 490 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mr. Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 ================================================================= AGENCY REMAND ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 86-0922 ROGER R. NEWTON, Respondent. / DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO.: 86-1528 JACK TAYLOR, Respondent. / ORDER REMANDING TO THE DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS I conclude that this case should be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearing for a reweighing of the evidence. In Friends of Children vs. HRS, 504 So2d 1345 at 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), the Court held that where a Hearing Officer erroneously excluded evidence, the case should be remanded for the Hearing Officer to reweigh the evidence and make findings of fact on the basis of all admissible evidence. Returning to the present case, the Hearing Officer did not consider HRS exhibit Y, which he excluded as irrelevant, and the testimony of Larry Olney, an environmental specialist with the Department of Environmental Regulations, on the issue of whether the subject lots were jurisdictional land (for explanation see the rulings on exceptions number nine 9 and 11 to the findings of fact and exception number 1 to the conclusion of law). This evidence is relevant; thus, the evidence as a whole must be reweighed and findings made on whether the 75 foot setback requirement of Section 381.272(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1983) is satisfied. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES HRS excepts to the findings on page 5 of the Recommended Order concerning the statements of Dr. Prather at a meeting in August, 1985, on the grounds the statements are irrelevant. Exception number one (1) is denied as this finding simply Provides background for the case. HRS excepts to the finding in the paragraph spanning pages 6 and 7, regarding standing water. On this point as well as many others throughout the case the evidence is conflicting The Hearing Officers findings of fact are entitled to the same weight as the verdict of a jury. Gruman vs. State, 379 So2d 1313 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980). It is the Hearing Officers function to resolve conflicts in the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, draw permissible inferences from the evidence, and make findings of fact; and the agency may not reject a finding unless there is no competent, substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred. Heifetz vs. Department of Business Regulation, 475 So2d 1277 at 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The finding to which HRS objects is supported by competent, substantial evidence; therefore, it cannot be rejected. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. In exception number three (3) HRS asks that the Hearing Officer's findings regarding "mottling" be clarified. Exception number three (3) is granted. The presence of mottling indicates that water stays at a certain level for a considerable length of time on a regular basis. HRS excepts to the finding on page 7 of the Recommended Order, that "the water table exists at a level of approximately 4 feet below the ground surface." The finding is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, it cannot be rejected. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. HRS excepts to the finding on page 8 of the Recommended Order, that no surface water existed within 75 feet of the septic tank systems in question. The finding is based on competent, substantial evidence; therefore, it cannot be rejected. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. HRS excepts to the finding that the subject lots were not DER jurisdictional wetlands. This finding cannot be rejected as it was the subject of contradictory evidence. There was evidence that the lots had been filled and were no longer swamp or marsh. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. In exception number seven (7), HRS maintains that the subject lands were wetlands and that there was no conflicting evidence on this point. This issue was the subject of sharply conflicting evidence. As Pointed out in exception number two (2), it is the function of the Hearing Officer to resolve conflicting evidence. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. HRS excepts to the finding on page 10 of the Recommended Order, that the species of marsh grass which HRS personnel identified as such were not established. Again, this Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. It is noted that several species were identified in HRS exhibit Y which the Hearing Officer ruled was irrelevant. HRS excepts to the Hearing Officer's finding with respect to HRS' reliance on the jurisdictional evaluation by DER authorized by Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. HRS does not regulate the location of on-site sewage disposal systems by reference to this chapter. Rather, HRS regulates the location of such systems by reference to Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, and in this instance reads the terms "swamp" and "marsh", which were undefined in Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, in pari materia with the definitions of wetlands in Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Exception number nine (9) is granted. A determination by DER that property is wetlands under its rule is highly relevant to whether the property is swamp or marsh under the HRS rule. HRS excepts to the statement in the Recommended Order that HRS has a policy that any change which takes place on a piece of property, for which a septic tank permit has been issued, which creates a discrepancy between the actual state of the land and that represented on the permit applicant, renders the permit invalid. This is not HRS' policy. This portion of exception number ten (10) is granted. Regarding the Hearing Officer's finding on the extent of surface water, again the evidence was conflicting. HRS objects to the finding in the conclusions of law section, that HRS has "changed" its interpretation of the rules regarding permitting of on-site sewage disposal systems in DER jurisdictional areas. It has been and remains HRS' policy to deny the permitting of such systems in DER jurisdictional areas. This is a sound policy as it is likely to be very unusual that land which is "wetlands" under the DER rule would nevertheless meet the criteria for installation of a septic tank under HRS rules. HRS is obligated to enforce its own rules, Section 120.68(12)(b), Florida Statutes; and if the facts are such that a septic tank is lawful under HRS statutory and rule authority it must be approved. While not applicable to this case, I direct that serious consideration be given to amending the HRS rule to adopt by reference the DER rule. The Apalachicola River is a fragile and irreplacable jewel in Florida's ecological crown. If that river and the bay nourished by it are destroyed it is likely to be caused by the cumulative effect of many small decisions, each of which, individually have an almost imperceptible effect. The enforcement of HRS' septic tank rules will hopefully help prevent loss of the river. Exception number eleven (11) is granted. EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HRS excepts to the Hearing Officer's ruling excluding from evidence HRS exhibit Y, the DER jurisdictional report. This exception is granted as the exhibit is highly relevant on the issue of whether the septic tanks were installed in or within 75 feet of marsh or swamp surface water areas. HRS excepts to the conclusion that under the rules prevailing at the time the applications for permits were filed, a 50 foot setback was required. The statutory requirement was 75 feet; thus, the rule was repealed by implication. Section 381.272(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1983). This exception is granted. HRS excepts to the conclusion that HRS was attempting to expand its jurisdiction of wetlands. See the ruling on exception number eleven (11) to the findings of fact. Here HRS further argues the jurisdictional issue. See the ruling on exception number eleven (11) to the findings of fact. HRS maintains that the Hearing Officer concluded that the high water line of the swamp or marsh could not be determined. From a review of the transcript and exhibits it is clear that conflicting evidence was received on the setback issue and that findings were made. This Order requires that the evidence be reweighed. HRS excepts to the conclusion that the permits must be honored because they were not shown to contain knowingly false or misleading information. The decision on these permits must be based on application of the setback law; thus, this exception is granted. Here HRS further argues the jurisdictional issue. See the ruling on exception number eleven (11) to the findings of fact. Based on the foregoing, it is adjudged that this case be remanded to the Division of Administrative Hearing for further proceedings consistent with this Order. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Assistant Secretary for Programs COPIES FURNISHED: John R. Perry, Esquire District 2 Legal Counsel 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 J. Ben Watkins, Esquire WATKINS & RUSSELL 41 Commerce Street Apalachicola, Florida 32320 Michael Ruff Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Pearce, Esquire District 2 Legal Counsel 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 John A. Kinlaw Environmental Health Director Franklin County Public Health Unit Post Office Box 490 Apalachicola, Florida 32320 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was sent to the above-named people by U.S. Mail this 16th day of February, 1988. R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-0700 (904)488-2281 ================================================================= ORDER DECLINING REMAND =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Proposed Permit This case involves a 65-acre site in north Lee County owned by the City of Ft. Myers. At all material times, the land has been zoned under industrial- equivalent designations. By leases that are not part of this record, Ft. Myers has leased 21.4 acres of the 65 acres to various governmental agencies, including Lee County, Lee County Sheriff's Office, and possibly the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (formerly known as Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services). The following facilities are presently located on the 21.4 acres: Juvenile Detention Center, Lee County Stockade, Price Halfway House, Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and Emergency Operations Center. By lease dated September 20, 1993, Ft. Myers leased the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres to Lee County for a term of 50 years. This lease allows Lee County to use the 43.6 acres for $1 per year, but only for the operation of a Juvenile Justice Facility. Under Paragraph 20 of the lease, Ft. Myers may terminate the lease if Lee County ceases to operate the facility. Likewise, Lee County may terminate the lease if the Department of Juvenile Justice ceases to fund the County's operation of the facility. Under the lease, preference is given to juvenile residents of Ft. Myers. Paragraph 22 of the lease allocates liability to Lee County for claims or damages arising from released fuels, including from pipelines. The lease is not assignable without Ft. Myer's consent. By agreement dated December 17, 1993, Ft. Myers consented to the sublease of the entire 43.6- acre parcel to the Department of Juvenile Justice for the purpose of the construction of a juvenile residential commitment facility. Lee County receives no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice. In Paragraph 10 of the agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice agrees to maintain, at its expense, "all improvements of every kind . . .." Lee County must make any repairs to improvements if the Department of Juvenile Justice fails to do so. By subsequent agreement, Respondent Department of Management Services (DMS) became the agent for the Department of Juvenile Justice for the design, permitting, and construction of the juvenile justice facility. By Application for a surface water management permit executed June 16, 1994, DMS applied for a surface water management permit for the construction and operation of a 10.9- acre project known as the Lee County Juvenile Commitment Facility. This 10.9-acre project is part of the 43.6 acres leased to Lee County and subleased to the Department of Juvenile Justice. The application states that the existing 21.4 acres of developed sites, which are leased under separate agreements to different governmental entities, "will be permitted as is." The Staff Review Summary of Respondent South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) describes the purpose of the application as follows: This application is a request for Authorization for Construction and Operation of a surface water management system to serve a 10.9 acre Institutional project discharging to Six Mile [Cypress] Slough via onsite wetlands and road- side swales. The application also requests Authorization for Operation of a surface water management system serving a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Staff recommends approval of both authorizations with conditions. The Staff Review Summary accurately states that the owner of the land is Ft. Myers. Of questionable accuracy is the statement that Ft. Myers leases to Lee County the 21.4 acres devoted to the five existing facilities. Although Lee County probably is a lessee of some of these parcels, the Lee County Sheriff's Office is the lessee (or perhaps sublessee) of at least two parcels. One of the other parcels may involve a state agency, again under either a lease or a sublease. The Staff Review Summary inaccurately states that the project developer is Lee County. The project developer is DMS or its principal, the Department of Juvenile Justice. The Staff Review Summary reviews the existing development on the 21.4 acres. The improvements consist of the 4.8-acre Juvenile Detention Center, 2.9- acre Price Halfway House, 4.7-acre Lee County Stockade, 5.1-acre Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, and 3.9-acre Emergency Operations Center. The Staff Review Summary states that the footer of the Juvenile Detention Center was inspected in February 1980. The site drains into a 1.2- acre retention pond, which was a natural pond dug out to accept the drainage from the Juvenile Detention Center. A small amount of surface flow drains from the Juvenile Detention Center to a perimeter swale that drains west into a ditch running along Ortiz Avenue. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Price Halfway House was issued in October 1982. The site drains into the 1.2-acre retention pond, which was apparently enlarged a second time to accept the additional flow. A small amount of the flow from the Price Halfway House also drains to the perimeter swale and west into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that the building permit for the Lee County Stockade was issued on May 25, 1976. SFWMD issued an exemption and a determination that no permit was required for two additions to the stockade in 1988 and 1989. For the additional impervious surface added by these additions, one inch of water quality treatment was provided. After the abandonment of a pumping system, drainage of the stockade site consists of water building up in existing onsite ditches and sheet flowing into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary adds that a small retention area constructed at the southeast corner of the site treats stormwater from the stockade and the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. The summary adds that a small amount of stormwater drains north into an exterior swale that drains into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department in August 1977. Stormwater from the site sheetflows to exterior swales north and south of the building. When the swales fill up, the water flows into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. The Staff Review Summary states that a building permit was issued for the Emergency Operations Center on October 11, 1977. Drainage from the center flows directly into the Ortiz Avenue ditch. Under "Water Quality," the Staff Review Summary reports that SFWMD "did not require compliance with discharge rate or criteria" based on Section 1.6, Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the [SFWMD] March 1994 (Basis of Review), which contains guidelines issued by SFWMD for the construction and operation of surface water management systems. The summary adds that there have been no "water quality or quantity complaints associated with this site over the past 18 years since its initial construction." Noting that a surface water management permit is requested for the entire 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary states that the above-described drainage systems for the five existing facilities are "operational and will remain as they now exist." Turning to the proposed development, the Staff Review Summary states that the remaining 43.6 undeveloped acres "will also be leased to Lee County by the City for the proposed commitment facilities." The facilities are accurately described as a 5.2-acre halfway house and a 5.7-acre bootcamp, both of which will be drained by internal drainage swales and culverts flowing into detention areas, which will discharge through a control structure into onsite wetlands leading to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Addressing designed discharge rates, the Staff Review Summary acknowledges that the bootcamp's discharge rate will exceed the allowable rate for a 25-year, three-day storm event. The allowable rate is .33 cfs, and the design rate is .37 cfs. The Staff Review Summary explains that this discrepancy results from the use of the minimum size orifice (three inches) in the control structure. Addressing water quality, the Staff Review Summary reports that commercially zoned sites are required to provide one-half inch dry pretreatment for water quality unless reasonable assurance can be provided that hazardous material will not enter the surface water management system. Determining that no hazardous material will be stored or generated on the site, SFWMD did not require the one-half inch dry pretreatment of runoff. Noting that no surface water management permits have ever been issued for any part of the 65-acre parcel, the Staff Review Summary recommends that, subject to the customary Limiting Conditions, SFWMD issue: Authorization for Construction and Operation of a 10.9 acre Institutional Project discharging to Six Mile Cypress Slough via onsite wetlands and roadside swales, Operation of a 21.4 acre existing facility and 32.7 acres to remain unchanged for a total permitted area of 65.0 acres. Limiting Condition 4 states that the permittee shall request transfer of the permit to the "responsible operational entity accepted by [SFWMD], if different from the permittee." Limiting Condition 8 adds: A permit transfer to the operation phase shall not occur until a responsible entity meeting the requirements in section 9.0, "Basis of Review . . .," has been established to operate and maintain the system. The entity must be provided with sufficient ownership or legal interest so that it has control over all water management facilities authorized herein. Special Condition 11 states: "Operation of the surface water management system shall be the responsibility of Lee County." The Permittee and the Entity Responsible for Maintenance The proposed permit consists of two authorizations. The first authorization is for the construction and operation of the surface water management system on the 10.9-acre parcel on which will be constructed the bootcamp and halfway house. The second authorization is for the operation of the existing surface water management system on the already-developed 21.4 acres and the unimproved surface water management system on the remaining 32.7 acres. There are two problems with the designation of Lee County as the entity responsible for maintaining the permitted surface water management systems. Basis of Review 9.1.B states: To satisfy [P]ermit [L]imiting [C]ondition [8], the Permittee must supply appropriate written proof, such as either by letter or resolution from the governmental entity that the governmental entity will accept the oper- ation and maintenance of all the surface water management system components . . .. The authorization for operation of the systems on the 21.4-acre and 32.7-acre parcels does not await any construction. Once the permit is issued, the authorization is effective. Therefore, all prerequisites to the designation must have been satisfied before the operation permit issues. For the 21.4-acre parcel, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County is the lessee or sublessee of all of the parcels underlying the five existing facilities. In fact, it appears that Lee County is not the lessee or sublessee of all of these parcels. Even if Lee County were the lessee or sublessee of these five parcels, DMS has not provided reasonable assurance that Lee County has assumed responsibility for the maintenance of the surface water management system for the five parcels. Contrary to Basis of Review 9.1.B, there is no written agreement by Lee County to assume operational responsibility, nor is there even an actual agreement to this effect. SFWMD's rules sensibly require that written consent be obtained before the operation permit is issued. Likewise, DMS has failed to show that Lee County has agreed to assume responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the surface water management system for the 32.7-acre parcel. Again, SFWMD must obtain written consent before issuing the permit because no construction will precede operation for the surface water management system on this parcel. Unlike the situation as to the 21.4-acre parcel, the 32.7-acre parcel is leased to Lee County as part of the 43.6- acre parcel. But in the December 17, 1993, agreement, the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, assumes responsibility for maintaining all improvements, which arguably includes drainage improvements. As between Ft. Myers and Lee County, Lee County assumes secondary liability for the maintenance of all improvements. But the failure of the Department of Juvenile Justice to do so would likely represent a default under the agreement. In such a case, the lease and separate agreement probably would either be in litigation or Lee County would have terminated its obligations under the contracts. In either case, it is unlikely that Lee County would perform its secondary responsibility to maintain the drainage improvements, especially where it is receiving no rent from the Department of Juvenile Justice and priority is given to Ft. Myers juveniles in admission decisions. Construction will precede operation as to the 10.9- acre parcel so the parties have an opportunity, even after the construction and operation permit is issued, to secure the necessary written consent before the operation permit goes into effect. But similar deficiencies exist with respect to the 10.9- acre parcel because the same agreement imposes upon the Department of Juvenile Justice, not Lee County, the obligation to maintain improvements. An additional complication arises as to the 10.9-acre parcel. The Department of Juvenile Justice intends to contract with one or more private entities to operate the bootcamp and halfway house, so there is at least one more party that Lee County could claim was responsible for maintenance of the surface water management system. The question of who is responsible for maintaining the surface water management systems is important. Drainage quantities and directions can change if swales clog up with vegetation or other matter. In this case, one roadside swale in the area of the 21.4-acre parcel is blocked with vegetation. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the designated entity has assumed responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the existing systems or will assume responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the proposed system following its construction. Permit for Existing Development Section 1.6, Basis of Review, states: [SFWMD] issues construction and operation permits for proposed surface water management activities and operation permits for existing systems. The criteria herein are specifically designed to apply to proposed activities (construction and operation permits). Therefore, some of the criteria may not be applicable to the permitting of existing systems (operation permits). For example, in some cases, existing systems may not meet flood protection criteria. Criteria deviation for existing systems will be identified in staff reports. SFWMD has produced no evidence explicating the extent to which existing systems, such as the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, are entitled to operating permits without meeting some of the criteria applicable to proposed systems, such as the system on the 10.9-acre parcel. There is nothing whatsoever in the record to explain why certain existing systems might not have to meet certain criteria, such as flood protection criteria. Except for the quantity deviation discussed below, there is nothing in the record disclosing the extent to which SFWMD has waived, or even considered the applicability of, certain or all criteria prior to the issuance of operation permits for the existing systems. In practice, SFWMD does not adhere even to the vague standards implied in 1.6. According to the SFWMD witness, the practice of SFWMD, as reflected in this case as to the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels, is to permit existing systems "as is, where is," as long as they have had no reported problems. There are numerous deficiencies in the "as is, where is" unwritten policy, apart from the obvious one that it conflicts with the assurance of 1.6 that only "some of the criteria may not be applicable" to existing systems. First, the record does not define what a "problem" is. Second, the record discloses no means by which reported problems are collected and later accessed, such as by a parcel index. The "as is, where is" policy is an abdication of the limited responsibilities that SFWMD imposes upon itself in 1.6, especially when applied to the present facts. The facts are straightforward. Neither Ft. Myers, Lee County, nor any other party has ever obtained a permit for any surface water management system, despite numerous improvements in the past 20 years requiring such permits, including the construction of a heliport, at which maintenance and refueling of helicopters takes place. In two relatively minor cases, discussed below, SFWMD erroneously determined that no permit was required. In one of those cases, the applicant, Lee County, candidly admitted the existence of a flooding problem. Based on the present record, neither DMS nor SFWMD has justified the issuance of an operation permit for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels based either on Basis of Review 1.6 or on the "as is, where is" unwritten policy. Construction of the five improvements on the 21.4 acres began between 1975 and December 1977 with construction of a portion of the Lee County Stockade building and parking, Emergency Operations Center building and parking, and a now- removed barn for the Lee County Sheriff's Office. At the same time, a lake was dug, probably for fill purposes. By the end of 1977, about 2.39 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface. From 1978 to March 1980, another 0.96 acres of the 21.4 acres were converted to impervious surface by the construction of a perimeter dike and road. During this period, construction commenced on the Juvenile Detention Center, adding another 1.63 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1980 and December 1981, additions were made to the Lee County Stockade building and the lake for an additional 0.45 acres of impervious area. Between December 1981 and March 1984, the Price Halfway House building and parking were constructed, adding another 0.79 acres of impervious surface. Between March 1984 and February 1986, a heliport facility and landing area were constructed for the Lee County Sheriff's Office, adding another 1.01 acres of impervious surface. Between February 1986 and February 1990, an additional 2.31 acres of impervious surface were added through additions to the Lee County Stockade and parking area, juvenile detention center, and Emergency Operations Center parking area. Between February 1990 and April 1993, another addition to the Lee County Stockade added 0.62 acres of impervious surface. An additional 0.17 acres of lake was excavated. During this time, applicable rules and statutes required permits for the construction of "works" affecting surface water, including ditches, culverts, and other construction that connects to, or draws water from, drains water into, or is placed in or across the waters in the state. The buildings, parking, other impervious surfaces, ditches, swales, dikes, lake excavations, and, at one point, addition of a now- abandoned pump all constituted "works" for which surface water management permits were required. In 1988, Lee County or Ft. Myers applied for an exemption for an addition to the Lee County Stockade. The basis for the claim of exemption was that the parcel consisted of less than 10 acres and the total impervious surface did not exceed two acres. Although rules in effect at the time required consideration of the contiguous 65 acres under common ownership and the total impervious surface for the 9.7-acre "parcel" exceeded two acres, SFWMD erroneously issued an exemption letter. The second instance involving a claim of exemption took place in 1989 when Lee County submitted plans for another addition to the Lee County Stockade, adding 0.51 acres of impervious surface. The submittal acknowledged a "flooding" problem, but promised a master drainage plan for the "entire site." SFWMD determined that no permit would be required due to the promise of a master drainage plan. No master drainage plan was ever prepared. The flooding problem precluded issuance of the operation permit on an "as is, where is" basis for the already-developed 21.4-acre parcel, even assuming that SFWMD adequately justified the use of this unwritten permitting procedure. In fact, SFWMD has not explained adequately its "as is, where is" permitting procedure or even the undelineated permitting criteria referenced in 1.6, Basis of Review. The 65- acre parcel is a poor candidate for preferential permitting of existing systems. The owner and developer constructed the existing systems in near total disregard of the law. The two times that the owner and developer complied with the permitting process involved small additions for which exemptions should not have been granted. In one case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity due to its error calculating minimum thresholds as to the areas of the parcel and the impervious surface. In the other case, SFWMD exempted the proposed activity partly in reliance on a promised master drainage plan that was not later prepared. To issue operation permits for the existing systems on the 21.4- and 32.7-acre parcels would reward the owner and developer of the 65-acre parcel for noncompliance with the law and provide an incentive for similarly situated landowners and developers likewise to ignore the law. Before issuing operation permits on systems that have received no comprehensive review and that have been added piecemeal over the years, SFWMD must evaluate the surface water systems on the entire 65-acre parcel to determine whether they meet all applicable criteria. The "as is, where is" unwritten policy has no applicability where there have been reports of flooding. If SFWMD chooses to dispense with criteria in reliance upon Basis of Review 1.6, it must be prepared to identify and explain which criteria are waived and why. Water Quality Basis of Review 5.2.2 provides that projects that are zoned commercial or industrial, such as the present one, must provide one-half inch of "dry" detention or retention pretreatment, unless reasonable assurances are provided "that hazardous materials will not enter the project's surface water management system." There is no existing or proposed dry detention on the 65 acres. The existing development includes the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department, which serves as a heliport. The fueling and maintenance of helicopters means that contaminants may enter the stormwater draining off the site. The functioning of the surface water system on this site is therefore of particular importance. There also may be more reason to question the functioning of the surface water system on this site. It is south of the Lee County Stockade, where flooding has been reported. The heliport site has also been the subject of more elaborate drainage improvements, such as the location of a small retention pond near the Stockade boundary and a pump, the latter of which has since been abandoned. The existing system on the 21.4-acre parcel, as well as the existing and proposed systems on the remainder of the 65 acres, require dry pretreatment for reasons apart from the presence of the heliport. The materials likely to be used with the existing and proposed developments are similar to those found on residential sites. SFWMD and DMS contend that there is therefore no need to require dry pretreatment as to these areas. However, the existing and intended institutional uses, such as jails and bootcamps, represent an intensity of use that exceeds the use typical in areas zoned residential. This increased intensity implies the presence of typical residential contaminants, such as petroleum-based products or cleaning solvents, but in greater volumes or concentrations, if not also, in the case of solvents, different compositions. The lease addresses potential liability for released petroleum. In the absence of a showing that such hazardous materials are prevented from entering the runoff, SFWMD must require dry pretreatment for the systems occupying the entire 65-acre parcel. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quality criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quality criteria. Water Quantity The 65-acre parcel adjoins Ortiz Avenue on the west and property owned by Petitioners on the east and south that is undeveloped except for a borrow pit some distance from the 65- acre parcel. The parcel is roughly 1000 feet east- west and 2700 feet north-south. The proposed halfway house is at the north end of the parcel. The halfway house is situated between a proposed detention pond on the west and a recreation field on the east. A paved road divides the halfway house from the rest of the 65- acre parcel. South of the road are the Lee County Stockade on the west, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, and the Juvenile Detention Center on the east. A berm separates these two sites. The berm runs from the road along the west shore of the twice- enlarged 1.2- acre retention pond and the west boundary of the Price Halfway House, which is south of the Juvenile Detention Center. To the west of the berm, south of the Lee County Stockade, is the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department or heliport facility, which abuts Ortiz Avenue. South of the Aviation Department is an outparcel used by the Florida Department of Corrections that also abuts Ortiz Avenue. East of the outparcel is the proposed halfway house with a proposed detention pond west of the halfway house and south of the outparcel. The Emergency Operations Center, which abuts Ortiz Avenue, is south of the detention pond and surrounded on three sides by the 32.7 acres to be left undisturbed at this time. There are perimeter berms around all of the parcels except for the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, which are served by a single berm, and the Emergency Operations Center, which appears not to be bermed. The prevailing natural drainage is not pronounced either by direction or volume because the land is nearly level. The natural direction of drainage is to the south and west and remains so on Petitioners' land to the east and south and the undisturbed 32.7 acres to the south. The variety of drainage directions within the remainder of the 65- acre parcel reflects the extent to which berms, swales, ponds, pumps, roads, buildings, parking areas, and other works have been added to the northerly parcels. Runoff reaching the northern boundary of the 65 acres will be diverted due west around the proposed detention pond to the swale running along the east side of Ortiz Avenue. Runoff from the recreation field and halfway house building and parking area drain into the proposed detention pond, which releases water through a gravity control device to the Ortiz Avenue swale. There appears to be a connection routing some runoff from the south side of the recreation field to the Juvenile Detention Center, where it travels west in a roadside swale to the Ortiz Avenue swale. A little less than half of the area of the Juvenile Detention Center site drains into perimeter swales along the north and east borders and then to the west before emptying into the Ortiz Avenue swale. The remainder of the Juvenile Detention Center drains into the retention pond. The same is true of the Price Halfway House. The Lee County Stockade drains to each of its borders where the water then runs west along the north or south border to the Ortiz Avenue swale. The southern half of the Lee County Stockade site drains into the small retention pond at the northwest corner of the Sheriff's Office Aviation Department. Most of the runoff from the heliport facility runs to the southwest corner of the parcel, which is the location of the abandoned pump. From there, the runoff continues to the Ortiz Avenue swale. Very little if any of the runoff from the heliport enters the small retention pond on the northwest corner of the parcel. The bootcamp drains into the detention pond, which then releases water by a gravity control structure into a portion of the undisturbed 32.7-acres before entering the Ortiz Avenue swale. The Emergency Operations Center site drains in all directions away from the building and parking area, eventually draining into the Ortiz Avenue swale. Stormwater discharge rates from the proposed halfway house and bootcamp are 0.28 cfs and 0.37 cfs. Under SFWMD rules, the allowable maximums in the Six Mile Cypress drainage basin are 0.30 cfs and 0.33 cfs, respectively. SFWMD and DMS contend that the excessive discharge from the bootcamp is acceptable because the gravity control device for the proposed detention pond is of the smallest size allowable, given the indisputable need to avoid clogging and ensuing upstream flooding. Initially, SFWMD approved the discharge rates for the halfway house and bootcamp because, when combined, they did not exceed the total allowable value. However, this approach was invalid for two reasons. First, the two sites contain entirely independent drainage systems separated by several hundred feet. Second, after correcting an initial understatement for the value for the halfway house, the actual total exceeds the maximum allowable total. SFWMD contends that the slight excess is acceptable because of the inability to use a smaller orifice in the gravity control structure. However, the discharge quantity easily could have been reduced by design alternatives, such as enlarging the detention pond, which is mostly surrounded by land that is to be left undisturbed. The ease with which the minimum-orifice problem could have been avoided rebuts the presumption contained in Basis of Review 7.2.A that excessive discharge quantities are presumably acceptable if due to the inability to use a smaller orifice. Also, SFWMD and DMS have failed to show that the effect of the excessive discharge quantities is negligible, so the exception in the SFWMD manual for negligible impacts is unavailable. Neither SFWMD nor DMS provided any reasonable assurance as to the quantity of discharge from the 21.4 acres. Rough estimates suggest it is more likely that the quantity of discharge may greatly exceed the allowable maximum. SFWMD must evaluate the water-quantity issues before issuing operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels and a construction and operation permit for the 10.9-acre parcel. Obviously, if SFWMD determines that all water quantity criteria are met as to the existing systems, it may issue operation permits for the systems on the 21.4- and 32.7- acre parcels. Otherwise, SFWMD must quantify the extent of the deviation and, if it seeks to waive compliance with any or all quantity standards in reliance on Basis of Review 1.6, evaluate the effect of the waiver and explain the basis for the waiver. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the existing systems satisfy applicable water quantity criteria or that the proposed system will satisfy applicable water quantity criteria. Impacts on Adjacent Lands Petitioners' property is impacted by the above- described drainage in two ways. First, Petitioners' property abutting the east side of Ortiz Avenue, south of the 65 acres, is especially vulnerable to flooding because the Ortiz Avenue swale is not a V-notch, but a half-V. The closed side of the swale prevents the water from running onto Ortiz Avenue. The open side of swale abuts Petitioners' property, so, if the swale's capacity is exceeded, stormwater will be released onto Petitioners' land. Second, perimeter berming along the east side of the 10.9- and 21.4- acre parcels will impede flow off the part of Petitioners' property located to the east of the 65 acres. A swale between the proposed halfway house and the Juvenile Detention Center will receive runoff from a small portion of Petitioners' property to the east and mostly north of the 65 acres. But there is no indication how much runoff from Petitioners' property can be so accommodated, how much runoff is impeded by the existing berm along the east side of the Juvenile Detention Center and Price Halfway House, and how much runoff will be impeded by the addition of new berms along the east side of the proposed halfway house and bootcamp. Basis of Review 6.8 requires that swales and dikes allow the passage of drainage from off-site areas to downstream areas. Rule 40E-4.301(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, requires that an applicant provide reasonable assurances that a surface water management system will not cause adverse water quality or quantity impacts on adjacent lands. Neither SFWMD nor DMS obtained topographical information for Petitioners' property, as required by the Basis of Review. Rough estimates suggest that the proposed project may require Petitioners' property to retain considerably more stormwater from the design storm event of 25 years, three days. DMS and SFWMD have thus failed to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed system would not have an adverse impact on Petitioners' upstream and downstream land.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the application of the Department of Management Services for all permits for the operation and construction and operation of surface water management systems on the 65-acre parcel. ENTERED on June 19, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on June 19, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Proposed Findings of Petitioners 1-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19: rejected as subordinate. 20-21: adopted or adopted in substance. 22-24 (first sentence): rejected as irrelevant. 24 (remainder)-46: adopted or adopted in substance. 47-53: rejected as subordinate. 54-64 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 64 (second sentence)-66: rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent SFWMD 1-10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 12: rejected as unnecessary. 13: adopted or adopted in substance. 14-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 17 (except for last sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 17 (last sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 18-32 (first sentence): rejected as unnecessary. 32 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 33: rejected as subordinate. 34: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, except that the proposed ponds are wet detention. 35 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 35 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 36-45: rejected as unnecessary. 46-47: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 48-50 (second sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 50 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 51-52, 55-57 (first sentence), and 58: adopted or adopted in substance, although insufficient water quality treatment. 53: adopted or adopted in substance. 54: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 57 (second sentence): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 59: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 60: adopted or adopted in substance, except after "therefore." None of remainder logically follows from what is said in 1.6. 61: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 62-64: rejected as subordinate, unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, and irrelevant. 65: rejected as subordinate. 66: rejected as irrelevant. The burden is on the applicant and SFWMD, if it wishes to issue the permits, to provide reasonable assurances as to the adverse impact of the drainage systems. 67-68: rejected as subordinate. 69: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 70: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 71: rejected as repetitious. 72: rejected as irrelevant, except for past report of flooding, which is rejected as repetitious. 73: rejected as repetitious. 74: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 75 (first three sentences): adopted or adopted in substance. 75 (remainder): rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 1 and 2: rejected as irrelevant insofar as the same result is reached with or without the permit modifications. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Respondent DMS 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as subordinate. 6: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 7: adopted or adopted in substance. 8: rejected as subordinate. 9: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the excessive discharge was not "caused" by the minimum-sized orifice, only defended on that basis. 10: adopted or adopted in substance. 11-12: rejected as subordinate. 13: rejected as irrelevant. 14: adopted or adopted in substance. 15: adopted or adopted in substance, except for implication that no flooding problems existed. 16: rejected as recitation of evidence. 17: rejected as subordinate. 18: rejected as irrelevant. 19: adopted or adopted in substance, to the extent that separateness of systems is relevant. 20: rejected as subordinate. 21: adopted or adopted in substance, except for last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 22: rejected as subordinate. 23-30: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, recitation of evidence, and subordinate. 31: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence. 32: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence, based on the present record. 33: rejected as unsupported by the appropriate weight of the evidence and relevance. COPIES FURNISHED: Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P. O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, FL 33416 Russell P. Schropp Harold N. Hume, Jr. Henderson Franklin P.O. Box 280 Ft. Myers, Fl 33902 O. Earl Black, Jr. Stephen S. Mathues Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Vincent J. Chen Toni M. Leidy South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, FL 33401
The Issue Whether Proposed Rule 62-302.540, as formally noticed for adoption by the Department of Environmental Protection on July 18, 2003, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority?
Findings Of Fact The Everglades A vast expanse of solitude, the flow of whose waters is nearly imperceptible to the human eye; a matchless mosaic of shallow sawgrass marsh, wet prairies interspersed with tree islands, and aquatic sloughs; terra incognita prior to the arrival of the Native American predecessors and ancestors of today's Miccosukee Tribe; secluded terrain, yet a distinctive home to a broad diversity of wetland species including those that are threatened and endangered such as the wood stork, snail kite, bald eagle, Florida panther and American crocodile; exceptional habitat for extensive populations of wading birds; an ecosystem of utmost environmental importance highlighted by the commitment in recent years of prodigious federal, state, and regional resources devoted to, among other endeavors, ground- breaking scientific research and construction of mammoth projects for water management in furtherance of restoration and preservation; the principal and most significant subtropical freshwater peat wetland in North America: the tributes bestowed upon Marjory Stoneman Douglas' inimitable "River of Grass" are many. Among the accolades, one adjective stands out: "unique." Put simply, there is no ecosystem on earth like the Everglades. The Florida Legislature succinctly honored the immense watershed's one-of-a-kind nature in the opening paragraph of the 1994 Everglades Forever Act with the enactment of one sentence: "The system is unique in the world and one of Florida's greatest treasures." § 373.4592(1)(a), Fla. Stat. By this recognition of international prominence and incalculable import to the state of Florida, the Legislature reiterated that the Everglades are, indeed, irreplaceable. Oligotrophic and Phosphorus-limited The system that makes up the Everglades and its ecology was formed due to a number of factors described in the "Background" section of this Order, below. Among the most significant of the factors is that the system is oligotrophic: poor in one or the other (or a combination) of the nutrients necessary to sustain life. In the case of an ecologically healthy Everglades, the system is poor in the nutrient phosphorus. There is also a disproportionately low level of phosphorus in relation to the presence of other nutrients (nitrogen and potassium) so that the system is described as not only oligotrophic but "phosphorus limited," as well. Among the findings in the Everglades Forever Act, (the "EFA" or the "Act"), that refers to phosphorus is the following: The Legislature finds that waters flowing into the Everglades Protection Area contain excessive levels of phosphorus. A reduction in levels of phosphorus will benefit the ecology of the Everglades Protection Area. § 373.4592(1)(d), Fla. Stat. Section (4) of the Act, entitled "Everglades Program" contains a subsection devoted to "Evaluation of water quality standards." Its provisions include the direction to the Department and the District to complete research to "[n]umerically interpret for phosphorus the Class III narrative nutrient criterion necessary to meet water quality standards in the Everglades Protection Area[,]" § 373.4592(4)(e)1.a., Fla. Stat. The Class III narrative nutrient criterion (the "Narrative Criterion") is that "[i]n no case shall such phosphorus criterion allow waters in the Everglades Protection Area to be altered so as to cause an imbalance in the natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna." § 373.4592(4)(e)2., Fla. Stat. A criterion, furthermore, is set by the EFA at "10 parts per billion (ppb)," section 373.4592(e)2. (the "Default Criterion") if the Department does not by rule adopt a numeric phosphorus criterion for the Everglades Protection Area (the "EPA") by December 31, 2003. In response to the mandate of the EFA, the Department, in July of 2003, published its proposal for a rule that numerically interprets for phosphorus the Narrative Criterion (the "Proposed Rule.") The Proposed Rule Rule 62-302.540 is entitled "Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus Within the Everglades Protection Area." OR-1. As "specific authority" it lists Sections 373.043, 373.4592 and 403.061. For "law implemented" it lists Sections 373.016, 373.026, 373.4592, 403.021(11), 403.061, and 403.201, Florida Statutes. The Proposed Rule is the result of a decade-long process. The process involved "tens of millions of dollars worth of research . . . and . . . thousands of man-hours . . . worth of . . . data evaluations." (Tr. 1614) From the outset, the process for development of the Proposed Rule was transparent; all of the data and the analyses of the data continued to be made available to interested parties. Before the passage of the EFA, work had begun on an Everglades Nutrient Threshold Research Plan (the "Research Plan"). The Research Plan had been developed and adopted under the direction of the Department by a panel of scientists appointed by the Everglades Technical Oversight Committee (the "TOC"). The TOC, in turn, was the product of an agreement settling a suit by the federal government in federal court to require the state of Florida to enforce water quality standards in the Everglades (the "Settlement Agreement," discussed, below). In 1995, the Department created the Everglades Technical Advisory Committee (the "ETAC") to assist in the development of the phosphorus criterion and to ensure transparency. The ETAC consisted of representatives of the Everglades National Park (the "Park"), the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (the "Refuge" or "WCA-1"), the District, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, USEPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Miccosukee and Seminole Tribes, agricultural interests and environmental groups. In addition to the ETAC process, the Department coordinated a series of workshops and site visits involving research groups, external peer-reviewers, and interested parties starting with an initial workshop held by the District in February of 1995 and culminating in a 1998 Peer Review Report. From June 1996 through December 2001, the Department made 13 presentations to the Environmental Regulation Commission (The "ERC") detailing the Department's efforts to establish a numeric interpretation of the Narrative Criterion. These presentations culminated in the filing of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in December of 2001. The presentations were followed by a publicly noticed ERC rule approval hearing beginning in January of 2002. Continued over a series of 14 monthly ERC meetings (each a full day or two days), the hearing ended with ERC approval of Proposed Rule 62-302.540, Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus Within The Everglades, on July 8, 2003. Numerous stakeholders and special interests presented information to the ERC during the rule approval hearing process. These included the Tribe and Friends and the intervenors to this rule challenge proceeding. The record reflects that the process by which both the criterion was established and that led to the Proposed Rule was a long-term and deliberative public process with comment, input and criticism directed to the Department from a broad array of perspectives and interests. A Brief Summary In order to understand the contentions of the Tribe and Friends and the responses of the other parties, a discussion of the background that led to the Proposed Rule beginning with the formation of the Everglades and concluding with recent amendments to the EFA by the 2003 Florida Legislature is necessary. Following that discussion, the Proposed Rule will be described in more detail together with address of the issues. First, however, is the following brief summary of the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule contains nine sections. Section (1) articulates the purpose and scope of the rule and emphasizes that it does more than simply establish a numeric criterion for phosphorus in the Everglades Protection Area. It establishes, as the Proposed Rule's title reflects, water quality standards for phosphorus, that contain, as one element, the numeric interpretation of the Narrative Criterion. Section (2) bears a similarity with the Department's existing Surface Water Quality Standards rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, that contains detailed findings entitled "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality." Relevant to its initial finding, Section (2) sets forth the finding that "[t]he Legislature, in adopting the Everglades Forever Act, recognized that the [Everglades Protection Area] must be restored both in terms of water quantity and water quality." Subsection (2)(a) of the Proposed Rule. Section (3) of the Proposed Rule contains definitions. Among them is the definition of "Impacted Areas": "areas of the EPA where total phosphorus concentrations in the upper 10 centimeters of the soils are greater than 500 mg/kg." Section (4), of the Proposed Rule concerns two concepts: establishment of the phosphorus criterion, the "heart of the Proposed Rule" and achievement of the criterion. Establishment of the criterion occurs in the section's first sentence: The numeric phosphorus criterion for Class III waters in the EPA shall be a long-term geometric mean of 10 ppb, but shall not be lower than the natural conditions of the EPA, and shall take into account spatial and temporal variability. Achievement of the criterion is covered by the second and last sentences of the section: Achievement of the criterion shall take into account deviations above the long-term geometric mean of 10 ppb, provided that such deviations are attributable to the full range of natural spatial and temporal variability, statistical variability inherent in sampling and testing procedures, or higher natural background conditions. Section (5) of the Proposed Rule entitled "Methods for Determining Achievement of the Criterion in the Everglades Protection Area" contains a complexity of subsections. Subsection (a) requires separate determinations in impacted and unimpacted areas in each of the four water bodies into which the EPA is divided: Water Conservation Area 1 ("WCA-1" or the "Refuge"), Water Conservation 2 ("WCA-2"), Water Conservation Area 3 ("WCA-3") and Everglades National Park (the "Park"). Subsection (b) governs achievement in the Park and the Refuge. Subsection (c) governs the achievement in WCA-2 and WCA-3. Subsection (d) requires a technical review of the achievement methods set forth in the Proposed Rule at a minimum of five-year intervals with reports to the ERC on changes as needed. The purpose of the paragraph is to make sure periodically that the methodologies for achievement are working both to protect the EPA and to prevent false positives. Subsection (e) governs "Data Screening." It sets forth a number of provisions that allow the Department to exclude data from calculations used to assess achievement if the data are not of the proper quality or quantity or reflect conditions, both natural and man-induced, the Department believes not to be consistent with determining an accurate estimate of ambient water column total phosphorus. It excludes data that is associated with both variability due to measurement error and due to some of the natural and other variability in the Everglades system, itself. Section (6) provides long-term compliance permit requirements for phosphorus discharges into the EPA. Section (7) sets forth moderating provisions designed to "moderate" or temper the impact of the phosphorus criterion on the regulation of discharges into the EPA. There are two types of moderating provisions in the section. Subsection (a) allows discharges to be permitted upon a showing of "net improvement" to the receiving waters. Subsection (b) allows for discharges to be permitted that accomplish the purpose of "hydropattern restoration" under certain circumstances. Section (8), by reference, incorporates a single document: "Data Quality Screening Protocol, dated ." Section (9) requires notification to the ERC in the event that "any provision of the rule" is challenged. It also mandates that the Department bring the matter back before the Commission for reconsideration in the event "any provision of the rule is determined to be invalid under applicable laws or is disapproved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the "USEPA") under the Clean Water Act. Standing and/or Identification of the Parties The parties stipulated to the standing of the Tribe, Friends, New Hope and the Coop to initiate the proceedings in Case Nos. 03-2872RP, 03-2873RP, 03-2883RP, and 03-2884RP. The parties stipulated to the standing of U.S. Sugar to intervene in the consolidated proceeding with Intervenor- Respondent status. The parties stipulated to the standing of the South Florida Water Management District to intervene as a Respondent in the consolidated proceeding. The parties further stipulated to facts with regard to standing that identify the parties. These are contained in paragraphs 20, 21, and 27-43 under Tab 4 of the Pre-hearing Stipulation, at pages 65-71 of the stipulation. They are incorporated by reference. A summary of the identifications (repetitive of those incorporated by reference) follows. This summary in no way limits the facts incorporated by the reference to the Pre- hearing Stipulation. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians The Everglades has been the home of the Miccosukee Tribe for generations, and it is an integral part of their culture, subsistence, religion, historical identity and way of life. Members of the Tribe work, reside, and practice their culture and way of life in the Everglades Protection Area. The Tribe's land interests in the Everglades Protection Area include, without limitation, perpetual Indian rights; a perpetual lease from the state of Florida for the use and occupancy of substantial WCA-3A, which the state of Florida guarantees will be maintained in its natural state in perpetuity; aboriginal title of Tribal members to portions of the Everglades; and rights to traditional use and occupancy in Everglades National Park. Tribal members live in, use and enjoy the areas which will be affected by the water quality standards for phosphorus and its implementation. Friends of the Everglades Friends of the Everglades is a Florida based non- profit corporation founded in 1969 by Marjory Stoneman Douglas, a pioneer conservationist, recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and the author of the Everglades River of Grass. Mrs. Douglas formed this grassroots organization to educate the public about the importance of the Greater Kissimmee-Okeechobee- Everglades ecosystem, to protect the Everglades ecosystem from human activities that would impair its health and natural function, and to work for its restoration. Friends of the Everglades has approximately 3,500 members who use and value the Everglades for recreational and spiritual pursuits, including hiking, walking, bird watching, fishing and nature trips. Members of Friends use various sections of the Everglades Protection Area and want to protect and preserve these areas for themselves and future generations. The members of Friends of the Everglades use and enjoy the areas which will be affected by the water quality standards for phosphorus and its implementation. DEP The Department of Environmental Protection, is the state agency authorized, to adopt through the ERC water quality standards under Chapter 403. It is also directed by the Everglades Forever Act to adopt a numeric interpretation of the Narrative Criterion for the Everglades Protection Area. The DEP Secretary has rulemaking responsibility under Chapter 120, but must "submit any proposed rule containing standards to the [ERC] for approval, modification, or disapproval[.]" § 403.805, Fla. Stat. The ERC The Environmental Regulation Commission (the "ERC") is required to "exercise the standard-setting authority of the department under . . . section 373.4592(4)(d)4. and (e)." § 403.804, Fla. Stat. In exercising its authority, the ERC is directed to "consider scientific and technical validity, economic impacts, and relative risks and benefits to the public and the environment." Id. Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida The Cooperative is an agricultural marketing cooperative association formed and operating pursuant to Chapter 618, Florida Statutes. The Cooperative and its 54 member- farmers cultivate sugar cane and other crops in the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) in Palm Beach County, Florida. That cultivation involves the use and management of surface waters which are supplied to and ultimately released from their lands by way of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project (the "C&SF Project") approved by the U.S. Congress over 50 years ago. South Florida Water Management District The District has been a party to the rulemaking that led to the Proposed Rule, actively participating in the presentation of testimony and written submissions. A significant portion of scientific data used to establish the phosphorus criterion in the Proposed Rule was predicated upon District staff research. In addition, the EFA mandates the District to obtain permits for all of its structures that discharge into the Everglades. In accordance with the EFA, the Phosphorus Rule sets the permitting requirements for the District's discharge structures. Accordingly, the Phosphorus Rule will impact the District's implementation of the Long-Term Plan and how it will operate its discharge structures. U.S. Sugar, New Hope and Okeelanta U.S. Sugar is a privately held agribusiness corporation with its principal offices in Clewiston, Florida. New Hope Sugar Company and Okeelanta Corporation are privately held agribusiness corporations with their principal offices in West Palm Beach, Florida. U.S. Sugar, New Hope, and Okeelanta all own farmland within the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). U.S. Sugar owns about 194,000 acres of farmland in Florida. Most of U.S. Sugar's, New Hope's and Okeelanta's farming operations occur in the EAA where they grow and processes sugar cane. The Challenges of the Tribe and Friends The Tribe and Friends described a unified position with regard to their separately-filed challenges that the Proposed Rule constitutes an invalid exercise in delegated legislative authority in the "position statement" section of the Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed by the parties: The [P]roposed Rule, first and foremost, fails to establish a numeric interpretation of the narrative nutrient criterion for phosphorus that would prevent an imbalance of the natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna in the Everglades Protection Area. The grounds upon which the Tribe and Friends are challenging the [P]roposed Rule . . . include, but are not limited to: distorted findings of fact; improper designation of impacted areas; improper use of a geometric mean to establish the criterion that will cause an imbalance of flora and fauna; improper merging of the numeric criterion with moderating and permitting provisions that will in fact negate the numeric criterion; improper measurement methodology that does not prevent imbalance or protect designated use; improper division of the Everglades Protection Area into impacted and unimpacted areas; allowance of an arbitrary and capricious method for analyzing data; allowance of hydropattern restoration with water above the criterion that will cause an imbalance of flora and fauna; adoption of the Long Term Plan as a moderating provision, which is really a license to pollute, and which will also result in an imbalance of flora and fauna; and an improper vesting of authority in the Department of Environmental Protection to change the Long Term Plan. Pre-Hearing Statement, pp. 7-8. Factual statements that are at issue in the view of the Tribe and Friends are listed in the Pre-Hearing Stipulation at pages 74 to 77. Distilled to its essence, the Tribe and Friends' claim that the Proposed Rule because of flaws, including the establishment of a numeric phosphorus criterion of for Class III waters in the EPA as "a long-term geometric mean of 10 ppb," Section (4) of the Proposed Rule, "does not prevent an imbalance to the natural population of aquatic flora and fauna." (Tr. 59) This essence is captured in two of the eight statements of ultimate facts in their petitions, (see paragraphs 19-26, pgs. 5-6 of the Petition in Case No. 03-2972RP): The proposed Rule will not in fact prevent an imbalance in the natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna in the Everglades Protection Area. The proposed Rule is not in fact a numeric interpretation of, or consistent with, the Class III narrative criterion for phosphorus which prohibits causing an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. Id., at p. 5. The concerns of the Tribe and Friends were summed up in opening argument as falling under ten main points. For purposes of discussion, these ten categories may be titled as "1) Authority to establish a Water Quality Standard for Phosphorus and Merger of the Criterion with Achievability; Moderating Provisions and Permitting Provisions; 2) Inaccurate Findings; 3) Defensible Science and Consideration of Achievability and Economics; 4) The Impacted Areas Definition; The Phosphorus Criterion Does Not Protect Against Imbalance; Relationship of Criterion to the Park, Refuge, Unimpacted Areas, Impacted Areas; 7) Achievement Methodology; 8) Data Screening; 9) Creation of a Legislative Permit To Pollute Through the Year 2016; and, 10) Use of Moderating Provisions and the Long-Term Plan. (See Tr. 39-59) An understanding of the contentions of the Tribe and Friends and the responses of DEP, the ERC, the District, U.S. Sugar, New Hope and the Cooperative, requires a considerable amount of background, beginning with the historical Everglades. The Historical Everglades The Historical Everglades was part of one system that began at its northernmost with the chain of lakes at the headwaters of the Kissimmee River and extended downriver through Lake Okeechobee and southward across the interior of southern peninsular Florida to Florida Bay. Formed over a period of at least 5,000 years, the system reached a peak in the mid-19th Century. The system at that point in time (not long before the initiation of a series of man-made alterations that had profoundly negative environmental effects) is commonly referred to as the "1850 system." Most of the water that flowed in the Everglades over its millennia of formation was introduced through rainfall. The 1850 system, therefore, was ombrotrophic: one in which atmospheric deposition (rain) is the primary source of nutrients and water table recharge. The 1850 system contained a variety of habitats. A densely vegetated area immediately south of Lake Okeechobee (a zone of custard apple associated with abundant wildlife and immense bird rookeries) transitioned to elderberry, dense sawgrass, and then to less dense sawgrass. Cypress swamps stood on the western periphery, pine flatwoods on the eastern edge; ridge and slough areas dotted with tear-shaped tree islands aligned in the direction of southerly flow dominated the central region. At the southern end, freshwater entered the Shark River and Taylor sloughs and was carried by small rivers and through mangrove thickets at the southern tip of the Florida Peninsula to meet the salt waters of the sea. The presence of the tremendous numbers of birds and their rookeries in the area immediately south of Lake Okeechobee led to phosphorus concentrations in the soil in this "enriched custard apple zone" as high as 1,500 to 2,000 parts per million. The zone comprised slightly under 300,000 acres, about 10% of the approximately 3,000,000 acres in the historical freshwater Everglades. Lake Okeechobee Pulses A critical relationship existed between the lake and the areas of the historical Everglades further south. The enriched custard apple zone, the sawgrass marsh, the wet prairies and the aquatic sloughs received waters directly from Lake Okeechobee from time-to-time by means of gentle overflow. Sheet flows generated from the lake languidly pulsed southward in seemingly endless repetition interrupted only by drops in water levels that came with seasonal fluctuations. The flows were confined for the most part by ridge systems such as the Atlantic Coastal Ridge to the east and terrain that includes plateaus, the Immokalee Rise and Big Cypress Swamp at a higher elevation to the west. To a relatively slight extent, waters from the flows escaped eastward to the Atlantic or westward to the Gulf of Mexico. For the most part, the hydro-pulses, above the gently sloped peat and marl soils below, successively overran the southern interior of the peninsula that is South Florida to join the sloughs that carried them to the salt water of the seas connected to Florida Bay. Contributions to the System's Make-up On the inexorable journey southward, the slow-flowing waters were fed by the main source of Everglades flow: plentiful rain. The rains included the torrents from the inevitable tropical storms and hurricanes that were instrumental in creating the system as they blew across South Florida. Stressors such as fire, drought, and rare but occasional frosts, made additional contributions to the shaping of the ecosystem and its unique ecology. Aside from the rain-driven nature of the system, the lake-generated hydro-pulses and the seasonal fluctuations in water levels together with intermittent contributions by fire, drought, frost and torrential rain that shaped its ecology, there is another central premise concerning the formation and life of the Everglades. The system is poor when it comes to the nutrient with which this proceeding is concerned: phosphorus. Phosphorus in the Historical Everglades With the exception of localized areas associated with tree islands or because of fire or other natural occurrences such as an alligator hole, the phosphorus concentrations in the water column south of the enriched zone historically achieved homeostasis at or below an extremely low level: 10 parts per billion ("ppb"). The historic Everglades south of the enriched zone had concentrations of phosphorus in the water column that ranged from 5 to 8 ppb in slough habitats to a phosphorous level one or two ppb higher in the areas of dense sawgrass, that is, peaking at a level of 10 ppb homeostatically. An exception to these low levels of phosphorus in the historic Everglades south of the enriched zone is the tree island. Tree islands had higher levels attributed to the habitation of the islands by wildlife that translocated nutrients from the marsh to the islands. In the case of translocation by birds, translocation of phosphorus lowered the concentration of nutrients in the marsh fed on by the birds and increased it wherever birds congregated, especially in rookeries. Extremely low levels of phosphorus were an essential component of the health of the historical Everglades and its unique ecology. At the base of this phosphorus limited ecology, historically and today, is the periphyton community, described by Ronald Jones, Ph.D., and the Tribe and Friends' expert witness, as "the real key to the Everglades." (Tr. 2958) The Periphyton Base of the Everglades Ecosystem Today, periphyton accounts for 30% to 50% of the vegetative biomass of the Everglades and 70% to 80% of the daily productivity of the system. In a healthy Everglades ecology, periphyton are knitted together in formations referred to as periphyton sweaters or as "periphyton mats." A periphyton mat is composed of different microscopic life forms, predominately blue-green algae or cyanobacteria, followed by diatoms and green algae. The microbial organisms are held together by mucilage that they produce themselves. The majority of a periphyton mat (about 68%) is void of mucilage and the organisms, themselves. In the aquatic environment of the Everglades, therefore, this space is filled with water, which leaves 30% or so of the mat as organic material. Six percent of the organic material is composed of the cells of the microscopic cyanobacteria, diatoms and green algae. The remaining 94% of the organic material is mucilage, the substance that holds the cells together in a glue-like fashion. Mucilage is a direct result of the phosphorus-poor environment. It is essential to the survival of the periphyton cells because "in intimate contact with each other . . . they're able to make the most efficient use of the . . . resources" (Tr. 2982), particularly the most limited resource: phosphorus. When levels of phosphorus increase in the water column, periphyton mats fall apart. There is no longer a need for the cells to produce mucilage, an activity "expensive" (Tr. 2981) in carbon, as there is in a healthy Everglades ecology when limited phosphorus must be maximized by the periphyton communities. Today, periphyton mats continue to disintegrate at an alarming rate in the Remaining Everglades despite recent progress made in reducing the inflow of excessive amounts of phosphorus in discharges that comprise some of the water management practices of the District. Nonetheless, progress is being made toward a reversal of Everglades loss. In an October/November 2003 publication of the South Florida Water Management District, the District in an article entitled "Encouraging Signs for Everglades Recovery," reported that "[b]etween 1995 and 2003, the rate of cattail expansion in Water Conservation Area 2A . . . declined from 2,375 acres per year to 785 acres per year." Tribe/Friends Ex. 138. The District's publication explained why cattails, one indicator looked at by scientists "among multiple indicators to determine the condition of the Everglades," id., are a marker of poor ecological health in the Everglades: Cattails are a natural aquatic plant, typically found in wetland systems around the world, including the Everglades. In fact, it is an approved species for shoreline restoration projects in the state of Florida. Under historic conditions, the Everglades' low-nutrient levels kept the smattering of cattail plants in check. But cattail is an aggressive, opportunistic plant. Fueled by high phosphorus inflows from agricultural and urban areas, cattail began to bully its way into the Everglades landscape, out-muscling more desirable plants such as sawgrass and other vegetation which provide habitat for wildlife. Thickets of cattail form a dense mat, blocking sunlight and lowering dissolved oxygen levels needed by aquatic life below. They grow so close together that wading birds are unable to forage for food in the shallow marsh. Sustained deep water levels also give cattails a competitive advantage due to their ability to move oxygen from their leaves down to their roots. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, aerial vegetation mapping and field visits in a 104,000 acre portion of the Everglades known as Water Conservation Area 2A verified intense growth stands along major inflow points. This cattail explosion was visual documentation of changes in the Everglades habitat due to excess nutrients and became a rallying cry for water quality improvements. Id. While a slowing in the rate of cattail expansion is progress toward slowing the loss of the Everglades, an annual rate of 785 acres of cattail expansion is a serious threat to the Everglades that remain today. The Remaining Everglades The "remaining Everglades" is the roughly 50% or 1.6 million acres of the Everglades today left from the original 3,000,000 acres or so of the historical Everglades. The remaining Everglades is what remains of the system in the wake of the anthropogenic changes that began in the second half of the 19th Century. Anthropogenic Changes The initial man-made or "anthropogenic" changes to the Everglades began with the arrival of Hamilton Disston, a Philadelphia developer. The state deeded him land for the purpose of drainage or "re-claiming" of swampland. Under a contract entered in 1881 with the Board of Trustees for the Internal Improvement Fund as part of the first comprehensive drainage plan, Mr. Disston dug canals from Lake Okeechobee in directions both east and west. To the east, leading to the Atlantic Ocean, is the St. Lucie Canal. "[T]o the west is the Caloosahatchee--and its called a river, but it looks rather more like a canal if you . . . look at it today." (Tr. 1536) The effect of the two canals was to lower the level of Lake Okeechobee by several feet. Mr. Disston's efforts were followed by efforts by Governor Broward, directed by him personally, that implemented advice from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps had advised that converting the swampland adjacent to the lake into agricultural land would require flood control, irrigation systems and drainage. The Corps also had advised that reclamation of the narrow eastern edge of Everglades (now much of the developed Lower East Coast of Florida) would require a substantial levee on the coastal lands' western border and drainage ditches where small streams flowed from the Everglades to the Atlantic. As part of the activity recommended by the Corps, a set of four major canals was dug in a generally southeasterly direction: the West Palm Beach Canal, the Hillsboro, the North New River, and the Miami Canal. In the late 1920's, around 1926 and 1928, there were back-to-back hurricanes in South Florida. Damage was primarily south of the lake in the area now known as the Everglades Agricultural Area. The hurricanes "resulted in tremendous loss of life, and . . . widespread flooding in the area. In response, the Army Corps of Engineers built . . . Hoover Dike, . . . the dike that now [surrounds] the lake." (Tr. 1538) The dike renders the lake a contained, closely managed body of water. These developments altered the natural balance between water and soil in substantial parts of the historical Everglades. Drainage led to parched prairies, muckfires, the flooding of farms and communities, and salt water intrusion into the water supplies of the Lower East Coast of the state. HOUSE DOCUMENT No. 643, dated May 6, 1948 is a letter from the Secretary of the Army to the Congress. It transmitted, in turn, a letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, submitting a comprehensive report to the Congress of the United States that pronounced concern about the Everglades. The document summarized, for example, the toll that water control changes had exacted on Everglades wildlife: Southern and Central Florida were originally one of the greatest natural habitats for fish, birds and game on the North American continent. The shores of Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades once afforded a refuge for thousands of water fowl and other birds which are now virtually extinct . . . In brief, it appears that large parts of the Everglades should be held and protected as conservation areas which would be ideal for preservation of wildlife. Coop. 9a, p. 36 (paragraph 48 of the Report of the District Engineer.) These facts added to the urgency of the need for conservation. But the concern led to further alteration disruptive to Everglades ecology. Authorized by Congress in 1948, the "Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control and other Purposes" (the "C&SF Project") implemented a comprehensive plan to reclaim wetlands for agricultural and urban development. The project's purposes included flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, water supply for Everglades National Park, and protection of fish and wildlife resources. To take advantage of the fertile soils in the custard apple zone immediately south of the lake, the C&SF Project called for the creation of the Everglades Agricultural Area (the "EAA")4 to bring into agricultural production 500,000 acres. Other large portions of the Everglades have also been converted to agricultural use. The project was also intended to pump water south into interconnected water conservation areas in Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties to facilitate the other purposes of the project. The C&SF Project includes 1,000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water control structures, and 16 major pump stations. The extensive agricultural operations and considerable residential and commercial development that followed the initiation of the project are dependent on the maintenance of this highly controlled system of canals, levees and pumps, now operated by the South Florida Water Management District (the successor to the Central and Southern Flood Control District created by the state in response to the federal project.) The C&SF Project was largely complete by 1962 with the creation of works that facilitated man-made divisions of the historic Everglades located within the Everglades Protection Area (the "EPA"). The EPA The EPA is defined at Section 372.4592(2)(i). It consists of four divisions or water bodies whose segmentation has been facilitated by the C&SF Project works: three Water Conservation Areas and the Everglades National Park. Water Conservation Area 1 is the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (it is referred-to in this order, therefore, interchangeably as the "Refuge," or WCA-1.) WCA-2 is further divisible into 2A and 2B and WCA-3 is further divisible into 3A and 3B. The fourth water body in the EPA is the Park. The Main Effects of the Anthropogenic Changes There are two main effects of the changes made by humans to the historical Everglades. The first is an issue of water quantity and flow. The hydrology of the system has been dramatically altered. What was once "broad, shallow sheet flow across the marsh," dictated by nature is now "a compartment- alized system with segmented flow" (Tr. 1539) managed to a highly significant degree by man. Hydropatterns have been altered in a number of ways that have resulted in major effects. The draining of the system has affected the water table. Water that had flowed through the peat, in addition to above the peat, keeping it wet, no longer does so in many parts of the Everglades. On the other hand, water impounded in the WCAs moved subsequently through canals and levees has made some areas, including relatively shallow areas, deeper. The custard apple zone has been drastically affected hydrologically; it no longer exists. Roughly in its place is the EAA. The EAA is 6 to 8 feet lower than the historic custard apple zone. In fact, the EAA is lower than the Everglades immediately to its south, precisely the opposite of the situation in the historical Everglades. Most of the soil is still present in the EAA, but because it has lost its hydric characteristic it is ten times denser than the soil found to the south. The soils density is another result of hydropattern disruption. The second effect is one of water quality. Drainage from the urban areas to the east and from the EAA have created water quality problems. Pesticides and herbicides have made their way into the Everglades. Both agricultural and urban land uses result in the release of excess nutrients, including phosphorus and nitrogen, from fertilizers. These excess nutrients are carried in stormwater runoff. They are also present in agricultural discharges. The runoff and discharges are ultimately pumped through water management district canals and facilities into the remaining Everglades. While pesticides, herbicides and nitrogen pose water quality problems, the preeminent water quality problem in the Everglades is phosphorus enrichment. For the 3 or 4 decades prior to the initiation of best management practices ("BMPs"), including those that employ stormwater treatment areas ("STAs") constructed in the last decade or so, the levels of phosphorus in the water column reaching the WCAs ranged from approximately 100 to 200 ppb. The introduction of excessive levels of phosphorus into the Everglades caused and continues to cause profound changes to its biology. Natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna adapted to the oligotrophic and phosphorus-limited system become displaced by species that thrive on the phosphorus rich waters pumped into the EPA and the phosphorus from these waters that settles out and makes its way into Everglades soil. In some areas of the EPA into which the Federal Project and the water management practices that have followed have pumped phosphorus-enriched water from the EAA, soil phosphorus concentration exceeds 500 parts per million. See areas designated in yellow on Coop Ex. 21 or in green on Coop Ex. 8E. These areas (defined by the Proposed Rule as "impacted"), for the most part, are on the periphery of the Refuge, WCA-2A (where the impacted areas extend deeply from the northeastern border into the interior of the conservation area), WCA-3A and WCA-3B. An exception occurs in the middle of WCA-3A along the Miami Canal which runs from Lake Okeechobee through the EAA and then across WCA-3 in a southeasterly direction. The impacted areas shown on Coop Ex. 8E comprise about 6% of the total 1.6 million or so acres of the freshwater portions of the Remaining Everglades. The conversion of a low nutrient or oligotrophic system to a high nutrient system is known as "eutrophication." One especially visible example of a nutrient-induced shift in biology is the displacement of sawgrass marshes with an invasive monoculture of pollutant-tolerant cattails. The oligotrophic nature of the system is the same today in areas of the Everglades that have not suffered the impacts of man. This determination is supported by the low nutrient content in Everglades peat and at interior marsh sites as determined by a recent study. Today, "a large body of evidence [citations omitted] indicates that . . . the primary limiting nutrient throughout the remaining Everglades" is phosphorus. DEP 23, Vol. 1, p. 4., but there is no gaseous form of phosphorus. The amount of phosphorus that comes directly from rain, therefore, is very low, "usually less than a part per billion." (Tr. 2765) Pollen, plant particles and dust tossed into the air in the normal course of events make up "dry fall." Dry fall contains phosphorus. Dry fall can drift into the waters of the Everglades but usually its components, including phosphorus, get deposited through rain on a localized scale. Dry fall, therefore, is another source of phosphorus in the Everglades. A major source of phosphorus in the Everglades today stems from discharges that are a part of a regime of water management practices conducted by the South Florida Water Management District. Discharges of water from urban and agricultural areas generally have contained phosphorus at levels significantly higher than occur naturally in the Everglades. Soils in the EAA and elsewhere subside through a process of inundation, drying out and oxidation. As soil oxidizes, concentrations of phosphorus are left behind. Rainfall produces stormwater runoff which carries with it the more concentrated phosphorus that eventually is pumped off of the agricultural fields and into the canals. In addition, fertilizers, plowing and burning in the EAA, all contribute to excess phosphorus entering the system. Critical Indicators of Impact and Imbalance On the basis of the testimony of Dr. Jones, impact and imbalance to aquatic flora and fauna caused by excessive phosphorus is determined by use of three critical indices: (1) water column concentrations; (2) soils; and (3) vegetation, with a particular emphasis on periphyton. Water column concentrations of phosphorus higher than background conditions contribute to higher soil concentrations by way of the phosphorus settling out of the water. So does compaction. As soils compact (as in the case of soils in the EAA) the soil gets heavier with more phosphorus per unit area. Compacted soils under water tend to leach phosphorus out in higher concentrations, a process referred to as "reflux." Since periphyton is composed of microscopic organisms, the initial impacts of phosphorus on periphyton are difficult to observe. Nonetheless change takes place in these microcosms in an early step of a chain of events described at hearing by Dr. Jones. The first step toward change in Everglades ecology due to the entry of excess phosphorus into the system occurs with an increase in total phosphorus in the water column by way of the introduction of phosphorus-laden discharges of water or reflux. The second step is a change in the microbial community, with the first indicator being decreased alkaline phosphotase production. The third and fourth steps, interchangeable depending on soil type, cross a threshold of visible change. The visible change takes place in the periphyton community (periphyton mats disintegrate); the other step is a total phosphorus increase detectable in the soils. The fifth step is an increase in the biomass because of increased growth. The increase in growth translates eventually into more litter and soil build up. The sixth step is the change in the composition of plant species that leads to an imbalance of flora and fauna. Imbalance in flora occurs in macrophytes ("plants we can see," Tr. 2940) with the loss of sawgrass. In the seventh step, cattails emerge. When cattails fill in wet prairies, an imbalance in fauna soon follows, the eighth step. Habitat is lost for wading birds and other organisms that had used the area resulting in a decrease of those organisms. This eight-step process culminates in visible destruction of Everglades ecology and ecology defined by low productivity, low biomass and low litter production. Most significantly, at the end of the process, the imbalance in Everglades aquatic flora and fauna is complete. Imbalance of Aquatic Flora and Fauna The Everglades Forever Act and the Proposed Rule do not contain a definition of "imbalance of aquatic flora and fauna." As demonstrated by Dr. Jones, the process of reaching the state of imbalance is a continuum. It begins with the introduction of excess phosphorus to the water column and is complete when wading birds and other fauna lose habitat because of the take-over and dominance of cattails. According to U.S. Sugar's witness, Donald M. Kent, Ph.D., an expert in wetlands ecology, imbalance in aquatic flora and fauna occurs when there is visible change in periphyton: "If periphyton just completely disappeared and didn't come back, or it changed from what we've considered a desirable natural species to something that was indicative of pollution, that would be imbalance." (Tr. 3934) These visible changes are also evident with regard to vascular plants, such as bladderwort that, as in the case of periphyton, is particularly sensitive to excess phosphorus. Visible changes to the periphyton community, such as disintegration of mats, and to bladderwort and other vegetation, coincide with changes in macroinvertebrates, such as insects, and fish. See Tr. 3947. In other words, once the continuum of impact has reached the point of visible change to periphyton and vascular vegetation, an imbalance in aquatic flora and fauna is relatively sure to occur soon. Dr. Kent's definition of "imbalance in the aquatic flora and fauna" is consistent with a definition of imbalance employed for the Park and the Refuge in the Settlement Agreement reached in litigation between the United States, the State of Florida and the South Florida Water Management District in the early part of the last decade. See findings, below. Phosphorus-laden waters discharged into the Everglades lead to another effect related to imbalance: phosphorus gradients that are man-made. Phosphorus Gradients Prior to localized phosphorus gradients produced by canal inflows with high phosphorus levels today, there was a historic phosphorus gradient in the Everglades. It existed before the man-made changes that cut Lake Okeechobee off from the rest of the 1850 system. The historic phosphorus gradient was manifest in the high levels of phosphorus that existed in the custard apple zone immediately south of Lake Okeechobee in comparison to the phosphorus levels south of this enriched zone. Today there are localized phosphorus gradients. They occur relatively close to the points of discharge of waters managed by the District where the waters flow into the EPA. Generally, the closer to a point of discharge the greater the concentration of phosphorus in the water column and the greater the soil concentration of phosphorus. As the flow of the phosphorus-laden waters continues downstream the concentrations in the water column and the soils tend to decrease. Florida and the United States Adopt Water Quality Laws Florida Water Quality Laws In 1967, Florida adopted Chapter 403, entitled "Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act." Ch. 67-436, Laws of Fla. This act recognized that water bodies serve multiple beneficial uses that must be protected to promote the public welfare. Water quality standards were adopted for this purpose. Chapter 403 established a policy to "conserve the waters of the state and to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses." § 403.021(2), Fla. Stat. The act empowered the Department to "develop . . . a grouping of waters into classes . . . in accordance with the present and future most beneficial uses," and to "establish . . . water quality standards for the State as a whole or for any part thereof[.]" § 403.061(10) and (11), Fla. Stat. In 1968, the Department of Air and Water Pollution Control (one of DEP's predecessor agencies) promulgated regulations enumerating five classes of beneficial uses to be protected. Coop Ex. 9, App. 4, at 1. The Rule enumerating the five classes can now be found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.400. Water bodies not specifically identified in the Rule are listed as Class III on the basis of the designated uses "Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62.302.400(1) and (12). Surface waters in the WCAs and the freshwater portion of the Park are Class III waters. (See also Tr. 1568) "Water quality criteria" were adopted for each class to protect the uses in that class and all higher numbered classes. Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 28-5 (1968). See Coop Ex. 9, App. 4, at 1. The original water quality criteria were not required to be met uniformly throughout a given water body; rather, they were applied after an opportunity for mixture with the receiving water had been afforded. Fla. Admin. Code R. 28.5.05(1)(1968). See Coop Ex. 9, App. 4, at 5. Relief from Department rules was also allowed in certain circumstances. § 403.201, Fla. Stat. In 1978, effective March 1, 1979, the Department updated the water quality criteria for the different water use classes, and added a narrative nutrient criterion that applies to Class III waters, outside mixing zones: (20) Nutrients - in no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. Fla. Admin. Code R. 17-3.121 (1979). See Coop Ex. 9, App. 7, at 41 and 43. This is the same nutrient criterion language now found at Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302.530 and 62- 302.530(48). The 1979 rules did not define the phrase "imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna" for this narrative criterion, nor has the phrase been subsequently defined by rule. The 1979 rules also added a new use category for waters of special recreational or ecological significance, known as "Outstanding Florida Waters" (OFWs), which included the Park and the Refuge. Fla. Admin. Code R. 17-3.041(3)(a) and (b) (1979). See Coop Ex. 9, App. 7 at 13-14. These waters are now included in the listing of OFWs at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.700(9)(a) and (b). Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.700(1), "No degradation of water quality, other than that allowed in Subsections 62-4.242(2) and (3), is to be permitted" in OFWs. Pertinent to the issue in this proceeding, these OFW rules have remained in substantially the same form as they did in 1979. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.242(2) is entitled "Standards Applying to Outstanding Florida Waters." Subsection (2)(a) of the rule prohibits permits from being issued "for any proposed activity or discharge within an [OFW], or which significantly degrades" an OFW, unless the permit applicant can affirmatively demonstrate that the proposed discharge is "clearly in the public interest" and that "existing ambient water quality . . . will not be lowered." Subsection (2)(c) of the rule defines "existing ambient water quality" as "the better quality of either (1) that which could reasonably be expected to have existed for the baseline year of an [OFW] designation or (2) that which existed during the year prior to the date of the permit application." Since the Park and Refuge were designated as OFWs when the OFW rules were adopted in 1979, the "baseline year" for the Park and Refuge was 1978-79, some 15 years after construction of the C&SF Project had segregated the Everglades in the units of the EPA and had begun its operations that redistributed natural water flows. The permitting rules further specify, at Rule 62- 4.242(2)(c), the following: The Department recognizes that it may be necessary to permit limited activities or discharges in Outstanding Florida Waters to allow for or enhance public use or to maintain facilities that existed prior to the effective date of the Outstanding Florida Water designation, or facilities permitted after adoption of the Outstanding Florida Water designation. However, such activities or discharges will only be permitted if: The discharge or activity is in compliance with the provisions specified in subparagraph (2)(a)2. of this section; or Management practices and suitable technology approved by the Department are implemented for all stationary installations including those created for drainage, flood control, or by dredging or filling; and There is no alternative to the proposed activity, including the alternative of not Id. undertaking any change, except at an unreasonably higher cost. The 1979 revisions added a second policy to limit further degradation of Florida surface waters, at Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-3.041(3)(a) and (b)(1979). See Coop Ex. 9, App. 7 at 13-14. Known as the "antidegradation policy," the policy applies to both OFW and non-OFW waters and can now be found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, with implementing permitting requirements at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-242. In addition to establishing permitting criteria for discharges to OFWs, as noted above, the Rule also allows for discharges to other waters (which would include WCA 2 and WCA 3) that cause water quality degradation "if necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances that are clearly in the public interest[.]" See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.242(1)(listing various factors for determining what constitutes "clearly in the public interest"). The rules also articulate policies "to limit the introduction of man-induced nutrients," especially to low nutrient waters, to prohibit new violations of water quality standards, and to limit degradation below designated uses. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.300(13)-(18). See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 17-3.041(3)(a) and (b) (1979); SCGC Ex. 9, App. 7 at 2. In its 1979 rewrite of the state's water quality standards, the Environmental Regulation Commission (the "ERC") recognized that Florida's water body use classifications and the associated water quality criteria might not be appropriate for part or all of a given water body. Therefore, in the same rule that contained the antidegradation policy, the ERC approved a special set of provisions as a substantive part of Florida's water quality standards. It was understood that "the implementation policies and procedures [of these new rules] . . . will govern the manner in which the proposed water quality standards are applied." Written Statement of the Facts and Circumstances Justifying the Proposed Amendments, p. 2, filed with the Secretary of State on August 18, 1978. Coop Ex. 9, App. 10. Known as "moderating provisions," these special "implementation policies and procedures" remain an integral part of Florida's "water quality standards." The ERC's 1979 rationale for "moderating provisions" continues today in substantially the same language as a key feature of DEP rules: 1. The Department's rules that were adopted on March 1, 1979, regarding water quality standards are based upon the best scientific knowledge related to the protection of the various designated uses of waters of the State; and 2. The mixing zone, [and] site specific alternative criteria . . . provisions are designed to provide an opportunity for the future consideration of factors relating to localized situations which could not adequately be addressed in this proceeding, including economic and social consequences, attainability, irretrievable conditions, [and] natural background . . . . . . . [T]he continued availability of the moderating provisions is a vital factor providing a basis for the Commission's determination that water quality standards applicable to water classes in the rule are attainable taking into consideration environmental, technological, social, economic, and institutional factors. The companion provisions of Chapters 17-4 and 17-6, F.A.C., approved simultaneously with these Water Quality Standards are incorporated herein by reference as a substantive part of the states comprehensive program for the control, abatement and prevention of water pollution. Without the moderating provisions described in (b)2. above, the Commission would not have adopted the revisions described in (b)1. above, nor determined that they are attainable as generally applicable water quality standards. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62.300.200(10). See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-4.249 (providing for ERC review "at the earliest opportunity" if a moderating provision is invalidated). Moderating provisions, as are "water quality criteria," are constituents of "water quality standards" as shown in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.200 (29) and (30), which currently defines the terms as follows: "Water quality criteria" shall mean elements of State water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, representing the quality of water that supports the present and future most beneficial uses. "Water quality standards" shall mean standards composed of designated present and future most beneficial uses (classification of waters), the numerical and narrative criteria applied to the specific water uses or classification, the Florida antidegradation policy, and the moderating provisions contained in this Rule and in F.A.C. Rule 62-4, adopted pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. Thus, a water quality standard is not necessarily a simple number. For over a quarter of a century a water quality standard has been a system of regulation, with four separate components that include classified uses, water quality criteria, an antidegradation policy, and moderating provisions. One final aspect of state water quality standards is pertinent to these proceedings. The term "net improvement," which appeared first in the original EFA at Section 373.4592(4)(e)3., was introduced into Florida law in 1984 as part of the Warren K. Henderson Wetlands Protection Act, Ch. 84- 79, Laws of Fla., and was originally codified at Section 403.918(2)(b), as part of the Act's dredge and fill permitting criteria. In 1993, when it established the environmental resources permitting program in Chapter 93-213, Laws of Florida, the Legislature transferred "net improvement" to Section 373.414(1)(b)3. The language has remained essentially the same: If the applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the governing board or the department shall consider mitigation measures proposed by or acceptable to the applicant that cause net improvement of the water quality in the receiving body of water for those parameters which do not meet standards. ii. The Federal Clean Water Act The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (now known as the "Clean Water Act" or "CWA") established a comprehensive federal water pollution program to further its objective "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's water." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(1)(2002). It declared a national goal, "wherever attainable," to achieve "water quality which provides for protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water." Id. The CWA assigned to the States the primary role in establishing water quality standards. Id. § 1313. See also Chevron USA, Inc. v. Hammond, 726 F.2d 483, 489 (9th Cir. 1984). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "USEPA" to distinguish it from this order's reference to the Everglades Protection Area as the "EPA") has the duty to then review State water quality standards for approval under the CWA. 33 U.S.C. § 1313. Like Florida's system, USEPA regulations explain that a "water quality standard defines the water quality goals of a water body, or portion thereof, by designating the use or uses to be made of the water and by setting criteria to protect the uses." 40 C.F.R. § 131.2. In a manner similar to Florida's rules, federal water quality laws also clearly distinguish between "water quality criteria" and "water quality standards": The word "criterion" should not be used interchangeably with, or as a synonym for, the word "standard." The word "criterion" represents a constituent concentration or level associated with a degree of environmental effect upon which scientific judgment may be based. As it is currently associated with the water environment it has come to mean a designated concentration of a constituent that when not exceeded, will protect an organism, an organism community, or a prescribed water use or quality with an adequate degree of safety. A criterion, in some cases, may be a narrative statement instead of a constituent concentration. On the other hand, a standard connotes a legal entity for a particular reach of waterway or for an effluent. A water quality standard may use a water quality criterion as a basis for regulation or enforcement, but the standard may differ from a criterion because of prevailing local natural conditions, such as naturally occurring organic acids, or because of the importance of a particular waterway, economic considerations, or the degree of safety to a particular ecosystem that may be desired. (Citations omitted.) National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. USEPA, 770 F. Supp. 1093, 1100 (E.D. Va. 1991)(quoting from USEPA guidance), aff'd, 16 F.3d 1395 (4th Cir. 1993). The CWA requires states to periodically review and update their water quality standards. Such revisions must be submitted to USEPA for review to ensure that they contain designated uses of the waters and water quality criteria for those waters needed to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). The practicality of water quality controls is also relevant under the CWA. Recognizing that use attainability (or criterion achievement) can be precluded under certain conditions, USEPA regulations provide that States (or Indian Tribes) "may, at their discretion, include in their standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation, such as mixing zones, low flows and variances." 40 C.F.R. § 131.13. See SCGC Ex. 9, App. 10. USEPA regulations specify six independent situations where states may justify the grant of relief via rule or permit for specific discharges or entire water bodies (or portions thereof). 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(g). States and Tribes are given such regulatory flexibility when any of the following factors is present: Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use; or Natural, ephemeral, intermittent or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges without violating State water conservation requirements to enable uses to be met; or Human caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more damage to correct than to leave in place; or Dams, diversions or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to operate such modification in a way that would result in attainment of the use; or Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and the like, unrelated to water quality, preclude attainment of aquatic like protection uses; or Controls more stringent than those required by sections 301(b) and 306 of the Act would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact. Id. In essence, these USEPA rules have found circumstances where the inclusion of moderating provisions in state and tribal water quality standards is appropriate. Background Levels of Phosphorus Today Background levels of phosphorus in the four water bodies in the EPA vary. Everglades National Park, the least-impacted and most pristine section of the EPA, has an historic background level of phosphorus that varied between 5 to 8 eight ppb. Today, background levels have the same range during the wet season (the summer months to late fall). In the dry season, phosphorus levels can be anywhere from 8 to 13, with some instances of very high numbers in isolated pools where fish congregate when the system has dried down (in February and late winter) and water levels decrease. Everglades National Park is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). Fla. Admin. Code R. 62.302.700(1)(9). That designation offers special protection that is consistent with the existing ambient water quality at the period of designation. Background levels in the Park are consistently lower than background levels in the water conservation areas. Background concentration levels of phosphorus in the water column are not uniform in the Refuge, Water Conservation Area-1. The perimeter canal has significant impacts from nutrients. In contrast, the interior of WCA-1 is pristine and contains uniform levels of phosphorus. The interior part of WCA 1 has a background level of phosphorus in the water column of between 5 and 9 ppb. WCA-1 is perched. The perched effect has been exacerbated by the drainage and canals placed around the Refuge. The Refuge is an OFW. That designation offers special protection consistent with the existing ambient water quality at the period of designation (1978, 1979). Historic levels of phosphorus in WCA-2, divisible into WCA 2A and WCA 2B, probably existed in the range of 5 to 8 ppb. Although today the background levels in some areas are still in this range, there are other indicators of impact. Measurements of the enzyme alkaline phosphatase can be made that indicate change not susceptible to visible detection. Bacteria produce this enzyme when there is an absence of phosphorus. In an oligotrophic situation, the bacteria produce a great deal of this enzyme, which allows them to cycle phosphorus more efficiently. Where the levels of the enzyme are depressed, it indicates higher levels of phosphorus. Conversely, where the levels of alkaline phosphatase are high, the more oligotrophic the system. Another way to determine impact is to measure the phosphorus levels in the tissue concentrations of the periphyton itself. In WCA 2A, the periphyton has slightly higher phosphorus tissue concentrations than elsewhere in the Everglades. Much of WCA-2A suffers from excess phosphorus at some level based on levels of alkaline phosphatase and examination of the periphyton community. Water Conservation Area 3 can be divided into three distinct hydrological areas: WCA-3A North, WCA-3A South, and WCA-3B. WCA-3A is northwest of the L-67 canal; WCA-3B is south east of the canal. WCA-3A can be divided into WCA-3A North and WCA-3A South, because Alligator Alley, a roadway, separates the two and constricts water flow. There are different background levels of phosphorus in WCA-3A North and South. Areas in WCA-3A show impacts along the canals and inflow points. WCA-3A North has a slightly higher phosphorus concentration than WCA-3A South. There are also nutrient impacts along the Miami Canal. Background levels of phosphorus in WCA-3A, north of Tamiami Trail, are around 7 to 8 ppb. Most areas of WCA-3A South are pristine, as shown by the presence of intact periphyton mats. Exceptions exist along the canals and along Tamiami Trail, as indicated by cattails and altered native species. The vegetation in WCA-3B is mostly eleocharis, periphyton and utricularia (bladderwort). All three of these vegetative species are indicative of healthy Everglades ecology. While the periphyton mat is the key to Everglades health, the presence of utricularia offers a different indication of the health of the ecosystem. It is "a carnivorous plant . . . characteristic of . . . oligotrophic environments because . . . [utricularia] have to get their nutrients by . . . eating other organisms [rather than from the water or soil]." (Tr. 2836) The current background levels of phosphorus in the water column in WCA-3 are from 5 to 8 ppb. The Federal Lawsuit and the Settlement Agreement In 1988, the United States sued the South Florida Water Management District (the "District") and the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER"), the predecessor to the Department of Environmental Protection. Among the allegations in the complaint, the federal government alleged that the District's pumping of phosphorus-rich water into the Everglades National Park and Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge resulted in violations of State water quality standards. See generally United States v. South Fla. Water Management District, 847 Supp 1567 (S.D. Fla. 1992). The federal government further alleged that DER and the District had failed to take appropriate regulatory action to prevent water quality violations within the Park and the Refuge. As the litigation proceeded, the Florida Legislature in 1991 passed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Protection Act, codified as Section 373.4592 (re-named as the Everglades Forever Act in 1994) to address concerns raised by the federal government. In July of the year in which the Act passed, the federal and state parties settled the litigation initiated three years earlier. The "Settlement Agreement" set forth a commitment of the parties to restore and maintain water quality in the Park and the Refuge. Among other matters, the Settlement Agreement envisions a remedial plan in which the District agreed (a) to adopt a regulatory program that requires EAA interests to implement on-farm best management practices ("BMPs") to reduce phosphorus in stormwater running off their lands and (b) to construct over 35,000 acres of publicly owned STAs within the EAA to further reduce phosphorus in waters prior to discharge into the Everglades. The Settlement Agreement set forth a definition of "Imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna" in paragraph 1., the "Definitions" section of the agreement: "Imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna" and "imbalance of flora and fauna" shall have the meaning in Florida Administrative Code Rule 17-302.560: "Class III Waters - Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife. (19) Nutrients: In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna." Imbalance includes situations when nutrient additions result in violation of other standards contained in Chapter 17-302 as defined in Rule 17.302.510(3)(j). In the case of the Park and Refuge, imbalance specifically shall include nutrient additions that result in, but are not limited to, replacement of native periphyton algal species by more pollution-tolerant algal species, loss of the native periphyton community or, in advanced stages of nutrient pollution, native sawgrass and wet prairie communities giving way to dense cattail stand or other nutrient-altered ecosystems, which impair or destroy the ability of the ecosystem to serve as habitat and forage for higher trophic levels characteristic of the Everglades. Numerical interpretation of imbalance shall specifically include an array of indices to measure sensitivity of the ecosystem to small changes in nutrients, such as nutrient cycling processes and the basic components of the Everglades ecosystem, including periphyton and other sensitive indicators of nutrient enrichment. Tribe/Friends 164, (Exhibit B), p. 3, 4 (emphasis supplied). The specific inclusion in the definition of "imbalance" in the Settlement Agreement of "replacement of periphyton algal species by more pollution-tolerant algal species [and] loss of the native periphyton community . . . " applies to the Park and the Refuge. The definition of "imbalance" to include periphyton disruption and loss does not apply to WCA-2 or WCA-3. The Settlement Agreement also drew a distinction between "interim concentration limits" set for the Park and "interim concentration levels" set for the Refuge on both an interim and long-term basis: "Interim concentration limits" for the Park shall mean the concentration limits to be measured at discharges to the Park and attained by July 1, 1997 October 1, 2003, as determined in Appendix A. "Interim concentration levels" for the Refuge shall mean the geometric mean of concentration levels to be measured at 14 interior marsh stations and attained by July 1, 1997 February 1, 1999, as determined by Appendix B. "Long-term concentration limits" for the Park shall mean the concentration limits to be measured at discharges to the Park and attained by July 1, 2002 December 31, 2006, as determined by Appendix A. "Long-term concentration levels" for the Refuge shall mean the geometric mean of concentration levels to be measured at 14 interior marsh stations and attained by July 1, 2002 December 31, 2006 as determined by Appendix B. Id., p. 4. Since the use of "geometric mean" in the Proposed Rule has been placed at issue by the Tribe and Friends, it is notable that the Settlement Agreement employs a geometric mean to measure concentration levels of the Refuge as a water body at interior marsh stations. In contrast, a geometric mean is not employed by the Settlement Agreement in the measurement of concentration limits in the Park since by the agreement's definition "limits" (unlike "levels") are not applicable to ambient water quality but are applicable rather to discharges. Appendix A of the Settlement Agreement establishes the interim and long-term discharge limits for waters entering the Park at designated locations: Phosphorus limits apply to flow-weighted - mean concentrations computed on an annual Water Year basis, with data reported and calculated on a monthly basis. To account for hydrologic variations in Shark River Slough, the limits vary with the previous 12-month's total flow in each basin. The long term limit for Taylor Slough and the Coastal Basin is fixed and does not vary with the flow. The limits represent the 10% rejection level of the observed flow- weighted-mean concentration at a given total annual flow, adjusted to a baseline time period of March 1, 1978 to March 1, 1979 for Shark River Slough (OFW baseline). The baseline time period for the Taylor Slough and Coastal Basins is Water Year 1984. Compliance with these limits is expected to provide a long term average flow-weighted mean inflow concentration of approximately 8 ppb for the Shark River Slough Basin and 6 ppb for the Taylor Slough and Coastal Basins. Approximate values are as follows: Dry Year Wet Year (117 Kac-ft/yr) (1061 Kac-ft/yr) Shark River Slough - Interim Limits Flow-Weighted Mean < 14 ppb < 9 ppb Shark River Slough - Long Term Limits Flow-Weighted Mean < 13 ppb <8ppb Taylor Slough & Coastal Basins - Long Term Limit is 11 ppb. Tribe/Friends 164, Appendix A, at A-2 to A-3. Appendix B to the Settlement Agreement establishes interim and long-term levels for waters within the Refuge at designated locations. The interim marsh concentration levels are based upon a 14 station geometric mean of between 8 and 22 ppb, based upon water stage levels, and the long-term levels range from 7 to 17 ppb, adjusted to a baseline time period of June 1978 to June 1979. This baseline starts and ends three months after the baseline used for OFWs. Compliance with the long-term Park "limits" is to be determined based on the flow-weighted means of monitoring data collected at specified structures discharging into the Park. Compliance with the long-term Refuge "levels" is to be determined based on the geometric means of monitoring data collected at a network of 14 specified stations located in the interior marsh of the Refuge. The long-term limits for the Park are necessary to satisfy the OFW Rules. In the case of the Refuge, the levels were derived to depict the existing ambient water quality that existed as of the 1978 time frame that corresponds to the OFW baseline. Appendix B further provides that the "Class III standard" applies if a Technical Oversight Committee (the "TOC" established in the Agreement) determines that it is lower than the 14-station geometric mean. Appendix B states "[t]he current control program, consisting of on-line STAs and BMPs . . . is designed to achieve a long-term average annual flow-weighted concentration of 50 ppb for each discharge to the Refuge and WCAs from the EAA." Tribe/Friends 164 at B-2. If the interim, or lower of the long- term Refuge levels or Class III criteria are not met with the current control program, the state is directed by agreement to "require additional components to be added . . . to meet a maximum annual discharge limitation of 50 ppb for discharges into the Refuge from the EAA." Id. More intensive management of the STAs alone will not suffice to satisfy the requirement for additional components. A range of such components includes more intensive management, but also includes increased STAs acreage, a stronger regulatory program or a combination of the three. If the lower of the Class III or long-term levels is not met by December 31, 2006, and the 50 ppb maximum annual discharge limit is being met at all inflow structures into the Refuge from the EAA, the TOC is required to "recommend a lower maximum annual discharge limits for the structures to be enforced by the [state]." Id. at B-4. The Definitions section of the Settlement Agreement states that "'Class III water quality standards' shall have the meaning set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17- 302." Tribe/Friends 164, p. 2. With regard to research and monitoring, the Settlement Agreement provided, in part, Several aspects necessary to achieve compliance with this Agreement must be defined by additional research. The research objectives are to: Numerically interpret the narrative Class III nutrient water quality criteria (i.e., the nutrient levels which cause an imbalance of flora and fauna in the units of the EPA); and Assess current and continuing responses of the EPA to nutrient input levels resulting from the efforts to achieve interim and long-term concentration limits and levels. Tribe/Friends 164, pp. 15-16. In its 1992 consent decree approving the Settlement Agreement, the federal district court emphasized that "the agreement is not self-executing, but rather is subject to Florida's [Administrative Procedure Act]." South Fla. Water Management Dist., 847 F. Supp. at 1570. The federal and state parties agreed to propose the substantive requirements of the agreement for finalization in the state administrative process, including the Park limits and Refuge levels (and the numeric interpretation of the Class III criterion). Id. at 1572. "The Agreement does not predetermine the outcome of any state proceedings required under Chapter 120 of the Florida Statutes . . . . The Agreement requires the District and DER to fulfill their obligations under existing state law." Id. The Everglades Forever Act In 1994, after a renewal of litigation as a result of attempted implementation of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas Everglades Protection Act, the Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Forever Act (the "EFA"). Findings and Intent The EFA sets forth extensive "Findings and Intent" in its opening paragraphs. Among those are the following: (a) The Legislature finds that the Everglades ecological system not only contributes to South Florida's water supply, flood control, and recreation but serves as the habitat for diverse species of wildlife and plant life. The system is unique in the world and one of Florida's greatest treasures. The Everglades ecological system is endangered as a result of adverse changes in water quality, and in the quantity, distribution and timing of flows, and, therefore, must be restored and protected. * * * . . . The Legislature finds that waters flowing into the Everglades Protection Area contain excessive levels of phosphorus. A reduction in levels of phosphorus will benefit the ecology of the Everglades Protection Area. . . . the Everglades ecosystem must be restored both in terms of water quality and quantity. § 373.4592(1), Fla. Stat. (Emphasis supplied) The Everglades Program and the Everglades Construction Project The EFA codified and expanded the phosphorus reduction program of the Settlement Agreement by adoption of the Everglades Program. See § 373.4592(2)(h), (4)(a) and (4)(f), Fla. Stat. The Everglades Program includes: (a) implementation of "best management practices," defined in section 373.4592(2)(b), (or "BMPs") and the Everglades Construction Project ("ECP") defined in Section 373.4592(2)(g); and (b) a comprehensive program and projects to improve and restore water supply and hydroperiod. § 373.4592 (4)(a),(b), and (f), Fla. Stat. The ECP "represents the largest environmental cleanup and restoration program of this type ever undertaken." § 373.4592(1)(h), Fla. Stat. The ECP was targeted to achieve a 50 ppb, flow-weighted mean discharge concentration. The Everglades Agricultural Privilege Tax The EFA funded the ECP, in part, by creating an Everglades Agricultural Privilege Tax assessed annually: for the privilege of conducting an agricultural trade or business on: All real property located within the EAA that is classified as agricultural . . .; and, [certain leaseholds or other interests in real property.] § 373.4592(6), Fla. Stat. Direction to DEP and Rule-making The EFA directed DEP and the District to undertake research to numerically interpret for phosphorus the Class III narrative nutrient criterion necessary to meet water quality standards in the Everglades Protection Area and to evaluate water quality standards applicable to the EPA and EAA canals. The precise language of the direction is: Evaluation of water quality standards.-- The department and the district shall employ all means practicable to complete by December 31, 1998, any additional research necessary to: Numerically interpret for phosphorus the Class III narrative nutrient criterion necessary to meet water quality standards in the Everglades Protection Area; and, Evaluate existing water quality standards applicable to the Everglades Protection Area and EAA canals. § 373.4592(4), Fla. Stat. This direction led DEP to conduct rulemaking in conjunction with the ERC to establish a "phosphorus criterion" for the EPA that interpreted the Act's narrative criterion. The Narrative Criterion Limited to Everglades phosphorus, the Narrative Criterion in the EFA replicates to an extent the "narrative nutrient criterion" in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 302.530(49)(b): In no case shall nutrient concentrations of body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. The Narrative Criterion of the Act is quite similar; both it and the "narrative nutrient criterion" in the Proposed Rule prescribe that in no case shall there be alterations allowed so as to cause imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. As stated earlier neither the EFA nor DEP rules define the terms "imbalance" or "natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna." The EFA directs, however, that the criterion "shall not be lower than the natural conditions of the [EPA]" and that it "shall take into account spatial and temporal variability." § 373.4592(4)(e)2., Fla. Stat. The difference between the two criteria - one in the existing rule governing all nutrients, the other in the EFA and carried forward in the Proposed Rule - is one of limitation; the term "nutrient concentrations" in the existing rule is replaced with "such phosphorus criterion" in the Act and the term "body of water" is replaced with "waters in the Everglade Protection Area": In no case shall such phosphorus criterion allow waters in the Everglades Protection Area to be altered so as to cause an imbalance in the natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. § 373.4592(4)(e)2, Fla. Stat. The Narrative Criterion is central to this case and the dispute between the Miccosukee Tribe and the Friends of the Everglades on one side and the rest of the parties to this Proposed Rule Challenge on the other. The case of the Tribe and Friends draws much of its force from the clarity and power of the Legislature's choice of the Narrative Criterion's first three words, "[i]n no case." This proscription, absolute on its face, is the introduction to the Narrative Criterion's mandate that the phosphorus criterion not allow waters in the EPA to alter the natural balance of flora and fauna. The power and clarity of the Narrative Criterion is at the base of the criticism of the Proposed Rule by the Tribe's witness Colonel Terry L. Rice, (US Army ret.). The Testimony of Colonel Rice The Tribe opened its case by calling Terry L. Rice, Ph.D., a retired colonel in the U.S. Army and a former Commander of the Army Corps of Engineers District headquartered in Jacksonville. The Corps District once under the command of Colonel Rice is composed of Florida, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Colonel Rice's Ph.D. is in Water Resources Engineering--Hydraulics and Hydrology. He is a registered professional engineer in Florida and several other states. He has numerous other credentials, including an M.S. from the University of Illinois, and a B.S. from the United States Military Academy at West Point. He has been a Senior Service College Fellow at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, and is both an Honor Graduate of the Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth and a Graduate of the Department of State's Foreign Service Institute. Colonel Rice's many credentials, his high-level training and the depth of his experience nationally and internationally are strikingly impressive. They serve as his qualifications for the fields of expertise in which he was accepted in this case (hydrology, water resources engineering and regulatory and permitting issues as related to Everglades restoration) and, moreover, bolster his credibility as a witness. Of particular relevance to this case is that from August of 1994 to October of 1997, Colonel Rice while a District Commander for the Corps was responsible for projects and planning to enhance flood control, navigation, shore protection and environmental restoration in the Corps District that contains the state of Florida. During this period of his distinguished military career, the Corps was directed to develop the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ("CERP"). For Colonel Rice this meant that "Everglades restoration was his top priority." Tribe 169. He arrived in Jacksonville at the Corps' District headquarters in 1994, three months after the EFA was passed, a moment described by Colonel Rice as "the crucible of . . . this . . . coming together." (Tr. 72) Colonel Rice's responsibility was to steer the development of CERP. Among the projects he was involved in were: the modified water deliveries project coming out of the 1989 act, a major restoration project, still not done; the C-111 restoration; the Kissimmee Restoration, which I'm happy to say, is moving along very well. Something I think we're all proud of; and the Everglades Restoration Project. (Tr. 72-3) This required that Colonel Rice permit under the Clean Water Act construction of the STAs so the water management district would be allowed to fill the Everglades in which they would be constructed. In the midst of Colonel Rice's being in charge of CERP, the Governor of Florida established the Governor's Commission for Sustainable South Florida to oversee CERP from the state's perspective. At roughly the same time, the Secretary of the United States Department of Interior established the South Florida Ecosystem Task Force to oversee CERP at the federal level. Colonel Rice served the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works as his representative on the federal task force and served on the Governor's Commission as well. The work of these two groups, much of it under the guidance of Colonel Rice and the Corps, culminated in a consensus on CERP. Colonel Rice's leadership in the formulation of CERP has been a tremendous accomplishment reflected in its recognition in all three branches of the federal government. He has received a letter of commendation from the White House for his work on Everglades Restoration. He has testified before Congress about it and a report on his efforts has been read into the Congressional Record. On several occasions, Colonel Rice has testified before Judge Hoeveler in the litigation over the Everglades initiated in 1989. His testimony has been in regard to issues related to water quantity, water quality, use of a geometric mean, interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, the STAs and the 404 program under the Clean Water Act. Colonel Rice's opinion is that the Proposed Rule does not protect the Everglades. He believes that the various components of the Proposed Rule when taken together "overwhelm the resource." (Tr. 153) Objection was made to Colonel Rice's opinion on the basis that it was beyond the scope of his expertise. The objection was overruled. It was concluded that while not a wetlands ecologist, Colonel Rice was qualified nonetheless to render his opinions in light of all of his qualifications, particularly the depth of his experience in Everglades issues. Colonel Rice criticized the Proposed Rule on a number of different grounds. Among them is that by employing a geometric mean for the phosphorus criterion, the rule "skews data low" (Tr. 155), in such a way as to allow phosphorus discharge that will not protect the Everglades. He also faulted achievement methodologies employed by the Proposed Rule and data exclusion. Furthermore, he criticized its allowance of discharging phosphorus water into areas that were not impacted by phosphorus if a net environmental benefit accrued by virtue of hydropattern restoration. Within each set of Colonel Rice's criticisms, there were a number of different faults he found with the Proposed Rule. He criticized some of the data exclusion provisions in subsection (e) of Section (5), "Methods for Determining Achievement of the Criterion in the Everglades Protection Area" of the Proposed Rule. For example, he testified that words "flood" and "drought" in the subsection are not defined. The lack of definition, in his view, confers unbridled discretion on DEP to exclude data. Since water levels are the subject of water management practices by the District, moreover, Colonel Rice fears that floods and drought in the Everglades could be manmade, thus allowing manmade manipulation of data exclusion. Furthermore, he questioned the subsection's exclusion of data related to "authorized restoration activities," one of the "temporary" human activities listed in paragraph (5)(e)4., of the Proposed Rule. He assumed that the term related to all of the projects under CERP and stated that while CERP will cause permanent impacts, there will be periods of construction and stabilization with regard to CERP projects that will cause impacts temporarily. Colonel Rice also questioned the exclusion of data under paragraph (5)(e)5., of the Proposed Rule that related to samples taken when hydrologic conditions were outside the range that occurred during the time period used to set the numeric criterion (the "period of record") on the basis of the Proposed Rule's lack of a definition of the period of record. The evidence demonstrates, as discussed below, that the period of record for establishing the numeric phosphorus criterion is 1978-2001.5 Colonel Rice questioned the allowance of hydropattern restoration using phosphorus-rich waters to achieve what might appear to provide immediate improvement on the basis of the concept of "resilience." Overly dried areas suffer impacts from the lack of hydration. "But when you add water back, [the impacted area] comes back to life fairly rapidly." (Tr. 163) That is, areas that suffer impacts for lack of water retain short-term resiliency. In contrast, phosphorus does not leave once it permeates the soil. "So when it comes to the standpoint of resilience, it only becomes prudent to make sure you've got clean water before you rehydrate." Id. Rehydration beforehand, with phosphorus-rich waters, results in "losing something you're not going to gain back in a reasonable amount of time." (Tr. 163) In other words, pollution of the water column in the Everglades with phosphorus and deposits of the phosphorus into the soil renders the area formerly unimpacted by phosphorus but impacted by disruption of hydropatterns or lack of water much less resilient and much less capable of achieving recovery in a reasonable amount of time. One of Colonel Rice's criticisms related to a moving front of degradation visible in its last stage by the advancement of cattails, the "tombstones on the grave of the Everglades." (Tr. 333) Indeed, it was proven that phosphorus enrichment in the EPA is causing a moving front. Colonel Rice offered a solution. Instead of measuring ambient water quality, that is, the quality of the water body as a whole, Colonel Rice suggested that a phosphorus criterion should be established at the points of discharge, that is, "in the water as it flows into the Everglades." (Tr. 335) He further suggested that the criterion should be a concentration of 10 ppb. There is little question from this record that Colonel Rice is correct that if the water flowing into the Everglades had a phosphorus concentration of 10 ppb, the phosphorus in the inflows of water would not cause an imbalance of the natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. Despite the fact that Colonel Rice is not a wetlands ecologist, his opinions, given his outstanding qualifications, and his integral involvement with the Everglades as a District Commander in the Army Corps of Engineers, the entity that has had such a huge hand in the Everglades over the years and which now has such a central role in the restoration and preservation of the Everglades, are weighty ones. Colonel Rice's opinion that the Proposed Rule is not protective of the resource is the equivalent of stating that it allows the discharge of phosphorus that will create an imbalance of the natural flora and fauna, contrary to the Narrative Criterion. The ultimate issue in this case, however, is not limited to just whether the Proposed Rule interprets the Narrative Criterion appropriately. The ultimate issue in this case, is whether the Proposed Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, a determination that depends on an understanding of the all of the legislation that is at issue. Indeed, it depends on an understanding of the EFA as a whole. Beyond the Narrative Criterion, there are several aspects of the EFA that must be taken into account before the determination that this case requires is made. Those aspects, in other provisions of the EFA, include amendments enacted in 2003 immediately prior to the publication of the Proposed Rule. For example, Colonel Rice testified that "net improvement" in the Everglades would mean when cattails start to recede. The term "net improvement" in the EFA quite plainly refers to an improvement in water quality. Water quality could improve in an impacted area but not enough to cause cattails to recede. Thus, Colonel Rice's definition of "net improvement" is at odds with the EFA's use of the term. In short, there are provisions aside from the Narrative Criterion in the EFA that directly or indirectly authorize aspects of the Proposed Rule with which Colonel Rice finds fault. Other Provisions of the EFA The EFA requires the Department to establish discharge limits in permits using the "relationships between waters discharged to, and the resulting water quality in, the Everglades Protection Area." § 373.4592(4)(e)3., Fla. Stat. The Department is charged with determining ambient water quality based on the phosphorus discharges just as it does in the application of water quality standards generally in bodies of water in Florida other than the EPA. These limits must be set at a level "necessary to prevent an imbalance in the natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna" and "to provide a net improvement in the areas already impacted." Id. Again, the EFA charges the Department with the approach the Department has used for many years in its application of water quality standards. Compliance with the rule is to be based on a long- term geometric mean of phosphorus concentration levels at representative sampling stations "to assure" that the EPA "is not altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna and to assure a net improvement in the areas already impacted." Id. Furthermore, Id. Compliance with the phosphorus criterion shall be based upon a long-term geometric mean of concentration levels to be measured at sampling stations recognized from the research to be reasonably representative of the receiving waters in the [EPA . . .]. For the Everglades National Park and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the method for measuring compliance with the phosphorus criterion shall be in a manner consistent with Appendices A and B, respectively, of the settlement agreement dated July 26, 1991, entered in case No. 88-1886-Civ-Hoeveler, United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, that recognizes and provides for incorporation of relevant research. The EFA was amended by two session laws passed in 2003. The amendments were described at hearing by Frank Nearhoof, DEP's Administrator of Water Quality Standards and Special Projects Program. The program is responsible for a broad range of technical and regulatory activities under the EFA, CERP Regulatory Act and the Lake Okeechobee Protection Act. Mr. Nearhoof was accepted as an expert in Everglades ecosystem; the Everglades Forever Act; water quality data evaluation, including the statistical evaluation of data; and the establishment and implementation of water quality standards. The amendments were also described by Gary Goforth, Ph.D., Consulting Engineer with the Water Resources Management Group in the District. The 1994 EFA implemented BMPs and STAs to reduce phosphorus concentrations in the water column to 50 ppb. It also called for research to permanently establish a phosphorus criterion that would, in all likelihood, establish a number lower than 50 ppb. By 2003, enough was known as the result of experience with BMPs, the STAs and research "to implement a second phase of technology." (Tr. 1566) The EFA as amended in 2003 called for the implementation of this second phase and made four basic changes described by Mr. Nearhoof at hearing: long term plan [was put in place], which basically builds on the initial Everglades Construction Project, and adds certain modifications to the various STAs to enhance their treatment effectiveness. It . . . provided funding . . . of 450 million dollars . . . to build those enhanced features. . . . [I]n recognition that we're . . . setting a low criterion . . . , and that our technology [isn't] quite [sufficient] yet, it . . . put in place a relief mechanism to deal with that technological limitation ... -- the net improvement moderating provision. . . . And it also added another moderating provision for rehydration . . . of unimpacted areas . . . in the sense that they're unimpacted by phosphorus, [although] hydrologically impacted. And that's the provision that's been discussed that . . . under certain circumstances could allow [rehydration] even though the water may be less than perfect at that point in time. (Tr. 1566-1568) The EFA as amended in 2003 also requires the District to implement "without delay" and to periodically revise the Long-Term Plan, which is defined as "the district's 'Everglades Protection Area Tributary Basins Conceptual Plan for Achieving Long-Term Water Quality Goals Final Report' dated March 2003, as modified herein." § 373.4592(2)(j), Fla. Stat. The Long-Term Plan contemplates three enhancements to the state's current phosphorus control program and a demonstration project for an approach claimed to be effective with regard to phosphorus reduction. First, the District will install a series of interior levees and water control structures in the STAs that will increase their ability to move water uniformly through the treatment areas, thereby increasing phosphorus uptake. Second, portions of the existing cattail populations in the STAs will be converted to submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). (Research has shown that combined cattail and SAV operations perform better than cattail alone.) Third, the District will refine the operations of the STAs in order to better balance hydraulic load and nutrient for each of the treatment cells between which the water is moved. Fourth, the District will conduct a large-scale demonstration project to explore the viability of periphyton-based stormwater treatment areas ("PSTA"), a technology claimed to allow further reduction in phosphorus levels. The demonstration project was described by Gary Goforth, Ph.D., at hearing: [W]e will be building a . . . demonstration project in STA-3/4. It will be [in] . . . one of the downstream cells of STA-3/4. * * * The total area devoted to the demonstration[] [is] 400 acres. There's a 200-acre upstream portion that'll be entirely SAV. And then downstream . . . there'd be roughly a 100-acre PSTA cell, and then a 100-acre SAV cell side-by-side. (Tr. 3800-3801) The results of the PSTA cell phosphorus reduction will be compared to the results of the SAV cell to determine if PSTA is a superior technology, as claimed, for phosphorus reduction by means of stormwater treatment areas. The Long-Term Plan also contemplates coordination with the $8.1 billion Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan ("CERP"). CERP is a conceptual plan intended to modify and replumb the C&SF Project to rectify water resource problems caused by the Project. It addresses water quality, water quantity, timing of water deliveries and the distribution of water flows. With a 50-year planning horizon (until 2050), CERP calls for full implementation by the year 2036. There are several CERP projects that will require direct coordination. For example, CERP includes a project that will divert water from the C-11 basin (which presently pumps water into the Everglades from the S-9 pump station), south and away from WCA-3, in order to eliminate the basin as a source of phosphorus. The project will render obsolete an STA that had been planned for western Broward County. The District, therefore, is implementing source controls in the interim so as to obviate redundant costs. Computer modeling of the Plan's pre-2006 strategies predicts phosphorus levels in discharges from the STAs at a geometric mean of 10 to 14 ppb. In the event the phosphorus criterion is not achieved by January 2007, however, the Long- Term Plan sets forth additional control measures to be evaluated and implemented if necessary. In addition to the provisions relative to the Long- Term Plan, the EFA as amended in 2003 allows a Department rule adopting a phosphorus criterion to include "moderating provisions," not to extend beyond December 2016 without further legislative authorization: The Department's rule adopting a phosphorus criterion may include moderating provisions during the implementation of the initial phase of the Long-Term Plan authorizing discharges based upon BAPRT providing net improvement to the impacted areas. Discharges to unimpacted areas may also be authorized by moderating provisions, which shall require BAPRT, and which must be based upon a determination by the department that the environmental benefits of the discharge clearly outweigh potential adverse impacts and otherwise comply with the anti- degradation requirements. Moderating provisions authorized by this section shall not extend beyond December 2016 unless further authorized by the Legislature pursuant to paragraph (3)(d). § 373.4592(4)(e)2., Fla. Stat. EFA Requirement for Research and Monitoring The EFA also required establishment of an extensive research and monitoring program to serve as the scientific foundation for the phosphorus criterion rulemaking and related efforts. § 373.4592(4)(d), Fla. Stat. As part of that program, the EFA required the District to conduct annual workshops and to file annual peer-reviewed status reports on the research and monitoring efforts with the Governor and the Legislature. § 373.4952(4)(d)5., Fla. Stat. Besides the EFA, the reports address a number of different requirements in law. In fact, they contain "over 40 different legal mandates and permit reports . . . under one cover" (Tr. 3429) and so are referred to as the Everglades Consolidated Reports. See, e.g., District 16, the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report. Post-EFA Events In the wake of the enactment of the EFA and the acceptance of the Settlement Agreement a number of events occurred relevant to these proceedings. The EFA phosphorus criterion research program and external peer-review process were implemented and documented. See 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report, Executive Summary, DEP Ex. 24. The USEPA issued technical guidance on state water quality standards and also on how Florida should go about establishing the numeric interpretation for the narrative nutrient criterion for the Everglades. Modifications to conform the Settlement Agreement to the EFA were proposed by the settling parties in 1995. They were approved by the federal court in 2001. See DEP Ex. 13. The primary changes included increases of the number and sizes of the STAs and an extension from July 1, 2002 until December 31, 2006, of the deadline for meeting the long-term limits for the Park and for meeting the lower of the Class III standard or long-term levels for the Refuge. In August of 1994, the USEPA updated its Water Quality Standards Handbook ("USEPA WQS Handbook"). See Coop Ex. 9, substitute App. 13 (filed January 15, 2004). The USEPA WQS Handbook makes clear that state relief procedures that are a part of their water quality standards "must be consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 131." Id. at pp. 5-12. See 40 CFR § 131.13 ("States may, at their discretion, include in their State standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation.") USEPA will continue to approve state- granted relief if, among other things, "the State demonstrates that meeting the standard is unattainable based upon one or more of the grounds outlined in 40 CFR 131.10(g) for removing a designated use." See Coop Ex. 9, substitute App. 13 (filed January 15, 2004) at pp. 5-12. In 1997, while the state's research and phosphorus reduction programs were underway, the Tribe adopted water quality standards for "all Tribal Reservation Surface Waters." ("Tribe Standards"). Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, Water Quality Standards, Dec. 19, 1997. See US Sugar Ex. 11. Tribe Standards allow for moderating provisions in the form of variances or mixing zones (id. at 24-27), where the discharger demonstrates, among other things, "that meeting the standard is currently unattainable based on one or more of the grounds outlined in 40 CFR § 131.10(g) from removing a designated use." Id. at 24, 30. Development of the Proposed Rule The EFA Mandate re: a Numeric Phosphorus Criterion In addition to the Department's rulemaking authority set out in Section 403.061(7), allowing the Department to implement Chapter 403 as a whole, Chapter 373 includes an analogous provision. Section 373.043 states that the Department has the authority "to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this chapter," referring to Chapter 373 which includes the EFA. Lest there be any confusion on the point, the EFA mandate to adopt a numeric interpretation of the Narrative Criterion is set out under Section 373.4592(4)(e), entitled, "Evaluation of water quality standards." In keeping with the nature of the phosphorus criterion as an element of a water quality standard, moreover, the Proposed Rule is entitled, "Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus Within the Everglades Protection Area." Development of the Criterion The development of the phosphorus criterion is well documented. See DEP Ex. 24, Chapter 5; DEP Ex. 23, Everglades Phosphorus Criterion Technical Support Document, Parts I-III. A number of different groups provided research, some of which preceded the EFA, that contributed to its development. The District had been conducting research for some time, "some of their publications go back into the 70's." (Tr. 1582) Duke University Wetlands Center conducted research in the Everglades, some of which was intended to be useful for Department rulemaking with regard to phosphorus. Florida International University also conducted research useful to the Department. In the meantime, the Settlement Agreement was entered and approved by the federal court. The agreement called for a Technical Oversight Committee (the "TOC"). See Definition R., p. 6, of the Settlement Agreement in DEP Ex. 13. Paragraph 18 of the Settlement Agreement required that each of five persons, the Superintendent of the Park, the Manager of the Refuge, the Secretary of the Department, the Executive Director of the District and the District Engineer, Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, appoint one technical representative to the TOC. Among the purposes of the TOC was to "plan, review and recommend all research, monitoring, and compliance, conducted pursuant to the terms of this agreement . . . ." DEP Ex. 13, paragraph 18, p. 26, of the Amended Settlement Agreement attached to the Omnibus Order. The TOC also "was set up to assure that technical issues were going to be addressed in an open, deliberative forum." (Tr. 3425) TOC nominated four participants to develop a threshold research plan under the direction of Dr. Landon Ross, the Department's chief biologist at the time. Two of the four working under Dr. Ross' direction were federal nominees, Dr. David Lean and Dr. William Walker; two were state nominees, Dr. Robert Wetzel and Dr. Kenneth Reckhow. Convened under the direction of Dr. Ross, the four produced a formal technical document: the Everglades Nutrient Threshold Research Plan (the "Research Plan", sometimes referred to as "Lean, et al.," because the name of Dr. Lean is listed first on the formal document). Not only was the Research Plan developed with federal and state input, but its results were reported annually in the Everglades Consolidated Report. They were, moreover, subject to and approved by an annual peer review conducted as part of the document's preparation. The methods of the process, the reporting of its results and the ensuing peer review led witnesses at hearing, including Dr. Garth Redfield, Chief Environmental Scientist for the District, to conclude that the criterion and its achievement methodology were protective of the Everglades aquatic flora and fauna, and were developed in accordance with accepted scientific practices. One of the Tribe and Friends' criticism of the methodology for deriving the phosphorus criterion, presented through David Parkhurst, Ph.D., is that it ignores mass balance, a concept which assists in the measurement of the net amount of phosphorus left in a water body after the calculation of the flow of phosphorus into and out of the water body. Indeed, an initial question was whether the research should address the mass of phosphorus entering the Everglades. In conjunction with an Everglades Technical Advisory Committee ("ETAC"), "all of the scientists that were actively working in the area," (Tr. 1591) were convened. A peer-review group of three outside scientists were impaneled to review the question as well. While it was determined that the system responds to both mass and concentration, the consensus was that it was both easier and better to conduct research on the basis of the concentration levels of phosphorus in the waters of the Everglades. One reason that it was decided not to conduct research on load is that in order to determine load, "you'd have to know the flow." (Tr. 1595) Flow is easily calculated as it comes through structures, that is, at the point of discharge. It is not easily calculated in the marsh where flow is so slow. "[Flow] isn't a calculable number in the middle of [Everglades] marsh typically." (Tr. 1597) Moreover, because of the Legislature's policy choice to regulate phosphorus in a water quality standard for ambient water quality rather than at the point of discharge, it makes more sense to approach the problem from a concentration level perspective. The calculation of load is also complicated by the necessity to know both the "flow in" and "flow out." This calculation is further complicated by seepage, "surface water that's going into the ground . . . ." (Tr. 1598), precipitation, dry fall, and the effect of evaporation. At bottom, regardless of whether concentration levels or load was examined, the purpose of the Research Plan was to determine a threshold at which a departure from natural flora and fauna occurred such that there was imbalance. It was determined that the research toward a threshold at which imbalance occurs should focus on concentration levels in the ambient water. The Three-prongs of the Research Plan The Research Plan recommended a three-prong approach consisting of (1) field transect monitoring along existing man- made nutrient gradients; (2) dosing experiments; and (3) laboratory experiments. Research performed by the South Florida Water Management District included all three approaches suggested by the panel under the Research Plan. Additional research efforts included those of the Duke University Wetland Center, Florida International University, and the USEPA's Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (REMAP). Throughout the process of developing the Proposed Rule, the Department solicited feedback from interested parties through the TOC and an ETAC, convened by the Department specifically for that purpose. While valuable to understanding imbalance, the mesocosm and laboratory studies were not used directly to derive a numeric phosphorus criterion. As explained in the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report (the "2003 Report"): While the District's mesocosm and laboratory studies provide much information about how and why the biological changes occur, they were not designed nor intended to be used to derive a numeric criterion. (District Ex. 16, p. 5-6) That left the transect monitoring as the main approach that had been recommended by the Research Plan. It is described in the 2003 Report: [DEP's] efforts to derive a numeric P [Phosphorus] criterion relied primarily on data collected by the District along a series of transects traversing existing phosphorus gradients in each portion of the EPA (WCA-2, the Refuge, WCA-3 and ENP [the Park]). [DEP] relied heavily on the gradient transect studies during the derivation of the P criterion due to their distinct advantages over experimental studies. Because some areas within the EPA have received elevated levels of phosphorus- rich runoff for as long as 40 years, [DEP] had an excellent opportunity to study what had happened to the natural biological communities in the marsh as a result of long-term P enrichment. Id. Whatever the outcome of the threshold research with regard to a numeric concentration level expressed as a geometric mean or as some other measure of central tendency that constituted a threshold of imbalance, DEP did not use a numeric expression of a threshold to derive the numeric phosphorus criterion. In adopting its ultimate approach, DEP's hypothesis was not a threshold hypothesis. (See Tr. 3288) Rather than asking the question at what long-term geometric mean level of phosphorus concentration does imbalance occur, DEP asked the question at what long-term geometric mean of phosphorus concentration is balance maintained. In other words, the approach was not a "threshold approach." (See Tr. 3288) Instead of using a threshold point at which imbalance occurs as a beginning point in setting the numeric criterion (see the discussion of confidence intervals, below), DEP set out find the central tendency of water column concentrations of phosphorus in which "reference conditions" were maintained. Reference conditions are conditions in which there is no imbalance. This approach, which "switches" (id.) a threshold hypothesis had ramifications, as explained below, for whether DEP should move downward in value from the geometric mean revealed by the data in deriving the criterion (the direction militated by a threshold approach if there was to be any movement away from the data's geometric mean) or upward in value (the direction taken by DEP since the approach determined a geometric mean at which there was no imbalance.) The site of the reference conditions, also as explained more fully below, was in the same general area (identified by DEP as "minimally impacted") in which gradient transect threshold research was conducted. Unlike the transects which crossed from unimpacted soils into impacted soils, however, the reference sites were in unimpacted soils only. Ultimately, analysis of the data collected from specific "reference sites" in a "minimally impacted" area of WCA-2 was used to establish the numeric phosphorus criterion. This methodology for establishment of the numeric phosphorus criterion is referred to by DEP as the "reference site" approach. Reference Site Approach The 2003 Report describes the "reference site" approach, its scientific acceptance and the basis for its use: [DEP] employed a "reference site" approach during the evaluation and analysis of the District gradient transect data. The use of reference sites to evaluate biological integrity, establish restoration goals and develop water quality criteria has become standard practice [citations omitted] since the USEPA issued an explicit definition of "biological integrity" in 1982 that incorporated the concept of reference sites [citation omitted]. [DEP] used the reference site approach during the development of a numeric P [phosphorus] criterion for the EPA based on maintaining balanced populations of natural flora and fauna (reference conditions) because of its widespread acceptance, the existence of long-term manmade P gradients in the EPA, and the type of biological response characteristic of P enrichment. Id. Figure 5-1 on page 5-8 of the 2003 Report (admitted into evidence as an excerpt from the report, DEP 24A) is a sediment contour map. The sediment contours provide phosphorus concentrations in milligrams per kilogram in the upper 10 centimeters of sediment. The map shows the locations of transect monitoring sites established across a phosphorus gradient in WCA-2A. The gradient extends from the source of phosphorus enrichment (points where phosphorus-rich waters are discharged, also termed as "canal inflows") into an area in which imbalance caused by phosphorus enrichment was not visible, described in the 2003 Report as "not impacted." District Ex. 16, p. 5-6. Some of the contours are designated with numeric values of milligrams per kilogram. They range from a high of 1600 mg/kg to a low of 400 mg/kg. There are two transects on the WCA-2A site, an "E" transect and an "F" transect. The E transect shows five transect stations labeled E1 through E5 and a sixth station labeled E0, at the point of the canal inflow. Similar labeling occurs with regard to the F transect with six stations. The higher the station number the farther away it is from the point of discharge so that E5 and F5 are the transect stations that are the farthest from the source of the phosphorus and E0 and F0 (the "0" being a zero) are the stations at the point of discharge or inflow. There are also three other stations on the map identified as U1, U2 and U3. Stations U1, U2 and U3 are farther away from the canal inflows than are E5 and F5. Based on preliminary data analyses and field observations, Stations U1, U2 and U3 were designated as initial "reference" sites, that is, sites that exhibit reference conditions, conditions in which balanced populations of natural flora and fauna are maintained. Consistent with the aim of the Research Plan to establish a phosphorus threshold, the purpose of collecting and analyzing data at the transect stations was to determine where along the transects imbalance had occurred, that is to establish a tipping point or a threshold of imbalance. Multiple measures of the periphyton, macroinvertebrate and macrophyte communities in WCA-2A, along with measure of ecosystem function, were examined. These included the loss of the more sensitive assemblages of organisms such as calcareous periphyton mat, the dominance of more nutrient tolerant organisms, the loss of open water habitat critical to fish and birds, and depressed dissolved oxygen levels. Analyses of the data consisted of multiple statistical tests (including cluster and change point analyses). This allowed DEP to use a weight-of-evidence approach that factored all the analyses into the determination of where along the transects an imbalance occurred. For WCA-2A, the statistically significant changes in the structure and function of the various biological communities generally occurred on the E transect at a point between E4 and E5 and on the F transect at a point between F4 and F5. As one would expect, the farther away from the canal inflow of the phosphorus-rich waters, that is, the farther along the gradient from the point of inflow, the less the impact6 generally. The change generally occurred between 7 and 8 km downstream of the inflows, a point between E4 and E5 on the E transect and between F4 and F5 on the F transect. The 2003 Report makes it clear that the ultimate purpose of the analyses was not to determine a threshold of imbalance from which a numeric phosphorus criterion would be derived but to determine which stations, if any, on the transects were in waters that would support a balance of flora and fauna: The purpose of these analyses was not to derive a phosphorus threshold, but to delineate the sites impacted by P [phosphorus] enrichment from those that are biologically similar to the initial reference sites and could thus be used to derive a long-term P criterion. Id. at 5-7. To re-phrase, "[t]he results of the analyses were used to determine which sites along the gradient are minimally impacted by [phosphorus] enrichment and could therefore be incorporated into a set of reference sites." Id. The ultimate aim, then, was not to determine a threshold value but to determine which of the transect stations could be joined with U1, U2 and U3 to form a set of reference sites. Based on the analyses of the transect data, it was determined that Stations E5 and F5 were not only stations below the gradient where the threshold of imbalance occurred and stations where balance was maintained but that they were biologically similar to the initial references sites, U1, U2 and U3. A single group of reference sites were then formed consisting of these five stations: E5, F5, U1, U2 and U3. After the set of reference sites was established, ambient phosphorus regimes at the sites were used to statistically derive a numeric phosphorus criterion. The Department analyzed the annual median and geometric mean total phosphorus concentrations for the reference sites. Reviewing data from WCA-2A and WCA-1, the Department calculated arithmetic and geometric means and statistical confidence intervals looking at a number of reference periods and locations: 1978 to 2001 and 1994 to 2001 in WCA-2; 1996 to 2001 in WCA-1. The Tribe and Friends attack the reference site approach used by the Department on a number of bases. With few exceptions (criticisms by way of Dr. Jones' testimony, such as that comparison with data collected before 1995 should not be used because data collection was better after 1995 or that use of data from reference sites in WCA-2, an area that does not represent the least impacted portion of the EPA, should not have been used), the attack is based on cross-examination of witnesses who testified in favor of the reference site approach. One such example concerns the Tribe and Friends' assertion that the phosphorus criterion was not selected on the basis of dosing studies, the most common method, as the state concedes, see Tr. 1901, for scientifically determining the threshold effect of a "toxin." Id. With regard to whether dosing studies are the method of choice for determining the threshold effect of all substances, however, Mr. Nearhoof was not sure. With regard to nutrients, such as phosphorus, his answer was that dosing studies, while an acceptable way of evaluating threshold effects, were not necessarily the method of choice: [T]he State of Florida . . . in this exercise [the reference site approach for determining the phosphorus criterion] is way ahead of the nation or the world, for that matter in having done what we've done. I don't think anybody else around has replicated anything remotely like this. So I don't know that there is a common way for that. (Tr. 1901) The results of dosing studies conducted by Dr. Jones (about which Dr. Jones was not allowed to testify because of the Tribe's refusal to disclose documents and data in discovery) had been recently received by DEP but there had not been time to review them in detail. Furthermore, dosing studies were conducted by Duke University, were "corroborative" (Tr. 1904) of the results of the reference site approach used to set the phosphorus criterion. The Tribe also stresses that only five stations in WCA-2, an impacted body of water, were used to establish a criterion that applies to all of the Everglades. The preponderance of the evidence is that five stations were adequate for establishing a set for sites that exhibited reference conditions, particularly given the relationship of two of the stations (E5 and F5) to the transect monitoring studies and the evidence that they were at sites that exhibited reference conditions close to phosphorus gradients and the moving front of advancing cattails. A weighing of the testimony on cross-examination, the use of documents, and the minimal direct examination used to attack the reference site approach against the direct and re- direct testimony of witnesses in support of the approach, leads to the conclusion that, by a preponderance of the evidence, the reference site approach is rational. It is, moreover, scientifically appropriate, reasonable and supported by logic or necessary facts. The Tribe and Friends' attack on the reference site approach fails. The reference site approach yielded data and analysis that was but one step toward establishment of the phosphorus criterion. There were a number of other steps. In the next of the preliminary steps, central tendencies of annualized data that related to stations in either the Refuge or WCA-2A were determined and expressed as geometric means, arithmetic means or both. (For example, see DEP/ERC 17, which provides a summary expressed in both a geometric and an arithmetic mean for WCA-2A for the years 1978-2000, with the exclusion of data for the years 1984, 1985 and 1992 when too little data was collected). A summary of total phosphorus concentrations measured at the five reference sites in WCA-2A appears in Table 5-1 of the 2003 Report in several sets: for individual years from 1978 to 2001; as a summary of the years 1994-2001 and as a summary of the years 1978-2001. A summary of total phosphorus concentrations measured at five stations in the Refuge from 1996 to 2001 appears in Table 5-2 of the 2003 Report. Other steps followed in the derivation of the numeric criterion. These appear in Table 5-3 of the 2003 Report. See the findings related to Table 5-3, including the application of a confidence interval, the selection of the upper limit in the interval, together with a rounding of that limit up to 10, discussed below. These will be explained in the discussion below that relates to Section (4) of the Proposed Rule. Other steps followed as well in the development of the Proposed Rule. Development of the Proposed Rule On July 20, 2001, the Department published a Notice of Rule Development in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The notice announced rule development to establish a numeric phosphorus criterion for the Everglades Protection Area, via the amendment of Rule 62-303.530 (Table: Surface Water Quality Criteria) and creation of Rule 62.302.540 (Water Quality Standards for Phosphorus Within the Everglades Protection Area). Pre-Hearing Stipulation, Ex. 4, No. 4. The parties stipulated to a series of publications of notices and continuances of hearings before the ERC that led to ERC approval of a proposed rule during the July 8, 2003, meeting. Id. at 5-7. During the interim, the ERC held numerous public meetings to consider testimony and other evidence in support of DEP's rule as proposed at that point. ERC considered evidence in support of Lower Cost Regulatory Alternatives submitted by other entities, including the Cooperative, that proposed adoption of a higher numeric phosphorus criterion in impacted areas than in unimpacted areas. On July 18, 2003, the Department published a Notice of Change on the Department's Official Internet Noticing Site, pursuant to Section 120.551, which included the rule as approved by the ERC and announced the availability of a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs ("SERC"). Id. at 9. On July 25, 2003, the Department published a second Notice of Change on the Department Official Internet Noticing Site, pursuant to Section 120.551. The notice corrected a scrivener's error in the Notice of Change as published on July 18, 2003. Id. at 10. Issues Related to the Proposed Rule Section (1) Purpose and Scope Section (1) of the Proposed Rule articulates the purpose and scope of the rule and emphasizes that it does more than simply establish a numeric criterion for phosphorus in the Everglades Protection Area but establishes, as the title reflects, water quality standards for phosphorus within the EPA. There is no disputed issue of fact or law as to Section (1) of the Proposed Rule. Section (2) Findings The Department's existing Surface Water Quality Standards rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.300, contains detailed findings entitled "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality." Section (2) of the Proposed Rule is similar. It sets forth findings relevant to the initial finding that "[t]he Legislature, in adopting the Everglades Forever Act, recognized that the EPA must be restored both in terms of water quantity and water quality." Subsection (2)(a) of the Proposed Rule. Petitioners assert the factual inaccuracy of the sentence in Subsection (2)(b) that "Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs) have reduced phosphorus concentrations to less that the goal of 50 ppb established in the Everglades Forever Act." The assertion is based on Table 4A-1 of the draft 2004 Everglades Consolidated Report. See Tribe/Friends Ex. 120, p. 2. The Table is a Summary of Stormwater Treatment Area (STA) hydrology and total phosphorus (TP) removal for Water Year 2003. For "Flow-weighted mean Outflow TP (ppb)" the table shows values for STA-1W, STA-2, STA-5 and STA-6 of 53, 17, 136 and 26 respectively; for All STAs, the table lists a value of 54. Two of the STAs for Water Year 2003, therefore, were in excess of 50 ppb and STA-5, in particular, was 172% above 50. There is, therefore, a basis for the Tribe/Friends' assertion. In support, their witness, Colonel Rice, after review of the table, concluded that "the most recent information published . . . [shows] that the finding is . . . not really being met." (Tr. 177) Mr. Nearhoof conceded that in the most "recent period," that is, as the Water Year 2003 data is reflected in Table 4A-1 of the Draft 2004 Consolidated Everglades Report, the total phosphorus levels have "crept back up a bit . . . ." (Tr. 2048) Considering the entire time the STAs have been operational (since 1994 for some and 1999 for the others), however, the range of total phosphorus flow-weighted mean outflow "has been generally down [to] . . . 20 to 30 part[s] per billion . . . ." Id. The long-term average of total phosphorus "flow-weighted mean outflow," therefore, has been below 50 parts per billion. Mr. Nearhoof's testimony is confirmed by the statement in the summary of "Chapter 4A: STA Performance and Compliance" of the Draft 2004 Everglades Consolidated Report that: "As of the end of Water Year 2003, the four operational STAs combined have reduced total phosphorus concentrations to about 40 parts per billion (ppb)." Tribe/Friends Ex. 120, p. 1. Petitioners also took issue with a portion of Subsection (2)(g) of the Proposed Rule: "[a]chievement of water quality standards for water quality projects required under the Everglades Forever Act can be most effectively and efficiently attained when integrated with CERP projects." The contested sentence in Subsection (2)(g) is similar to Section 373.4592(3)(c): It is the intent of the Legislature that implementation of the Long-Term Plan shall be integrated and consistent with the implementation of the projects and activities in the congressionally authorized components of the CERP so that unnecessary and duplicative costs will be avoided. Nothing in this section shall modify any existing cost share or responsibility provided for projects listed in s. 528 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 (110 Stat. 3769) or provided for projects listed in s. 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 2572). The Legislature does not intend for the provisions of this section to diminish commitments made by the State of Florida to restore and maintain water quality in the Everglades Protection Area, including the federal lands in the settlement agreement referenced in paragraph (4)(e). The "Long Term Plan" details the South Florida Water Management District's overall approach to achieving water quality goals in the Everglades Protection Area. DEP Ex. 25. See also § 373.4592(2)(j), Fla. Stat. Dr. Gary Goforth, the Chief Consulting Engineer for the Water Management District's Water Resources Management Group, detailed the importance of integrating water quality enhancement with CERP projects to avoid unnecessary and redundant costs with the following example: [T]he C-11 West basin . . . discharges water to the Everglades from . . . the Weston Area [near] Fort Lauderdale . . . That . . . basin has several CERP projects associated with it . . . that will reduce significantly the amount of water that eventually goes into the Everglades. So if we're to design and build a project that treats all of the water that presently goes through S-9, within just a very few years, that project would be unnecessary since the CERP project is going to be diverting virtually all of that water away from the S-9 pump station. (Tr. 3807) Dr. Goforth went on to explain that the practical impact of lack of coordination would be spending several hundred million dollars unnecessarily. Once CERP is implemented, moreover, there would be impoundments to assist in meeting water supply needs and diversion of the rest of the water southward. Ultimately, there is nothing about the Findings section as challenged in this proceeding that would support a determination of invalidity. Section (3) Definitions The Tribe and Friends challenge the definition of "impacted areas" in Subsection (3)(d) of the Proposed Rule. "'Impacted Areas' shall mean areas of the EPA where total phosphorus concentrations in the upper 10 centimeters of the soils are greater than 500 mg/kg." Soils are reservoirs of recent history, "so they do give . . . a longer term picture of what's going on in the system." (Tr. 3517) Dr. Jones believes soil "to be a very good indicator if used properly." (Tr. 3099) He has published papers with soil concentrations as a basis for demonstration of impacts to the Everglades. Nonetheless, he does not believe the Proposed Rule uses soil properly to determine impact because of the use of a single level of 500 mg/kg phosphorus concentration as a measure of impact, no matter what the soil type. Colonel Rice joined Dr. Jones in the criticism of the use of a single concentration level in soils because of soil type variability in the Everglades. North of the Tamiami Trail, that is north of the Park, the soil in the Everglades is predominantly peat. South of the Trail, it is a mixture of peat and marl and then becomes calcitic. For each of the soil types, Dr. Jones and Colonel Rice believe a different level of phosphorus is required to determine impact. The soil south of the Trail, moreover, may be more marl than peat or more peat than marl. Depending upon whether the mixture is more peat or marl, Dr. Jones would ascribe different concentration levels of phosphorus in the soil to determine whether there had been impact. Furthermore, there are other indicators, in the opinion of Dr. Jones and Colonel Rice, that should be considered to determine impact: phosphorus in the water column, dissolved oxygen levels, and changes in flora and fauna, particularly in the periphyton communities. Dr. Garth Redfield, on behalf of the District and disclaiming any depth of expertise in soils, conceded that in addition to soil the use of appropriate indicators other than soil would provide more information and so "could" (Tr. 3599) yield better accuracy. But his opinion as a scientist and expert in Everglades ecology is that the definition is reasonable since it was the product of careful deliberation at public workshops by experts from DEP, the District and other groups. Among those experts was Mr. Nearhoof. Mr. Nearhoof did not address directly the opinions of Dr. Jones and Colonel Rice that soil alone should not be used to determine impact. He did testify, however, that soil phosphorus tends to be a more stable and consistent parameter than surface water total phosphorus (one of the other indicators advanced by Dr. Jones) because soil integrates the effect of variability. Soil isopleths are consistent and stable and better able to define an impacted area than water column concentrations, which vary to a greater extent. The Department points out in its proposed order, moreover, that Section (5) of the Proposed Rule, which sets forth the method for determining the achievement of the numeric phosphorus criterion in areas of the EPA deemed impacted, states in its last sentence: Notwithstanding the definition of Impacted Area in subsection (3), individual stations in the network shall be deemed to be unimpacted if the five-year geometric mean is less than or equal to 10 ppb and the annual geometric mean is less than or equal to 15 ppb. While this statement does not meet directly the criticism of Dr. Jones and Colonel Rice, it demonstrates that soils are not always the sole determinative parameter as to whether an area is impacted. Ambient water quality dictates that an area that would be classified as impacted based on a soils analysis be classified as unimpacted if ambient water quality data under the Proposed Rule so dictates. Finally, to the extent that impacted areas have a relationship with imbalance of aquatic flora and fauna, DEP 24A (Figure 5-1 in the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report) and the discussion, above, concerning the reference site approach demonstrate that the threshold of visible imbalance in the location of the gradient transect monitoring sites in WCA-2 occurs where concentrations of phosphorus in the upper 10 cm of soil are somewhere between 400 mg/kg and a level above 600 mg/kg. The F5 station is located between contour lines marked 400 and 600. The E5 station is close to a spot that is below 400 mg/kg. It may be concluded that it is at a spot that is below 500 mg/kg. The F4 station is in an area that is between a 600 mg/kg contour and an 800 mg/kg. So is the E4 station. The points of imbalance determined by the transect studies in WCA-2, therefore, lends support to the definition of an impacted area as one whose phosphorus soil concentrations in the upper 10 cm exceed 500 mg/kg., that is, at a spot that is between the E5 and E4 stations (somewhere between 400 mg/kg and above 600 mg/kg) on the E transect and between the F5 and F4 stations (somewhere between a 400 to 600 mg/kg value and a value above 600 mg/kg) on the F transect. A weighing of the evidence leads to the conclusion that the Department by a preponderance of the evidence has proven that the definition is valid. Section (4) Phosphorus Criterion Section (4), of the Proposed Rule, concerns two concepts: establishment of the phosphorus criterion and achievement of the criterion. Establishment of the criterion occurs in the section's first sentence: The numeric phosphorus criterion for Class III waters in the EPA shall be a long-term geometric mean of 10 ppb, but shall not be lower than the natural conditions of the EPA, and shall take into account spatial and temporal variability. Achievement of the criterion is covered by the second and last sentences of the section: Achievement of the criterion shall take into account deviations above the long-term geometric mean of 10 ppb, provided that such deviations are attributable to the full range of natural spatial and temporal variability, statistical variability inherent in sampling and testing procedures, or higher natural background conditions. Establishment Establishment of the criterion is at the "heart" of the Proposed Rule. It is a numeric interpretation of the Narrative Criterion and, if adopted timely, avoids the statutory imposition of the Default Criterion. The numeric criterion of the Proposed Rule differs in specificity from the Default Criterion in the statute. The Default Criterion is silent as to whether the criterion shall be an "arithmetic" or "geometric" mean or some other statistical or non-statistical measure of concentration of a water body based on multiple sampling events such as "mode," "median," or "harmonic mean." Unlike the Default Criterion in the statute, the Proposed Rule specifies that the phosphorus criterion "shall be a long-term geometric mean of 10 ppb " The Department, supported by the other parties opposed to Petitioners, justifies the use of a "geometric mean" in the Proposed Rule's establishment of the criterion on a number of bases. For one, subsection (4)(e) of the EFA, "Evaluation of water quality standards," the very subsection of the EFA that mandates adoption of a "Phosphorus Criterion Rule," also mandates that compliance with the criterion be based upon a long-term geometric mean of concentration levels: Compliance with the phosphorus criterion shall be based upon a long-term geometric mean of concentration levels to be measured at sampling stations recognized from the research to be reasonably representative of receiving waters in the Everglades Protection Area, and so located so as to assure that the Everglades Protection Area is not altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna and to assure a net improvement in the areas already impacted. § 373.4592(4)(e)3, Fla. Stat. (Emphasis supplied) For another, a long-term geometric mean of concentration levels is a conventional way of determining numeric criteria, elements in water quality standards that govern ambient water quality, as well as compliance with the standards. If the Tribe and Friends' opponents are correct, that the statutory language with regard to "long-term geometric means" and "water quality standards" defeat a determination that the Proposed Rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the basis of its use of long-term geometric mean in establishment of the criterion, then there is no need to find facts with regard to the criticism. Even if the other parties are correct, however, there is relevance to the criticism because it relates to Colonel Rice's opinion that a number of factors in the Proposed Rule allow a greater amount of phosphorus to enter the Everglades (use of a long-term geometric mean being only one of them) that when taken alone or together contravene the statute's Narrative Criterion. Statutory language aside, the Department and the other parties vigorously responded to the criticism at hearing by offering justification for the use of a long-term geometric mean. Findings of fact are also made with regard to the response. Criticism of the Use of a Geometric Mean In statistics textbooks when the word "mean" without a descriptor is used, it refers to the arithmetic mean. "Arithmetic mean" is also a term used interchangeably with "average" as in the average of a number of different values. An arithmetic mean accurately describes the average concentration levels of substances in a number of samples of water whose concentration levels vary. A geometric mean accurately describes the central tendency of concentration levels in samples of water whose data set exhibits a log normal distribution. A mean is one of several methods of expressing a measure of "central tendency," a central value around which less frequently observed high and low values fluctuate. (Other methods of expression of central tendency of a data set include modes and medians. Means, moreover, are not limited to geometric and arithmetic means, there is also a harmonic mean that is an expression of central tendency.) Because "central tendency" may be expressed by several methods, Dr. Ian McKeague, DEP's expert statistician, referred to it as a term that is not well-defined and that has a flexible meaning. (See Tr. 652) "[Central tendency] . . . in a vague sense . . . represent[s] . . . the center of a . . . collection of measurements or a distribution." Id. Which method of expression is most appropriate depends on characteristics of the data set or measurements it describes. For data sets that are log-normally distributed, the more statistically appropriate and preferred expression of central tendency is a geometric mean. "Arithmetic means" are determined by adding a series of values (or data points) and dividing the sum by the number of values (or data points). Using three numbers, an arithmetic mean would be arrived at by this formula: a + b + c = d; d/3 = the arithmetic mean In the formula, three values (a, b, and c) are added to reach a sum (d). The sum is then divided by the number of values (3) to calculate the arithmetic mean of the three values. To use numbers, by way of example: 1 + 4 + 16 = 21; 21/3 = 7. The arithmetic mean of the three numbers, "1, 4 and 16" is "7." A "geometric mean" is "the antilog of the mean logarithm of a set of numbers, or equivalently, the nth root of the product of n numbers." Tribe/Friends Ex. 46. The formula for calculating a geometric mean of three numbers is: x (b) x (c) = d; the cube or 3rd ? (in this example, the 3rd root is taken because it employs three values) of d = the geometric mean. The value "a" is multiplied by the value "b" which is multiplied by the value "c." The product of the three is "d." The cube root or "3rd root" is taken of d because there are three values in the data set. The cube root of "d" is the geometric mean. To use the same numbers as used in the example of an arithmetic mean, above: 1 x 4 x 16 = 64; the cube root or 3? of 64 = 4. For all practical purposes, the geometric mean of a data set is always lower than the arithmetic mean of the same data set. (Geometric means and arithmetic means will be the same when the data points are equal, an event that in the real world of water sampling almost never occurs. See Tr. 244.) In the examples used above, for instance, the geometric mean of the data points with values of 1, 4 and 16 is "4," a number lower than "7," the geometric mean for the same data points. A geometric mean of samples of concentration levels of a substance in water may bear little resemblance to physical reality. (Dr. Parkhurst, at page 449 of the transcript, testified that the geometric mean "has no physical meaning whatsoever." It is accepted that a geometric mean may have no physical meaning in some cases. But the testimony that it never has physical meaning is rejected as an overstatement in light of other testimony of record.) This point was made by Colonel Rice with an example similar to an example employed by Dr. Parkhurst in his paper admitted into evidence as Tribe/Friends 46: Arithmetic Versus Geometric Means for Environmental Concentration Data, Parkhurst, Environmental Science and Technology/News, Feb. 1, 1998, p. 92A. Colonel Rice referred to two jars of equal volumes of water, one of which contained one arsenic unit and the other of which contained 100 arsenic units.7 The arsenic concentration of the first bottle is one unit per bottle; the concentration of the second is 100 units per bottle. Pouring the two bottles together into a container double the size of the jars would yield a concentration of 50.5 units per the bottle volume. This concentration would be the same as the arithmetic mean of the two original bottles: 1 + 100 = 101. The sum of the two data points (101) divided by the number of data points (2) equals 50.5. In Colonel Rice's example, the geometric mean would be 10, a number far lower than the actual concentration expressed by the arithmetic mean of 50.5. The geometric mean would be calculated by multiplying the values of the two data points: 1 x 100 to equal 100. The square root or 2? (taken because there are two data points) of 100 equals 10. The example is cited because it so clearly illustrates several characteristics of geometric means versus arithmetic means. The example is problematic, however, when applied to the methodology used to derive the numeric phosphorus criterion and the achievement methodologies in the Proposed Rule. Neither the derivation nor the achievement methodologies are the result of taking two containers or "buckets" as they were referred to by a critic of Colonel Rice's testimony, and pouring them together. The derivation and the achievement methodologies involve taking many samples at number of stations over time. A comparison of the examples of Colonel Rice and Dr. Parkhurst shows another property of comparison between arithmetic mean and geometric mean. The greater the variability among data points in the data set used to calculate the arithmetic and geometric means, the greater the difference between the two. One reason that the geometric mean of a set of data points of concentration levels of substances in water may bear little resemblance to the actual concentration level of water is that the geometric mean discounts large values. It does so, moreover, without knowing the cause of the high value and without a conscious choice to exclude it for a justifiable reason. For example, a high value could be due to a high discharge of phosphorus that could cause degradation. On the other hand, a station from which a sample is taken could have become contaminated by a nearby alligator hole, a localized event that would justify exclusion of the sample's data because it has little, if anything, to do with phosphorus discharge into the EPA. Another problem with the use of a geometric mean is that it can reverse the appropriate way in which a set of data is to be regarded if there is much greater variability in one set than in another. An example was testified to by Dr. Parkhurst and appears at page 50 of the Tribe/Friends proposed recommended order. Assume that the values represent parts per billion of phosphorus in samples of Everglades water: Data Set A Data Set B 2, 20 10, 11 Total Value=22 Total Value = 21 Arithmetic Mean = 11 Arithmetic Mean = 10.5 2 + 20 = 22; 22/2 = 11 10 + 11 = 21; 21/2 = 10.5 Geometric Mean = 6.32 Geometric Mean = 10.49 2 x 20 = 40; 2?40 = 6.32 10 x 11 = 110; 2?40 = 10.49 In Data Set A, the concentration, as reflected by the arithmetic mean, is higher than in Data Set B: 11 ppb versus 10.5 ppb. Yet, the geometric mean of Data Set A (6.32) is lower than the geometric mean of Data Set B (10.49). The reversal is due to the higher variability in Data Set A (a difference of 20 between 2 and 22) than in Data Set B (a difference of only 1 between 10 and 11). Support for Use of a Geometric Mean The true long-term concentration of a chemical constituent within a water body cannot ever be known precisely. Part of the problem is the enormous variability in ecological systems. As Dr. Coleman explained, "there is enormous variability in ecological systems, whether they're marine, arctic, freshwater, terrestrial, any system. And a high degree of variability means that there's an enormous amount of uncertainty." (Tr. 1012) The true long-term concentration of a chemical constituent of a water body, therefore, must be estimated from a set of samples. Frequency distribution, a characteristic of data, can be plotted by preparing a graph with values of the parameter on the horizontal or x-axis and the observed frequencies of these values on the vertical or y-axis. As plotted, the data points in a data set may exhibit a normal distribution on the graph: the distribution of data points starts out low, rises to a central but rounded peak, and then returns to smaller values. Plotted on a graph, the result is a bell-shaped curve. Data points showing concentration of chemical constituents in water, and environmental data in general, often exhibit log-normal distribution rather than normal distributions. A log-normal distribution differs from a normal distribution in that instead of resulting in a bell-shaped curve, it results in a right-skewed or long-tailed distribution: the right end of what would have been a bell curve (where higher values are represented) is pulled to the right. A log-normal distribution may have an extremely long tail skewed to the right of the graph when there are infrequent but very high valued data points. In the case of phosphorus concentrations in a water sample, a long-tail would be created by rare but high level of concentrations in samples. When Department staff plotted the data used to establish the numeric phosphorus criterion, the data set demonstrated characteristics more closely approximating a log- normal distribution than a normal distribution. The data set only "approximated" a log-normal distribution because "an actual log-normal distribution is a . . . hypothetical construct." (Tr. 1633) When it comes to plotting data from sampling events "there is no perfect log normal distribution." Id. But the data collected by DEP "clearly, and very demonstratively, are . . . log-normally distributed [as opposed to normally distributed]." (Tr. 1634) Certain statistical parameters are appropriate for use with log-normally distributed data. One of them is the geometric mean. As Dr. Ian McKeague, the Ralph A. Bradley Professor of Statistics as Florida State University, testified in answer to the question "[w]hen might a geometric mean be used in statistics?" (Tr. 645): Especially when you're dealing with distributions that are called long-tailed. For example, log-normal, where there's . . . an area with central tendency, and then there's a long tail, as you see in a log normal -- typically -- very often found . . . in environmental data. Id. There is no statistical reason one would ever use an arithmetic mean as a measure of central tendency, given data demonstrating a log-normal distribution. While a geometric mean discounts high values, an arithmetic mean, on the other hand, may be too influenced by high values if the aim is to find central tendency. A high value, especially if data points are few, will raise the arithmetic mean substantially. In particular, in the case of data that exhibits a log-normal distribution, the arithmetic mean might be significantly removed from point of central tendency if there were some data point that was unusually high in relation to the remainder of the data. It was statistically appropriate, therefore, that a geometric mean be used in establishment of the phosphorus criterion. Furthermore, as testified to by Dr. McKeague, it would be statistically inappropriate to mix parameters in a single endeavor such as for protecting the Everglades from imbalance by derivation of a criterion and assessing compliance. In other words, it would not be appropriate to use an arithmetic mean to derive the criterion and then a geometric mean, as required by the EFA, to assess compliance. These opinions of Dr. McKeague were supported by Dr. Sielken. Natural systems such as the Everglades are subject to significant spatial and temporal variation. When taking water samples across a network of monitoring stations, water column total phosphorus concentrations will most certainly vary spatially from station to station or temporally from sampling event to sampling event at the same station. Seasonal changes, localized disturbances and extreme climatic-related events like fire, flood or hurricane increase variability. Phosphorus concentrations measure in samples of water taken from the Everglades, therefore, may range from relatively small to relatively large. Still they tend toward a central value characteristic of phosphorus concentration in most of the Everglades most of the time, a determination of which is the aim of water quality standards concerned with ambient water quality. Application of the geometric mean to a data set demonstrating a log-normal distribution results in a more accurate estimate of the true central tendency of the population of measures and therefore a more accurate estimate of the concentration of water column total phosphorus in the areas sampled over most of the time. The Tribe and Friends suggest that an arithmetic mean should be used for establishment of the phosphorus criterion. Since compliance with the criterion by use of a geometric mean is mandated by the EFA, however, using an arithmetic mean for establishment of the criterion would amount to a mixture of statistical parameters. Mixing statistical parameters is "not . . . natural . . . statistically. It's not appropriate . . . one tells . . . little about the other." (Tr. 668) An arithmetic mean, moreover, has its own problem that accompanies its virtue of taking into account all values including rare but very high ones. If a high value is due, for example, to airboat traffic near the sampling site that has stirred up the sediment and caused a high reading due to reflux and the sample has escaped screening, it is justifiable to exclude it because of limitations on data collection.8 (See findings, below). An arithmetic mean would not exclude this high value when it should be excluded. The Numeric Value In addition to the decision to describe the phosphorus criterion in terms of a long-term geometric mean, DEP also had to establish a numeric value. There were several steps in the process of deriving a numeric value that followed the selection of the references sites. Means, both arithmetic and geometric, of reference conditions at individual reference sites and at all reference sites taken together are reflected in DEP/ERC Ex. 17 and several other exhibits that contained Table 5-3 of the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report. The 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report was admitted into evidence in its entirety as District Ex. 16. (It bears an exhibit label marked "WMD 16.") Table 5-3 on page 5-14 of the report is entitled, "Comparison of results of phosphorus criterion derivation for WCA-2A and WCA-1 using several methods and data sets." The Table was also admitted into evidence as an excerpt from the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report both as Tribe and Friends Ex. 119-B and as DEP Ex. 24B. Conclusions were drawn from the Evaluation of WCA-2A and Refuge Data as reflected in the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report. These conclusions appear at page 5-13 and page 5-14 of the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report. In these conclusions appears the following sentence: "Based on EFA requirements, the annual geometric mean TP [total phosphorus] concentrations are used to characterize the P [phosphorus] regime in the minimally impacted areas of the Refuge and WCA-2A." WMD Ex. 16, p. 5-13 (emphasis supplied). Table 5-3 contains a column entitled "1978-2001 Reference site data minus three years with less than four measurements." (It was appropriate to delete the data from the three years referenced because there was not enough of it.) It has essentially three columns. The first bears the heading "Central Tendency of Annual Geometric Means" and is divided into "Measure" and "Value." The second bears the heading "95% Confidence Interval (Mean with the sign for 'plus or minus')." The third bears the heading "Upper Limit." In the column referred to in paragraph 5., above, adjacent to "Mean" (as opposed to "median") is shown a Central Tendency of Annual Geometric Means Value of 8.51. This number, 8.51, is the geometric mean of reference conditions, a description of central tendency in all of the reference sites at which there was no visible imbalance. The Department chose 8.51 as a starting point from which to derive the numeric phosphorus criterion. The Department then employed another statistical tool in the derivation of the criterion: a confidence interval. After determination of the interval, DEP chose the upper limit in the interval and then rounded that number to 10, as explained below. Determining long-term geometric means of reference conditions that exhibit balance, rather than seeking a threshold of imbalance (which, in essence, "switches" the hypothesis, tr. 3288) had an impact on the derivation of the numeric criterion. The approach allowed DEP to raise the numeric value from the long-term geometric mean revealed by the data rather than to lower it as would have been the usual process had the geometric mean been associated with a threshold of imbalance. Confidence Intervals and Limits Even with relatively large data sets used to derive a value, the analysis of the data and the calculations used to determine the value rarely, if ever, results, in certainty that the value produced by the data is absolutely correct. To provide a level of confidence about the parameter sought to be derived, DEP resorted to a confidence interval. A mathematical characteristic derived from a data set, the confidence interval is an expression of the probability that the true value (in the case of the Proposed Rule, the "true" value reflecting reference conditions or balanced populations of flora and fauna) is within a statistical range or interval. A confidence interval, therefore, is a statistical tool that provides probabilities of confidence that the parameter sought is captured within the range of values within the interval. Confidence intervals are expressed in terms of percentage. The percentage values may vary. For example, in setting toxin thresholds a confidence interval of 75% is sometimes used. (The evidence indicated that percentages of confidence between 90 and 99% are most common.) With regard to derivation of the phosphorus criterion, a 95% confidence interval was applied. It was scientifically sound to apply a 95% confidence interval. Such a broad interval is commonly applied in exercises of the type undertaken that led to the Proposed Rule. The 95% interval as reflected in Table 5-3 and DEP/ERC Ex. 17 was 8.51 plus or minus 1.03 or an interval that spanned from its lowest value to its highest value a total of 2.06 units. There is a 95% probability that the true value of the geometric mean of phosphorus levels under reference site conditions, therefore, will fall between 7.48 and 9.54 ppb, that is, in a range 1.03 above and below the annual geometric mean of 8.51. At the same time, there is a 2.5% confidence level that the true value is above the interval and a 2.5% confidence level that the true value is below the interval or a total confidence level of 5% that the true value is outside the interval. The lowest number in a confidence interval is referred to as the "lower confidence limit" or the "lower limit"; the highest number in the interval as the "upper confidence limit" or "upper limit." Using the geometric mean of 8.51, the lower confidence limit of the 95% confidence interval is 7.48 (8.51 minus 1.03). The upper confidence limit is 9.54, or as shown on the table, 9.55 (due to a rounding error, perhaps, or decimals beyond the 9.54 not expressed on the chart exhibiting the data analysis.) The upper limit will be referred to, therefore, as 9.55 as reflected on the table. In its process of deriving the numeric phosphorus criterion, the Department selected the highest number or the upper confidence limit within the 95% confidence interval revealed by its data: 9.55. The Department chose the upper confidence limit on the basis that the substance tested for is a nutrient and on the basis that the 8.51 number derived from the data reflected reference conditions of balance rather than a threshold of imbalance. Had the substance been a toxin, DEP, in all likelihood, would have determined a threshold of response inimical to human health and then selected the lower limit because when it comes to toxins, any error that might be made should favor human health. Dr. Parkhurst criticized the selection by DEP of the upper confidence limit. He explained that protection of the resource would be accomplished more likely by selecting the geometric mean (8.51) than the upper limit or even more surely by selecting the lower limit (7.48). Selection of the upper confidence limit, in his words, "is protecting the polluter essentially." (Tr. 501) During his testimony, Dr. Parkhurst was asked if an upper limit was used to set the criterion in the Proposed Rule. He answered in the affirmative "on the basis of three pieces of information" (tr. 501): In my deposition, I talked about a recent article in a journal of the American Statistical -- Statistical Association called Chance. It's a paper by two authors, the last names are Q-i-a-n and L-a-v-i-n-e. That paper says in it that the DEP set its criterion of 10 by finding a best estimate of central tendency of the geometric mean to be 8.5, and then they used the upper limit of that, which was 10, to set the criterion. That's one piece of information. The second piece of information is that several of the depositions that I've read by DEP, and other people, said that they had used confidence intervals in this way. And thirdly, Table 5-3 of the 2003 Consolidated Everglades Report shows that that's being done. (Tr. 501-502) Dr. Parkhurst was then asked questions about Table 5-3. After being shown Table 5-3 at hearing, the following question and answer occurred during Dr. Parkhurst's testimony: Q. Now, what does this table tell you about the upper confidence limit? A. What it tells me is totally consistent with what Qian and Lavine said, mainly that the central tendency of the annual geometric mean, which is another way of saying, in some sense, the best estimate of what the geometric mean would be at these threshold spots, was 8.51. (Tr. 503) Objections to this testimony on the basis of its being beyond the witnesses' expertise were overruled. (Tr. 504- 506) No objection to Dr. Parkhurst's testimony about Table 5-3 was made contemporaneous with the testimony, but during cross- examination, the District moved to strike the testimony about Table 5-3 on the basis of surprise. (Tr. 555) The motion was granted. But it was also made clear that Dr. Parkhurst's testimony about the confidence interval independent of reference to Table 5-3 was not stricken. See Tr. 574. That testimony, based on the two sources other than Table 5-3, concluded that after applying a confidence interval to a geometric mean of 8.5, an upper limit was chosen to reach the criterion's number of 10. (See Tr. 501) During DEP's case Table 5-3 was introduced into evidence as DEP Ex. 24B and discussed. A table that contained the precise information in Table 5-3 that was discussed by Dr. Parkhurst was also introduced into evidence by DEP and admitted, DEP/ERC Ex. 17. It contains more information than Table 5-3 in that it "is a cross comparison of the . . . use of the arithmetic mean versus the use of geometric mean for the derivation of the criterion." DEP/ERC Ex. 17 reveals that the "Mean + 95% Confidence Interval" for "All Reference Sites" expressed as a geometric mean is 9.55; as an arithmetic mean, it is 12.50. Like Table 5-3, DEP/ERC Ex. 17 shows a geometric mean for all reference sites as being 8.51, and the addition of a 95% confidence interval of 1.03 above the 8.51 to arrive at an upper limit of 9.55. Selection of the upper limit in the 95% confidence interval did not conclude DEP's process in producing the ultimate number for the criterion. DEP rounded the 9.55 up so that the process finally yielded a numeric phosphorus criterion as a geometric mean of 10. The rounding up was also criticized by Dr. Parkhurst: [I]nstead of using their best estimate of what the geometric mean would be at these reference sites, [DEP has] used a value that's a whole unit higher than that. . . . [I]n fact, they've . . . rounded . . . up to 10. . . . [W]hat's happened is [DEP] changed the best estimate of 8.5 to a geometric mean of 10. (Tr. 504) . . . By using that value, [DEP is] underregulating and overprotecting [the discharger of phosphorus.] As found above, the threshold approach would not have supported the selection of the highest number in the 95% confidence interval that surrounded the geometric mean revealed by the data. But as DEP made clear, the numeric criterion was not derived on the basis of a threshold approach. It was derived from a reference site approach. The Department sought a value from reference site conditions, conditions at which imbalance was sure not to occur. Had a threshold of imbalance been the parameter sought in the calculations, "you'd be concerned with the lower confidence [limit]." Id. Selection of the highest number in the 95% confidence interval (9.55) that surrounds the geometric mean (8.51) and then rounding that number up to 10 achieves another purpose besides deriving a numeric value which is a component of an interval within which balance is sure to occur. It also helps to ensure that a value in excess of 10 ppb reflects a true exceedence of the criterion and not just expected variability around the long-term geometric mean. See Respondent's Proposed Order, p. 40. In other words, the selection of the upper limit in the confidence interval and the rounding of that number to 10 helps to avoid false positives. (See Tr. 1711-1714) U.S. Sugar, New Hope, and the Coop directly confront Dr. Parkhurst's suggestion that the upper limit in the 95% confidence level should have been replaced by the geometric mean revealed by the data or the lower limit in the 95% confidence interval: Setting the criterion at the population geometric mean would result in at least a 50% chance that the actual long-term geometric mean of unimpacted sites would be above the criterion. [Citations omitted.] Setting it at the lower confidence limit would be even more improper. That would result in a 95 percent chance that the unimpacted reference sites would be above the criterion over the long-term, with no actual change having occurred at the sites that the Department identified as unimpacted. (Proposed Final Order submitted by U.S. Sugar, New Hope and the Coop, p. 90) This argument again raises avoidance of false positives as a justification for selecting the upper limit of the 95% confidence level and then rounding that number to 10. The argument is correct as far as it goes but there is another half to the story: the effect on false negatives. The record does not reveal whether DEP determined a precise geometric mean of the threshold of imbalance. But it may be inferred that it is a long-term geometric mean with a value above 8.51. It is clear from the record, therefore, that setting the numeric criterion at the geometric mean of 8.51, rather than at 9.55, the upper limit of a 95% confidence interval, would result in a greater avoidance of false negatives. Setting the numeric criterion at the lower limit of the confidence interval provides even more assurance that false negatives (reports of no imbalance in sites that do not have balanced populations of flora and fauna) do not occur. An understanding of the full picture proves Dr. Parkhurst's point. It is desirable, of course, to avoid false positives. There is a caution in the EFA, moreover, that the criterion "shall not be lower than the natural conditions of the Everglades Protection Area," paragraph (4)(e)2. of the EFA, a warning not to set the numeric criterion too low. But there is no caution in the EFA that a percentage of false positives are to be avoided within some acceptable range of costs. In contrast to the lack of language in the EFA concerning the avoidance of false positives stands the Narrative Criterion. The goal of the Narrative Criterion, after all, is to ensure that phosphorus-rich waters discharged into the EPA do not cause an imbalance in flora and fauna. It favors, therefore, the avoidance of false negatives over the avoidance of false positives. Avoidance of false positives is not a basis for establishment of the numeric phosphorus criterion. Furthermore, moving away from the geometric mean established by the data in a direction that provides less certainty that false negatives will be avoided threatens contravention of the Narrative Criterion. There are bases other than avoidance of false positives in the record, however, for why a geometric mean of 10 does not contravene the Narrative Criterion. Other Bases Mr. Nearhoof offered the first basis. In addition to the geometric mean of 8.51 that led to an upper limit of 9.55, there are seven other upper limits expressed as either a mean or a median for four different data sets on Table 5-3 of the 2003 Everglades Consolidated Report. Three of the data sets are for Water Conservation Area 2A: "1994-2001 References site data"; "1978-2001 Reference site data [that includes data from the period for Station U3]"; and "1978- 2001 References site data minus three years with less than four measurements." The fourth data set is for Water Conservation Area 1: "1996-2001 Reference site data." See DEP Ex. 24A. In addition to the upper limit of 9.55 already discussed for the 1978-2001 Reference site data that excludes data for three years, upper limits of 95% confidence intervals around central tendencies expressed as means and medians for each of these data sets are 8.69, 8.77, 10.57, 9.42, 9.25, 10.08, and 10.00. The overall average result reflected on the table, of the upper limits is 9.54. Including the 9.55 value used by DEP in the derivation of the criterion, two of the values on the chart are above 10, one is exactly 10, three are between 9 and 10 and two are below 9. Mr. Nearhoof offered DEP's evaluation of all of these values: . . . [W]hen you do all of those calculations, that number essentially bounces all around 10. . . . [T]hat's exactly why we concluded that 10 was the number. And I think we clearly documented that on all of our technical documents. We could probably collect data for another decade and calculate this several different ways, and it's going to continue to bounce around 10. We, therefore, chose the simple means . . . of adopting the 10. (Tr. 1667) These upper confidence levels, however, as detailed by Dr. Parkhurst, suffer from the same problem as the one selected: their use reduces the risk of false positives but increases the chance of false negatives. The better basis offered by Mr. Nearhoof is that other studies were corroborative that a long-term geometric mean of 10 would be protective. For example, the lower confidence levels of studies that sought to establish thresholds, such as a study conducted by the Duke University Wetland Center, yielded a number around 10. (See Tr. 1671 and 1903) The Coop and New Hope offered testimony from Sujoy Roy, Ph.D., and Robert Sielken, Ph.D., that the long-term geometric mean of 10 was a highly conservative number and that a threshold of imbalance was likely to be at a much higher number. On the basis of an independent analysis of DEP's water quality and biological data, Dr. Roy recommended that a 30 ppb standard be adopted for impacted areas and an annual geometric mean of 16 ppb for unimpacted areas be adopted, the lower end of what he believed to be the threshold of imbalance. In his view, these levels would have been adequate to sustain fish and wildlife in the Everglades. (Tr. 1235) Conspicuous by its absence from his testimony is a reference to protection of flora, in general, and periphyton mats, in particular. Aside from the lack of mention of the effect on flora and periphyton, Dr. Roy's opinion that a long-term geometric mean of 10 ppb is a highly conservative value is rejected because his numbers are too much at variance with other evidence of record. Dr. Sielken testified before the ERC in the hope of convincing it and DEP that the numeric criterion, expressed as a geometric mean, should be at a number higher than 10, which in turn would raise the numbers in the Four Part Test. His calculations, based on a different analysis than that employed by DEP, led him to the opinion that the numeric phosphorus criterion in the Proposed Rule is too conservative and will lead to an excessive number of false positives. Dr. Sielken's calculations utilized a "prediction" interval instead of the confidence interval used by DEP. His calculations lead to the conclusion that, from a reference site approach, a geometric mean of 13 would be a more appropriate number than 10. Again, such a number would reduce false positives but any reduction in false positives by bumping the number up carries with it an increase in false negatives. The more the number is raised from the geometric mean DEP calculated, the greater the threat of contravention of the Narrative Criterion. Donald M. Kent, Ph.D., was accepted as an expert in wetlands science and wetlands ecology. Dr. Kent cited an example in which periphyton disappeared in WCA-2A but then reappeared. (See Tr. 3932) The example contradicts any implication to be taken from the chain of events described by Dr. Jones, that imbalance in flora and fauna inevitably occurs once the step is reached where periphyton mats disintegrate. Nonetheless, Dr. Kent's opinion is that imbalance in flora and fauna occurs when periphyton completely disappears and change is visible among vascular plants. He explained at hearing: . . . I found that periphyton and bladderwort were particularly sensitive, and seemed to be the first -- first change that was evident . . . in the field when the phosphorus levels got too high Another reason is that . . . macroinvertebrates . . . insects and so forth, and . . . fish, those changes seem to be coincident with . . . major changes in vegetation. (Tr. 3947) There is no need to "look[] at whether the number of insects is changed, or the number of fishes . . . ." (Tr. 3948) Once change is observed in bladderwort or permanent change in periphyton, imbalance in flora and fauna will follow. Dr. Kent's opinion is that there is a range at which periphyton and bladderwort become imbalanced because of phosphorus in the water column. A summary of data provided by DEP, the District and Duke University demonstrated that "naturally occurring periphyton was imbalanced at anywhere from 14 to 27 parts per billion." (Tr. 3951). That the number "14" is the low end of a range at which imbalance of periphyton occurs is revealed by his testimony and U.S. Sugar Ex. 4A. Dr. Kent, moreover concluded that "15 [is] a nice safe place" (tr. 3959) for the numeric phosphorus criterion. Dr. Kent's work validates DEP's determination that balance will be maintained if there is compliance with a long-term geometric mean of 10. Dr. Kent concluded that compliance with the numeric phosphorus criterion would not allow waters in the EPA to be altered so as to cause an imbalance in the natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. While DEP did not give a number at which imbalance would occur, the reference sites were in areas that were minimally impacted and close to impacted areas. Thus, DEP's number at which balance is maintained must be relatively close to a number at which imbalance occurs. Unlike Dr. Roy, Dr. Kent's numbers for imbalance are relatively consistent with DEP's conclusion based on maintenance of balance. Dr. Kent was not the only wetlands ecologist to testify that the Proposed Rule's establishment of the numeric phosphorus criterion as a long-term geometric mean of 10 will not cause imbalance. Other witnesses accepted as experts in wetlands ecology or Everglades ecology who offered the same ultimate opinion were Dr. Redfield and Environmental Administrator Frydenborg. Furthermore, Mr. Nearhoof, experienced in Everglades issues, offered the same opinion. In contrast, no wetlands ecologist testified that the Proposed Rule will cause an imbalance. The only wetlands ecologist offered by the Tribe and Friends was Dr. Jones. He was precluded from testifying about any criticism of the Proposed Rule on the basis of the pre-hearing ruling discussed in the Preliminary Statement of this order because of the Tribe's refusals with regard to discovery. After DEP, the District, U.S. Sugar, New Hope and the Coop had rested their cases-in-chief, the Tribe and Friends re- called Colonel Rice. The questions asked of Colonel Rice concerned DEP Ex. 19 which consisted of charts related to total annual inflows, annual average stage and total annual rainfall in WCA-2 and WCA- His testimony did not relate to any of Mr. Nearhoof's testimony or Dr. Kent's testimony as other bases for why a long- term geometric mean of 10 was appropriate for the Proposed Rule's numeric phosphorus criterion. Choosing to rely on the evidence presented in the opening phase of the hearing when the Tribe was required to go forward, the Tribe and Friends did not present any further evidence in response to the opinions offered by Dr. Kent, Dr. Redfield, Mr. Frydenborg and Mr. Nearhoof with regard to the numeric phosphorus criterion. In the final analysis, Colonel Rice's opinion that the Proposed Rule's numeric phosphorus criterion will lead to imbalance, must be weighed in the context of the entire record and against the opinions of three wetlands or Everglades ecologists and Mr. Nearhoof, an expert with a depth of experience in Everglades issues. As weighty as Colonel Rice's opinion may be, it is outweighed by the opinions of others. Achievement The Proposed Rule requires that achievement of the phosphorus criterion take into account deviations above the long-term geometric mean of 10 ppb if attributable to any of three categories of events: (1) the full range of spatial and temporal variability; (2) statistical variability inherent in sampling and testing procedures; or (3) higher natural background conditions. Achievement is to be determined by the methods in Subsection (5) of the Proposed Rule. Section (5) Methods for Determining Achievement of the Criterion in the Everglades Protection Area The Proposed Rule sets forth the methods for achievement for both impacted and unimpacted areas. Water Bodies The methods used depend on the "water bodies." The Proposed Rule lists the four "water bodies" into which the EPA is divided: Water Conservation Area 1 (the Refuge), Water Conservation 2, Water Conservation Area 3, and Everglades National Park. Subsection (5)(b) governs achievement in the Park and the Refuge. Subsection (5)(c) governs the achievement in WCA-2 and WCA-3. Achievement in the Park and the Refuge Subsection 5(b) tracks closely the language of Section 373.4592(4)(e)3: For the Everglades National Park and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge, the method for measuring compliance with the phosphorus criterion shall be in a manner consistent with Appendices A and B, respectively of the [Settlement Agreement], that recognizes and provides for incorporation of relevant research. The Proposed Rule adds a caveat. Should the Settlement Agreement be rescinded or terminated, achievement of the criterion is to be assessed as in the remaining portions of the Everglades. For the Refuge, paragraph (5)(b)1., of the Proposed Rule states that: The Department shall review data from the interior marsh stations established pursuant to Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement and will determine that the criterion is achieved if the Department concludes that average phosphorus concentrations at interior marsh stations will not result in a violation of the total phosphorus concentration levels established for the interior marsh stations using the methods set forth in Appendix B. In addressing discharges into the Refuge, the paragraph applies the concept of "technology based effluent limitations" or "TBELs." Phosphorus concentrations within the inflows to the Refuge that are above the average for the interior marsh stations will not be considered a violation of the numeric criterion--even if they exceed the average phosphorus concentrations for the interior marsh stations--so long as they meet the TBEL established for the discharge. In Section 373.4592(3)(b) of the EFA, the Legislature concluded that the Long-Term Plan provides the best available phosphorus reduction technology ("BAPRT"). The TBEL provision of the paragraph recognizes the possibility that discharges into the Refuge may exceed the numeric criterion even when complying with a TBEL derived from applying the BAPRT. While discharges exceeding the criterion but satisfying a TBEL may not be considered violations, the TBEL provision does not eliminate the requirement to assess achievement applying Appendix B of the Settlement Agreement as set out in the first provision of the paragraph. In fact, as explained by Everglades TOC Chair Garth Redfield, the Settlement Agreement calls for long-term phosphorus limits of 7 ppb (measured as a geometric mean), below the proposed numeric criterion of 10 ppb applicable elsewhere in the EFA. Assessing achievement of the numeric phosphorus criterion in the Park, as directed by the EFA, is based upon the limits established in Appendix A to the Settlement Agreement. Because of the influence of specific discharge structures, assessment is related to flow in the Park with long-term phosphorus levels set at 8 ppb as a flow-weighted mean. Achievement in WCA-2 and WCA-3: The "Four Part Test" For those parts of the EPA not falling within the Park or Refuge (WCA-2 and WCA-3), Section 373.4592(4)(e)3., states in pertinent part: Compliance with the phosphorus criterion shall be based upon a long-term geometric mean of concentration levels to be measured at sampling stations recognized from the research to be reasonably representative of receiving water in the Everglades Protection Area, and so located so as to assure that the Everglades Protection Area is not altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna and to assure a net improvement in the areas already impacted. (Compliance with the Proposed Rule cannot be determined, obviously, until the stations are set and they are not yet set.) The achievement methodology for "unimpacted areas" is contained in paragraph (5)(c)1., of the Proposed Rule; for "impacted areas" in paragraph (5)(c)2. There are two differences between the methodologies for unimpacted areas and impacted areas. First, "[a]chievement of the criterion in unimpacted areas in each WCA shall be determined based upon data from stations that are evenly distributed and located in freshwater open water sloughs similar to the areas from which data were obtained to derive the phosphorus criterion." Paragraph (5)(c)1., of the Proposed Rule. There is no requirement that the stations in impacted areas be in sloughs similar to the areas from which data were obtained to derive the criterion. Second, with regard to impacted areas, "[i]f . . . limits are not met, no action shall be required, provided that the net improvement or hydropattern restoration provisions of subsection (7) [of the Proposed Rule] . . . are met." Subparagraph (5)(c)2., of the Proposed Rule. No clause providing such an escape from compliance with achievement of the criterion is applicable to unimpacted areas. Discussed earlier in this order with reference to the definition of "impacted area" based on soils, there is one more clause that is not part of the "Four Part Test" applicable to both unimpacted areas and impacted areas. It is the final sentence in the paragraph (5)(c) of the Proposed Rule: "[n]otwithstanding the definition of Impacted Area in subsection (3), individual stations in the network shall be deemed to be unimpacted if the five-year geometric mean is less than or equal to 10 ppb and annual geometric mean is less than or equal to 15 ppb." The remainder of the Proposed Rule's section on the achievement methodologies in WCA-2 and WCA-3 contain the Four Part Test applicable in both unimpacted and impacted areas. Each of the four parts of the test must be met for there to be achievement of the criterion except that: Consistent with subsection (4) above, exceedences of the above provisions shall not be considered deviations from the criterion if they are attributable to the full range of natural spatial and temporal variability, statistical variability inherent in sampling and testing procedures, or higher natural background conditions. Paragraphs (5)(c)1., and 2., of the Proposed Rule. The first part of the test is the primary achievement test. It converts the "long term" geometric mean mandated by the statute for achievement of the criterion to a "five year" geometric mean: "[both impacted and unimpacted areas] of the water body will have achieved the criterion if the five year geometric mean is less than or equal to 10 ppb." See paragraphs (5)(c)1., and 2., of the Proposed Rule. To protect against imbalance, since a "long term" geometric mean of "five years" is employed in the first part of the Four Part Test, three additional provisions (Parts 2, 3 and 4 of the Test) must be met. The second, third, and fourth parts of the Four Part Test, therefore, are backstops to ensure achievement of the narrative criterion and to protect the resource. Part 2 of the Four Part Test or "the three of five" test, see DEP Proposed Order, p. 44, is that "the annual geometric mean averaged across all stations is less than or equal to 10 ppb for three of five years[.]" Subparagraphs (5)(c)1., a., and 2.,a., of the Proposed Rule. Part 3 of the Four Part Test or "the one-year 11" test, id., is that "the annual geometric mean averaged across all stations is less than or equal to 11 ppb[.]" Subparagraphs (5)(c)1.,b., and 2., b., of the Proposed Rule. Part 4 of the Four Part Test or "the one-year 15 test," is that "the annual geometric mean at all individual stations is less than or equal to 15 ppb. Individual station analyses are representative of only that station." Colonel Rice criticized the Four Part Test based on its discounting of high values by use of a geometric mean as the measure of central tendency and the manner in which the test takes into account spatial and temporal variability. He offered an example of 99 stations in pristine areas and one in an area with concentration readings of 200 ppb in which degradation was occurring. The example was hypothetical, since it is not known "where they're going to be finally . . . ." (Tr. 251) The degradation "would be masked as far as this compliance methodology goes." Id. Whatever validity Colonel Rice's criticism has with regard to protection of the resource ultimately, the Four Part Test follows the statute. It employs a "long-term" geometric mean, as mandated by the EFA, in its primary step, the first part of the test, when it calls for achievement "if the five year geometric mean is less than or equal to 10 ppb." Subsections (5)(c)1., and 2., of the Proposed Rule. It accounts, moreover, in Part (3) of the test, the "one-year 11" provision, for spatial variability as required by the EFA, when it calls for an annual geometric mean "across all stations," subparagraphs (5)(c)1., b. and 2.,b., of the Proposed Rule. And, in Part (2) of the test, the "three of five" provision, it accounts for temporal variability as required by the EFA when it calls for a geometric mean at a level "for three of five years." Subparagraphs(5)(c)1.,a., and 2.,a., of the Proposed Rule. Adjustment of Achievement Methods Subsection (5)(d) requires a technical review of the achievement methods set forth in the Proposed Rule at a minimum of five-year intervals with reports to the ERC on changes as needed. The purpose of the paragraph is to make sure periodically that the methodologies for achievement are working both to protect the Everglades and to prevent false positives. Data Screening Subsection (5)(e) of the Proposed Rule governs "Data Screening." It sets forth a number of provisions that allow the Department to exclude data from calculations used to assess achievement if the data are not of the proper quality or quantity or reflect conditions not consistent with determining an accurate estimate of ambient water column total phosphorus. Data excluded under subsection (5)(e) are not discarded under the Data Quality Screening Protocol referred to in paragraph (5)(e)2. "[I]t's extremely important [that what is done] with any data set is clearly documented " (Tr. 2220) The purpose of such documentation is transparency "so that all interested parties can determine what [DEP] is doing and why . . . ." Id. To that end, the Data Screening Protocol, which is incorporated by reference in Section (8) of the Proposed Rule requires that "[t]he [Department/District] shall note for the record any data that are excluded and provide any details concerning the reasons for excluding those data." (Tr. 2220) It is proper to exclude data when a sample is not representative of the ambient total phosphorus concentrations in the EPA because of variability both within the Everglades system, itself, and variability outside the system that is associated with the methods of data collection and measurement. An explanation was offered at hearing by Russell Frydenborg, a DEP Natural Science Manager. Mr. Frydenborg has considerable relevant experience with the State over many years that, among many aspects, involves the assurance of scientific quality. Mr. Frydenborg explained that in addition to the natural variability in the Everglades environment caused by rainfall, biological and seasonal changes and the like, there is also variability associated with measurement due to error. For example, tap water has significantly higher levels of phosphorus than does the natural background water of the Everglades. It is not unusual for tap water to have a range between 40 and 80 micrograms of phosphorus per liter (40 to 80 ppb). Tap water used to rinse measurement gear will leave a residue of phosphorus. The contamination of equipment such as bottles by phosphorus residue left after rinsing will produce artificially high levels of phosphorus in samples. Data obtained by means of contaminated equipment must be excluded. Subsection (5)(e) excludes data that is associated with both variability due to measurement error and due to some of the natural and other variability in the Everglades system, itself. Paragraphs (5)(e)1., and 2., address measurement error. Paragraph (5)(e)1., requires the exclusion of data that fails to comply with the Chapter 62-160, the Department's Quality Assurance Rule (the "QA Rule.") The purpose of the QA Rule is to assure that data used by the Department are appropriate and reliable, and collected and analyzed by scientifically sound procedures. The QA Rule encompasses a comprehensive quality assurance program that addresses quality control in the field and the laboratory. Paragraph (5)(e)2., excludes data if it fails to meet the Department's "Data Quality Screening Protocol," developed as part of the criterion development process to address quality assurance concerns of particular importance when sampling phosphorus in the water column. For example, the protocol requires that water samples not be taken from sites less than 10 centimeters in depth. See DEP Ex. 21. Attempting to sample in such shallow waters (less than four inches) may disturb nutrient rich floc that would contaminate the sample and result in artificially high total phosphorus concentration. Paragraph(5)(e)3 excludes data "collected from sites affected by extreme events . . . until normal conditions are restored . . . ." Examples of such events are listed: "fire, flood, drought or hurricanes . . . ." While all "extreme events" are not listed, all that are listed are events associated primarily with the Everglades system itself, that is, they are events associated with natural phenomena that contributed to the formation of the Everglades and the maintenance of its phosphorus-limited status. (It is possible, however unlikely, that drought or flood today could be caused by water management practices. Changes in water levels caused by water management practices, moreover, are covered by paragraph (5)(e)5.) Fire, flood, drought and hurricanes are extreme natural conditions. It is known that they will occur in the future but it is difficult to predict precisely when. It is possible to design a sampling regime that would capture spatial and temporal variability caused by these natural events. As a practical matter, however, the Department and District are limited physically and fiscally as to the number of quality samples that can be properly taken in any one year. It is the Department's position, therefore, that the effects of such natural phenomena, all influences that contributed to the formation and continue to contribute to the health of the Everglades, must be screened from consideration. The Department is comfortable with the screening because the data that is not screened is from water samples that have integrated the effects of extreme events so that, in the end, data related to the long-term impact of the events is not screened, only data related to the short-term impact of the events. Felecia Coleman, Ph.D., is a member of the Best Available Science Committee of the National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences. She was accepted at hearing as an expert in principles of scientific method. Scientific disciplines have their own methodologies that vary. The underlying principles of the scientific method are the same, however, for all the disciplines. It is not good scientific method, in Dr. Coleman's opinion, to exclude data related to fire, flood, drought and hurricanes from calculations to determine achievement of the criterion in the Everglades. While they are events that are extreme in the Everglades, they are also events that are normal in the Everglades and produce significant effects on the Everglades' ecological system. To exclude them, then in Dr. Coleman's opinion, fails to take into account spatial and temporal variability in the system due to these events that occur in all parts of the Everglades from time-to-time. The Department argues just the opposite. To reach the objectives of sampling strategies intended to assure the collection of "representative" samples within a routine natural variability or hydrologic cycle, extreme event data must be excluded. Representative conditions, moreover, reflect the integration of the effects of extreme events over time, thereby taking into effect the temporal variability of the system. The concept of "representation" takes into account the practical consideration in support of the screening of extreme events: the Department cannot obtain sufficient data to account for variability caused by untold combinations and permutations of extreme events. Failing to screen the variability or "noise" caused by such events, moreover, would result in excessively high estimates of total phosphorus concentrations. To include data taken when the water was under the short-term influence of the extreme event would skew the data high because not enough samples could be taken when the waters sampled were not under the short-term influence of the extreme event to off-set the impact of the event in a fair way so as to produce results that were representative. Paragraph (5)(e)4., requires the exclusion from assessment calculations of data affected by localized disturbances whether natural or caused by humans. As in the case of extreme events, the Proposed Rule lists some of these disturbances: airboat traffic, authorized restoration activities, alligator holes and bird rookeries. The former two are human activities; the latter two, natural. In common, all are "localized" rather than tending to be system-wide like the listed extreme events. Future physical disturbances from airboat traffic and alligators will suspend sediment and flocculent organic material that contains phosphorus from discharges that occurred prior to the Proposed Rule. A spike in the total phosphorus concentration for a sample taken at the disturbed location may contribute to an indication that the criterion has not been achieved. The same is true of samples heavily influenced by organic waste, a concentrated source of phosphorus, produced in bird rookeries. Temporary restoration activities may suspend nutrient-laden floc and sediment as well causing artificially high phosphorus concentrations not reflective of typical ambient conditions. Samples taken in the wake of these localized activities are not representative. Just as in the case of extreme event data, if a sampling regime of sufficient magnitude to properly take into account for such short-term and random variability were theoretically possible so as to produce results representative of typical conditions, neither the Department nor the District has the resources to implement such a program. Without a sufficient number of samples, data influenced short-term by localized activity will skew the data too high. And, in the end, samples taken that are not influenced short-term by the localized activities will have integrated the effects of the activities over the long-term. Paragraph (5)(e)5. of the Proposed Rule requires the exclusion of data from assessment calculations from years when hydrologic conditions are outside the range that occurred during the period used to set the phosphorus criterion. Examples of such conditions are given in the Proposed Rule: rainfall amount, water levels and water deliveries. The period used to set the criterion is not defined, but conditions during the development of the criterion reflected a broad range of conditions such that this provision would rarely by employed. In the unlikely event an extreme in water quantity covered by paragraph (5)(e)5. occurred, data collected under such conditions would not reflect normal ambient conditions. Section (6) Long-Term Compliance Permit Requirements for Phosphorus Discharges into the EPA Permits for discharges into the EPA are addressed in Subsection 373.4592(4): The department shall use the best available information to define relationships between waters discharged to, and the resulting water quality in, the Everglades Protection Area. The department or the district shall use these relationships to establish discharge limits in permits for discharges into the EAA canals and the Everglades Protection Area necessary to prevent an imbalance in the natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna in the Everglades Protection Area, and to provide a net improvement in the areas already impacted. During the implementation of the initial phase of the Long-Term Plan, permits issued by the department shall be based on BAPRT and shall include technology-based effluent limitations consistent with the Long-Term Plan. § 373.4596(4)(e)3., Fla. Stat. See also, § 373.4592(10), Fla. Stat. Section (6) of the Proposed Rule, entitled "Long-Term Compliance Requirements for Phosphorus Discharges into the EPA," sets forth an initial requirement in subsection (6)(a), that an applicant for a permit to discharge into the EPA provide reasonable assurance that the discharge will comply with state water quality standards as set forth in the section. Subsection (6)(b) sets forth three conditions, under any of which, discharges will be deemed to be in compliance. The first is that phosphorus levels in the discharges will be at or below the criterion. This condition is independent of ambient water quality. It refers to phosphorus levels of the discharged water at the point of discharge. If such a level meets the criterion, the level in the ambient water body (provided it was lower than the level in the discharge prior to discharge) will remain lower than the level in the discharged water. The second is that discharges will not cause or contribute to exceedences of the criterion in the receiving waters, the determination of which will take into account the phosphorus in the water column that is due to reflux. The "cause or contribute" analysis is not unique to the permitting of discharges to the EPA but a longstanding concept routinely applied in the Department's permitting of wastewater discharges. If a discharge contains a pollutant in concentrations in excess of the ambient criterion, but the discharge of the pollutant is accommodated by the system such that no exceedence of the criterion occurs in ambient waters, then the discharge has not caused or contributed to a violation of the criterion or that standard of which the criterion may be a part. If an exceedence occurs, but it is not the result of the phosphorus in the discharge but rather caused by reflux--the biogeochemical release of phosphorus into the water column from the sediment stirred by the discharge--the discharge would also be said not to have "caused or contributed to" the exceedence of the criterion. Phosphorus discharges may also exceed the phosphorus criterion, under paragraph (6)(c)3, if they comply with moderating provisions set forth in Section (7) of the Proposed Rule. Moderating provisions are a type of relief mechanism whereby the permit applicant is not held to strict compliance with the applicable standard or criterion if a variety of alternative conditions are met. Under subsection (6)(d), discharges into the Park and Refuge must not result in a violation of the concentration limits and levels established for the Park and Refuge in Appendices A and B, respectively, of the Settlement Agreement as determined through the methodology set forth in Section (5). Closely tracking statutory language, subsection (6)(d) of the Proposed Rule states that discharge limits from permits allowing discharges into the EPA shall be based upon TBELs established under BAPRT and shall not require water quality based limitations ("WQBELs") through the year 2016. Section (7) Moderating Provisions Subsection (7)(a) sets forth a moderating provision for impacted areas within the EPA. Moderating provisions are designed to "moderate" or temper the impact of the phosphorus criterion on the regulation of discharges into the EPA and are specifically allowed by the EFA as the result of legislative amendment enacted in 2003: . . . The department's rule adopting a phosphorus criterion may include moderating provisions during the implementation of the initial phase of the Long-Term Plan authorizing discharges based upon BAPRT providing net improvement to impacted areas. Discharges to unimpacted areas may also be authorized by moderating provisions, which shall require BAPRT, and which must be based upon a determination by the department that the environmental benefits of the discharge clearly outweigh potential adverse impacts and otherwise comply with antidegradation requirements. Moderating provisions authorized by this section shall not extend beyond December 2016 unless further authorized by the Legislature pursuant to paragraph (3)(d). § 373.4592((4)(e)2., Fla. Stat. There are two types of moderating provisions in the section. Subsection (7)(a) allows discharges to be permitted upon a showing of "net improvement" to the receiving waters. Subsection (7)(b) allows for discharges to be permitted that accomplish for purposes of "hydropattern restoration" under certain circumstances. To be permitted under (7)(a), the applicant must meet two criteria. First, the permittee must demonstrate that BAPRT will be implemented that includes a continued research and monitoring program designed to reduce outflow concentrations of phosphorus. Paragraph (7)(a)1 of the Proposed Rule. Second, the applicant must demonstrate that the discharge will be into an impacted area. The subsection states that the "Long-Term Plan" shall constitute BAPRT consistent with the Legislature's declaration in Section 373.4592(3)(b): The Legislature finds that the Long-Term Plan provides the best available phosphorus reduction technology based upon a combination of the BMPs and STAs described in the Plan provided that the Plan shall seek to achieve the phosphorus criterion in the Everglades Protection Area. Consistent with the Legislative finding, the subsection states, "[t]he planning goal of the Long-Term Plan is to achieve compliance with the criterion . . . ." Paragraph (7)(a)3., of the Proposed Rule. As part of the permit review process, moreover, the Department will review the Process Development and Engineering component of the long-term plan and determine if changes are needed to comply with the Proposed Rule, including the numeric criterion. Any changes the Department deems necessary "shall be incorporated through an adaptive management approach." Id. Under subsection (7)(b), discharges that cause relevant ambient concentrations in excess of the criterion may be allowed for hydropattern restoration in unimpacted areas if three conditions are met. First, the permittee must implement BAPRT under sub-paragraph (7)(a)1.a. Second, the environmental benefits of hydropattern restoration must clearly outweigh potential adverse effects in the event phosphorus levels in the discharge exceed the criterion. Third, the discharge must comply with the Department's long-standing antidegradation requirements. Section (7)(c) declares that the Proposed Rule's moderating provisions do not pre-empt other moderating provisions. Section (8) Document Incorporated by Reference A single document is referenced for incorporation into the Proposed Rule: "Data Quality Screening Protocol, dated ." Section (8) of the Proposed Rule. Although the Proposed Rule does not identify the Data Quality Screening Protocol by date, a protocol was adopted by the ERC. It was made available to the public electronically via the Department's website "by PDF file on the site dated March 21, 2003." (Tr. 3358) The protocol adopted by the ERC and made available to the public is the protocol about which testimony was taken at hearing. The date was left blank with the intention of filling it in with the effective date of the Proposed Rule once that date becomes known. Section (9) Contingencies Section (9) requires notification to the ERC in the event that "any provision of the rule" is challenged. It also mandates that the Department bring the matter back before the Commission for reconsideration in the event "any provision of the rule: (a) is determined to be invalid under applicable laws; or (b) is disapproved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Water Act . . . ." Section (9) of the Proposed Rule.
Findings Of Fact Application 7500165 requested average withdrawal of water of 1,804,750 gallons per day from 4 wells located about a mile east of Highway 41 and a mile north of Apollo Beach. The four wells would be for irrigation of tomato crops on total acreage of 4 acres located in Hillsborough County (Exhibit 1, Testimony of Elsberry and Boatwright). Notice of hearing as to the application was published in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with statute and rule (Exhibit 3). A letter of objection from Joseph S. Benham, Apollo Beach, Florida, dated November 19, 1975 was submitted to the Water Management District, wherein he expressed concern regarding water shortages and, although he does not seek to totally deny the application, is of the belief that the district must insure sufficient controls and management of irrigation activities so that resources are not wasted, water runoff to drainage ditches is eliminated and renewed justification is given each year for the withdrawal (Exhibit 2). A representative of the District staff established that there would be no violation of statutory or regulatory requirement for issuance of a consumptive water use permit in this case except as to the fact that potentiometric level of the applicant's property would be lowered below sea level as a result of withdrawal. It was agreed at the hearing that a period of thirty days should be granted both parties to formulate a stipulation as to control of runoff. An unsigned stipulation was received from the Water Management District by the hearing officer on March 1, 1976, which provided that the permit would be granted with the following stipulations: Runoff from the property will be limited to 25 percent of the quantity pumped and by December 31, 1980 shall be reduced to 16.5 percent of the quantity pumped. The District may at its own expense install metering devices for the purpose of monitoring runoff. The permittee will be notified in advance of such action. The Permit will expire on December 31, 1980. (Testimony of Boatwright, Exhibit 4).
Recommendation That application 8500165 submitted by Elsberry and Elsberry, Inc. Route 2, Box 70 Ruskin, Florida, for a consumptive water use permit be granted with the conditions as follow: Runoff from the property will be limited to 25 percent of the quantity pumped and by December 31, 1980 shall be reduced to 16.5 percent of the quantity pumped. The District may at its own expenseinstall metering devices for the purpose of monitoring runoff. The permittee will be notified in advance of such action. The Permit will expire on December 31, 1980. That the Board grant an exception to the provision of Rule 16J- 2.11(4)(e), F.A.C., for good cause shown. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of March, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida 33512 Elsberry & Elsberry, Inc. Route 2, Box 70 Ruskin, Florida
The Issue In their Prehearing Stipulation, the parties described the nature of the controversy as follows: This matter involves a challenge to a Technical Staff Report and Recommendation made by Respon- dent's staff on a consumptive use permit applica- tion for water submitted to Respondent by Petitioner. Petitioner owns a recreational facility where water is being used. The Staff Report recommends that certain conditions be imposed upon the permit proposed to be issued to Petitioner placing limitations on the amount of water which may be consumed by Petitioner and requiring Petitioner to report on numbers of persons utilizing Respondent's facility. In that same stipulation, the parties described their respective positions as follows: Petitioner's Position: The present use of water at the Wekiva Falls Resort is a reasonable beneficial use which should not be reduced or limited by permit conditions. The standpipes through which the water flows are not wells and therefore should not be subject to any regulation by Respondent. The placement of the standpipes did not increase the flow of water but rather captured the already existing flow from natural springs which existed on the property prior to the placement of the standpipes. Petitioner feels his use does not come within the permitting power of Respondent, and that if it does, its use should be allowed to continue without any reductions in flow. Respondent's Position: After review of Petitioner's consumptive use permit application for the use of water emanating from two standpipes, one twenty-four (24) inches in diameter and the other fourteen inches in diameter, the staff of the District determined that the standpipes were wells subject to the District's regulation under Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code, and recommended approval of the permit with certain conditions requiring a reduction in flow during certain low or non-use periods. This matter arose from Petitioner's application to the District for a consumptive use permit that would allocate water to the Petitioner from water flowing from a 24-inch metal pipe and a 14-inch metal pipe for use at Petitioner's campground. The District maintains that, not only is the water that is drawn from the metal pipes and used at the campground regulated pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, but also that the remaining water that flows from the two metal pipes and is used by Petitioner to maintain a swimming area is regulated pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner has not applied for an allocation of water for maintaining the swimming area. Even though the Petitioner has not applied for such an allocation, the use of water for maintaining the swimming area has been evaluated because the Petitioner maintained that, even if the water used to maintain the swimming area is regulated pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, the flow of water from the metal pipes should not be restricted in any fashion from the ongoing flow. Thus, the issues presented are whether the application that was applied for should be granted, whether the Petitioner has to apply for an additional allocation in order to continue using water to maintain the swimming area, and what, if an additional allocation is sought, the permit would be. In their Prehearing Stipulation the parties also agreed to the following issues of law. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding subject to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. To the extent the standpipes located on Petitioner's property are determined to be wells, they are governed by and subject to the provisions of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. The procedural rules which apply to this proceeding are Chapters 40C-1, 28-5, and 22-I, Florida Administrative Code. The parties also agreed to the following as being the ultimate issues of fact which remained to be litigated. Whether the two standpipes constitute an excavation that was drilled, cored, washed, driven, dug, jetted, or otherwise constructed with the intended use of such excavation to be for the location, acquisition, development, or artificial recharge of water. Whether the continued use by Petitioner of water at pre-permit levels is a use of water in a quantity necessary for economic and efficient utilization for a purpose and in a manner which is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. Whether the continued use of water by Petitioner at pre-permit levels would increase the danger of saline water encroachment. Whether a reduction in flow of water will result in a reduction in water quality for the uses made of the water by Petitioner. Whether a reduction in flow of water would have adverse impacts on the quality of water in the Wekiva River. Subsequent to the hearing, a transcript of the proceedings at hearing was filed on December 22, 1986, and, pursuant to request of the parties, they were allowed 30 days from that date within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The proposed recommended orders have been carefully considered and a specific ruling on each proposed finding of fact submitted by each party is contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on admissions in prehearing stipulation Petitioner is a private individual who owns and does business as the Wekiva Falls Resort in Lake County, Florida. Respondent, a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, is charged with the statutory responsibility of the administration and enforcement of permitting programs pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Consumptive Uses of Water, specifically Sections 373.219 and 373.223, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. The District is the agency affected in this proceeding. The District has assigned Petitioner's permit application, which is the subject of this proceeding, the permit number 2-069-0785AUS. On September 4, 1985, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a CUP application number 2-069-0785AUS to withdraw water from two wells, one 14 inches in diameter and the other 24 inches in diameter, located on Petitioner's property in Lake County, Florida. The water which flows from the two standpipes flows through a creek which was improved by Petitioner, said creek having as its terminus the Wekiva River. The standpipes were put in place by Petitioner or his authorized agents or employees in 1972. The area of the Wekiva River into which the creek leading from the two standpipes flows has been designated as an aquatic preserve and an "Outstanding Florida Water." On May 23, 1986, Respondent's staff gave notice of its intent to recommend approval with conditions of Petitioner's CUP application number 2-069- 0785AUS. Petitioner's Petition for Administrative Hearing was timely filed with the District. Findings based on evidence at hearing Petitioner filed his CUP application on September 4, 1985, one week in advance of the September 11, 1985, deadline for existing users of water to file applications which would establish and protect their existing user status. Petitioner's application requests an allocation of 31.7 million gallons per year (mgy) for the following uses: 8 per cent for cooling and air conditioning, 3 per cent for outside use, and 89 per cent for commercial and industrial use. Petitioner has made no application for any allocation of water for water based recreation. The Wekiva Falls Resort property consists of approximately 140 acres stretching 4800 feet in length between Wekiva River Road and the Wekiva River. The property is located along the Wekiva River between State Road 46 and the Orange County, Florida, line. Seminole County, Florida, is on the opposite side of the Wekiva River from the subject property. Petitioner purchased the subject property in 1968. At that time it was a heavily overgrown rural tract. Petitioner observed a stream which came under Wekiva River Road, passing through seven culverts, and running the length of the property to the Wekiva River. This stream carries runoff from Petitioner's property as well as runoff from areas west of the property on the opposite side of Wekiva River Road. At a point approximately midway between the Wekiva River and Wekiva River Road, along the stream, a depressional area was located by Petitioner, through which the stream flowed. Petitioner observed that more water was flowing downstream from the depressional area than upstream. Petitioner's property is located in an area of natural artesian flow where springs or seeps are not uncommon. Because the area in which the subject property is located is one of natural artestian flow, it is likely that a surficial seep of water existed in the depressional area which generated a flow of water. None of the available geological or hydrogeological information or data would indicate the existence of a spring or springs on this site prior to the drilling undertaken by Petitioner. At the time the first well was drilled by Dick Joyce Well Drilling, Inc., no spring was observed by the driller. Further, in conversations with the Executive Director of the District in 1974, no mention was made by the Petitioner of the existence of a spring or springs at the site prior to drilling. On July 17, 1969, Petitioner measured the stream flow and calculated same to be 23.97 cubic feet per second. The methodology utilized by Petitioner in measuring the stream flow in its natural state was an accepted methodology. However, this measurement did not discriminate between the water flowing into the depressional area from the stream carrying runoff from the lands upstream of the depressional area and the water originating from surficial seeps in the depressional area. Thus, this amount cannot be utilized or relied upon as a measurement of the amount of water emanating from seeps in the depressional area before drilling was undertaken by Petitioner. Nevertheless, other evidence indicates that the total volume of water flowing from Petitioner's property into the Wekiva River was probably substantially the same both before and after the installation of the two wells on Petitioner's property. In any event, the installation of Petitioner's wells does not appear to have increased the flow of the Wekiva River downstream of where Wekiva Canoe Creek discharges. In undertaking the development of his property as a resort/campground/recreational vehicle facility, Petitioner dug out the depressional area and used a dragline to open up the creek from the depressional area downstream to the Wekiva River. At a point approximately 200 feet west of the Wekiva River, Petitioner dredged a wide area to construct a marina with access through the creek to the Wekiva River. In an effort to obtain a controlled flow of water, Petitioner contracted Dick Joyce of Dick Joyce Well Drilling Inc. to drill a well fourteen inches in diameter at a site along the bank of the depressional area designated by Petitioner. The well was drilled by Joyce in August of 1972. The well was drilled using a cable rig to a depth of 107 feet, with casing being driven to a depth of 58 feet. The drilling procedure excavated a hole in the ground, penetrated rock, and resulted in the flow of ground water to land surface. The top of the 14-inch well extends 4 to 5 feet above land surface. In a further effort to obtain a controlled flow of water, Petitioner subsequently contracted Central Florida Drillers to drill a second well, twenty- four (24) inches in diameter. This well was drilled in 1973 along the bank of the depressional area, at a spot identified by Petitioner, in the same general vicinity as the previously drilled 14-inch well. The well was also drilled using a cable rig to a depth of 120 feet with casing being driven to a depth of 84.7 feet. The drilling procedure excavated a hole in the ground, penetrated rock, and resulted in the flow of ground water to land surface. The top of the 24-inch well extends 5 feet above land surface. Central Florida Well Drillers Inc. prepared and maintained a driller's log of the 24-inch well, recording the composition of the stratigraphic column through which the drilling equipment passed. The lithology shown in the stratigraphic column is indicative of the geology normally found in a well drilled in this geographical area. The log shows penetration of the normal stratigraphic column for this area and does not show a spring bore that had been filed in by materials at an earlier date. The drilling of the two wells by Petitioner substantially altered the natural conditions on the property as they existed prior to 1972. The top of the Floridan aquifer in the geographical region in which Petitioner's wells are located is encountered at depths ranging from 50 to 100 feet below land surface. The amount of water flowing from the wells has been variously reported and calculated since the wells were installed. Petitioner's promotional materials, which bill the resort as home of the "world's largest flowing well," asserts the maximum free flow capacity to be 72 million gallons per day (mgd). At another point in time, flow from the larger well was said to be 28.8 mgd and the flow from the smaller well 11.5 mgd. Respondent's staff, in preparing its technical staff report, calculated the total flowage from the two wells to be 18 mgd. In his application for a permit to operate a public bathing facility filed with the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), Petitioner indicated the total flowage to be 16 mgd. For purposes of the determination to be made by this Order, the parties stipulated at the hearing to a total flowage figure of 12.47 mgd. Petitioner has operated and continues to operate the facility as a campground and water based recreational site. The central theme of the use of Petitioner's property is the recreational use of water. The water based recreation includes swimming, boating, tubing, and fishing, and is centered around the two flowing wells. The designated swimming area extends from a retaining wall located just west of the westernmost of the two wells to a footbridge which crosses Canoe Creek west of the Marina. The supply of water for recreational use comes primarily from the two wells. The stream which originally existed on the property and which carries runoff from the more western part of Petitioner's property and from off-site enters the designated swimming area at the retaining wall on its westernmost edge. The water which comes from this stream and which is introduced into the western end of the swimming area contains high levels of bacteria and coliforms. Between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Petitioner operates a sump pump which redirects this high coliform water eastward around a major portion of the swimming area to a point still within the swimming area. For the remaining twelve hours per day, this high bacteria, high coliform water is allowed to flow directly into the swimming area. Petitioner could reduce the level of bacteria and coliforms in the swimming area by simply operating the sump pump for 24 hours a day and/or introducing the water so pumped back into Canoe Creek at a point further downstream east of the designated swimming area. In addition, runoff from a storm drain which was constructed by Lake County, Florida, as a result of an easement granted to them by Petitioner, enters Canoe Creek at a point downstream from the wells but east of the footbridge, within the designated swimming area. When stormwater is conveyed through this storm drain, it also introduces coliforms into the swimming area at the point where the storm drain intersects Canoe Creek. The gate valves on each of the two wells are frozen in a completely open position. The wells are presently flowing at maximum capacity 24 hours a day without regard to whether the facility is being used or not. Petitioner does not presently have the capability to incrementally control the flow of water, short of utilizing a plug to completely shut off the flow of water from one or the other or both of the two wells. Petitioner does, however, have the capability of installing a hydraulic cylinder remote control system in the wells which would allow him to control the flow of water incrementally from the wells via a phone line. The use of Petitioner's facility varies by season, month, day of the week, and time of day, and according to weather conditions on a particular day. Although Petitioner did not have records available showing the number of persons utilizing a particular part of the facility for a particular purpose on a particular day, most of Petitioner's revenue, at least during the summer months, is generated by day use swimmers and picnickers. The swimming facility is most heavily used during daylight hours in the summer months. More customers use the swimming facilities on Saturday and Sunday than during the weekdays. Use is lower during the winter months and during times of inclement weather such as cloudy or rainy days. The evidence fails to show the average number of bathers who use Petitioner's facilities at any particular season or during any particular weather conditions. Petitioner holds a Swimming Pool-Bathing Place Operating Permit for the swimming area issued by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services pursuant to Section 10D-5.120, Florida Administrative Code. Responsibility for enforcement of these administrative regulations is with the Lake County, Florida, Public Health Unit. Petitioner's permit allows him to have a maximum swimming pool population of 2000 bathers per day, but there is no evidence that he has ever had that many bathers on a single day since he received the permit. There are two primary water quality parameters which Petitioner is required to maintain within the swimming area, which are delineated in Rule 10D- 5.120, Florida Administrative Code. The first is a flow-through requirement of 500 gallons of water per anticipated bather per 24 hours. On a day when the swimming facility is being utilized by the maximum number of bathers allowable, 2000, the flow requirement for that day would then be one million gallons. For any day when the bathing population fell below 2000, the gallon flow-through requirement would be proportionately reduced. The second water quality parameter Petitioner is required to maintain relates to coliform densities. High coliform count can result in serious illness. The coliform density in the swimming area must not exceed 1000 most probable number of coliform organisms per 100 milliliters. Coliform levels in the swimming area at any given time are dependent upon several variable factors. Among these factors is the number of coliforms being introduced into the swimming area. As has previously been discussed, when the sump pump which reroutes high coliform water around the upper part of the swimming area is not operating, the number of coliforms would increase. Also during periods of rainfall, coliforms are washed into the swimming area in runoff which enters from overland and through the storm drain which enters the lower part of the swimming area. Temperature is a variable factor which affects coliform levels. As temperatures increase, bacteria multiply more rapidly, and thus coliform levels increase. The number of human beings utilizing the water at a given time impacts coliform levels in that, since humans are producers of coliforms, when greater numbers of humans are in the water, higher coliform levels would normally result. These factors coalesce in that high temperatures normally occur during the summer months which contain the days of most intense usage, and thus high coliform levels would be expected during these times if all other factors remain constant. Conversely, during the winter months, when facility usage is lowest and temperatures are lowest, lower coliform levels would be expected. One additional variable factor which affects coliform levels is the amount of water flowing through the swimming area. Water dilutes any contaminants or pollutants that come into the system. Petitioner attempted to show a correlation between rate of flow and coliform levels in excess of 1000 parts per 100 milliliters (ppm). (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) However, because the date collected did not control for and did not take into account the presence or non-presence of the variable factors which affect coliform levels, no conclusions could be reached regarding whether water quality could be maintained in the swimming area in accordance with HRS standards, with periodic adjustments to flow from the wells. No competent substantial evidence was offered to show that periodic adjustments to flow would prevent Petitioner from meeting HRS standards for water quality and therefore prevent Petitioner's continuing the operation of his public bathing facility. The original permit application filed by Petitioner only requested an allocation of 31.7 million gallons per year (mgy), this amount being only the water utilized for the campground. The construction of Petitioner's potable water supply for the campground was approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and meets all water quality standards applicable to the campground. Although the water used for the campground comes from a pipe connected to the 24-inch well, this request for water is not related to and does not account for the water which flows from the wells into the swimming area and out through Canoe Creek and is used for recreational purposes. The technical staff report (TSR) prepared by Respondent's staff recommends granting an allocation of 31.7 mgy of water to Petitioner for commercial and household uses (to supply the campground) and an allocation of 2.55 billion gallons per year (bgy) of water for recreational uses. The recommended allocation for recreational use breaks down to an average daily use of 7 million gallons per day (mgd), representing a 44 per cent reduction in the amount of water presently flowing from the wells for recreational purposes. The TSR further recommends a maximum daily use for any one day of the year of 18 million gallons of water. This recommendation actually exceeds the present production capacity of the wells. The TSR further recommends that the overall 44 per cent reduction in use of water for recreational purposes be achieved by adjustment of well discharges during non-use periods each day and seasonal non-use periods when bathing and marina use are minimal. This would require installation of operable valves on each of the wells as is also recommended in the TSR. Subject to the limitation imposed by the annual allocation and subject to the maximum daily allocation, Petitioner would make the flow adjustments as conditions warrant and as he sees fit. The Floridan aquifer in the region surrounding Petitioner's property is not expansive; thus there is a maximum amount of water which can be stored within it. Water will tend to discharge at some point within the system when flow is stopped at another point. The drawdown effect on the potentiometric head caused by the 24-inch well after flowing for a period of twenty-four hours can be calculated to extend up to two miles west of that well and further to the east. The excess water flowing through Petitioner's wells, over and above that required for recreational purposes, could be tapped and used by other potential consumers of water within the same vicinity, if Petitioner reduced the flow from his wells. Underlying the Floridan aquifer in the Wekiva River Basin Area is a layer of saline water, the degree of salinity being measured by the chloride concentrations in said water. This underlying saline water is relic sea water and is not salt water being pulled in from the oceans. When water is discharged from the Floridan aquifer and potentiometric pressures are thereby reduced, saline water is allowed to move upward and closer to the Floridan aquifer, resulting in higher chloride concentrations in the water discharged from the Floridan aquifer. The converse is also true. Reductions in discharge tend to increase potentiometric pressures which, in turn, would push the saline water further away from the Floridan aquifer. Chloride concentrations are the basic measurement of water quality. In measuring chloride concentrations in water, 250 milligrams of chloride per liter of water is the significant figure because this measuring point is the highest concentration of chloride that is recommended for public drinking water supplies. Data has been collected regarding chloride concentrations in water taken from the Floridan aquifer beneath the Wekiva River basin and shows significant changes during the period from 1973 to 1986. In a United States Geological Survey (USGS) study of water quality in the Floridan aquifer beneath the Wekiva River basin, conducted in 1973-74, an area or isochlor of water with chloride concentrations exceeding 250 (ppm) was identified. Petitioner's wells were included in this study, and the chloride level in his wells was measured at 230 ppm. The isochlor depicting water with chloride concentrations exceeding 250 ppm extended southward to a point north of Petitioner's property. A follow-up study begun in 1986 shows that the area or isochlor of water with chloride concentrations exceeding 250 ppm has extended itself, moving southward to include and pass the Petitioner's wells, past the Lake County border line which lies to the south of Petitioner's property and into Orange County, Florida. In 1986 Petitioner's wells produced water which measured 296 ppm and 312 ppm respectively. Because the 1986 study was not complete as of the time of hearing, no clear determinations can be made as to the extent to which the Petitioner's wells have contributed to the southward migration of the 250 mg/1 of chloride base line. At a minimum, the withdrawals of water from Petitioner's wells is having a localized impact in the immediate vicinity of those wells. Reduction of the flows from Petitioner's wells would, at a minimum, result in an improvement in the chloride levels in a localized area. That improvement in conjunction with similar improvements at other wells in the area could ultimately result in a more regional improvement of the chloride levels. Because of the factors observed indicating a deterioration of the aquifer systems in the face of increased demand, Respondent's staff has created Special Condition Zones in an effort to identify areas within the Wekiva River basin where hydrologic conditions warrant concern and special attention. Zone One, in which Petitioner's property is located, is the area of greatest concern because of observed changes within the hydrologic regime. Special permit conditions have been created for these zones to insure that no more water than is needed for a specific purpose is allocated to any user in the area. The flows from Petitioner's wells provide a benefit to the Wekiva River by diluting the pollutants which flow into the river. The cascading water from the standpipes aerates the water, which in turn increases the oxygen levels which is of benefit to the invertebrates, fish, and other animals that live in the water. The flows from Petitioner's wells account for approximately six or seven per cent of the flow of the Wekiva River at the gauging station at State Road 46. Nevertheless, no persuasive competent substantial evidence was offered to show that an overall 44 per cent reduction in flow from Petitioner's wells would in any significant way impact the quality of water in the Wekiva River. The District staff recommended that numerous "standard general conditions" and numerous "other conditions" which relate specifically to this project be incorporated in Petitioner's CUP permit. Those conditions are set forth at length in Respondent's Exhibit No. 6 and it would serve no useful purpose to repeat them all here.
Findings Of Fact On October 15, 1982, Hal Thomas Reid Associates applied for a septic tank permit to serve a 16-room motel. On February 2, 1983, this application was amended to a 5,800 gallon septic tank to serve a 32-unit condominium and office. The lot on which this drain field is to be located is 70 feet by 100 feet. When the application was filed, the lot was inspected by the Citrus County Health Department. The elevation of the land averaged 2.5 to 2.9 feet above mean sea level. The 10-year flood plane in this area is 4.9 feet. Occasional high tides inundate this area; however, the water drains off rapidly and no one testified that water ever remained standing as long as seven consecutive days. Usually the water drains off in less than 24 hours. On March 1, 1983, an extremely high tide flooded this area and roads in the vicinity to a depth of approximately one foot. This water remained on the site less than 24 hours. The site is not located adjacent to state waters, is not an area designated as wetlands, and is without the dredge and fill permitting jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers and the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (Exhibits 20 and 21). By adding five feet of fill to the site, the bottom of the gravel below the drain pipes will be above the 10-year flood plane. The drain field capacity is adequate to handle the flow from 33 bathrooms of residential units. In approving this permit, the Citrus County Health Department used the 150 gallons per day discharge for residential units rather than the 100 gallons per day discharge from a motel unit. The water table at this location is two feet above mean sea level. This is determined by the elevation reached at high tides for 14 consecutive days. As a condition to Citrus County withdrawing as an intervenor in these proceedings, Applicant agrees: To revegetate and restore any alleged wetlands affected by the permit to a like or similar condition; To install three shallow draft monitor wells around the drain field towards the wetlands area adjacent to the site and towards Woods 'n Waters subdivision, establish an existing level of bacteria count prior to the activation of the septic tank, and to monitor said wells through the Citrus County Health Department on a quarterly basis; and In the event any monitor wells shall test at an unsatisfactory level, Applicant will forthwith correct this condition to the satis- faction of the Citrus County Health Department. This application meets all of the code requirements of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent's facility is a public water system subject to regulation by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) pursuant to Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, or whether it is exempt from those regulations by virtue of Rule 17-22.102 if the facility is subject to regulation by DER, whether Respondent should take the corrective actions set forth in the Notice of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action and should pay DER's expenses incurred in the pursuit of this case. DER presented the testimony of Cliff McKeown, a potable water engineer, and Linda Frohock, planning manager for the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DER had Exhibits 1-4 admitted into evidence. Respondent, Lex Thompson, presented his own testimony and that of Hugh Kelly. The parties have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. They have been considered and a ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact DER is the Florida administrative agency which has the authority to administer and enforce the provisions of the Florida Safe Water Drinking Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent is a natural person and citizen of the State of Florida. Respondent owns and is responsible for the construction of a potable water distribution main extension ("the facility") which serves a subdivision known as High Bluff Acres-near the community of Midway in Gadsden County, Florida. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On February 1, 1980, Respondent was issued construction permit number DS20-27385 for the facility. The construction permit described the facility as a potable water distribution main extension to the Talquin Electric Company's Midway water- system. The project was to be constructed with approximately 940 linear feet of four inch PVC valves and appurtenances. Specific condition number 15 of the permit restricted operation of the extension until department approval was issued. This approval would be granted upon receipt of certification by the engineer of record as to construction in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and receipt of two satisfactory bacteriological analyses. DER has not received this information and had not issued an approval for use of the facility. The construction permit expired on September 1, 1981. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent modified the facility by constructing it with 550 feet of one inch to one and one-half inch PVC water mains. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER conducted an inspection of the facility on February 23, 1982. The facility was found to be in use without final DER approval. By letter dated February 26, 1982, DER notified Respondent of his non-compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested Respondent to submit specified compliance items. (See Prehearing Stipulation). In October of 1982, DER personnel contacted Respondent . by telephone. Respondent agreed to obtain a permit renewal and modify the unauthorized water line as soon as funds in the form of rent were released by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). On November 1, 1982, DCA notified DER that payments were being made. (See Prehearing Stipulation). On June 8, 1983, DER notified Respondent of his non- compliance with Chapter 17-22, Florida Administrative Code, and requested a reply on actions to be taken to correct the deficiency. By letters dated October 18, 1984, and December 17, 1984, DER notified Respondent that the facility was not approved for use. Respondent was further requested to inform DER as to the status of the facility. DER received no response to these requests. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility was not constructed in accordance with DER-approved plans, and DER has issued no written approval or consent for alterations to the system. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent placed the facility in service without submitting a certification of completion and a copy of satisfactory bacteriological results to DER for approval and clearance. (See Prehearing Stipulation). The facility is not designed to provide maximum hourly system demand without development of distribution pressure lower than 20 psi. (See Prehearing Stipulation). DER has incurred costs and expenses in the pursuit of this case in the amount of $453.50. (See Prehearing Stipulation). Respondent's facility consists of distribution and storage facilities only and does not have any collection or treatment facilities. It obtains all its water from and is not owned or operated by the Talquin Electric System. Further, Respondent is not a carrier which conveys passengers in interstate commerce. (See Prehearing Stipulation) The public water distribution system constructed by Respondent is connected to twenty dwelling units in twelve structures. The High Bluff Acres subdivision is a government- subsidized, but privately-owned, low-income housing development, wherein DCA, acting on behalf of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), subsidizes the payment of rent for the housing. Respondent entered into several agreements on behalf of Salter, Stephens and Thompson, with the DCA to rehabilitate existing structures at High Bluff Acres and thus qualify for the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing Assistance Program (HAP) established by HUD. The purpose for entering into the HAP contracts is to provide low cost housing to low income persons. These agreements were entered into over a period of several months during 1981 and 1982. Upon satisfactory completion of the rehabilitation pursuant to the agreements, Respondent entered into a HAP contract for each structure in High Bluff Acres, for a total of twelve structures (20 dwelling units). The HAP contract establishes the contract rent that can be allowed for each individual dwelling unit in a structure (the contract covers one structure). The contract rent is calculated according to a formula established by HUD for such purposes, and includes monetary allowances for utilities or other services which are provided by the owner. It does allow the lessor to recover his capital expenses in rehabilitating an individual housing unit. DER Exhibits 3 and 4 are two of the twelve HAP contracts entered into by the Department of Community Affairs and Respondent, Lex Thompson. Each of these contracts has an Exhibit B which is entitled "statement of services, maintenance and , utilities to be provided by owner." These exhibits show that Respondent has agreed to provide water to the units under the HAP contract. Contract rents paid to Respondent as authorized agent for the partnership include an allocation of money to reimburse Respondent for providing water to the tenants in the dwelling units. However, subsequent to Thompson's and DCA's entering into the contracts for payment of these rental subsidies, Respondent notified DCA that he had incurred additional capital expenses. Since his rental payments were already at the maximum allowable rate, however, Respondent did not seek to modify the aforementioned contracts because the amendment would not result in any greater payment of monies to him. At no time has Respondent amended the terms of the HAP contracts with respect to provision of water to the tenants at High Bluff Acres. He is still receiving the reimbursement for provision of water to tenants. The general partnership which had been receiving contract rents for the dwelling units was dissolved in May, 1985, and the contracts for each structure were assigned to various individuals. Respondent, individually, owns one structure and his wife owns another. DER has received no potable water quality or quantity complaints regarding the High Bluff Acres subdivision. Moreover, the potable water system existing in the High Bluff Acres subdivision does not constitute a present threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein order the following corrective actions: That within 45 days, Respondent shall hire an engineer registered in Florida to design a new distribution system for High Bluff Acres or modifications to the existing system, and submit a completed application to the Department for a permit to construct or modify the system. That within 60 days of issuance of the permit, Respondent shall have the distribution system installed, tested(including pressure testing, bacterial testing, disinfectant-testing) and shall have the engineer sign and seal the plans indicating to the Department that the system conforms with the approved plans, and both DER and American Water Works Association standards. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be ordered to pay the Department's costs and expenses in the amount of $453.50, and that same be paid to the Department by cashier's check within 30days. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of November, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESL1NG Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1985 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 13). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 15). Proposed Finding of Fact 4 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 17). Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 18). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 19). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 22). Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 21). Rulings on Respondents Proposed Findings of Fact: Proposed Finding of Fact 1 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 1). Proposed Finding of Fact 2 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 2). Proposed Finding of Fact 3 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 3). Proposed Finding of Fact 4, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 4). The second sentence is rejected as being unsupported by the evidence and irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 5 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 5). Proposed Finding of Fact 6 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 6). Proposed Finding of Fact 7 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 7). Proposed Finding of Fact 8, first sentence, is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 8). The remainder of Proposed Finding of Fact 8 is rejected as irrelevant. Proposed Finding of Fact 9 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 12). Proposed Finding of Fact 10 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 14). Proposed Finding of Fact 11 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Facts 19 and 20). Proposed Finding of Fact 12 is rejected as unsupported by the evidence, irrelevant and conclusory. Proposed Finding of Fact 13 is adopted in substance (See Finding of Fact 23), except that it is rejected as it relates to a potential threat because that portion is unsupported by the competent, credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Clare E. Gray, Esquire Daniel H. Thompson, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William L. Hyde, Esquire 300 East Park Avenue Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
