The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the District should approve FRI's consumptive use permit application, no. 2-019-0012AUR, pursuant to Chapter 40C- 2, Florida Administrative Code The FRI is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of million gallons per day (mgd) of water and 762.85 million gallons per year of ground water for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead Sand Mine. Subject to certain limiting conditions to be set forth in the FRI's consumptive use permit, the water is proposed to be produced from three Floridan aquifer wells. District proposed to grant the permit application which was challenged by LBCA, resulting in the formal administrative proceeding. LBCA challenged the issuance of the permit to FRI on the basis of the FRI's alleged failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 3V3, Florida Statutes (E.S.), and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and other applicable law. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO FINDINGS OF FACT LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 2 that a necessary component of FRI's operation is its withdrawal of approximately 2.09 mgd of ground water for the production of sand. The 2.09 mgd is the average daily usage rate to who the parties stipulated prior to the hearing. The maximum daily usage rate is 3.75 mgd. However, FRI cannot exceed 762.5 million gallons for the year which is an average of 2.09 mgd. (Prehearing Stip. pp. 1,9). In the LBCA Proposed Recommended Order paragraph 25, the LBCA states that the operation "necessitates FRI's pumping allocation of an average daily 2.09 million gallons of water from the Floridan aquifer." Additionally, LBCA acknowledges in its Exception No. 2 that it is "known that approximately 2 mgd are pumped into the system." If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 41-42, 104, 913-914). LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 8 and 28 that the receiving water from the mine site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes and that the surficial aquifer recharge will result in a positive or immeasurable effect on the lakes. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings supported by evidence and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The decision to believe one expert over another is left to the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club v. Orlando Utility Comm., 436 So.2d 383, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 105, 120-129, 146, 170, 187-190, 208-209, 235, 248, 256-257, 972-973, 1085-1093, 1139). LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 11 that the aquifer characteristics in the Floridan aquifer beneath and around the mine site are relatively uniform. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 180, 926-927). LBCA Exception Number 4 The LBCA takes exception to a mischaracterization of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 13 regarding lake leakance by stating that the hearing officer found that some of the lakes at issue do not have leakance to the Floridan aquifer. In fact, it is contextually clear that the Hearing Officer was referring to "many of the lakes within the region." This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 77-80). LBCA Exception Number 5 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 16 that very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing into the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. In making its argument, LBCA inaccurately attributes testimony to FRI witness Fountain when the referenced testimony was testimony of LBCA witness Boyes. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1145-1146). LBCA Exception Number 6 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 22 and 55 that the data collection effort of FRI and the District was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size and that sufficient site-specific information was developed to be able to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the mine operation. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 103, 201, 238, 918-919; FR Ex. 5). LBCA asserts that FRI did not evaluate the "worstcase" scenario in order to establish permit entitlemet LBCA provides no legal citations to support its exception. LBCA's assertion lacks legal as well as factual support. LBCA has criticized FRI's aquifer performance test and modeling effort without presenting the elusive "worstcase scenario" which presumably would show impacts greater than those modeled by FRI. LBCA seeks to impose a burden of proof which is insupportable in law. It is not FRI's burden to show a violation of the criteria in Chapter 40C-2, Fla. Admin. Code, is a scientific impossibility, only to show that the non-occurrence of such violation is reasonably assured by the preponderance of the evidence in the proceeding. The Corporation of the President v. SJRWMD and City of Cocoa, Case Nos. 89-828, 89-751 (SJRWMD Dec. 13, 1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). An agency cannot assume the worst-case scenario unless that condition is reasonably foreseeable. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe and Gulf Stream Specimen Co. v. Dickerson Bayshore, Inc., 10 F.A.L.R. 3426 (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, June 8, 1988). As delineated in FRI's response to this exception, FRI and the Distract presented evidence of numerous investigations regarding this application, including testing and analyses of the impact of withdrawals at greater than the average and maximum daily pumping rates. (See Record citations on pp 17-20 of FRI's Response to Exceptions; T. 115-116, 126, 176-177, 918- 920). LBCA failed to present any citation to the record where it presented testimony evincing that another scenario which would result in greater impacts than those predicted by the applicant were reasonably like to occur. LBCA's speculation that another undefined scenario of pumping would show greater impacts was rejected by the hearing officer. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances with regard to the effects of the proposed withdrawal. LBCA Exception Number 7 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's purported inference in Finding of Fact 23 that the aquifer performance test (2T) measured impacts significantly greater than could be expected to occur under "worst case" conditions as a result of the mining operation. The finding actually states "the (aquifer performance) test measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 mgd." As discussed in the ruling on exception no. 6, LBCA's assertion of a "worstcase scenario" has factual support in the instant case. The applicant is required to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed use is reasonable, beneficial, will not impact existing legal uses and is consistent with the public interest. The applicant is not required to evaluate LBCA's unspecified worst case scenario or prove the use will not cause any impacts. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-115, 141, 920). LBCA Exception Number 8 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 23 that no changes in the lake levels are attributable to the pumping at the mine. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. In Finding of Fact No. 24, the hearing officer found that the effects of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before and after the ADT test. Therefore, his conclusions are not inconsistent as alleged by the LBCA. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 120-130, 146, 759, 928- 933, 942, 944- 948, 1015-1016, 1122-1123, 1168; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA Exception Number 9 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the actual effects of the pumping will be approximately one half of the observed amounts of the 2T test on an average pumping day. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-117, 923-996; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA's claim that this finding is irrelevant since only a "worstcase" scenario is pertinent is likewise rejected. Initially, it is noted that LBCA cites no legal support for its arguments. Furthermore, there is no requirement in the District's rules governing consumptive use which mandates consideration of only "worstcase" scenarios. Furthermore, an agency cannot assume worst case scenarios unless they are reasonably foreseeable, which determination is a case by case factual issue. See Florida Audubon Society, supra., Rudloe, supra.. LBCA Exception Number 10 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 26 that Dr. Stewart testified that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogenous and isotropic but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 738). LBCA Exception Number 11 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 27 that the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 129, 182). For the same reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7, the LBCA's claim regarding irrelevancy is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 12 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 28 that a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance and that the drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. The LBCA is simply rearguing their case. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 118-120, 129, 237, 706-708, 758). LBCA's irrelevancy argument is rejected for the reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7. LBCA Exception Number 13 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 42 through 54 as being conclusion of law rather than findings of fact. The LBCA does not cite to the record or make legal argument to support the exception as required by Rule 40C-1 .564, F.A.C. Without said citation or argument, the exception is rejected. Corporation of the President, supra.. The hearing officer's recitation of the individual criteria of Rules 40C-2.301 (2), (4) and (5), F.A.C., serve as introduction to and reference for the specific findings with regard to each criterion to provide clarity in the order. To the extent that expert witnesses presented testimony on the criteria and how the applicant satisfied the criteria through proof, the elements are findings or fact. These additional reasons also serve as ground for rejection of the exception. LBCA Exception Number 14 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 56 that LBCA's referenced exhibits do not correlate with normal conditions when compared with longer periods of time. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. In addition, the hearing officer ultimately did not admit the exhibits and therefore, the Finding of Fact becomes irrelevant. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930- 933, 948, 969; FR Ex. 50A, SOB). Contrary to Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C., LBCA fails to state wish particularity citations to the record or legal basis as required by Rule 40C-1.564, F.A.C., in support of its attack on finding 56 and its inferential attack on findings 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and conclusions 62 and 63. The entire exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 15 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 66 that LBCA's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83 have limited probative value to the extent it is predicated on FRI's rebuttal testimony. The LBCA argues that the rebuttal testimony is of low probative value. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the exception is rejected. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930-933, 948, 969). Exception is also taken to Findings of Fact Nos. 32, 36, and 56 and Conclusion of Law 62 because LBCA argues that the testimony on which they are based exceeded the scope of direct examination and the LBCA was not given the opportunity to object. The correct time to object was when the alleged improper testimony was elicited. The LBCA did not object to preserve the record and therefore, has waived the objection. Section 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Finally, LBCA asserts that it was denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony in violation of Section 120.57(1)(b)4., Fla. Stat. To the contrary, LBCA was not denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony but failed to request surrebuttal and consequently failed to preserve any denial of that request by an objection on the record. (T. 1188-1190). Since LBCA never requested surrebuttal, the hearing officer never denied that request and, therefore, LBCA's argument is without merit. Furthermore, pursuant to the order of presentation under Rule 40C- 1.5434(1), F.A.C., which is followed in a permitting proceeding (applicant, petitioner, district), LBCA's entire case tended to be in the nature of rebuttal to the applicant's case. While the hearing officer did state that he did not ordinarily allow surrebuttal (T. 1169) before the rebuttal testimony was concluded, LBCA never affirmatively requested to present surrebuttal evidence or testimony nor did LBCA proffer any such evidence or testimony. Since no proffer was made of any relevant surrebuttal testimony which LBCA contends was excluded, and no objection was made in the record to LBCA's belief that it was prohibited from adducing surrebuttal evidence, it is now precluded from complaining about this perceived adverse ruling. King v. Estate of King, 554 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Holmes v. Redland Construction Co., 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Roberts v. Hollway, 581 So.2d 619 (a. 4th DCA 1991); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 16 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63. Findings of Fact 18, 19, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63 are discussed in subsequent exceptions and therefore arc not addressed in this ruling on exceptions. LBCA's exception to Finding of Fact 20 fails to state with particularity any supporting citations to the record or legal argument as required by Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C., and is therefore, rejected. LBCA takes exception to Finding of Fact 17 that the hearing officer incorrectly refers to three distinct water quality studies. In fact, the hearing officer actually refers to "numerous analyses" LBCA also objects to the reference to "unknown persons" in the finding and apparently to the statement: "They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels of certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992." Clarification that HRS personnel conducted sampling in 1989 and 1992 is provided; however, since these personnel were never specifically named, to that extent the hearing officer's reference to "unknown persons" is accurate. (T. 1035, 379). The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 102-103, 130- 133, 451, 1023-1037, 1041- 1048, 1151-1152). LBCA Exception Number 17 The LBCA takes exception to that part of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 18 that states: "This theory was predicated on... an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond." LBCA fails to prove any supporting transcript citations in violation of Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C. In Finding of Fact 18, the hearing officer reached the conclusion that none of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., supra.. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 133, 575, 1024-1025). LBCA Exception Number 18 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 19 by arguing that water quality on the mine site says nothing about off site impacts and positing that the finding is predicated on certain speculation. LBCA offers no helpful record citations supporting these allegations. Expert testimony established that water quality sampling by FRI and the District of the surficial aquifer at the locations chosen was where water quality impacts would be most likely to be revealed and consequently was a conservative approach. (T. 133, 144, 1029-1030, 1061, 1073). This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 130-139, 141-144, 575-576, 1028-1031, 1061-10 65, 1073, 1136-1139). LBCA Exception Number 19 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 by stating that it misleadingly implies that 212 homes were tested for water quality by HRS. To the contrary, the hearing officer's finding states "12 out of 212 homeowners" (emphasis added) south of the mine site were tested, not 212. In addition, the exhibits referenced do not reflect the testing of 212 homes. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 167-168, 379, 990, 1036-1037, 1041, 1048-1050, 1052-1053). LBCA Exception Number 20 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 on the basis that it is a legal conclusion which misrepresents and misapplies the state water quality standards. However, LBCA cites no authority or record citation for the argument as required by Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C. The finding actually states "with the exception of one well... the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese"; clearly, this is a factual statement. This exception, under the guise of an unsupported legal argument, goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence which, incidentally, includes explanation and citation to the relevant exception/standard. Furthermore, the parties stipulated that official recognition was taken of chapter 17-520, F.A.C. The exception is rejected. (T. 1034, 1041, 1077-1078; Prehearing Stip. p 12; Rules 17- 520.420(2) and 17-520.200(11), F.A.C.) LBCA Exception Number 21 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 that the 1989 water quality samples by HRS were unreliable because of the uncertainty regarding the sampling technique protocol. This exception erroneously states there was no evidence of sampling protocol used by HRS. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1039-1049). LBCA Exception Number 22 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 52 that the receiving body of water will not be seriously harmed, by characterizing the finding as being predicated on an unproven theory that the surficial aquifer receives all groundwater discharged from one site. LBCA has failed to read the entire finding which clearly reveals that the hearing officer did not confine his consideration to the surficial aquifer. He found that water quality standards would not be violated in the surfical aquifer, where the highest concentrations of any potential contaminants would appear, then they would not be violated in any intermediate aquifer similarly, no violations would occur in one Floridan aquifer. The decision to believe one expert over another is the role of the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club, supra.. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 105, 141-142, 1025-1030, 1034-1035). LBCA Exception Number 23 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 55 that water quality sampling was collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond. In their responses to this exception, FRI explicitly notes it has no response to this exception and District counsel concedes that although water quality samples were taken from the dredge pond and a water budget was calculated for the dredge pond, these two procedures were not linked to one another. The testimony of FRI witnesses is that water quality sampling and data to determine the water budget for the dredge pond were performed. (T. 76, 103). Counsel for FRI and the District have stipulated that the testimony does not support the finding that the water quality samples were used to evaluate the water budget. Since, as stipulated, this portion of the hearing officer's finding is not supported by any evidence in the record, the exception is accepted. LBCA Exception Number 24 The LBCA takes exception to the nearing officer's Finding of Fact 55, arguing that the applicant did not perform an environmental assessment of Lake Brooklyn, and thus cannot fairly draw any conclusions about its operation's impact on that lake. The Finding of Fact describes the site-specific information which supports the application. The pertinent part of the finding states: "FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes." To the extent Lake Brooklyn is encompassed by use of the term "area lakes", the existence of an assessment of the impacts to Lake Brooklyn is supported by expert testimony. (T. 281, 899). Additionally, the finding is otherwise supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 266-280). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 25 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 31 which states in pertinent part: "petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring." LBCA is essentially complaining that the entirety of Dr. Stewart's testimony should be credited not just a portion. The role of the hearing officer is to consider and weigh all the evidence, resolve conflicts and judge credibility of the witnesses. The hearing officer apparently did not view all of Dr. Stewart's testimony in the same manner as LBCA's attorney; such is his legal prerogative. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 784-786, 145- 146, 232-233, 285-286, 288-289, 897-898, 1085). LBCA Exception Number 26 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the rate of decline (in Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes) during the APT test was not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before or after the test. LBCA provides no record citations to support its argument that since the hearing officer rejected its use of certain APT data in an attempted correlation between pumping and Lake Brooklyn levels, that all the APT data was entirely discredited and could have no value in an analysis regarding Spring, White Sands or Gator Bone Lakes. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 941-948, 1015-1016, 1123, 1168). RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 62 and 63 and Findings of Fact 42 through 54 (which LBCA alleges should be conclusions of law) that FRI has established its entitlement to the permit. LBCA argues that the applicant failed to present sufficient information about conditions at Lake Brooklyn. LBCA's numerous "factual" statements in this exception are unsupported by record citations. The burden of proof in an administrative hearing falls initially upon the party asserting the affirmative of an issue, i.e. entitlement to a permit. Rules 40C-1.545 and 40C-2.301(7), F.A.C.; Capeletti Brothers v. Department of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The party must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Audubon Society v. South Florida Water Management District, 13 F.A.L.R. 4169 (undated). The applicant's burden is to establish reasonable assurances that the proposed use is a reasonable-beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. Section 373.223, Fla. Stat. The burden of reasonable assurances is not one of absolute guarantees. City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Dev. Dist., 14 F.A.L.R. 866 (January 16, 1992). The impacts which are reasonably expected to result from issuance of the permit must be addressed, not potential impacts or those that might occur Hoffert v. St. Joe Paper Co., 12 F.A.L.R. 4972 (December 6, 1990); Chipola Basin Protective Group Inc. v. Florida Chapter of Sierra Club, 11 F.A.L.R. 467 (Department of Environmental Regulation, December 29, 1988); Florida Keys Citizen Coalition v. 1800 Atlantic Developers, 8 F.A.L.R. 5564 (Department of Environmental Regulation, October 17, 1986). Once the party asserting the affirmative, FRI, has presented its prima facia case, the burden shifts to the LBCA to present contrary evidence. 1800 Atlantic Developers, supra.; Hoffert, supra.. LBCA cites Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Mobil Chemical Co., 481 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) in support of the exception. In Booker Creek, the Court held that additional testing, beyond that offered by the applicant, should have been done before the permit could be issued. Booker Creek was limited to its unique set of facts by the case of Berry v. Dept. of Env. Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The Berry Court, in dealing with a dredge and fill permit, refused to extend the Booker Creek holding to such permits, noting that the permit under consideration in Berry, was not a pollutant discharge permit. The permit in issue here also is not a pollutant discharge permit. More importantly, like the applicant in Berry, FRI offered evidence of extensive testing and analysis regarding where water comes from and goes to at the mine site and in the surrounding vicinity. Finding of Fact No. 55. LBCA incorrectly argues that the modeling information submitted by FRI has no applicability to impacts at Lake Brooklyn, because the model "did not include Lake Brooklyn". Particularly, in view of findings of fact 23, 28, 31-36 (exceptions to which have been previously rejected), it is apparent that the hearing officer rejected LBCA's view of the "facts" stated in this exception. While the model boundary (which is based on water level data for Floridan wells in the region (T. 164)) is between Lake Brooklyn and the pumping wells at the mine, the drawdown at the model boundary is based on a distance-drawdown relationship that relates to the pumping rate at the mine. The 1991 transient model showed that within the 9 square mile boundary, the impacts at the boundary were no more than 0.1 feet. (T. 129, 178). The reduced boundaries in the 1992 model accurately predicted what was happening at the mine site. (T. 178). The distance-drawdown relationship established by the model shows that the drawdown contour ceases before the model boundary is reached and therefore, before Lake Brooklyn is reached. (FR Exs. 5, 22). Impacts to Lake Brooklyn were also assessed through the review of water levels in the Floridan aquifer well (C- 120) between 1960 and 1992. (T. 928-933). The data showed that water levels in the well at Lake Brooklyn actually continued to rise when the 1989 and 1991 pump tests were conducted. (T. 411-412, 931-933; SJRWMD Ex. 13). In addition, when the pumping wells at the mine were turned off, the water level in the well at Lake Brooklyn did not recover. This indicates that there were outside influences for the fluctuation in the well. (T. 415, 933). The data does not show impacts from the pumping at the sand mine. (T. 942). LBCA also erroneously states that groundwater in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine. (See ruling on LBCA's factual exception 5). As listed in responses to LBCA's factual exceptions, particularly those regarding exceptions 8 and 12, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the bindings regarding no adverse impact to Lake Brooklyn. The hearing officer found that the applicant met its burden or proof in Conclusion of Law 62. In Conclusion of Law 63, the hearing officer concluded that the LBCA did not meet its burden of presenting contrary evidence that the withdrawals at the sand mine correlate with the decline in water levels at Lake Brooklyn. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 that additional permit conditions in the case of a water shortage or a shorter permit duration are not necessary. The LBCA is reargue their case in the exception. The District has authority to require FRI to reduce its water use during a water shortage within the seven year life of the permit. Sections 373.175 and 373.246, Fla. Stat., and Rules 40C-2.381(2)(a)2. and 40C-21.271, F.A.C. Rule 40C-2.381(2)(a)2., F.A.C., which is incorporated into the permit as a limiting condition, states: Nothing in this permit should be construed to limit the authority of the St. Johns River Water Management District to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to section 373.175, F.S., or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to section 373.246, F.S. In the event a water shortage, is declared by the District Governing Board, the permittee must adhere to the water shortage restrictions, as specified by the District, even though the specified water shortage restrictions may be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. (emphasis added). Rule 40C-21.271, F.A.C., General Water Use Restrictions, specifies the restrictions which may be imposed during a water shortage on all water users and states, in pertinent parts: The Board may order use of general water use restrictions and the water use restrictions specified in Part VI for the appropriate water shortage phase for each affected source class. Further, the Board may order any combination in lieu of or in addition to the restrictions specified in Part VI of the restrictions described in Subsection (3), by use or method of withdrawal class, within each source class, if necessary to achieve the necessary percent reduction in overall demand. (emphasis added). General water use restrictions which may be imposed include provisions that facilitate the right of water users in an area to make voluntary agreements among themselves, with the concurrence of the Board or the Executive Director, providing for the mutual reduction, sharing, or rotation of use; restrictions on the total amount of water that may be used, diverted, impounded, extracted, or withdrawn during any day, month, or year during the declared shortage; restrictions on the timing of use, diversion, impoundment, extraction, or withdrawal of water; restrictions on pumping rates and schedules or diversion rates and schedules; or such other provisions or restrictions as are necessary to protect the water resources from serious harm. With the above cited authority, the District can require the withdrawals at the sand mine to be reduced during periods of water shortage within the seven year term of the permit by reducing the total amount withdrawn, controlling the schedule of withdrawals or "by other restrictions which arc necessary to protect the water resources." The hearing officer's conclusion is consistent with the rules and statutes which govern the Board. The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 and Finding of Fact 47 that FRI satisfied the criteria regarding water conservation measures. See Rule 40C-2.301(4)(e), F.A.C. The LBCA reargues the facts which the hearing officer found to support the conclusion. However, the LBCA offered no evidence to rebut the testimony of FRI. In addition, the LBCA cites no authority that the hearing officer's conclusion is contrary to law. Florida Audubon Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 F.A.L.R. 565 (October 31, 1986). LBCA also renews its attack on the allocation amount, essentially iterating its factual exception which is rejected for the reasons set forth therein. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). LBCA's exception lacks any record citations or legal authority in support of this exception. The conclusion and finding are supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 43-52, 106, 234- 237, 988-989, 1103- 1104, 1111, 1132-1133) LBCA Exception Number 3 (sic). The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63, by arguing that the use of water from the surficial aquifer requires a separate permit. Section 40C-2.051, F.A.C., states: No permit shall be required under the provisions of this rule for the following water uses: Withdrawals of ground or surface water to facilitate construction on or below ground surface ..., in the following circum- stances: ground water may be withdrawn if it is recharged on site to the aquifer from which it was withdrawn by either infiltration or direct injection; surface water may be withdrawn only from wholly owned impoundments or works which are no deeper than the lowest extent of the uppermost water bearing stratum and which have no surface hydrologic connection off site, and the surface water must be recharged on site to the uppermost water bearing stratum by either infiltration or direct injection. This exemption from permitting is applicable here, and therefore, no additional permit is required. An agency's interpretation of its rules is afforded great weight. Franklin Ambulance Service v. DHRS, 45 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). LBCA offered no auth-orty or evidence that the District's interpretation is contrary to established law. This conclusion is supported by competent substantial evidence. The exception is rejected. (T. 38-39, 105, 249, 972, 1101-1102). RULINGS ON EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN POST- HEARING EVIDENTIARY RULING LBCA excepts the hearing officer's rulings in Finding of Fact No. 56 and Conclusion of Law No, 66 excluding LBCA exhibits nos. 61, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83 as inadmissible for failure of LBCA to comply with subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., regarding use of summaries of evidence. LBCA takes exception to FRI's objection post-hearing alleging that the exhibits had been admitted. In fact, the exhibits were not admitted at hearing. The LBCA's citation to the transcript is not the hearing officer's ruling on the exhibits. The hearing officer did not admit the ten exhibits on the record, as he did with every other exhibit that he admitted. The LBCA's assertion that it believed the exhibits were admitted is belied by LBCA's failure to list them as admitted in its Proposed Recommended Order on page 3. Therefore, LBCA's claim that FRI's continuing objection was a surprise is without merit. LBCA asserts that FRI cannot make a post-hearing objection to the exhibits in its Proposed Recommended Order and infers gnat FRI's objection to the admission of the exhibits was not preserved at hearing. Rule 40C-1.561, F.A.C., provides for the submission of legal briefs along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions or law. For matters that remain pending at the close of a hearing, a party may file a legal brief in support of its position. FRI did not object to the opinion testimony of the LBCA expert witness, only to the graphic depictions of such testimony. (T. 356). LBCA stated at hearing that the excluded exhibits were simply graphic depictions of the expert's opinion testimony. (T. 354). The record is abundantly clear that FRI preserved its objection to the exhibits and the hearing officer reserved ruling on their admission until the recommended order was issued. (T. 353, 358, 360, 363, 369, 370, 375, 377, 524, 531, 537, 1079-1080, 1178). LBCA essentially asserts that the exhibits are not "summaries" and therefore not subject to subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., which, of course, the fact-finder found otherwise. LBCA's reliance on Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) is misplaced. Marks did not hold that expert testimony is not subject to subsection 90.956, but only that an expert is not required to utilize subsection 90.956 when presenting underlying data relied on for his opinion. The hearing officer found that the hydrographs were summaries and the underlying information was not indicated on the summary. The hearing officer allowed FRI time to review the data and present rebuttal. The fact-finder is entitled to great latitude in admitting or excluding summary evidence. Wright v. Southwest Bank, 554 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1977)(trial court without jury is entitled to great latitude covering the admission or exclusion of summary evidence). LBCA has failed to show that the hearing officer abused this discretion in excluding the exhibits. LBCA also takes exception that LBCA was denied rebuttal, or surrebuttal, on FRI's rebuttal case. As discussed in the ruling on LBCA's Exception 15, LBCA failed to request rebuttal of FRI's case. The hearing officer allowed cross-examination and LBCA did not offer any additional evidence from LBCA witnesses. Since the LBCA never requested to offer rebuttal testimony, then the hearing officer could not and did not deny that request. It is well-settled that an objection must be preserved during an administrative proceeding or it will be deemed waived. DeMendoza v. First Federal Savings and Loan, 585 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(even if mistake was made in trial, party's waived its right to appeal the issue since it failed to call the deficiency to the court's attention during trial); Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condominium Assoc., 500 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(party's failure to object to matters at administrative hearing made those matters unreviewable, even though party claimed fundamental procedural errors, it failed to show how it was prejudiced by any such action or omission; National Dairy Products, Corp. v. Odham, 121 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1959). Therefore, LBCA's exception based on the denial of rebuttal is rejected. LBCA argues that-the proper vehicle for the objection was a motion for rehearing. LBCA does not cite authority for its assertion. Since the hearing officer never ruled on the admissibility, there was no order on which to base a motion for rehearing. Nevertheless, the alleged error, if any, of excluding the exhibits, was harmless. Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1991)(exclusion of manual was harmless since experts testified to the same matters in the manual); Little v. Banker's National Life Insurance Co., 369 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(harmless error to exclude letter since witnesses otherwise testified at length as to its contents and conclusions). The LBCA expert testified extensively regarding the basis of each excluded exhibit and the information it depicts in relation to the conclusions of his expert opinion which the hearing officer weighed in rendering his factual findings and conclusions. (T. 346, 349, 351, 352, 358, 359, 364, 366, 371, 373, 411, 456, 457, 458, 481, 486, 501, 504, 507, 509, 511, 512, 516, 517, 518, 519, 542). The hearing officer concluded that even if the exhibits had been admitted it would not have altered his factual findings stating that they had limited probative value. (Conclusion of Law No. 66). Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON RECOMMENDED ORDER'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 120.59(2), FLA. STAT. LBCA asserts that the hearing officer failed to comply with subsection 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., by not providing a sufficiently explicit ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. Section 120,59(2), Fla. Stat., requires "a ruling upon each proposed finding" The Appendix to the Recommended Order does not contain an omnibus "blanket" ruling on all of LBCA's proposed findings which the courts have found inadequate. Cf. Island Harbor beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Health Care Management, Inc. v. DHRS, 479 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Appendix clearly contains a ruling upon each of LBCA's proposed findings. Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., requires no more. LBCA relies on Island Harbor Beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), to support this argument. Island Harbor Beach Club, differs significantly from this case. The order Island Harbor Beach Club did not individually address each specific proposed finding as the Recommended Order in this case does. The only reference to proposed findings made in the Island Harbor Beacon Club order was a single paragraph which stated: The parties proposed findings of fact have been considered and where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate. This differs from the Recommended Order in the instant case which specifically addresses each proposed finding and specifies where (by paragraph) in the Recommended Order that proposed finding is addressed. It is elementary to then read the paragraph referred to in the Recommended Order to determine what portion of the proposed finding was accepted. More applicable to this case is the case of Schomer v. Department of Professional Regulation, 417 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The order in Schomer did not contain specific rulings on each proposed finding submitted by the Appellant. The substance of the final order, however, demonstrated that each finding had been considered and ruled on. The Court noted that, for purposes of complying with Section 120.59(2) Fla. Stat., It would not elevate form over substance." An agency need not Independently quote verbatim each proposed finding and independently dispose of that proposed finding; rather, it is sufficient that the agency provide in its decision a written foundation upon which the reviewing court may assure that all proposed findings of fact have been consider and ruled upon and not overlooked or concealed. Id. at 1090. The Court held that it could discern from the substance of the order that each of the proposed findings were addressed, and to the extent the technical requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., were departed from, the departure did not materially impair the fairness or correctness of the proceedings. Id. at 1091. LBCA merely has to compare the hearing officer's findings with its proposed findings to discern those portions accepted. Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON MOTION FOR REMAND Pursuant, to Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., LBCA has filed a Motion for Remand asserting that newly discovered evidence establishes that a finding by the hearing officer is inaccurate because of allegedly false testimony by District expert witness, Dr. Larry Lee. The hearing officer found that Lake Brooklyn had been in a period of decline before and after the 1989 aquifer pump test and that due to rainfall deficits Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least 18 to 24 months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The hearing officer determined that the rate and character of declines during the pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before and after the test. Thus, he found that impacts to Lake Brooklyn water levels from the pumping were indistinguishable from the declines due to drought. (Finding of Fact No. 30). LBCA asserts that a newly discovered Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) survey, dated October 11, 1988, shows that Brooklyn Bay was not segregated from the remainder of the lake due to drought conditions prior to the 1989 aquifer pump test as testified by Dr. Lee and seeks the Board to remand the issue to the hearing officer for consideration of this new evidence. The only reasons for remand regarding fact finding are if an erroneous legal conclusion by a hearing officer warrants taking of evidence on the issue, or if a factual issue was never ruled upon by the hearing officer. See Miller v. Dept. Envt'l Reg., 5504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(agency's modification of legal conclusions necessitated factual findings on issue which hearing officer had initially disregarded as irrelevant) and Cohn v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(when the hearing officer fails to find a specific fact, agency must remand to the hearing officer to do so). Clearly, neither of these reasons have any application to Petitioner's arguments. Although subsection 40C-1.512, F.A.C., provides that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to District administrative proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with Chapter 120 or Chapter 40C-1, the applicability of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is problematic and inconsistent with a subsection 120.57 proceeding. First, the civil procedure rule only applies to final judgments and in this subsection 120.57 administrative proceeding LBCA is attempting to apply the civil procedure rule to a nonfinal recommended order. Second, LBCA has not expressly excepted Finding of Fact No. 30 as not supported by competent substantial evidence or that a Board rule or policy has been incorrectly interpreted /1 , but actually seeks the Board to allow LBCA to supplement the record after remand with new facts for the hearing officer to weigh in applying those facts to the applicable District rules. Thus, unlike a trial court, Finding of Fact No. 30 cannot be altered by this Board if supported by any competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); School Board of Leon County v. Weaver, 556 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Board may only consider whether the findings actually made by the hearing officer are sustained by the evidence, and whether, if so, they support the recommended legal conclusions. Cohn v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Unlike a judge with plenary and equitable powers in a judicial setting, this Board, under Chapter 120, cannot authorize fact- finding after a hearing's conclusion except in the most narrow circumstances, none of which are applicable to the motion before the Board. Cf. Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous legal interpretation); Cohn, supra.. (may remand if a necessary factual issue was not determined by the hearing officer); Friends of Children v. DHRS, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous evidentiary ruling). In effect, LBCA wants to utilize a civil procedure rule for the Board to authorize additional fact-finding on a matter already considered by the hearing officer regarding a finding supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., simply does not authorize the Board to take such action. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. Stat.; Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(chapter 120 does not allow additional or cumulative evidence on matters already considered and the APA does not envision a never-ending process). Consequently, the application of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is inconsistent with Chapter 120 and LBCA is free to raise any alleged error at hearing on appeal of the final order. Even assuming Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is applicable to this subsection 120.57 proceeding, LBCA has failed to clearly establish the extraordinary circumstances warranting the granting of its motion. The material issue of whether FRI's proposed pumping would impact the area lake levels already effected by a rainfall deficit was expressly raised by LBCA in its initial petition for hearing as far back as August 1992 and was also an issue stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation prior to the February 1993 hearing. (Petition for Administrative Hearing paragraph f. 2, 3, 4.; Prehearing Stip. paragraphs B. 2, G. 1). Consequently, LBCA had over five months prior to hearing to elicit all relevant evidence to that Issue. If Rule 1.540(b) was applicable, LBCA's burden would be to clearly establish the following to receive relief: (1) it must appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the-result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before one trial by the exercise of due diligence; and (4) that it is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching. City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Construction Inc., 370 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); King v. Harrington, 411 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev denied, 418 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1982). The predicate for LBCA's motion is that Dr. Lee's testimony regarding the lake separation was false, therefore LBCA could not have exercised due diligence in discovering the alleged new evidence. LBCA has filed no express exception with record support establishing that Finding of Fact No. 30 is not supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the Board by law cannot alter that factual finding. Section 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C.; Section 120.37(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze, supra.. Consequently, Dr. Lee's testimony is not false. Importantly, Dr. Lee's testimony was not the only evidence supporting this finding. LBCA's own witness, the president of the association, testified that Brooklyn Bay had been segregated for four or five years from the main part of the lake and that he had been able to walk across the lake without getting wet for the last four or five years. (T. 863, 870). Likewise, LBCA's own expert stated that Lake Brooklyn's condition between 1989 to 1991 had receded to such an extent as it was no longer a continuous lake. (T. 317). Accordingly, the predicate for LBCA's motion is factually inaccurate and misplaced. Furthermore, LBCA must clearly establish that even though the exercise of due diligence before the hearing, it would not have discovered the 1988 D.O.T. survey. Brav v. Electric Door-Lift Inc., 558 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(movant's burden to establish due diligence); Plisco v. Union Railroad Co., 379 F.2d 15 (3d DCA 1967)(motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence is granted only where extraordinary circumstances are present). Even though the effects of FRI's proposed pumping on lake levels in time of rainfall deficit was an issue dating back to August 1992, LBCA asserts that it could not have obtained the survey prior to hearing in February 1993 "because of the logistics of requesting public records and the delay in delivery of same." LBCA could have reasonably anticipated that witnesses would testify regarding the disputed issue, particularly its own witnesses, and obtained the survey with the exercise of due diligence. LBCA offers no basis why D.O.T. would not have supplied the survey as required by law or that LBCA could not obtain it and, in fact, the public records law contains a provision for obtaining immediate relief if a request for records is denied. See subsection 119.11, Fla. Stat. In Florida Audubon Society v. Ratner, 497 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), a 1981 judgment had been entered finding that limestone mining would be inconsistent with the water management purposes of a water management district's flowage easement on platiff's property. Plaintiff sought a new trial because of newly discovered opposing evidence in a 1980 Corps of Engineers report on the effects of limestone mining. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court agreed finding that the granting of such motions was disfavored and that the report was prepared in September 1980 well before the trial and judgment in June 1981 and could have been discovered prior to the with the exercise of due diligence. Likewise in this proceeding, the proffered D.O.T. survey was prepared in October 1988, nearly four and one-half years before the February 1993 hearing and LBCA has failed to show that due diligence would not have discovered the survey prior to the administrative hearing in this proceeding. See also, Morhaim v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 559 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(no new trial granted based on post-judgment affidavits regarding evidence on known issue that could have been discovered prior to trial). LBCA also asserts that Dr. Lee misrepresented the contents of Clark's "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida" regarding its conclusions and his opinion concerning the separation of Brooklyn Bay from Lake Brooklyn and thus prejudiced LBCA's case. LBCA argument is an attack on the weight of the conflicting evidence which is the job of the hearing officer to resolve. An expert witness is not required to disclose the facts and data underlying his opinion. Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). LBCA could have cross examined Dr. Lee regarding the separation. LBCA was aware of the "Clark Report" (T. 844) and even anticipated testimony regarding water levels in its case in chief (T. 846). Indeed, the report was listed by LBCA as its Exhibit 13 in the Prehearing Stipulation, although LBCA chose not to introduce it into evidence during the hearing. Dr. Lee testified not once but twice about the location of the staff gauge (T. 946 and 962-966). On cross, LBCA did not inquire about the location of the staff gauge or the lack of water beneath the bridge. (T. 991-1017). It was LBCA's burden to challenge the factual basis for Dr. Lee's opinion. City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). An insufficiency in the expert opinion offered, if any, should have been addressed in cross-examination by LBCA, not by a post-hearing motion. LBCA alleges that the outcome would be different if the DOT survey were part of the evidence. The Board cannot accept new evidence or rule on the admissibility of evidence which was not presented to the hearing officer. The Finding of Fact to which LBCA refers states six reasons why the correlation between the pumping at the sand mine and its effects on Lake Brooklyn water level were not established. See Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 32. The location of the staff gauge in Brooklyn Bay rather than Lake Brooklyn was one of those six. LBCA's error was in not knowing the location of the staff gauge (T. 418-420) rather than the testimony of Dr. Lee. Therefore, LBCA's allegation that but for the testimony of Dr. Lee, the hearing officer would have found differently is unfounded. The mere chance that the hearing officer might have found differently is insufficient to remand the hearing for additional fact finding. Cluett v. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 530 So.2d 351, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The courts look with disfavor on motions based on newly discovered evidence because to look with favor would bring about a looseness in practice and encourage counsel to neglect to gather all available evidence for a first trial by speculating upon the outcome, and then, being defeated, become for the first time duly diligent in securing other evidence to cure the defects or omissions in their showing upon the first trial. Rushing v. Chappell, 247 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Henderson Sians v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 397 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is well-settled that no abuse of discretion occurs on the part of an agency by refusing to direct a remand to receive evidence which could have been introduced during the course of the original proceedings. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) LBCA has failed to clearly establish a right to relief and therefore the motion is denied. RULING ON MOTION FOR OFFICIAL RECOGNITION AND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD LBCA has filed a Motion for Official Recognition and to Supplement the Record seeking the Board to accept into evidence the October 11, 1988 D.O.T. survey which was the subject of LBCA's Motion for Remand and also the U.S.G.S. publication "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida", by Clark, also referenced In LBCA's Motion for Remand. The Board is not a fact-finder in this subsection 120.57 proceeding and it is reversible error for the Board to supplement the record through post-hearing evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. stat., Marks v. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 566 So.2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(court refused to take judicial notice of factual matter based on records that could have been offered at administrative hearing); Nest v. Dept. of Professional Regulation 490 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Shongut v Mark, 173 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(Where matters raised on motion for relief from judgment could have been available to movant during trial proceedings, denial of motion was not abuse of discretion); Weaver, supra.. Moreover, the Motion for Remand has been denied. LBCA's post- hearing motions will be available as part of the record of this proceeding for purposes of any appeal which may be pursued. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Recommended Order dated June 4, 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted in its entirety except as modified by the final action of the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District (Ruling on LBCA Exception 23). Florida Rock Industries' application for consumptive use permit no. 2-019-0012AUR is hereby granted under the terms and conditions as provided herein. The post-hearing Motion for Remand, Motion for Official Recognition and Motion to Supplement the Record filed by LBCA are hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July 1993, in Palatka, Florida. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT By: JOE E. HILL CHAIRMAN RENDERED this 14th day of July 1993. By: SANDRA L. BERTRAM ASSISTANT DISTRICT CLERK
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Florida Rock Industries (FRI or applicant), a Florida corporation, operates a nine hundred and eighty acre sand mine known as the Goldhead Sand Mine (Goldhead) in Clay County, Florida. The mine is located approximately six miles northeast of Keystone Heights and fifty miles southwest of Jacksonville. FRI has operated the mine since 1958. With the exception of eighty acres of land owned by FRI, the remainder of the land on which the mine is located is owned by Carroll-Phillips Investors and has been leased to FRI since 1973. The mine lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), a special taxing district created by the legislature and charged with the responsibility for administering and enforcing permitting programs for consumptive uses of water. FRI is accordingly subject to the District's regulatory authority. As a necessary component of its operation, FRI withdraws approximately 2.09 million gallons per day (MGD) of groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer which is used in the production of sand. This use of water is made pursuant to a consumptive use permit (no. 2-019-0012U) issued to FRI by the District on December 11, 1984, and which allows it to consume 762.85 million gallons per year of groundwater for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead mine. The permit was issued for seven years. In order to continue groundwater withdrawal and use, FRI has applied to the District for a seven-year renewal of its permit with no request for an increase in allocation. That request, which has been identified as application no. 2-019-0012AUR, is the subject of this proceeding. After conducting a review of the application, making site inspections, and performing various studies and analyses, on July 28, 1992, the District, through its staff, gave notice of its intent to approve the application with certain conditions. Thereafter, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, Lake Brooklyn Civic Association, Inc. (petitioner), a nonprofit corporation made up of property owners in adjacent areas of Clay County, filed a petition under Subsection 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, seeking to contest the proposed action. Petitioner is a citizen of the state and has an interest in activities that may injure or harm the state's water resources. Thus, it has standing to bring this action. As twice amended, the petition generally alleged that the consumptive use would (a) cause an unmitigated adverse impact on adjacent land uses, including a significant reduction in water levels in Lake Brooklyn and Spring, Gator Bone, and White Sands Lake, which lie generally to the south and southwest of the mine site, (b) cause a deterioration in water quality, (c) cause economic or environmental harm, and (d) be for purposes other than operating a sand mine. The broad three-pronged test to be used in determining whether the permit should be issued is whether the proposed consumptive use is a reasonable- beneficial use, whether it will interfere with presently existing legal uses of water, and whether it is consistent with the public interest. In addressing this test, the parties have presented extensive expert testimony involving highly technical subject matter. As might be expected, the experts reached different conclusions as to whether the criteria have been met. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, and this accepted testimony is recited in the findings below. The Mining Site Operations The entire mine site is around 7,000 feet east to west, about one mile north to south in a rectangular shape, and lies within the lake region of northeast Florida. The mine's product is silica sand used for concrete and masonry mortar for construction throughout northeast Florida. As such, it produces an economic benefit to the region. The mine is located on one of the few sites in the northeast Florida area with deposits suitable for construction purposes and is the closest sand mine to the Jacksonville market. In 1958, FRI installed three ten-inch diameter production wells in the center of the mine site. One well is 450 feet deep while the other two are 460 feet deep. The 1984 permit authorizes withdrawals of 762.85 million gallons of water per year, an average rate of 2.09 MGD, and a maximum rate of 3.75 MGD. This rate is consistent with the amount of water used at other mines in north Florida and is based on FRI's projected maximum annual use. The use is industrial commercial for sand mining while the source is the Floridan Aquifer, the lowest acceptable water quality source available capable of producing the requested amount of water. Water use withdrawal from the three wells is monitored by in-line flow meters installed in 1991 as a water control and conservation measure. The pumping rate depends on the number of fixtures and valves open in the system at the time of pumping. However, the actual rate of water production cannot be varied at any of the pumps since the wells are connected to "on or off" pumps. The need for water in the dredge pond and processing plant dictates how long FRI will have a pump in operation. Water from the wells is first discharged into a dredge pond, twenty feet deep, which is an approximately 155-acre excavation lake located in the southwest portion of the mine site. In periods of low water, the water is used to float the dredge, which requires some three feet of water to float, and in conjunction with a bulldozer, to wash sand down from the bank toward the dredge. After the dredge sucks up sand and water from the bottom of the pond, this mixture is slurried to an on-site processing plant where more water is added to sort and wash the sand. The end product (silica sand) is then loaded onto trucks which haul the product to the market. After processing, the moisture content of the sand product is only 5 percent. The tailings (unusable waste product) and wash water are then routed by a slurry pipe to settling areas and eventually recirculated through a system of ditches, canals and water control structures back into the dredge pond. No chemicals are used in the operation. Although FRI's contract with the lessor of the property requires it to maintain the dredge pond elevation at a specified elevation, this requirement cannot be fulfilled during drought conditions. The mining operation is a closed system to the extent there is no point source (surface water) discharge from the system. Even so, a significant amount of water loss occurs during the process, mainly through percolation into the ground. Other water loss occurs through evaporation. The receiving water from the site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes, including Gator Bone, White Sands, and Spring Lakes. Water may also travel through the surficial aquifer into the sinkholes on site and thence to the Floridan Aquifer. However, not all water is lost to sinkholes in the settling area because they are filled with fine materials. This is confirmed by the fact that water returns to the dredge pond. The mining operation has not affected this pattern. The lakes in the region are replenished solely by rainfall, either by direct rain on the lakes or through water seeping through sands. FRI plans to mine approximately thirty additional acres at the Goldhead Site during the next seven years. To this end, it has secured a management and storage of surface waters permit from the District which allows construction of this additional acreage. It also has acquired an industrial waste water discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation. It is expected that within the next two to four years, FRI will abandon the current dredge pond and start a new one on the north side of the property to accommodate mining operations, or in the alternative, extend the current pond to the north. Water conservation A water conservation plan has been submitted by FRI. Measures already implemented include (a) using in-line flow meters to monitor amounts of withdrawal, (b) not pumping for more than seventeen hours per day to prevent exceeding the maximum allotment per day, (c) regularly monitoring withdrawals to ensure allocations as not being exceeded, (d) extending the plant discharge further past the sinkholes in the settling area to maximize return water to the dredge pond, (e) raising water levels in the settling area to facilitate flow back to the dredge pond, (f) during periods of drought using bulldozers instead of water spray to break loose sand formations, (g) curtailing production when further production would cause the plant to exceed allocations, (h) replacing water-cooled bearings in plant machinery with bearings that do not require water, and (i) restricting dredge mobility to allow operation in shallower water. No other water conservation measures are economically, environmentally or technologically feasible. Hydrogeologic characteristics at the mine site The mine site, which is located within the Upper Etonia Creek surface water drainage basin, generally slopes from 200 feet NGVD on the north to 120 feet NGVD on the south, and is underlain, in order, by approximately 10 to 50 feet of sand (known as the surficial aquifer), 200 feet of dense, moist clay (known as the Hawthorn Formation), and then a highly transmissive limestone formation (known as the Floridan Aquifer). The surficial aquifer flows from north to south across the site while water falling on the site primarily moves downgradient through the surficial aquifer. There are five sinkholes on the site, all having predated the mining activities, which may provide a conduit for recharge from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan aquifer. Except where the Hawthorn formation, a confining unit to the Floridan aquifer, is breached, recharge through the Hawthorn formation is very slow because of the dense clays of that formation. Aquifer characteristics within the Floridan aquifer beneath the site and immediately adjacent thereto are relatively uniform. As noted earlier, 5 percent of the water leaves the mine site as moisture in the sand product. The remaining 95 percent of water is immediately recharged on site to the surficial aquifer through various impoundments, and after entering the surficial aquifer, that portion of the water which is not recirculated to the dredge pond for reuse in the mining process moves either vertically into the Hawthorn formation, vertically into the Floridan aquifer through a sinkhole, downgradient through the surficial aquifer to one of the lakes south of the mine, or evaporates. It is noted that notwithstanding the mining operations, the flow in the surficial aquifer system still parallels the topography as it existed prior to mining, and the same saturated thickness within the surficial aquifer exists on site as existed before mining occurred. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Region The region in which the mine is located is very high in topographic altitude indicating that it is a groundwater recharge area. Like the mine site, the region has three distinct geologic units underlying the surface, including sands and clayey sands (surficial aquifer), thick clays (Hawthorn formation) and limestones and dolomites (Floridan aquifer). The Hawthorn unit serves as a confining unit or semi-confining unit between the surficial aquifer, or water table, in the upper unit and the Floridan aquifer in the lower unit. When solution channels develop within the limestones in the lower unit, the openings can cause the overlying units to collapse, forming sinkholes. Thus, when the Hawthorn formation is breached by the development of a sinkhole, water can move rapidly through the overlying units to the Floridan aquifer. Many of the lakes within the region exist over collapsed features within the limestone units beneath them and are referred to as sinkhole lakes. The rate of recharge from each lake depends on the rate of leakance into the Floridan aquifer. Some lakes leak fast, others not at all. For example, Lake Brooklyn fluctuates about two feet, Lake Johnson about thirteen feet, and Pebble Lake about thirty feet. Lake Brooklyn, which lies several miles to the southwest of the mine, is the fourth lake in a chain of lakes consisting of Blue Pond, Sand Hill Lake, Lake Magnolia, Lake Brooklyn, Keystone Lake, Lake Geneva, Oldfield Pond, and Half Moon Lake. All of these lakes are in a different surface water drainage sub-basin within the larger Upper Etonia Creek Basin than the mine site. The lakes above Lake Brooklyn in the chain are at higher elevations than Lake Brooklyn, and when rainfall is sufficient, water flows from Blue Pond to Sand Hill Lake, to Lake Magnolia, and then to Lake Brooklyn through Alligator Creek. Direct rainfall and surface water inflows from Alligator Creek represent the most significant sources of water to Lake Brooklyn. Other pertinent lakes in the area are Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes, which lie almost directly along the mine site's southern boundary and are each less than a mile from the mine's dredge pond. During the period records have been maintained for water levels in Lake Brooklyn, it has fluctuated over a range of slightly more than twenty feet. Although average rainfall within the Upper Etonia Creek Basin is approximately fifty-one inches per year, during the period from 1974 through 1990 the basin experienced a continuing period of below normal rainfall resulting in a cumulative deficit of rainfall for this period of minus seventy-eight inches. Since 1988, the lake region has experienced a severe drought. Because the lakes in the region have risen or fallen in correlation with periods of below normal or above normal rainfall, lake levels have fallen dramatically in recent years. Water levels in Lake Brooklyn began declining in 1974 at the same time the period of below normal rainfall began and continued declining until 1991, a year in which the region experienced above normal rainfall. These low water levels were exacerbated by the cessation of surface water inflows from Alligator Creek in late 1988 which continued until late 1992 when such flows resumed. The cessation of surface water flows into Lake Brooklyn during the period from 1988- 1992 were a direct consequence of the extended period of below normal rainfall in the region. Finally, very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. Water Quality Impacts Numerous analyses have been conducted to determine water quality of the site, water quality in nearby homeowners' water systems, and water quality impacts of the proposed consumptive use. They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels for certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992. In addition, FRI conducted water quality sampling on site in eight wells, the dredge pond and a settling pond. Finally, petitioner reviewed water quality samples from off-site private water supply wells taken on March 1, 1989, and on July 22, 1992, by unknown persons. As to this latter sampling, petitioner had no knowledge of the protocol used in obtaining the 1989 samples and offered no evidence of reliability of the 1992 data. Thus, the reliability of its assessment is in doubt. None of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. However, petitioner posits that a chemical reaction is likely occurring at the deeper levels of the dredge pond, possibly causing undissolved iron in sediments to become dissolved, and then traveling in solution through the clays of the Hawthorn formation into transmissive units and finally to off-site homeowners' wells which may be in those units. This theory was predicated on the results of 1989 HRS sampling which revealed some wells near White Sands Lake experienced elevated levels of iron and manganese, and an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond. However, only one application of a herbicide occurred, and that was in 1990, or one year after iron was detected in the off-site homeowners' wells. Petitioner agreed that the 1990 application of herbicide could not have affected the 1989 sampling. It also agreed that these reactions were less likely to be occurring in a pond with water flowing through it. In this case, water is circulated through the dredge pond by being pumped into it, pumped out of it, and allowed to flow back into the pond. FRI determined that no state water quality standards were exceeded for iron, manganese, zinc, turbidity, total dissolved solids, chloride and nitrate in the surficial aquifer and Hawthorn formations at the site. The wells used for monitoring water quality were installed and sampled using standard quality assurance techniques. Water quality from the surficial aquifer was emphasized because if iron or manganese were present in the water, it would most likely be detected in wells in the surficial aquifer because they are detected in wells immediately downgradient of the source. If the chemical reaction is occurring, water leaving the dredge pond is contaminated, and such water will follow the path of least resistance by going either to the Hawthorn formation or the surficial aquifer. Because of the geologic properties of the Hawthorn, this path is the surficial aquifer. At least 70,000 gallons per day enter the surficial aquifer from the bottom of the dredge pond. Since contaminated water would receive water quality treatment by absorption of the Hawthorn but not in the surficial, water in the surficial aquifer represents the worst case scenario as to the possible presence of contaminated water. The chemical reactions which petitioner believes may be occurring in the deeper portions of the dredge pond require the presence of an acidic environment and reduced oxygen levels in the water. FRI's water quality testing indicates that water in the dredge pond is not acidic, but rather is neutral. Therefore, any reaction which might be occurring could not be on a large enough scale to affect water quality. Moreover, even if the reactions were occurring, it was established that the clays in the Hawthorn formation would absorb iron, and such absorption would not take place in the surficial aquifer. Therefore, it is found that there would be no adverse impact to groundwater including the surficial aquifer and that water quality standards will be met. Although petitioner presented evidence that in 1989 HRS testing of 12 out of 212 homeowners south of the mine site indicated that three homeowners had iron concentrations in excess of state drinking standards and two had manganese concentrations in excess of state drinking water standards, this is insufficient to prove that the mining operation has an adverse impact on water quality. To begin with, some of the wells sampled were thirty to fifty years old even though the life expectancy of a well is fifteen to twenty years. Some were constructed of galvanized steel pipe, and those wells also indicated high turbidity levels. High turbidity levels are caused by a number of unrelated factors and will result in increased iron levels that are not representative of the quality of the groundwater in the formation, but rather of the iron-laden sediments in the formation, or from the casing material. With the exception of one well (the Sutton well), the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese. The elevated iron and manganese concentrations in the Sutton well are caused by a number of factors other than the mine. Then, too, a proper sampling technique may not have been followed during the 1989 sampling event thus rendering the results unreliable. Finally, properly constructed monitoring wells should be used to assess the quality of the groundwaters, and the wells sampled in 1989 and 1992 were not of that type. The Mine's Impact on Water Levels Perhaps the issue of primary concern to members of petitioner's organization is whether the mining operations have contributed to the decline in water levels of nearby lakes, including Lake Brooklyn. This is because of serious declines in the levels of those water bodies over the past years, and a concomitant decrease in the value of homes which surround the lakes. In an effort to resolve this and other water level issues, the parties made numerous studies of the current and anticipated water level impacts from the site. This data collection effort was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size. They included aquifer performance tests by FRI and the District, steady state and transient computer modeling of impacts on the Floridan and surficial aquifers by FRI, an analysis of correlations of pumping and water level changes in lakes and aquifers by FRI and petitioner, photolinear and fracture trace analyses of structural conditions by FRI and petitioner, a stratigraphic analysis of a geologic core retrieved from the site by FRI, installation of deep and shallow wells for groundwater monitoring by FRI, groundwater flow mapping by FRI, review of literature by all parties, review and analysis of rainfall data by all parties, analysis of evaporation data by the District and petitioner, and an analysis of geophysical logs from wells by FRI and the District. Aquifer performance tests Aquifer performance tests, which enable hydrologists to reach conclusions regarding the characteristics of the aquifers tested, were conducted in January 1989 by the District and June 1991 by FRI. In a typical pump test, an aquifer production well pumps at a constant rate, while water levels are monitored in observation wells at specified distances from the pumping well. In this case, the tests measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 MGD. The zone of influence of pumping was measured at wells placed at the property boundaries, at Gold Head State Park, east of the mine, as well as wells to the south of the mine for the 1989 tests. During the 1989 tests, lake levels for Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes were recorded. The effects of pumping were approximately equal for wells spaced approximately equal distances along the east, south and west. Thus, for purposes of analysis, the Floridan aquifer was considered isotropic and homogeneous. This is consistent with assumptions commonly made by geologists in Florida. Computer models were calibrated with actual results of these tests to account for variations caused by this assumption. The District has concluded, and the undersigned so finds, that no changes in the levels of the lakes are attributable to pumping. Further, the aquifer itself will not be harmed by the use of the amount of water requested in the application. The tests indicate the maximum amount of drawdown in the Floridan aquifer from pumping at twice the average rate is 0.1 to 0.6 foot in neighboring wells. Effects of actual pumping will be approximately one-half the test observed amounts on an average pumping day. For example, based on the 1989 test results, drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer at the boundary of the FRI property during an average day of pumpage should not exceed 0.2 to 0.3 feet while drawdowns beneath Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes to the south of the mine should be less than 0.2 feet. The tests provide actual measurements of the effects of pumping. Indeed, all three lakes were declining before the 1989 test began and continued to decline after the test was ended. However, the rate of decline during the seventy-eight hours of the test was not distinguishable from declines which occurred before or after the test. Computer modeling As a supplement to the aquifer performance tests, FRI performed computer modeling to determine effects of the water withdrawal and use on the Floridan and surficial aquifers. These models are used by hydrologists to predict impacts associated with a particular source of stress, such as pumpage, to an aquifer and, in this case, occurred in three phases. The first was an impact model which determined the drawdown in the Floridan aquifer. The second occurred as a result of questions raised by residents of the sand mine area and included a "steady state" model simulation of impacts of the Floridan and surficial aquifers. The third occurred as a result of questions raised by petitioner and included new data along with both a "transient state" and "steady state" simulation. All three phases of modeling were consistent in finding that the effects of pumping are non-existent or negligible, that is, a predicted drawdown in various locations of the Floridan aquifer of from less than 0.1 to 0.3 feet on an average pumping day, and they corroborated the drawdowns observed during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests. Petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart criticized FRI's 1992 "steady state" computer modeling on the grounds FRI had insufficient data to conduct the modeling, the constant head boundaries were set too close to the pumping, a transient model should have been run, and the modelers assumed that the Floridan aquifer is isotropic and homogeneous. However, Dr. Stewart failed to review or consider (a) any technical data or information gathered since September 10, 1992, (b) the 1991 transient model, (c) the December 1992 transient model, (d) the computer disc for the July 1992 steady state model, (e) the December 1992 steady state model, (f) the December 1992 calibration, (g) the basis for setting the constant head boundaries, or (h) the data from the 1989 and 1991 pump tests. All of this data was part of the evidence FRI's experts used in formulating their opinions. Dr. Stewart agreed that he could not form any conclusions on this data and that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogeneous and isotropic, but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. The modeling was calibrated to replicate actual subsurface and pumping conditions. Maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This is drawdown with no replacement, although there will be leakance back to the Floridan aquifer through sinkholes on the site and surcharge to Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes through the surficial aquifer. The impact to the Floridan is minor compared to normal water level fluctuations in that aquifer of 3 to 5 feet per year. In fact, barometric pressure changes can cause water level changes of up to one foot per week. Lake levels Because many of the lakes in the area leak downward, water levels in the lakes could be affected by the changes in levels in the Floridan aquifer. Indeed, for lakes connected to the Floridan aquifer, changes in the level of the potentiometric surface (or pressure) in the Floridan aquifer can have an impact on the level of the lakes. However, a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance. Consequently, even if Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes do leak to the Floridan aquifer, the amount of decline in lake levels attributable to pumping at the mine will be less than the 0.1 to 0.2 foot modeled by FRI. This drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. Even if levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes are affected by drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer, that effect will be more than offset by surcharge to the surficial and Floridan aquifers from the dredge pond. The net effect to the lakes would be either positive or immeasurable. This is confirmed by the computer modeling results. Lake stage and precipitation data for Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes indicates that these lakes, like other lakes in the region, rise and fall in correlation with precipitation patterns. For example, in 1991, a year with above normal rainfall, Spring Lake rose 4.1 feet in elevation, White Sands Lake 2.9 feet in elevation, and Gator Bone Lake rose 3.5 feet in elevation. Similarly, water levels were monitored before, during and after the 1989 aquifer performance test in a portion of Lake Brooklyn known as Brooklyn Bay. Because of low rainfall, Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least eighteen to twenty-four months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The lake had been in the midst of a long term decline both before and after the test, and the rate and character of declines during the period of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before or after the test. It is accordingly found that the impacts on water levels in Lake Brooklyn, if any, as a result of pumping from the Floridan aquifer are immeasurable. According to petitioner's witness Boyes, activities at the mine have an influence on water levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes by "increasing the rate of decline". However, the witness could not quantify the degree of impact but stated the impacts during the 1989 aquifer performance tests were a decline of .03, .03 and less than .03 foot, respectively, for each lake. The witness also opined that, based on District staff guage readings during the 1989 aquifer performance testing, pumping at the mine resulted in a .04 foot decline in lake level for Lake Brooklyn during the 1989 testing period. This decline had a net result of .8 acre decrease in the previously 600 acre plus Lake Brooklyn. By comparison, the drought caused a decline of 162 acres in 1989 and an additional 158 acres in 1990. It is noted that the decline in each lake would be less during average pumping conditions, or about one-half of the .04 foot decline, since average pumping is one-half of the aquifer performance test pump rate. Finally, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring. It is found, however, that these drawdowns are less than the .1 to .2 foot modeled by FRI and should have no significant adverse impacts on water levels. Preferential flow theory Petitioner presented evidence of a purported correlation between pumping at the mine and water levels in a Floridan aquifer well located on the southwest side of Lake Brooklyn, 4.3 miles from the mine, and lake levels in Brooklyn Bay, 3 miles from the mine. According to petitioner, this serves as proof of a "preferential flow pattern" in the Floridan from Lake Brooklyn to the mine, and that this preferential flow results in a .04 to .05 foot drawdown in the Floridan aquifer at Lake Brooklyn. However, this correlation is deemed to be incorrect for several reasons. First, if a true correlation existed, recovery from pumping effects would occur after pumping ceased, but the Lake Brooklyn well showed recovery in the Floridan aquifer prior to cessation of pumping, and did not recover when pumping stopped at the end of the 1989 aquifer performance testing. Second, if the premise is correct, impacts from pumping would occur in wells closer to the pumping earlier than in wells farther away, but the Lake Brooklyn well, 4.3 miles from pumping, showed drawdown began before that of the Goldhead well, only 1,000 feet from pumping. Third, levels for the Lake Brooklyn well should have declined during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests but the levels rose during the 1991 tests. As to the water level changes in the well during the 1989 test, witness Boyes believed these may reflect declines due to hydrologic conditions rather than the pump test. Fourth, if a true correlation existed, impacts would be experienced following the same hydrographic pattern as pumping, but the Lake Brooklyn well's hydrographics did not correlate to the pumping schedule at all times of the year. It should also be noted that at least two other large scale water users are withdrawing water from wells within 1.25 miles from the Lake Brooklyn well and may affect that well's water levels. Further, the variations in the well may be explained by many other variables, such as barometric pressure changes, diurnal fluctuations in water levels, rainfall, and pumping from closer wells. Finally, Brooklyn Bay is now physically separated from Lake Brooklyn, and it was improper for petitioner to rely on lake level information from Brooklyn Bay to support its theory regarding Lake Brooklyn. To further support its hypothesis that a preferential flow path exists between the mine and Lake Brooklyn, petitioner utilized a "photo linear analysis" or "fracture trace analysis", which is based on an interpretation of surface topographic features to determine the presence of subsurface hydrogeologic features such as solution channels in the limestones of the Floridan aquifer. However, without extensive subsurface testing, which is not present here, such analyses are only interpretative to determine what, if any, subsurface features are present and their hydrogeologic effect. It is noted that subsurface fractures are present less than 50 percent of the time, and if present, the features may be hydrologic barriers as well as preferential flow paths. According to witness Boyes, a photolinear feature (fracture) exists from Lake Brooklyn through Spring Lake and across the mine property to Goldhead State Park. If such a feature did exist, however, the drawdown during the aquifer performance tests and other pumping would be greater adjacent to Spring Lake than adjacent to Lake Brooklyn. This was not observed. Moreover, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart thought the photolinear was only inferred and had a lower degree of confidence that it exists. FRI's witness Fountain established that elongated surface features are more likely to demonstrate linear subsurface features. Both witness Boyes and Dr. Stewart agreed with this conclusion. That being the case, the postulated Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear is not demonstrated, and continuation of the elongated axis of Lake Brooklyn and Brooklyn Bay would bypass the mine site altogether. Because no investigations have been conducted to demonstrate that these postulated photolinear features exist, and the more reliable results of the aquifer performance tests indicate otherwise, the preferential flow path theory is deemed at best to be highly speculative. If the Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear feature offered a preferential flow path as opined by witness Boyes, the resulting drawdown would be elongated with a zone of influence extending from the mine westward toward Lake Brooklyn. Therefore, areas closer but not on the feature would experience less drawdown than areas farther away which are on the feature, the zone of influence would extend from the mine's wells through Spring Lake toward Lake Brooklyn causing declined water levels along the feature, and areas closer to the pumping wells, such as Spring Lake, would experience a greater decline than areas farther away, such as Lake Brooklyn. However, evidence offered by petitioner shows that the water levels between Lake Brooklyn and the mine are actually higher than in surrounding areas. Finally, even if petitioner's preferential flow path theory were true, there is no evidence that the pumping from the mine is resulting in significant and adverse impacts as required by District rules. Therefore, it is found that the sand mine does not cause significant and adverse impacts on the water levels in the Floridan aquifer or on the water levels of Lake Brooklyn or Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes. Rather, the lake levels in each of the four lakes in issue here are directly or indirectly a function of rainfall. Intermediate and surficial aquifers Whether an intermediate aquifer is present beneath the mine site is subject to dispute. All parties agree that, on a regional scale, the Hawthorn formation contains some discontinuous water-bearing lenses that in some places produce water in quantities sufficient for household use. The lenses occur in carbonate deposits in the formation, although not all carbonate deposits or all water bearing units will necessarily transmit water. The evidence is less than persuasive that the Hawthorne formation contains carbonate units which are present on the sand mine site as transmissive beds. This finding is based on FRI's review of on-site core boring information and other data from the site. In addition, this finding is corrorborated by District witness Lee, who concluded that water from the site is not discharging into the Hawthorn, but rather into the surficial aquifer. This is because clays comprising the Hawthorn have low permeability, causing water to flow laterally through the surficial aquifer rather than into the Hawthorn. With respect to impacts to the surficial aquifer, FRI presented evidence that during mining operations, the surficial aquifer will be surcharged by up to five feet. When mining operations cease, water levels will return to natural conditions. This evidence was not contradicted. Impacts on Property Values and Recreation Testimony regarding the property values for lake front properties on Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes was offered by petitioner's witness Price. He established that values have declined since mid- 1989 as a result of a loss of recreational value suffered as water levels have receded. However, witness Price stated that he would not expect a 0.1 foot drop in lake levels to negatively affect property values. Since the declines predicted by petitioner are far less than a 0.1 foot drop, it is apparent that FRI's water use will not result in harm to property values in the area. Similarly, while it is true that declining water levels have impaired recreational uses of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes, FRI's water use cannot be blamed for such impairment. Environmental Impacts The anticipated impacts of the water use on the wetlands and wildlife resources of the area were addressed by FRI witnesses Peacock and Lowe. According to Peacock, who analyzed the wetland vegetation, the dominant species and their adaptions, the wildlife resources and their adaptions, and the general ecology of the area, the water levels in the adjacent lakes have historically fluctuated greatly, and wildlife that use the lakes have adapted to these fluctuations. His opinion that the mine's water use will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, Spring or White Sands Lakes is hereby accepted. Based upon witness Lowe's inspection of the three downgradient lakes, his past knowledge of Lake Brooklyn, the aquifer performance tests, and Dr. Lee's conclusion that the maximum drawdown in the lakes would be 0.1 foot, Lowe opined that the proposed water withdrawal will not cause environmental harm. In addition, such a drawdown will not adversely affect off-site vegetation or cause unmitigated adverse impacts on adjacent wetlands or other types of vegetation. These conclusions were not contradicted and are hereby accepted. Compliance with rule criteria To obtain a consumptive use permit, an applicant must give "reasonable assurance" that the proposed water use is a reasonable beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. These broad criteria are further explained by criteria enunciated in Rule 40C-2.301(3)-(6), Florida Administrative Code, and sections 9.0 et seq. and 10.0 et seq. of the Applicant's Handbook adopted by reference in Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. Findings as to whether these criteria have been satisfied are set forth below. To obtain a renewal of a consumptive use permit, an applicant must first give reasonable assurance that the proposed use of water is a "reasonable beneficial use". For a use to be considered reasonable beneficial, the criteria enumerated in Rule 40C-2.301(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, must be satisfied. First, paragraph (4)(a) of the rule and section 10.3(a) of the handbook require that the water use must be in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, and the quantity requested must be within acceptable standards for the designated use. The evidence shows that FRI has used a reasonably low amount of water necessary to continue operations at the mine, it has implemented some water conservation methods and tried or considered others that proved to be inefficient or not economically feasible, and the requested amount of water is within acceptable standards for sand mines operating within the District. Then, too, some ninety-five percent of the water pumped from the wells is recirculated for reuse in the mining process or is recharged back into the surficial and Floridan aquifers on site. Finally, there is no surface discharge of water outside the mining site. Accordingly, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(b) of the rule and section 10.3(b) of the handbook require that the proposed use be for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. The proposed use of the water is to produce sand used in construction materials. This is a reasonable use of water and results in an economic benefit to the region by producing a valuable product. Accordingly, it is found that the use is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. All parties have stipulated that the Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the requested amounts of water. This satisfies paragraph (4)(c) of the rule and section 10.3(c) of the handbook which impose this requirement. The next criterion, paragraph (4)(d), as amplified by section 10.3(d) of the handbook, requires that "the environmental or economic harm caused by the consumptive use must be reduced to an acceptable amount." The evidence shows that during mine operations, the surficial aquifer is being surcharged by up to five feet. When they cease, the water levels return to natural conditions. The maximum drawdown anticipated in the Floridan aquifer at the property boundary was 0.3 feet and less than or equal to 0.1 feet for most of the area outside the mine site. At most, this equates to a maximum lake level decline of 0.04 feet at Lake Brooklyn, 0.03 feet at Gator Bone and White Sands Lakes, and less than 0.03 feet at Spring Lake. Thus, FRI's usage of water has had, and will have in the future, little, if any, immediate or cumulative impact on the levels of the area lakes. Further, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that these lowered lake levels or aquifer levels will not result in environmental or economic harm to the area. In addition, the District has proposed to incorporate into the permit a condition that FRI implement a detailed monitoring plan which will detect any overpumping causing lake level changes and a concomitant adverse impact to off-site land uses. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(e) and section 10.3(e) require the applicant to implement "all available water conservation measures" unless the applicant "demonstrates that implementation is not economically, environmentally or technologically feasible." The rule goes on to provide that satisfaction of this criterion "may be demonstrated by implementation of an approved water conservation plan as required in section 12.0, Applicant's Handbook: Consumptive Uses of Water." Because FRI's water conservation plan insures that water will be used efficiently, as required by section 12.3.4.1. of the handbook, this criterion has been met. The next paragraph provides that "(w)hen reclaimed water is readily available it must be used in place of higher quality water sources unless the applicant demonstrates that its use is either not economically, environmentally or technologi-cally feasible." Since the unrebutted testimony establishes that reclaimed water is not readily available to the mine site, it is found that paragraph (4)(f) has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(g) of the rule and section 10.3(f) of the handbook generally require that the lowest acceptable quality water source be used. Since the evidence shows that the Floridan aquifer is the lowest acceptable quality water source, this requirement has been met. Paragraphs (4)(h) and (i) provide that the consumptive use "should not cause significant saline water intrusion or further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems" nor "cause or contribute to flood damage." The parties have stipulated that these requirements are not in dispute. The next paragraph provides that the "water quality of the source of the water should not be seriously harmed by the consumptive use." The uncontradicted evidence shows that the source of the water for the proposed use will not be seriously harmed from either saltwater intrusion or discharges to the Floridan aquifer. Paragraph (4)(j) and section 10.3(g) have accordingly been met. Paragraph (4)(k) and section 10.3(k) require that the water quality of the receiving body of water "not be seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. In this case, there is no surface water discharge from the mine site. Thus, the only relevant inquiry here is whether the receiving water (surficial aquifer) will be "seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. To determine compliance with this criterion, the District compared water quality samples from the mine site and surrounding areas with the DER monitoring network to ascertain whether state water quality numerical standards and natural background levels were exceeded. The relevant standards are found in Rule 17-520.420, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring data from eight wells and from the dredge pond indicate there are no water quality violations resulting from the sand mine operations. Petitioner has contended that water from the dredge pond provides a significant source of water to an intermediate aquifer, which would also be a receiving body of water. However, the evidence shows that any contaminants resulting from the dredge pond flowing into an intermediate aquifer will also be contained in the surficial aquifer. The clays of the Hawthorn formation would absorb and filter out iron and manganese as they traveled to a water transmissive zone. Therefore, the concentrations sampled in the suficial aquifer downgradient from the dredge pond represent the highest concentrations. Since the concentrations in the surficial aquifer do not violate water quality standards, the same finding as to concentrations in the intermediate aquifer can be made. Further, the rule criteria require consideration of the future water use's effect on water quality, and if the intermediate aquifer is in fact a receiving water as contended by petitioner, the reactions which could cause water quality violations are presently occurring. There is no reason to believe they would cease if the mine ceases operation, and the mining operation adds oxygen to the water, which reduces the possibility of the reaction described. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. The parties have stipulated that the requirements of paragraph (4)(l) have been fulfilled. Finally, rule 40C-2.301(5)(a) provides that a proposed consumptive use will not meet the criteria for issuance of a permit if such proposed water use will significantly cause saline water encroachment or otherwise cause water flows or levels to fall below certain minimum limits set forth in the rule. The evidence shows that, to the extent these criteria are applicable and in dispute, they have been satisfied. Miscellaneous The contention has been made that insufficient site-specific information was submitted by the applicant to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the sand mine. In this regard, the evidence shows that FRI consultants installed monitoring wells, performed core borings, and took soil samples at the site. The geology of the site was verified by core boring, review of geologic logs and drilling wells. Slug tests were performed to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the material in which the monitor wells were set, and a step drawdown analysis was performed to measure hydraulic conductivity. A number of monitoring wells to measure water levels data were installed before and after running the 1991 aquifer performance tests, and groundwater modeling in both the transient and steady state modes were run using data that was collected in the field. In addition, water quality samples were collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond, and FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes. Besides this submission and analysis, the District reviewed United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, potentiometric maps and aerial photographs of the area, water levels of the surrounding lakes, potentiometric surfaces in Floridan and intermediate aquifer wells, geophysical logs for wells, rainfall records, the core generated by FRI consultants, and scientific literature relied upon in making consumptive use permitting assessments. It also monitored the 1991 aquifer performance test and reviewed the resultant model. Before and after submission of the application, the District conducted aquifer performance testing at the site and evaluated the 1991 aquifer performance test conducted by FRI consultants. Finally, the District assessed water quality impacts of the sand mine in 1989 and in the present by site visit, sampling of the Floridan production well and dredge pond, and reviewing sampling data from both monitor wells and homeowner wells. It also reviewed information on water quality data gathered from other sand mines and applied data from the DER background monitoring network. Therefore, the contention that insufficient site-specific information was submitted and considered is rejected. Petitioner has offered into evidence petitioner's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83. A ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits was reserved. The exhibits, which are based on data collected by the District and the USGS, are hydrographs showing water levels from lakes and monitoring wells during so-called "normal mine operations" on selected dates in 1988, 1989 and 1991. Although FRI was given copies of the exhibits ten days prior to hearing, it was not informed of the source of the data until final hearing. As it turned out, petitioner's witness had reviewed records over an extensive period of time and selected two or three days out of that time period as being representative of "normal" conditions. However, FRI established that, when longer periods of time were reviewed, the correlations alleged to exist by the graphs did not in fact exist and thus they did not represent normal conditions. Attorney's fees and costs FRI has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theories petitioner interposed various papers and brought and participated in this action for "an improper purpose" within the meaning of Subsections 120.57(1)(b)5. and 120.59(6), Florida Statutes. In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions on the ground four motions filed by FRI were filed for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. It may be inferred from the totality of the evidence that petitioner did not intend to participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Likewise, the same inference may be made with respect to the four motions filed by FRI. Therefore, fees and costs (sanctions) are not warranted for either party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the District granting application number 2-019-0012AUR as proposed by the District in its notice of intent to approve the application issued on August 6, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 4th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5017 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 10-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 15-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 8. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 31-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 36-42. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 52-53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding 23. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 59-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 64-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32-36. 72. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 73-74. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 75. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 76-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 83-120. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 121-139. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25-27. 140-144. Rejected since even if true, the impacts are not significant. 145. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 146-158. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18-20. 159-171. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 172-177. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. Respondent (District): 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1, 3 and 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 19-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. 24-40. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12-16. 41-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11. 52-59. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 60-64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 67-69. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 74-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 80-81. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 82-83. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. 84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 85. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. 86-90. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. 91. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 92-94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 95. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 96. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 97-100. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 101. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 102-103. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 104-121. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. 122-130. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 131-133. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 134-138. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 139. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 140-141. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 142. Partially accepted in finding of fact 48. 143. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. Respondent (FRI): Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 22-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 31-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 40-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 42-45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 50-51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 52. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. 55. Partially accepted in finding of fact 46. 56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 47. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. 59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 51. 60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 52. 61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 54. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, cumulative, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Patrice Flinchbaugh Boyes, Esquire Post Office Box 1424 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1424 Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Jennifer L. Burdick, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Marcia Penman Parker, Esquire Emily G. Pierce, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent, W. B. Persico, should be issued a permit to construct a commercial marina as described in the Department's Intent to Issue, in Class III waters of the state in Charlotte County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc., was an association of property owners whose property is located in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision located in Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant, W. B. Persico, is the owner of a piece of property located adjacent to the subdivision and applicant for a permit to construct a marina on his property. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency responsible for the regulation and permitting of dredge and fill activities in the waters of the state. Mr. Persico's property is located on a dead end basin canal in Charlotte County, Florida. The canal is a Class III water but is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On July 31, 1989, Mr. Persico applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 75 slip, 5660 square foot commercial marina on his property within this artificial, dead end basin. Because of objections by the Department to several aspects of the proposed project, on February 27, 1990, Mr. Persico submitted a modification proposal in which he eliminated the use of pressure treated lumber for pilings, substituting concrete pilings; incorporated boat lifts in each slip; reduced the number of slips from 75 to 65; committed himself to installing a sewage pump-out facility at the site; committed to creating an inter-tidal littoral shelf planted with mangroves; agreed to face the existing vertical bulkhead seawall in the basin with rip-rap; and incorporated a commitment to include, as a part of his rental contract, long term agreements prohibiting vessel maintenance and liveaboards on boats at the site, and insuring the perpetual use of boat lifts and pump out facilities provided. He now proposes to market the marina as a condominium ownership operation. The basin in which the Persico project is proposed is 136 feet across at the entrance, (the narrowest point), and 326 feet across at the widest point. The length of the basin is more than 900 feet. The docking structure to be created will have fingers extending no more than 39 feet into the water from the existing vertical seawall. It will have a 4 foot wide walkway parallel to and 10 feet from the existing seawall from which the arms will extend 25 feet into the basin. The basin which is the proposed location for the marina is at the end of the easternmost canal in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision. It is located just west of and parallel to US Route 41, and at the entrance point, joins a perimeter waterway which meanders approximately 1 mile seaward toward a lock which joins that waterway to Alligator Creek which is an Outstanding Florida Water. The waterway from the basin through the lock into Alligator Creek and thereafter to the Gulf provides the only navigable access for most vessels moored in the Burnt Store canals and which would be moored in the proposed marina between Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. The lock which joints the Burnt Store canals to Alligator Creek consists of two hydraulically operated swinging gates which are operated by a boater entering or exiting the canal system. This lock was constructed as a part of a 1973 agreement between Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., a developer, and the state to prevent the construction and runoff polluted waters of the canal from freely mingling with the Outstanding Florida Water in Alligator Creek. The lock is now maintained in an open position from November 15 to May 15 because boaters complained of the inconvenience of having to operate the lock system. Available evidence indicates that a complete passage through the lock, one way when closed, takes 15 minutes. No more than 24 boats can complete a round trip in a 12 hour boating day. When the lock is open there is no appreciable delay. The residential lots which abut the Burnt Store canals are still mostly vacant. The City of Punta Gorda has assumed the responsibility of conducting a 5 year water quality monitoring program which was previously agreed to by Punt Gorda Isles, Inc. when the lock was built. The 1973 agreement was amended in 1984 to permit the operation of the lock in a closed position for an entire year if water quality monitoring should indicate a degradation of water quality in either Alligator Creek of the Burnt Store Isles canals. This has not been necessary. The Petitioners fear that pollution generated by the addition of 65 additional boats moored at and operating from the proposed marina will cause the Department to implement that clause and order the lock to operate from a closed position year round. This does not mean that the lock would not be opened for boats, but that it would be closed when not being used. Petitioners contend that the increased usage would create an intolerable traffic jam at the lock which would, for the most part, make their use of the waterway to the Gulf intolerable. Mr. Persico is a former road and bridge contractor. Though he has never owned a marina, at one time he rehabilitated one in the Chicago area. He has owned the property in question here for four years and now plans to develop a condominium ownership marina. When he decided to do so, he hired Mr. James M. Stilwell, an environmental consultant, to prepare and submit to the Department the application for the required dredge and fill permit. Initial discussions between Mr. Stilwell and the Department dealt with many environmental issues. Mr. Stilwell pointed out that the water in the canal might already be stale and avenues were explored to mitigate that problem. They did not discuss the type of docks to be installed or the potential for destruction of mangrove stands along the seawall, but even though the original plan called for the docks to be placed against the seawall, it was to be done in such a way as not to disturb the mangroves. The modified plan removing the docks to a point 10 feet off from the wall will obviate any damage to the mangroves. Admittedly, the original submittal prepared by Mr. Stilwell contained factors which were considered unacceptable to the Department. These included construction of the finger piers with pressure treated wood. To eliminate possible pollution from leaching, the pressure treated wood was replaced with a floating dock using concrete pilings. Liveaboards, and the potential contamination from that activity, have been prohibited. The provision and required use of a sewage pump-out facility should prevent any escape of polluting sewage into the waters of the basin. The use of power hoists at each slip should prevent pollution from bottom paint leaching, and boat maintenance at the marina is to be prohibited. Fueling of the vessels will not be permitted at the site thereby obviating the potential of polluting fuel spills. The construction of a 10 foot wide littoral shelf, planted with mangroves, between the dock and the sea wall will provide increased water filtration and improve water quality. It would also help the development of the fish and wildlife population and would reduce the flushing time. Air released into the water from the use of the boat lifts should add oxygen and contribute to improved water quality. At the present time, the ambient water quality in the basin, as it pertains to dissolved oxygen, is probably below standards in the lower depths of the basin, and of the outside channels as well, due to poor light penetration. The channel depth is anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. The oxygen level at the bottom is undoubtedly depleted. Mangroves are currently located along 300 feet of the 1,300 foot seawall. Mr. Stilwell's proposal, and that approved by the Department, does not call for removal of the mangroves, but they would be built around or possibly trimmed. Mr. Stilwell is of the opinion that provision for trimming of the mangroves is inherent in the granting of the permit though such permission was not specifically sought. There is no evidence to contradict this thesis. Water quality issues were raised subsequent to the filing of the original application, and the facility as now planned is designed to minimize impacts on the environment as best as can be done. Water quality would be improved, or at worst not adversely affected, by the prohibitions against liveaboards and fueling, the provision of boat lifts and a pump station, and the prohibition against other structures beyond the dock and slips. Flushing of the water is important considering the fact that the dissolved oxygen content in the water is already low. However, Mr. Stilwell is satisfied, and it would so appear, that water quality would be improved by the implementation of the proposals as included in the conditions to the permit. Mr. Stilwell, admittedly, did no dissolved oxygen tests because they were not considered as a part of the permit application. If the Department requests them, they are done, but they were not requested in this case. It is clear that the original application did not address all the environmental concerns that Petitioners feel are pertinent. Nonetheless, those items already discussed were treated, as were turbidity control during construction. As to others of concern to Petitioners, many are included in the state standards and need not be specifically addressed in the application. The Department considered the application in light of the state standards, and by the use of the conditions appended to the Intent to Issue, provided for the water quality and other environmental standards to be sufficiently addressed and met. In his February 22, 1990 letter to the Department, Mr. Stilwell directly addressed the public interest concerns including the mangroves and the construction of the littoral shelf. The Department was satisfied that the public interest criteria were met, and considered the plans to be environmentally sound. They appear to be so. Petitioners have raised some question as to the effect of the 39 foot long dock fingers interfering with navigation within the basin. Mr. Stilwell does not feel that the facility would create this problem, even at the narrowest point, and it is so found. The width of the canal there is 136 feet. The portion of the slip designed to accommodate vessels is no more than 25 feet long, and presumably, vessels of a length much greater than that would not visit the basin. Even subtracting 39 feet from the 136 feet narrow point, 97 feet of turning space remains, and this is almost four times the length of the normal vessel anticipated in the basin. Mr. Stilwell did not address the subject of the lock as it relates to navigation, but primarily as it relates to the impact on water quality and the environment. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that keeping the lock open on a year round basis would not trigger a change to the ongoing program under the agreement between the state and Punta Gorda Isles and result in the lock being closed year round. Mr. Shultz, the environmental specialist with the Department, reviewed the application here initially for file completeness, and when all required information was in, made a site visit. He evaluated the application and the attachments for permitability. For Class III waters, the project must meet water quality standards outlined in the Department's rules. Only one of the water quality criteria, that of dissolved oxygen, was shown to be not met. Since the water was already below that standard, the test to be applied then is whether the project will create some improvement." In Mr. Shultz' opinion, planting the mangroves, as proposed by the applicant, does this, as does the use of the lifts. The existing mangroves will not be impacted by the project as it is proposed, and the use of rip-rap, as proposed, will provide additional surface area for organisms which will improve the water quality. When first reviewed, the Department had some concern about on-water storage of boats. These concerns were treated by the use of hoists to hold the boats out of the water when not in use, and as a result, pollutants will not be introduced by bottom paint leaching and, presumably, bilge pumping. Standard conditions included in all Department Intents to Issue, require the project to comply with applicable state water quality standards or to give assurances that such general standards for surface waters and Class III waters will be met. In this case, Mr. Shultz is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that water quality standards will be maintained, and there was no evidence presented by the Petitioners to contradict this. Once water quality standards are shown to be protected, then the project is balanced against the public interest criteria outlined in the statute. Here, the requirement is for a showing that the project is not contra to the public interest. It does not, because of its nature, require a positive showing that the project is in the public interest. In his opinion this project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, (it will have no environmental effect on other property). It will not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife in their habitats, (the planting of mangroves will provide a net improvement to species habitat in the area). The project will not adversely affect navigation, flow of water, or erosion, (the width and length of the dock system appear to pose no threat to navigation in the basin and there would appear to be no obstruction or potential therefor as a result of this project; the project is within a no-wake zone; and the size of vessels is limited by the slip size). The permit will not adversely affect marine productivity, (there is currently very little productivity in the area now since waters below 0 depth of 6 feet are already low in oxygen, and the project would, at least minimally, improve this condition). The project is permanent and would not adversely affect historical or archeological resources in the area, (there are no objects or known resources in the area, but a standard condition in the permit requires immediate notification if known resources or objects are found). The project would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed in the area since the area is currently a real estate development which is far from completely built. Based on his consideration of these criteria, Mr. Shultz concludes that the project is not contrary to the public interest and this appears to be a valid conclusion. There appears to be no evidence of sufficient weight, presented by the Petitioners, either through direct evidence or through cross examination of the applicant and Department witnesses that would tend to diminish the credibility of Mr. Shultz' analysis. If there are subsequent violations, the Department has enforcement action available. There is, consistent with the multiple use zoning category applied to the area across the basin from the marina, the potential for up to an additional 100 docks to be constructed in the basin beyond those treated here. Nonetheless, the Department does not consider 165 boats to be a problem either in the basin or at the lock. This is not necessarily a supportable conclusion, however. Those 100 additional docks do not currently exist and their potential should not be considered in determining whether to approve the permit under consideration here. In opposition to the applicant, Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth both indicated that the addition of 65 more boats would seriously overtax the operation of the lock and make it difficult, if not hazardous, to operate boats in that area between the Burnt Store Isles subdivision and Alligator Creek. Both individuals agree, and it is so found, that in general, motor boats pollute to some degree the waters on which that are operated as a result of oil leaks from engine operation, leakage of bilge oil, escape of sewage, and leaching of copper paint and other solvents. In addition, manatee have been seen in the area, and the increase of boating operations could present some hazard to the manatee population. There is, however, no indication that a manatee population is permanently in residence there or is even there frequently. It is also accepted that boat wake has an adverse effect on sea walls, and all of these factors should have been and, in fact were, considered in the analysis of the permitability of the project. The concerns of Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth were echoed by Mr. Gunderson who, over 30 years operating boats, has seen what he considers to be a definite lack of concern for the environment by many boaters who pump bilges directly into the water, throw debris overboard, and use detergents to wash their boats at marinas. He is of the opinion that renters of slips are generally less concerned about water quality than those who live on the water, and take a more cavalier approach to water quality standards. These sentiments are also held by Mr. Young who, over the years, has owned marinas in Connecticut and has observed the approach of nonowning slip users to the water at their disposal. His concerns could be met by the strict enforcement of standards at the marina. Mr. Powell, a nurseryman who owns the lot across the basin from the site of the proposed marina, fishes from his lot and has observed the an increase of pollution in the canal. He routinely sees floating dead fish, palm leaves, cocoanuts, bottles, slicks and other debris, and though he owns a multifamily lot, would have a difficult time putting in many slips since his lot, at the entrance to the basin at the narrow point, would be across from the slips proposed by applicant and their proximity would, he feels, hinder his ability to build out into the basin as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing Permit No. 081679445, to W. B. Persico as modified and outlined in the Intent to Issue dated March 16, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. Accepted but applicable only when the locks are closed. Accepted. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. Accepted as valid when the lock is operated from a closed position. However, the evidence indicates that currently the lock is left open from November 15 to May 15 of each year and this does not cause delay. Accepted if the lock is operated from a closed position. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. FOR THE APPLICANT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: Accepted. and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. Lynch Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc. P.O. Box 956 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue Whether proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, which describes how the Department of Environmental Protection will exercise its authority under Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, to identify and list those surface waters in the state that are impaired for purposes of the state's total maximum daily load (commonly referred to as "TMDL") program, is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, for the reasons asserted by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement the factual stipulations contained in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation: State TMDL Legislation Over the last 30 years, surface water quality management in Florida, like in the rest of the United States, has focused on the control of point sources of pollution (primarily domestic and industrial wastewater) through the issuance, to point source dischargers, of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which specify effluent-based standards with which the permit holders must comply. Although "enormously successful in dealing with . . . point sources" of pollution, the NPDES program has not eliminated water quality problems largely because discharges from other sources of pollution (nonpoint sources) have not been as successfully controlled. In the late 1990's, the Department recognized that, to meet Florida's water quality goals, it was going to have to implement a TMDL program for the state. Wanting to make absolutely sure that it had the statutory authority to do so, the Department sought legislation specifically granting it such authority. Jerry Brooks, the deputy director of the Department's Division of Water Resource Management, led the Department's efforts to obtain such legislation. He was assisted by Darryl Joyner, a Department program administrator responsible for overseeing the watershed assessment and groundwater protection sections within the Division of Water Resource Management. Participating in the drafting of the legislation proposed by the Department, along with Mr. Brooks and Mr. Joyner, were representatives of regulated interests. No representatives from the environmental community actively participated in the drafting of the proposed legislation. The Department obtained the TMDL legislation it wanted when the 1999 Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, the effective date of which was May 26, 1999. Section 1 of Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, added the following to the definitions set forth in Section 403.031, Florida Statutes, which define "words, phrases or terms" for purposes of "construing [Chapter 403, Florida Statutes], or rules or regulations adopted pursuant [t]hereto": (21) "Total maximum daily load" is defined as the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources[11] and the load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to determining individual wasteload allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards must first be calculated. Section 4 of Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, added language to Subsection (1) of Section 403.805, Florida Statutes, providing that the Secretary of the Department, not the Environmental Regulation Commission, "shall have responsibility for final agency action regarding total maximum daily load calculations and allocations developed pursuant to s. 403.067(6)," Florida Statutes. The centerpiece of Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, was Section 3 of the enactment, which created Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, dealing with the "[e]stablishment and implementation of total maximum daily loads." Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2000 (by Chapter 2000-130, Laws of Florida) and again in 2001 (by Chapter 2001-74, Laws of Florida). It now reads, in its entirety, as follows: LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.-- In furtherance of public policy established in s. 403.021, the Legislature declares that the waters of the state are among its most basic resources and that the development of a total maximum daily load program for state waters as required by s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq. will promote improvements in water quality throughout the state through the coordinated control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution.[12] The Legislature finds that, while point and nonpoint sources of pollution have been managed through numerous programs, better coordination among these efforts and additional management measures may be needed in order to achieve the restoration of impaired water bodies. The scientifically based total maximum daily load program is necessary to fairly and equitably allocate pollution loads to both nonpoint and point sources. Implementation of the allocation shall include consideration of a cost- effective approach coordinated between contributing point and nonpoint sources of pollution for impaired water bodies or water body segments and may include the opportunity to implement the allocation through nonregulatory and incentive-based programs. The Legislature further declares that the Department of Environmental Protection shall be the lead agency in administering this program and shall coordinate with local governments, water management districts, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, local soil and water conservation districts, environmental groups, regulated interests, other appropriate state agencies, and affected pollution sources in developing and executing the total maximum daily load program. LIST OF SURFACE WATERS OR SEGMENTS.-- In accordance with s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq., the department must submit periodically to the United States Environmental Protection Agency a list of surface waters or segments for which total maximum daily load assessments will be conducted. The assessments shall evaluate the water quality conditions of the listed waters and, if such waters are determined not to meet water quality standards, total maximum daily loads shall be established, subject to the provisions of subsection (4). The department shall establish a priority ranking and schedule for analyzing such waters. The list, priority ranking, and schedule cannot be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory program. However, this paragraph does not prohibit any agency from employing the data or other information used to establish the list, priority ranking, or schedule in administering any program. The list, priority ranking, and schedule prepared under this subsection shall be made available for public comment, but shall not be subject to challenge under chapter 120. The provisions of this subsection are applicable to all lists prepared by the department and submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq., including those submitted prior to the effective date of this act, except as provided in subsection (4). If the department proposes to implement total maximum daily load calculations or allocations established prior to the effective date of this act, the department shall adopt those calculations and allocations by rule by the secretary pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 and paragraph (6)(d). ASSESSMENT.-- Based on the priority ranking and schedule for a particular listed water body or water body segment, the department shall conduct a total maximum daily load assessment of the basin in which the water body or water body segment is located using the methodology developed pursuant to paragraph (b). In conducting this assessment, the department shall coordinate with the local water management district, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, other appropriate state agencies, soil and water conservation districts, environmental groups, regulated interests, and other interested parties. The department shall adopt by rule a methodology for determining those waters which are impaired. The rule shall provide for consideration as to whether water quality standards codified in chapter 62- 302, Florida Administrative Code, are being exceeded, based on objective and credible data, studies and reports, including surface water improvement and management plans approved by water management districts under s. 373.456 and pollutant load reduction goals developed according to department rule. Such rule also shall set forth: Water quality sample collection and analysis requirements, accounting for ambient background conditions, seasonal and other natural variations; Approved methodologies; Quality assurance and quality control protocols; Data modeling; and Other appropriate water quality assessment measures. If the department has adopted a rule establishing a numerical criterion for a particular pollutant, a narrative or biological criterion may not be the basis for determining an impairment in connection with that pollutant unless the department identifies specific factors as to why the numerical criterion is not adequate to protect water quality. If water quality non-attainment is based on narrative or biological criteria, the specific factors concerning particular pollutants shall be identified prior to a total maximum daily load being developed for those criteria for that surface water or surface water segment. APPROVED LIST.-- If the department determines, based on the total maximum daily load assessment methodology described in subsection (3), that water quality standards are not being achieved and that technology- based effluent limitations[13] and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, including Everglades restoration activities pursuant to s. 373.4592 and the National Estuary Program, which are designed to restore such waters for the pollutant of concern are not sufficient to result in attainment of applicable surface water quality standards, it shall confirm that determination by issuing a subsequent, updated list of those water bodies or segments for which total maximum daily loads will be calculated. In association with this updated list, the department shall establish priority rankings and schedules by which water bodies or segments will be subjected to total maximum daily load calculations. If a surface water or water segment is to be listed under this subsection, the department must specify the particular pollutants causing the impairment and the concentration of those pollutants causing the impairment relative to the water quality standard. This updated list shall be approved and amended by order of the department subsequent to completion of an assessment of each water body or water body segment, and submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Each order shall be subject to challenge under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. REMOVAL FROM LIST.-- At any time throughout the total maximum daily load process, surface waters or segments evaluated or listed under this section shall be removed from the lists described in subsection (2) or subsection (4) upon demonstration that water quality criteria are being attained, based on data equivalent to that required by rule under subsection (3). CALCULATION AND ALLOCATION.-- Calculation of total maximum daily load. Prior to developing a total maximum daily load calculation for each water body or water body segment on the list specified in subsection (4), the department shall coordinate with applicable local governments, water management districts, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, other appropriate state agencies, local soil and water conservation districts, environmental groups, regulated interests, and affected pollution sources to determine the information required, accepted methods of data collection and analysis, and quality control/quality assurance requirements. The analysis may include mathematical water quality modeling using approved procedures and methods. The department shall develop total maximum daily load calculations for each water body or water body segment on the list described in subsection (4) according to the priority ranking and schedule unless the impairment of such waters is due solely to activities other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution. For waters determined to be impaired due solely to factors other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution, no total maximum daily load will be required. A total maximum daily load may be required for those waters that are impaired predominantly due to activities other than point and nonpoint sources. The total maximum daily load calculation shall establish the amount of a pollutant that a water body or water body segment may receive from all sources without exceeding water quality standards, and shall account for seasonal variations and include a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. The total maximum daily load may be based on a pollutant load reduction goal developed by a water management district, provided that such pollutant load reduction goal is promulgated by the department in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of this subsection. Allocation of total maximum daily loads. The total maximum daily loads shall include establishment of reasonable and equitable allocations of the total maximum daily load among point and nonpoint sources that will alone, or in conjunction with other management and restoration activities, provide for the attainment of water quality standards and the restoration of impaired waters. The allocations may establish the maximum amount of the water pollutant from a given source or category of sources that may be discharged or released into the water body or water body segment in combination with other discharges or releases. Allocations may also be made to individual basins and sources or as a whole to all basins and sources or categories of sources of inflow to the water body or water body segments. Allocations shall be designed to attain water quality standards and shall be based on consideration of the following: Existing treatment levels and management practices; Differing impacts pollutant sources may have on water quality; The availability of treatment technologies, management practices, or other pollutant reduction measures; Environmental, economic, and technological feasibility of achieving the allocation; The cost benefit associated with achieving the allocation; Reasonable timeframes for implementation; Potential applicability of any moderating provisions such as variances, exemptions, and mixing zones; and The extent to which nonattainment of water quality standards is caused by pollution sources outside of Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alterations to water bodies prior to the date of this act. Not later than February 1, 2001, the department shall submit a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives containing recommendations, including draft legislation, for any modifications to the process for allocating total maximum daily loads, including the relationship between allocations and the watershed or basin management planning process. Such recommendations shall be developed by the department in cooperation with a technical advisory committee which includes representatives of affected parties, environmental organizations, water management districts, and other appropriate local, state, and federal government agencies. The technical advisory committee shall also include such members as may be designated by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The total maximum daily load calculations and allocations for each water body or water body segment shall be adopted by rule by the secretary pursuant to ss. 120.536(1), 120.54, and 403.805. The rules adopted pursuant to this paragraph shall not be subject to approval by the Environmental Regulation Commission. As part of the rule development process, the department shall hold at least one public workshop in the vicinity of the water body or water body segment for which the total maximum daily load is being developed. Notice of the public workshop shall be published not less than 5 days nor more than 15 days before the public workshop in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or counties containing the water bodies or water body segments for which the total maximum daily load calculation and allocation are being developed. IMPLEMENTATION OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.-- The department shall be the lead agency in coordinating the implementation of the total maximum daily loads through water quality protection programs. Application of a total maximum daily load by a water management district shall be consistent with this section and shall not require the issuance of an order or a separate action pursuant to s. 120.536(1) or s. 120.54 for adoption of the calculation and allocation previously established by the department. Such programs may include, but are not limited to: Permitting and other existing regulatory programs; Nonregulatory and incentive-based programs, including best management practices, cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, and public education; Other water quality management and restoration activities, for example surface water improvement and management plans approved by water management districts under s. 373.456 or watershed or basin management plans developed pursuant to this subsection; Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based agreements; Public works including capital facilities; or Land acquisition. In developing and implementing the total maximum daily load for a water body, the department, or the department in conjunction with a water management district, may develop a watershed or basin management plan that addresses some or all of the watersheds and basins tributary to the water body. These plans will serve to fully integrate the management strategies available to the state for the purpose of implementing the total maximum daily loads and achieving water quality restoration. The watershed or basin management planning process is intended to involve the broadest possible range of interested parties, with the objective of encouraging the greatest amount of cooperation and consensus possible. The department or water management district shall hold at least one public meeting in the vicinity of the watershed or basin to discuss and receive comments during the planning process and shall otherwise encourage public participation to the greatest practical extent. Notice of the public meeting shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the watershed or basin lies not less than 5 days nor more than 15 days before the public meeting. A watershed or basin management plan shall not supplant or otherwise alter any assessment made under s. 403.086(3) and (4), or any calculation or allocation made under s. 403.086(6). The department, in cooperation with the water management districts and other interested parties, as appropriate, may develop suitable interim measures, best management practices, or other measures necessary to achieve the level of pollution reduction established by the department for nonagricultural nonpoint pollutant sources in allocations developed pursuant to paragraph (6)(b). These practices and measures may be adopted by rule by the department and the water management districts pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, and may be implemented by those parties responsible for nonagricultural nonpoint pollutant sources and the department and the water management districts shall assist with implementation. Where interim measures, best management practices, or other measures are adopted by rule, the effectiveness of such practices in achieving the levels of pollution reduction established in allocations developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (6)(b) shall be verified by the department. Implementation, in accordance with applicable rules, of practices that have been verified by the department to be effective at representative sites shall provide a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards and release from the provisions of s.376.307(5) for those pollutants addressed by the practices, and the department is not authorized to institute proceedings against the owner of the source of pollution to recover costs or damages associated with the contamination of surface or ground water caused by those pollutants. Such rules shall also incorporate provisions for a notice of intent to implement the practices and a system to assure the implementation of the practices, including recordkeeping requirements. Where water quality problems are detected despite the appropriate implementation, operation, and maintenance of best management practices and other measures according to rules adopted under this paragraph, the department or the water management districts shall institute a reevaluation of the best management practice or other measures. 1. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services may develop and adopt by rule pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 suitable interim measures, best management practices, or other measures necessary to achieve the level of pollution reduction established by the department for agricultural pollutant sources in allocations developed pursuant to paragraph (6)(b). These practices and measures may be implemented by those parties responsible for agricultural pollutant sources and the department, the water management districts, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall assist with implementation. Where interim measures, best management practices, or other measures are adopted by rule, the effectiveness of such practices in achieving the levels of pollution reduction established in allocations developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (6)(b) shall be verified by the department. Implementation, in accordance with applicable rules, of practices that have been verified by the department to be effective at representative sites shall provide a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards and release from the provisions of s.376.307(5) for those pollutants addressed by the practices, and the department is not authorized to institute proceedings against the owner of the source of pollution to recover costs or damages associated with the contamination of surface or ground water caused by those pollutants. In the process of developing and adopting rules for interim measures, best management practices, or other measures, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall consult with the department, the Department of Health, the water management districts, representatives from affected farming groups, and environmental group representatives. Such rules shall also incorporate provisions for a notice of intent to implement the practices and a system to assure the implementation of the practices, including recordkeeping requirements. Where water quality problems are detected despite the appropriate implementation, operation, and maintenance of best management practices and other measures according to rules adopted under this paragraph, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall institute a reevaluation of the best management practice or other measure. 2. Individual agricultural records relating to processes or methods of production, or relating to costs of production, profits, or other financial information which are otherwise not public records, which are reported to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services pursuant to this paragraph or pursuant to any rule adopted pursuant to this paragraph shall be confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. Upon request of the department or any water management district, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall make such individual agricultural records available to that agency, provided that the confidentiality specified by this subparagraph for such records is maintained. This subparagraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act of 1995 in accordance with s. 119.15, and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2006, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature. The provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) shall not preclude the department or water management district from requiring compliance with water quality standards or with current best management practice requirements set forth in any applicable regulatory program authorized by law for the purpose of protecting water quality. Additionally, paragraphs (c) and (d) are applicable only to the extent that they do not conflict with any rules promulgated by the department that are necessary to maintain a federally delegated or approved program. RULES.-- The department is authorized to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 for: Delisting water bodies or water body segments from the list developed under subsection (4) pursuant to the guidance under subsection (5); Administration of funds to implement the total maximum daily load program; Procedures for pollutant trading among the pollutant sources to a water body or water body segment, including a mechanism for the issuance and tracking of pollutant credits. Such procedures may be implemented through permits or other authorizations and must be legally binding. No rule implementing a pollutant trading program shall become effective prior to review and ratification by the Legislature; and The total maximum daily load calculation in accordance with paragraph (6)(a) immediately upon the effective date of this act, for those eight water segments within Lake Okeechobee proper as submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to subsection (2). APPLICATION.-- The provisions of this section are intended to supplement existing law, and nothing in this section shall be construed as altering any applicable state water quality standards or as restricting the authority otherwise granted to the department or a water management district under this chapter or chapter 373. The exclusive means of state implementation of s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq. shall be in accordance with the identification, assessment, calculation and allocation, and implementation provisions of this section. CONSTRUCTION.-- Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the applicability or consideration of any mixing zone, variance, exemption, site specific alternative criteria, or other moderating provision. IMPLEMENTATION OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS.-- The department shall not implement, without prior legislative approval, any additional regulatory authority pursuant to s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act or 40 C.F.R. part 130, if such implementation would result in water quality discharge regulation of activities not currently subject to regulation. In order to provide adequate due process while ensuring timely development of total maximum daily loads, proposed rules and orders authorized by this act shall be ineffective pending resolution of a s. 120.54(3), s. 120.56, s. 120.569, or s. 120.57 administrative proceeding. However, the department may go forward prior to resolution of such administrative proceedings with subsequent agency actions authorized by subsections (2)-(6), provided that the department can support and substantiate those actions using the underlying bases for the rules or orders without the benefit of any legal presumption favoring, or in deference to, the challenged rules or orders. Key Provisions of Law Referenced in Section 403.067, Florida Statutes Section 403.021, Florida Statutes Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, which is referenced in Subsection (1) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The pollution of the air and waters of this state constitutes a menace to public health and welfare; creates public nuisances; is harmful to wildlife and fish and other aquatic life; and impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses of air and water. It is declared to be the public policy of this state 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 and fish and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses and to provide that no wastes be discharged into any waters of the state without first being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of such water. * * * It is hereby declared that the prevention, abatement, and control of the pollution of the air and waters of this state are affected with a public interest, and the provisions of this act are enacted in the exercise of the police powers of this state for the purpose of protecting the health, peace, safety, and general welfare of the people of this state. The Legislature finds and declares that control, regulation, and abatement of the activities which are causing or may cause pollution of the air or water resources in the state and which are or may be detrimental to human, animal, aquatic, or plant life, or to property, or unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property be increased to ensure conservation of natural resources; to ensure a continued safe environment; to ensure purity of air and water; to ensure domestic water supplies; to ensure protection and preservation of the public health, safety, welfare, and economic well-being; to ensure and provide for recreational and wildlife needs as the population increases and the economy expands; and to ensure a continuing growth of the economy and industrial development. The Legislature further finds and declares that: Compliance with this law will require capital outlays of hundreds of millions of dollars for the installation of machinery, equipment, and facilities for the treatment of industrial wastes which are not productive assets and increased operating expenses to owners without any financial return and should be separately classified for assessment purposes. Industry should be encouraged to install new machinery, equipment, and facilities as technology in environmental matters advances, thereby improving the quality of the air and waters of the state and benefiting the citizens of the state without pecuniary benefit to the owners of industries; and the Legislature should prescribe methods whereby just valuation may be secured to such owners and exemptions from certain excise taxes should be offered with respect to such installations. Facilities as herein defined should be classified separately from other real and personal property of any manufacturing or processing plant or installation, as such facilities contribute only to general welfare and health and are assets producing no profit return to owners. In existing manufacturing or processing plants it is more difficult to obtain satisfactory results in treating industrial wastes than in new plants being now planned or constructed and that with respect to existing plants in many instances it will be necessary to demolish and remove substantial portions thereof and replace the same with new and more modern equipment in order to more effectively treat, eliminate, or reduce the objectionable characteristics of any industrial wastes and that such replacements should be classified and assessed differently from replacements made in the ordinary course of business. * * * It is the policy of the state to ensure that the existing and potential drinking water resources of the state remain free from harmful quantities of contaminants. The department, as the state water quality protection agency, shall compile, correlate, and disseminate available information on any contaminant which endangers or may endanger existing or potential drinking water resources. It shall also coordinate its regulatory program with the regulatory programs of other agencies to assure adequate protection of the drinking water resources of the state. It is the intent of the Legislature that water quality standards be reasonably established and applied to take into account the variability occurring in nature. The department shall recognize the statistical variability inherent in sampling and testing procedures that are used to express water quality standards. The department shall also recognize that some deviations from water quality standards occur as the result of natural background conditions. The department shall not consider deviations from water quality standards to be violations when the discharger can demonstrate that the deviations would occur in the absence of any human-induced discharges or alterations to the water body. Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsection (3)(b) of Section 447.067, Florida Statutes, contains Florida's "[s]urface water quality standards." Rule 62-302.300, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality," and provides as follows: Article II, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution requires abatement of water pollution and conservation and protection of Florida's natural resources and scenic beauty. Congress, in Section 101(a)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,[14] declares that achievement by July 1, 1983, of water quality sufficient for the protection and propagation[15] of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as for recreation in and on the water, is an interim goal to be sought whenever attainable. Congress further states, in Section 101(a)(3), that it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited. The present and future most beneficial uses of all waters of the State have been designated by the Department by means of the Classification system set forth in this Chapter pursuant to Subsection 403.061(10), F.S.[16] Water quality standards[17] are established by the Department to protect these designated uses.[18] Because activities outside the State sometimes cause pollution[19] of Florida's waters, the Department will make every reasonable effort to have such pollution abated. Water quality standards apply equally to and shall be uniformly enforced in both the public and private sector. Public interest shall not be construed to mean only those activities conducted solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public. Private activities conducted for private purposes may also be in the public interest. The Commission, recognizing the complexity of water quality management and the necessity to temper regulatory actions with the technological progress and the social and economic well-being of people, urges, however, that there be no compromise where discharges of pollutants constitute a valid hazard to human health. The Commission requests that the Secretary seek and use the best environmental information available when making decisions on the effects of chronically and acutely toxic substances and carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic substances. Additionally, the Secretary is requested to seek and encourage innovative research and developments in waste treatment alternatives that might better preserve environmental quality or at the same time reduce the energy and dollar costs of operation. The criteria set forth in this Chapter are minimum levels which are necessary to protect the designated uses of a water body. It is the intent of this Commission that permit applicants should not be penalized due to a low detection limit associated with any specific criteria. (10)(a) The Department's rules that were adopted on March 1, 1979 regarding water quality standards are designed to protect the public health or welfare and to enhance the quality of waters of the State. They have been established taking into consideration the use and value of waters of the State for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation. Under the approach taken in the formulation of the rules adopted in this proceeding: 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 The mixing zone,[20] zone of discharge, site specific alternative criteria, exemption, and equitable allocation 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, natural background,[21] and detectability. This is an even-handed and balanced approach to attainment of water quality objectives. The Commission has specifically recognized that the social, economic and environmental costs may, under certain special circumstances, outweigh the social, economic and environmental benefits if the numerical criteria are enforced statewide. It is for that reason that the Commission has provided for mixing zones, zones of discharge, site specific alternative criteria, exemptions and other provisions in Chapters 62-302, 62-4, and 62-6, F.A.C. Furthermore, the 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 62-4 and 62-6, F.A.C., approved simultaneously with these Water Quality Standards are incorporated herein by reference as a substantive part of the State's 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. Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, declares that the public policy of the State is to conserve the waters of the State 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. It also prohibits the discharge of wastes into Florida waters without treatment necessary to protect those beneficial uses of the waters. The Department shall assure that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources, and all cost- effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control. For the purposes of this rule, highest statutory and regulatory requirements for new and existing point sources are those which can be achieved through imposition of effluent limits required under Sections 301(b) and 306 of the Federal Clean Water Act (as amended in 1987) and Chapter 403, F.S. For the purposes of this rule, cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control are those nonpoint source controls authorized under Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., and Department rules. The Department finds that excessive nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) constitute one of the most severe water quality problems facing the State. It shall be the Department's policy to limit the introduction of man-induced nutrients into waters of the State. Particular consideration shall be given to the protection from further nutrient enrichment of waters which are presently high in nutrient concentrations or sensitive to further nutrient concentrations and sensitive to further nutrient loadings. Also, particular consideration shall be given to the protection from nutrient enrichment of those waters presently containing very low nutrient concentrations: less than 0.3 milligrams per liter total nitrogen or less than 0.04 milligrams per liter total phosphorus. Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be fully maintained and protected. Such uses may be different or more extensive than the designated use. Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. If the Department finds that a new or existing discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them or violate any Department rule or standard, it shall refuse to permit the discharge. If the Department finds that a proposed new discharge or expansion of an existing discharge will not reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall permit the discharge if such degradation is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest, and if all other Department requirements are met. Projects permitted under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., shall be considered in compliance with this subsection if those projects comply with the requirements of subsection 373.414(1), F.S.; also projects permitted under the grandfather provisions of Sections 373.414(11) through (16), F.S., or permitted under Section 373.4145, F.S., shall be considered in compliance with this subsection if those projects comply with the requirements of Rule 62-312.080(2), F.A.C. (18)(a) Except as provided in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of this paragraph, an applicant for either a general permit or renewal of an existing permit for which no expansion of the discharge is proposed is not required to show that any degradation from the discharge is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. If the Department determines that the applicant has caused degradation of water quality over and above that allowed through previous permits issued to the applicant, then the applicant shall demonstrate that this lowering of water quality is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. These circumstances are limited to cases where it has been demonstrated that degradation of water quality is occurring due to the discharge. If the new or expanded discharge was initially permitted by the Department on or after October 4, 1989, and the Department determines that an antidegradation analysis was not conducted, then the applicant seeking renewal of the existing permit shall demonstrate that degradation from the discharge is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. Rule 62-302.400, Florida Administrative Code, classifies all surface waters of the state "according to designated uses." The rule provides for five classifications: Class I ("Potable Water Supplies"); Class II ("Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting"); Class III ("Recreation, Propagation of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife": Fresh and Marine); Class IV ("Agricultural Water Supplies"); and Class V ("Navigation, Utility and Industrial Use").22 See Rule 62-302.400(1), Florida Administrative Code. These "[w]ater quality classifications are arranged in order of degree of protection required, with Class I water having generally the most stringent water quality criteria23 and Class V the least. However, Class I, II, and III surface waters share water quality criteria established to protect recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy well-balanced population of fish and wildlife." Rule 62-302.400(4), Florida Administrative Code. Waters designated as "Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters" are given "special protection." See Rule 62-302.700(1) and (7), Florida Administrative Code ("It shall be the Department policy to afford the highest protection to Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters. No degradation of water quality, other than that allowed in Rule 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., is to be permitted in Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters, respectively, notwithstanding any other Department rules that allow water quality lowering. . . . The policy of this section shall be implemented through the permitting process pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C.").24 According to Subsection (5) of Rule 62-302.400, Florida Administrative Code, Criteria applicable to a classification are designed to maintain the minimum conditions necessary to assure the suitability of water for the designated use of the classification. In addition, applicable criteria are generally adequate to maintain minimum conditions required for the designated uses of less stringently regulated classifications. Therefore, unless clearly inconsistent with the criteria applicable, the designated uses of less stringently regulated classifications shall be deemed to be included within the designated uses of more stringently regulated classifications. "The specific water quality criteria corresponding to each surface water classification are listed in Rules 62-302.500 and 62-302.530," Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62- 302.400(3), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection (1) of Rule 62-302.500, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth what are known as the "free froms." It provides as follows: Minimum Criteria. All surface waters of the State shall at all places and at all times be free from: Domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non-thermal components of discharges which, alone or in combination with other substances or in combination with other components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Settle to form putrescent deposits or otherwise create a nuisance; or Float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter in such amounts as to form nuisances; or Produce color, odor, taste, turbidity, or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance; or Are acutely toxic; or Are present in concentrations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring, wildlife or aquatic species, unless specific standards are established for such components in Rules 62-302.500(2) or 62-302.530; or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. Thermal components of discharges which, alone, or in combination with other discharges or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Produce conditions so as to create a nuisance; or Do not comply with applicable provisions of Rule 62-302.500(3), F.A.C. Silver in concentrations above 2.3 micrograms/liter in predominantly marine waters. Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, has a table that contains both numeric and narrative surface water quality criteria to be applied except within zones of mixing. The left-hand column of the Table is a list of constituents [or parameters] for which a surface water criterion exists. The headings for the water quality classifications are found at the top of the Table. Applicable criteria lie within the Table. The individual criteria should be read in conjunction with other provisions in water quality standards, including Rules 62- 302.500 and 62-302.510, F.A.C. The criteria contained in Rules 62-302.500 or 62-302.510 also apply to all waters unless alternative or more stringent criteria are specified in Rule 62-302.530, F.A.C. Unless otherwise stated, all criteria express the maximum not to be exceeded at any time. In some cases, there are separate or additional limits, such as annual average criteria, which apply independently of the maximum not to be exceeded at any time. The following are the specific parameters listed in the table: Alkalinity; Aluminum; Ammonia (un-ionized); Antimony; Arsenic (total and trivalent); Bacteriological Quality (Fecal Coliform Bacteria); Bacteriological Quality (Total Coliform Bacteria); Barium; Benzene; Beryllium; Biological Integrity; BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand); Bromine (free molecular); Cadmium; Carbon Tetrachloride; Chlorides; Chlorine (total residual); Chromium (trivalent and hexavalent); Chronic Toxicity; Color; Conductance (specific); Copper; Cyanide; Detergents; 1,1- Dichloroethylene (1,1-di-chloroethene); Dichloromethane (methylene chloride); 2,4-Dinitrotoluene; Dissolved Oxygen; Dissolved Solids; Fluorides; Halomethanes; Hexachlorobutadiene; Iron; Lead; Manganese; Mercury; Nickel; Nitrate; Nuisance Species;25 Nutrients;26 Odor; Oils and Greases; Pesticides and Herbicides (2,4,5-TP; 2-4-D; Aldrin; Betahexachlorocyclohexane; Chlordane; DDT; Demeton; Dieldrin; Endosulfan; Endrin: Guthion; Heptachlor; Lindane; Malathion; Methoxychlor; Mirex; Parathion; Toxaphene); pH; Phenolic Compounds; Phosphorous (Elemental); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Radioactive Substances; Selenium; Silver; 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane; Tetrachloroethylene; Thallium; Total Dissolved Gases; Transparency; Trichloroeylene (trichloroethene); Turbidity; and Zinc. Rule 62-302.800, Florida Administrative Code, provides for the establishment of "[s]ite [s]pecific [a]lternative [c]riteria" where a water body, or portion thereof, does "not meet a particular ambient water quality criterion specified for its classification, due to natural background conditions or man- induced conditions which cannot be controlled or abated."27 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1313(d)), which is referenced in Subsections (1), (2), (9), and (11) of Section 447.067, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: Identification of areas with insufficient controls; maximum daily load; certain effluent limitations revision (1)(A) Each State shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by section 1311(b)(1)(A) and section 1311(b)(1)(B) of this title are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof within its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under section 1311 of this title are not stringent enough to assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. Each State shall establish for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 1314(a)(2) of this title as suitable for such calculation. Such load shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time to time, with the first such submission not later than one hundred and eighty days after the date of publication of the first identification of pollutants under section 1314(a)(2)(D) of this title, for his approval the waters identified and the loads established under paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), and (1)(D) of this subsection. The Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such identification and load not later than thirty days after the date of submission. If the Administrator approves such identification and load, such State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. If the Administrator disapproves such identification and load, he shall not later than thirty days after the date of such disapproval identify such waters in such State and establish such loads for such waters as he determines necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable to such waters and upon such identification and establishment the State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. For the specific purpose of developing information, each State shall identify all waters within its boundaries which it has not identified under paragraph (1)(A) and (1)(B) of this subsection and estimate for such waters the total maximum daily load with seasonal variations and margins of safety, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 1314(a)(2) of this title as suitable for such calculation and for thermal discharges, at a level that would assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish and wildlife. Limitations on revision of certain effluent limitations Standard not attained For waters identified under paragraph (1)(A) where the applicable water quality standard has not yet been attained, any effluent limitation based on a total maximum daily load or other waste load allocation established under this section may be revised only if (i) the cumulative effect of all such revised effluent limitations based on such total maximum daily load or waste load allocation will assure the attainment of such water quality standard, or (ii) the designated use which is not being attained is removed in accordance with regulations established under this section. Standard attained For waters identified under paragraph (1)(A) where the quality of such waters equals or exceeds levels necessary to protect the designated use for such waters or otherwise required by applicable water quality standards, any effluent limitation based on a total maximum daily load or other waste load allocation established under this section, or any water quality standard established under this section, or any other permitting standard may be revised only if such revision is subject to and consistent with the antidegradation policy established under this section. Development of Proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code The rule development process that culminated in the adoption of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, began shortly after the enactment of Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, when the Department decided, consistent with its routine practice in complex rulemaking cases, to form a technical advisory committee (TAC) to assist the Department in developing an "identification of impaired surface waters" rule by rendering advice to the Department concerning technical and scientific matters.28 The Department solicited nominations for TAC membership from stakeholder groups, but ultimately rejected the nominations it received and instead selected individuals it believed were best qualified to contribute based upon their expertise (in areas including water quality monitoring, water quality chemistry, water quality modeling, estuarine ecology, wetland ecology, analytical chemistry, statistics, bioassessment procedures, limnology, coastal ecology, fish biology, and hydrology). The first TAC meeting was held August 12, 1999. There were 12 subsequent TAC meetings, the last two of which were held on August 4, 2000, and August 28, 2000. The TAC meetings were held in various locations throughout the state (Pensacola, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Gainesville, Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and West Palm Beach) and were open to public, with members of the public able to make comments. All 13 TAC meetings were noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The TAC meetings were chaired by Mr. Joyner, who was the Department employee primarily responsible for drafting an "identification of impaired surface waters" rule. Mr. Joyner emphasized to the TAC members that their role was simply to give advice and make recommendations to the Department and that their advice and recommendations might not be followed. As it turned out, there were several instances where the Department rejected a TAC recommendation. In addition to seeking the advice of experts on technical and scientific matters, the Department wanted to hear from stakeholders regarding policy issues. Towards that end, it took steps to establish a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). An organizational meeting of the PAC was held on March 24, 2000, in Tallahassee, the day after the seventh TAC meeting (which was also held in Tallahassee). After being told about the government in the sunshine and public records laws with which they would have to comply as PAC members, "no one wanted to be on the PAC." The consensus of those present was to "just have public meetings [to elicit stakeholder input] and not have a formal PAC." The Department acted accordingly. Following this March 24, 2000, meeting, the Department abandoned its efforts to form a PAC and instead held four public meetings to obtain input from the public regarding policy questions involved in crafting an "identification of impaired surface waters" rule. The last two of these public meetings were combined with the last two TAC meetings (held on August 4, 2000, and August 28, 2000). Each of the five "policy" public meetings held by the Department (including the March 24, 2000, PAC organizational meeting) were noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Department also held two rule development workshops (one on September 7, 2000, and the other on December 7, 2000), both of which were also noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Between the time these two rule development workshops were held, Mr. Joyner met with representatives of regulated interests and the environmental community to discuss their thoughts regarding what should be included in an "identification of impaired surface waters" rule. Throughout the rule development process, the Department also received and considered written comments from interested persons. Information about the rule development process was posted on the Department's web site for the public to read. The Department e-mailed approximately 350 persons (whose names were on a list of interested persons compiled by the Department) to notify them in advance of any meetings and workshops on proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code. Proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, underwent numerous revisions during the rule development process. Whenever a revised version of the proposed rule chapter was prepared, the Department sent a copy of it, via e-mail, to the persons on the Department's 350 "interested persons" e-mail list. Changes to proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, were made not only in response to comments made by members of the TAC and stakeholders, but also in response to comments made by staff of the Region IV office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with whom Department staff had extensive discussions regarding the proposed rule chapter. The Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) "exercise[s] the standard-setting authority of the [D]epartment."29 In March of 2001, approximately 19 months after the first TAC meeting, the Department was ready to present its most recent version of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, to the ERC for adoption. Accordingly, it published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the March 23, 2001 (Volume 27, Number 12) edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly announcing that a hearing on the proposed rule chapter would be held before the ERC on April 26, 2001. The Notice contained the complete text of the proposed rule chapter, as well as the following statement of “[p]urpose, effect, and summary”: The purpose of the proposed new rule is to establish a methodology to identify impaired waters that will be included on the State's verified list of impaired waters, for which the Department will calculate Total Maximum Daily Loads, pursuant to subsection 403.067(4), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and which will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to subparagraphs 303(d)(1)(A) and 303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act. As directed by 403.067, F.S., the development of the State's 303(d) list will be a two-step process; waters will first be identified as potentially impaired and then any impairment will be verified before listing the water. The rule implements this statutory direction by providing a methodology to identify surface waters of the state that will be included on a "planning list" of waters. Pursuant to subsection 403.067(2) and (3), F.S., the Department will evaluate the data used to place these waters on the planning list, verify that the data meet quality assurance and data sufficiency requirements of the "verified list," and collect additional data, as needed, to complete the assessment. The rule also provides information about the listing cycle, the format of the verified list, and delisting procedures. At the ERC's regularly scheduled March 29, 2001, meeting, Mr. Joyner formally briefed the ERC on the status of the rule development process (as he had previously done at ERC's regularly scheduled meetings on June 29, 2000, August 24, 2000, December 5, 2000, and January 25, 2001). At the March 29, 2001, meeting, Mr. Joyner went through the proposed rule chapter with the ERC "paragraph by paragraph." As noted above, prior to the scheduled April 26, 2001, ERC hearing, petitions challenging the proposed rule chapter (as published in the March 23, 2001, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly) were filed with the Division by Petitioner Lane (on April 10, 2001) and by all Joint Petitioners excluding Save Our Suwannee, Inc. (on April 13, 2001). On April 21, 2001, all Joint Petitioners excluding Save Our Suwannee, Inc., filed a Request with ERC asking: that rulemaking proceedings regarding proposed Rule 62-303 be conducted under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, as to all parties, or alternatively at least to the six petitioners; that the evidentiary processes involved under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, be combined with the already pending DOAH proceedings of all parties, or at least the six petitioners; and that rulemaking proceedings, as to proposed Rule 62-303, be suspended pending completion of the evidentiary processes before DOAH as well as the DOAH ruling on the pending petitions, as to all parties or at least the six petitioners. The Request was considered and denied by the ERC at the outset of its hearing on the proposed rule chapter, which was held as scheduled on April 26, 2001. That same day, the ERC issued a written order denying the Request, which read, in pertinent part as follows: But for their request to combine the requested evidentiary proceeding with the existing rule challenges pending before DOAH, Petitioners have requested conversion of the instant rulemaking proceeding to an evidentiary hearing or "draw out." A draw out is authorized under proper circumstances by Section 120.54(3)(c)2, Florida Statutes, which states: "Rulemaking proceedings shall be governed solely by the provisions of this section unless a person timely asserts that the person's substantial interests will be affected in the proceeding and affirmatively demonstrates to the agency that the proceeding does not provide adequate opportunity to protect those interests. If the agency determines that the rulemaking proceeding is not adequate to protect the person's interests, it shall suspend the rulemaking proceeding and convene a separate proceeding under the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. Similarly situated persons may be requested to join and participate in the separate proceeding. Upon conclusion of the separate proceeding, the rulemaking proceeding shall be resumed." A participant in the rulemaking proceeding who requests such relief is asking to "draw out" of the rulemaking proceeding and for the agency to afford the party an evidentiary hearing in lieu thereof.[30] A copy of each of the six petitions filed by the parties with DOAH was attached to the joint notice now before the Commission. But for minor variations in allegations to establish standing, each of the six petitions sets out seventeen (17) counts with each count asserting that a particular provision, or provisions, of proposed Rule 62-303 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority or otherwise a violation of Section 403.067, F.S., or the federal Clean Water Act. None of the individual petitions, or the joint notice, demonstrate that the pending rulemaking proceeding fails to protect the petitioners' substantial interests, nor have petitioners raised any factual issues that would require a separate evidentiary hearing beyond the scope of the DOAH proceedings already pending. Under these circumstances, Section 120.56(2)(b), F.S., specifically allows an agency to proceed with all other steps in the rulemaking process, except for final adoption, while a DOAH rule challenge is pending.[31] In view of the foregoing, and in exercising its discretion as afforded by Section 120.54(3)(c)2., F.S., the Commission has determined that the rulemaking proceeding adequately protects the interests asserted by each of the six petitioners who joined in the joint notice as filed April 20th, 2001. Accordingly, the petitioners' joint request for relief therein is denied. The version of the proposed rule chapter published in the March 23, 2001, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly, with some modifications, was adopted by the ERC at its April 26, 2001, meeting (at which members of the public were given the opportunity to comment prior to ERC deliberation). The modifications were noticed in a Notice of Change published in the May 11, 2001, edition (Volume 27, Number 19) of the Florida Administrative Weekly. Contents of the ERC-Adopted Version of Proposed Rule Chapter 62- 303, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Identification of Impaired Surface Waters." It is divided into four parts. Part I: Overview Part I of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, contains the following "general" provisions: Proposed Rules 62-303.100, 62-303.150, and 62- 303.200, Florida Administrative Code. Part I: Proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Scope and Intent." It provides an overview of the proposed rule chapter and reads as follows: This chapter establishes a methodology to identify surface waters of the state that will be included on the state's planning list of waters that will be assessed pursuant to subsections 403.067(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (F.S.). It also establishes a methodology to identify impaired waters that will be included on the state's verified list of impaired waters, for which the Department will calculate Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), pursuant to subsection 403.067(4) F.S., and which will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to paragraph 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Subsection 303(d) of the CWA and section 403.067, F.S., describe impaired waters as those not meeting applicable water quality standards, which is a broad term that includes designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating provisions. However, as recognized when the water quality standards were adopted, many water bodies naturally do not meet one or more established water quality criteria at all times, even though they meet their designated use.[32] Data on exceedances of water quality criteria will provide critical information about the status of assessed waters, but it is the intent of this chapter to only list waters on the verified list that are impaired due to point source or nonpoint source pollutant discharges. It is not the intent of this chapter to include waters that do not meet water quality criteria solely due to natural conditions or physical alterations of the water body not related to pollutants. Similarly, it is not the intent of this chapter to include waters where designated uses are being met and where water quality criteria exceedances are limited to those parameters for which permitted mixing zones or other moderating provisions (such as site-specific alternative criteria) are in effect. Waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards due to natural conditions or to pollution not related to pollutants shall be noted in the state's water quality assessment prepared under subsection 305(b) of the CWA. This chapter is intended to interpret existing water quality criteria and evaluate attainment of established designated uses as set forth in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., for the purposes of identifying water bodies or segments for which TMDLs will be established. It is not the intent of this chapter to establish new water quality criteria or standards, or to determine the applicability of existing criteria under other provisions of Florida law. In cases where this chapter relies on numeric indicators of ambient water quality as part of the methodology for determining whether existing narrative criteria are being met, these numeric values are intended to be used only in the context of developing a planning list and identifying an impaired water pursuant to this chapter. As such, exceedances of these numeric values shall not, by themselves, constitute violations of Department rules that would warrant enforcement action. Nothing in this rule is intended to limit any actions by federal, state, or local agencies, affected persons, or citizens pursuant to other rules or regulations. Pursuant to section 403.067, F.S., impaired waters shall not be listed on the verified list if reasonable assurance is provided that, as a result of existing or proposed technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, they will attain water quality standards in the future and reasonable progress towards attainment of water quality standards will be made by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.021(11). 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, refers to the narrowing and winnowing process (more fully described in subsequent portions of the proposed rule chapter) that will yield the Department's "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, which list will be submitted to the EPA in accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. (The Department last submitted such a list to the EPA in 1998. This list is referred to by the Department as its 1998 303(d) list.) The Department's intent not to include on its "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated those "[w]aters that do not meet applicable water quality standards due to natural conditions or to pollution not related to pollutants," as provided in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.100, Florida Administrative Code, is consistent with the view expressed in Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that TMDLs are appropriate only where there is man-induced pollution involving the discharge (from either a point or nonpoint source) of identifiable pollutants. See, e.g., Section 403.067(1), Florida Statutes ("[T]he development of a total maximum daily load program for state waters as required by s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq. will promote improvements in water quality throughout the state through the coordinated control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution"); Section 403.067(4), Florida Statutes ("If a surface water or water segment is to be listed under this subsection, the department must specify the particular pollutants causing the impairment and the concentration of those pollutants causing the impairment relative to the water quality standard."); and Section 403.067(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes ("For waters determined to be impaired due solely to factors other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution, no total maximum daily load will be required."). While "[w]aters that do not meet applicable water quality standards due to natural conditions or to pollution not related to pollutants" will not appear on the Department's "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, they will be included in the "water quality assessment prepared under subsection 305(b) of the CWA" (305(b) Report), which provides as follows: Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include-- a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by the objective of this chapter (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published under section 1314(a) of this title) and the water quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this chapter, together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary; an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this chapter in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs. The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter. The declaration made in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, that "[t]his chapter is intended to interpret existing water quality criteria and evaluate attainment of established designated uses as set forth in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., for the purposes of identifying water bodies or segments for which TMDLs will be established" is similar to that made in Subsection (9) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that "[t]he provisions of this section are intended to supplement existing law, and nothing in this section shall be construed as altering any applicable state water quality standards." Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, together with proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code (which will be discussed later), are designed to give effect to and make more specific the language in Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that an impaired water may be listed on the Department's "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated only "if technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, including Everglades restoration activities pursuant to s. 373.4592 and the National Estuary Program, which are designed to restore such waters for the pollutant of concern are not sufficient to result in attainment of applicable surface water quality standards." Section 403.061, Florida Statutes, which is cited as the "[s]pecific [a]uthority" for proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Statutes (and every other proposed rule in the proposed rule chapter), authorizes the Department to, among other things, "[a]dopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of [Chapter 403, Florida Statutes]." See Section 403.061(7), Florida Statutes. Section 403.062, Florida Statutes, which is included among the statutory provisions cited in proposed Rule 62- 303.100, Florida Statutes (and every other proposed rule in the proposed rule chapter) as the "[l]aw [i]mplemented," reads as follows: Code Pollution control; underground, surface, and coastal waters.-- The department and its agents shall have general control and supervision over underground water, lakes, rivers, streams, canals, ditches, and coastal waters under the jurisdiction of the state insofar as their pollution may affect the public health or impair the interest of the public or persons lawfully using them. Part I: Proposed Rule 62-303.150, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.150, Florida Administrative Code, explains the "[r]elationship [b]etween [p]lanning and [v]erified [l]ists." It provides as follows: The Department shall follow the methodology in Section 62-303 300 to develop a planning list pursuant to subsection 403.067(2), F.S. As required by subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the planning list shall not be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory program, and shall be submitted to EPA for informational purposes only. Waters on this planning list will be assessed pursuant to subsection 403.067(3) F.S., as part of the Department's watershed management approach. During this assessment, the Department shall determine whether the water body is impaired and whether the impairment is due to pollutant discharges using the methodology in Part III. The resultant verified list of impaired waters, which is the list of waters for which TMDLs will be developed by the Department pursuant to subsection 403.067(4), will be adopted by Secretarial Order and will be subject to challenge under subsection [sic] 120.569 and 120.57 F.S. Once adopted, the list will be submitted to the EPA pursuant to paragraph 303(d)(1) of the CWA. Consistent with state and federal requirements, opportunities for public participation, including workshops, meetings, and periods to submit comments on draft lists, will be provided as part of the development of planning and verified lists. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The initial drafts of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, provided for merely a single list of impaired waters needing TMDLs. It was only after the last TAC meeting (and before the first rule development workshop) that the concept of having two lists (a preliminary, "planning list" of potentially impaired waters requiring further assessment and a final, "verified list . . . of waters for which TMDLs will be developed by the Department") was incorporated into proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, by Department staff (although the idea of having a "potentially impaired subset" of impaired waters was discussed at TAC meetings). Such action was taken in response to concerns raised during the rule development process that the proposed rule chapter, as then drafted with its one-list methodology, "was too restrictive, that it would only get a small subset of waters on [the Departments 303(d)] list." To decrease, in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, the chance that an impaired water needing a TMDL would be erroneously excluded, Department staff revised the proposed rule chapter to provide for a two-step listing process where potentially impaired waters would first be placed on a "planning list" based upon criteria generally less "restrictive" than the listing criteria contained in the previous drafts of the proposed rule chapter and then further tested (if necessary) and assessed to verify if, based upon criteria generally more rigorous than the "planning list" criteria, they should be included on a "verified list" of waters needing TMDLs (to be submitted to the EPA as the state's "updated" 303(d) list). Weighing against Department staff making it any easier for a water to be placed on the "verified list" was the significant regulatory consequence of such action. Erroneously listing a water as needing a TMDL would result in the unnecessary expenditure of considerable time, money, and effort. The more rigorous the listing criteria, the less likely it would be that a water would be listed erroneously and such unnecessary expenditures made. Subsequent to the ERC's adoption of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, the National Research Council (NRC),33 through one of its committees,34 acting at the request of Congress to analyze the scientific basis of the nationwide TMDL program, issued a report entitled, "Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management" (NRC Publication). In the NRC Publication, the committee endorses a "two-list process" like the one incorporated in proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, explaining as follows: Determining whether there should be some minimum threshold of data available when evaluating waterbodies for attainment of water quality standards is an issue of great concern to states. On the one hand, many call for using only the "best science" in making listing decisions, while others fear that many impaired waters will not be identified in the wait for additional data. The existence of a preliminary list addresses these concerns by focusing attention on waters suspected to be impaired without imposing on stakeholders and the agencies the consequences of TMDL development, until additional information is developed and evaluated. According to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62- 303.150, Florida Administrative Code, "[w]aters on th[e] planning list will be assessed pursuant to subsection 403.067(3) F.S., as part of the Department's watershed management approach." The following are the major concepts incorporated in the "Department's watershed management approach": The basin management unit is the geographic or spatial unit used to divide the state into smaller areas for assessment- -generally groups of Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs)[35] . . . . The basin management cycle is the five- year cycle within which watersheds are assessed and management plans developed and implemented. The Management Action Plan (MAP), a document developed over the five-year cycle and subsequently updated every five years, describes the watershed's problems and how participants plan to address them. Forums and communications networks allow participants to collect and evaluate as much information as possible on their individual basins and to reach a consensus on strategic monitoring, priority water bodies, and management strategies. The statewide basin management schedule establishes the proposed sequence for assessing individual watersheds. . . . Each individual basin cycle under the "Department's watershed management approach" takes five years to complete, and is "repeated every five years." It is, in other words, an iterative process. The five phases of the cycle are as follows: Phase I: Preliminary Basin Assessment; Phase II: Strategic Monitoring; Phase III: Data Analysis and TMDL Development; Phase IV: Management Action Plan; and Phase V: Implementation. The first two phases of the cycle are discussed in greater detail in proposed Rule 62-303.700, Florida Administrative Code. Part I: Proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, contains definitions of various terms and phrases used in proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code. It provides as follows: As used in this chapter: "BioRecon" shall mean a bioassessment conducted following the procedures outlined in "Protocols for Conducting a Biological Reconnaissance in Florida Streams," Florida Department of Environmental Protection, March 13. 1995, which is incorporated by reference. "Clean techniques" shall mean those applicable field sampling procedures and analytical methods referenced in "Method 1669: Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels, July 1996, USEPA. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division. Washington, D.C.," which is incorporated by reference. "Department" or "DEP" shall mean the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. "Designated use" shall mean the present and future most beneficial use of a body of water as designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission by means of the classification system contained in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C. "Estuary" shall mean predominantly marine regions of interaction between rivers and nearshore ocean waters, where tidal action and river flow mix fresh and salt water. Such areas include bays, mouths of rivers, and lagoons. "Impaired water" shall mean a water body or water body segment that does not meet its applicable water quality standards as set forth in Chapters 62-302 and 62-4 F.A.C., as determined by the methodology in Part III of this chapter, due in whole or in part to discharges of pollutants from point or nonpoint sources. "Lake Condition Index" shall mean the benthic macroinvertebrate component of a bioassessment conducted following the procedures outlined in "Development of Lake Condition Indexes (LCI) for Florida," Florida Department of Environmental Protection, July, 2000, which is incorporated by reference. "Natural background" shall mean the condition of waters in the absence of man- induced alterations based on the best scientific information available to the Department. The establishment of natural background for an altered waterbody may be based upon a similar unaltered waterbody or on historical pre-alteration data. "Nuisance species" shall mean species of flora or fauna whose noxious characteristics or presence in sufficient number, biomass, or areal extent may reasonably be expected to prevent, or unreasonably interfere with, a designated use of those waters. "Physical alterations" shall mean human-induced changes to the physical structure of the water body. "Planning list" shall mean the list of surface waters or segments for which assessments will be conducted to evaluate whether the water is impaired and a TMDL is needed, as provided in subsection 403.067(2), F.S. "Pollutant" shall be as defined in subsection 502(6) of the CWA. Characteristics of a discharge, including dissolved oxygen, pH, or temperature, shall also be defined as pollutants if they result or may result in the potentially harmful alteration of downstream waters. "Pollution" shall be as defined in subsection 502(19) of the CWA and subsection 403.031(2), F.S. "Predominantly marine waters" shall mean surface waters in which the chloride concentration at the surface is greater than or equal to 1,500 milligrams per liter. "Secretary" shall mean the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. "Spill" shall mean a short-term, unpermitted discharge to surface waters, not to include sanitary sewer overflows or chronic discharges from leaking wastewater collection systems. "Stream" shall mean a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals, freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies. "Stream Condition Index" shall mean a bioassessment conducted following the procedures outlined in "Development of the Stream Condition Index (SCI) for Florida," Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May, 1996, which is incorporated by reference. "Surface water" means those waters of the State upon the surface of the earth to their landward extent, whether contained in bounds created naturally or artificially or diffused. Water from natural springs shall be classified as surface water when it exits from the spring onto the earth's surface. "Total maximum daily load" (TMDL) for an impaired water body or water body segment shall mean the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources and the load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to determining individual wasteload allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards must first be calculated. A TMDL shall include either an implicit or explicit margin of safety and a consideration of seasonal variations. "Verified list" shall mean the list of impaired water bodies or segments for which TMDLs will be calculated, as provided in subsection 403.067(4), F.S., and which will be submitted to EPA pursuant to paragraph 303(d)(1) of the CWA. "Water quality criteria" shall mean elements of State water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, representing a 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 (mixing zones, site-specific alternative criteria, and exemptions) contained in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., and in Chapter 62-4, F.A.C., adopted pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. "Water segment" shall mean a portion of a water body that the Department will assess and evaluate for purposes of determining whether a TMDL will be required. Water segments previously evaluated as part of the Department's 1998 305(b) Report are depicted in the map titled "Water Segments of Florida," which is incorporated by reference. "Waters" shall be those surface waters described in Section 403.031(13) Florida Statutes. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New There are some high salinity waters of the state that, although they do not have riverine input, nonetheless meet the definition of "estuary" found in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, because they are "bays" or "lagoons," as those terms are used in the second sentence of Subsection (5). Rule Chapter 62-4, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsections (6) and (23) of proposed Rule 62- 303.200, Florida Administrative Code, addresses the subject of "[p]ermits." According to Subsection (1) of Rule 62-4.210, Florida Administrative Code, "[n]o person shall construct any installation or facility which will reasonably be expected to be a source of . . . water pollution without first applying for and receiving a construction permit from the Department unless exempted by statute or Department rule." Subsection (1) of Rule 62-4.240, Florida Administrative Code, requires that "[a]ny person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the State shall make application to the Department for an operation permit." An "operation permit" must: Specify the manner, nature, volume and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require proper operation and maintenance of any pollution abatement facility by qualified personnel in accordance with standards established by the Department; and Contain such additional conditions, requirements and restrictions as the Department deems necessary to preserve and protect the quality of the receiving waters and to ensure proper operation of the pollution control facilities. Rule 62-4.240(3), Florida Administrative Code. "An operation permit [will] be issued only if all Department requirements are met, including the provisions of Rules 62-302.300 and 62-302.700 and Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C." Rule 62-4.240(2), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection (1) of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code, describes "[a]ntidegradation [p]ermitting [r]equirements." It provides as follows: Permits shall be issued when consistent with the antidegradation policy set forth in Rule 62-302.300 and, if applicable, Rule 62- 302.700. In determining whether a proposed discharge which results in water quality degradation is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following factors: Whether the proposed project is important to and is beneficial to the public health, safety, or welfare (taking into account the policies set forth in Rules 62- 302.100, 62-302.300, and, if applicable, 62- 302.700); and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge; and Whether the proposed discharge is consistent with any applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan that has been adopted by a Water Management District and approved by the Department. In addition to subsection (b) above, in order for a proposed discharge (other than stormwater discharges meeting the requirements of Chapter 62-25, F.A.C.), to be necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest, the permit applicant must demonstrate that neither of the following is economically and technologically reasonable: Reuse of domestic reclaimed water. Use of other discharge locations, the use of land application, or reuse that would minimize or eliminate the need to lower water quality. Subsections (2) and (3) of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code, prescribe "[s]tandards [a]pplying to Outstanding Florida Waters" and "[s]tandards [a]pplying to Outstanding National Resource Waters," respectively. Subsection (4) of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code, "prescribe[s] the means by which the Department, upon the petition of a license applicant, will equitably allocate among such persons [directly discharging significant amounts of pollutants into waters which fail to meet one or more of the water quality criteria applicable to those waters] the relative levels of abatement responsibility of each for abatement of those pollutants." Subsection (1) of Rule 62-4.244, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department, upon application, may "allow the water quality adjacent to a point of discharge to be degraded to the extent that only the minimum conditions described in subsection 62-302.500(1), Florida Administrative Code, apply within a limited, defined region known as the mixing zone"; provided, that the "mixing zone" does not "significantly impair any of the designated uses of the receiving body of water." Subsection 502(6) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1362(6)), which is referenced in Subsection (12) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The term "pollutant" means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This term does not mean (A) "sewage from vessels or a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces" within the meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (B) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources. Subsection 502(19) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1362(19)), which is referenced in Subsection (13) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The term "pollution" means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water. In Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, the definition of "pollution" is found, not in Subsection (2) of Section 403.031, Florida Statutes, as indicated in Subsection (13) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, but in Subsection (7) of the statute. The "water segments" referenced in the second sentence of Subsection (24) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, are, for the most part, either approximately five linear miles each (in the case of streams) or approximately five square miles each (in the case of waters not in a defined channel). Subsection (13) of Section 403.031, Florida Statutes, which is referenced in Subsection (25) of proposed Rule 62- 303.200, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "'[w]aters' include, but are not limited to, rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments, wetlands, and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters." The other terms and phrases defined in proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, will be discussed, where appropriate, later in this Final Order. Part II: Overview Part II of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, contains the following provisions, which describe the "planning list" of potentially impaired waters and how the list will be compiled: Proposed Rules 62-303.300, 62- 303.320, 62-303.330, 62-303.340, 62-303.350, 62-303.351, 62- 303.352, 62-303.353, 62-303.360, 62-303.370, and 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code. Code Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Methodology to Develop the Planning List." It provides as follows: This part establishes a methodology for developing a planning list of waters to be assessed pursuant to subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. A waterbody shall be placed on the planning list if it fails to meet the minimum criteria for surface waters established in Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C.; any of its designated uses, as described in this part; or applicable water quality criteria, as described in this part. It should be noted that water quality criteria are designed to protect either aquatic life use support, which is addressed in sections 62- 303.310-353, or to protect human health, which is addressed in sections 62-303.360- 380. Waters on the list of water segments submitted to EPA in 1998 that do not meet the data sufficiency requirements for the planning list shall nevertheless be included in the state's initial planning list developed pursuant to this rule. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the concept of "independent applicability" by providing that only one of the listed requirements need be met for a water to be placed on the "planning list." At the April 26, 2001, rule adoption hearing, the ERC initially voted to delete from proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, the language in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code. The ERC, however, later in the hearing, reversed itself after learning of a letter, dated April 26, 2001, that was sent to the Department by Beverly H. Bannister, the Director of the EPA's Region 4 Water Management Division. Ms. Bannister's letter read, in pertinent part, as follows: EPA expressed significant concern that, under earlier versions of the IWR [Impaired Waters Rule], waters currently identified as impaired on the State's 1998 Section 303(d) list which were determined to have "insufficient data" would be removed from the State's Section 303(d) list and also not appear on the State's planning list with its associated requirement for additional data collection. As a result of EPA concerns, the latest version of the IWR provides that waters on the current 1998 Section 303(d) list that do not meet the data sufficiency requirement of the planning list will be placed on the IWR's planning list, and sufficient data will be collected to verify the water's impairment status. In further discussions with the State regarding the EPA's concern about the 2002 Section 303(d) list, the State has committed to review all waters on the 1998 303(d) list and include all waters that meet the verification requirements of the IWR on the State's 2002 list. In addition, the State will also review all available data from 1989 to 1998 for development of a statewide planning list and include on the 2002 list any additional waters that meet the verification requirements, based on data from 1994 to 1998. (The State is unable to do a complete assessment for data gathered in 1999, 2000, and 2001 because of a national problem in the upload of data into the new Federal STORET data system.) Those waters on the 1998 303(d) list that do not meet the verification requirements will be de-listed for "good cause" and placed on the State's planning list as insufficient to verify the water's use-support status according to the methodology in the IWR. The "good cause" justification for de- listing the waters is based on several factors: 1) the requirements of the State Rule that these waters be moved to a planning list for additional data collection and assessment that will occur within a reasonable period of time; 2) a determination will be made that the waters are either impaired (and placed on the 303(d) list) or attaining its uses; and 3) the State's commitment to EPA that waters on the planning list that appeared on the State's 1998 Section 303(d) list will be monitored and assessed during the first or second rotation through the State's Watershed Management Process consistent with the schedule for TMDL development in EPA's consent decree with Earthjustice. High priority water/pollutant combinations will be monitored and assessed during the first rotation of the watershed cycle (i.e., within 5 years of 2001), and low priority water/pollutant combinations will be monitored and assessed during the second rotation of the watershed cycle (i.e., within 10 years of 2001). After this additional data collection and assessment, the water will be added to the appropriate future 303(d) list if the water is verified to be impaired, or the water will be "de- listed" based on the "good cause" justification that the water is attaining its uses. Waters on the 1998 303(d) list where sufficient data exists to demonstrate the water is meeting the IWR's planning list criteria for use support will be de-listed in the 2002 303(d) list submittal. It is EPA's view that this process will achieve the intent of the CWA and will provide sufficient documentation of the waters still requiring TMDLs by FDEP. Together with the data collection requirements found in Part III of the proposed rule chapter, Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, ensures that all waters on the Department's 1998 303(d) list (which list is referenced in Subsection (2)(c) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes) will be assessed by the Department and that they will not be eliminated from consideration for TMDL development simply because there is not enough data to determine whether a TMDL is needed. Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Evaluation of Aquatic Life Use Support." It provides as follows: A Class I, II, or III water shall be placed on the planning list for assessment of aquatic life use support (propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife) if, based on sufficient quality and quantity of data, it: exceeds applicable aquatic life-based water quality criteria as outlined in section 62-303.320, does not meet biological assessment thresholds for its water body type as outlined in section 62-303.330, is acutely or chronically toxic as outlined in section 62-303.340, or exceeds nutrient thresholds as outlined in section 62-303.350. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New This proposed rule, like Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the concept of "independent applicability." A water need meet only one of the four listed benchmarks to be placed on the "planning list for assessment of aquatic life use support." Each of these benchmarks is discussed at greater length in one or more of the subsequent sections of Part II of the proposed rule chapter. Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, addresses the "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" benchmark described in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code. It cites Sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as its "[s]pecific [a]uthority" and Sections 403.062 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as the "[l]aw[s] [i]mplemented" by the proposed rule. Proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a statistical method (involving "data modeling," as that term is used in Subsection (3)(b)4. of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes) for use in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list." It is not feasible, due to limited resources, to examine a water body at every point to determine its true overall condition. Rather, samples must be taken over time and inferences drawn from the sampling results, taking into consideration the "variability [of water quality] occurring in nature" and "that some deviations from water quality standards occur as the result of natural background conditions" (as the Legislature observed in Subsection (11) of Section 403.021, Florida Statutes). The process is, necessarily, characterized by a lack of certainty and the possibility of error. As stated in the NRC Publication: Given the finite monitoring resources, it is obvious that the number of sampling stations included in the state program will ultimately limit the number of water quality measurements that can be made at each station. Thus, in addition to the problem of defining state waters and designing the monitoring network to assess those waters, fundamental statistical issues arise concerning how to interpret limited data from individual sampling stations. Statistical inference procedures must be used on the sample data to test hypotheses about whether the actual condition in the water body meets the criterion. Thus, water quality assessment is a hypothesis-testing procedure. A statistical analysis of sample data for determining whether a water body is meeting a criterion requires the definition of a null hypothesis; for listing a water body, the null hypothesis would be that the water is not impaired. The analysis is prone to the possibility of both Type I error (a false conclusion that an unimpaired water is impaired) and Type II error (a false conclusion that an impaired water is not impaired). . . . The TAC and Department staff had extensive discussions regarding the issue of what particular type of "statistical analysis" to incorporate in the proposed rule chapter before deciding on a binomial distribution analysis. The binomial model is a time-tested nonparametric statistical method that is used where there are two possible outcomes, such as, in the case of water quality sampling, whether a water quality criterion has been exceeded or not. A parametric statistical analysis, based upon an assumption of normal distribution, which, unlike the binomial model incorporated in the proposed rule chapter, takes into account the magnitude of exceedances,36 was considered, but reasonably rejected by the TAC and Department staff because it was anticipated that, in many instances, the number of samples available to the Department would not be adequate to make the underlying distributional assumption with the requisite degree of certainty. The binomial model, which takes sample size into consideration, offers greater certainty with a limited number of samples than does the parametric statistical analysis that the TAC and Department staff rejected. Nonetheless, even in the case of the binomial model, the more samples there are, the more precise the analysis will be. Both Type I errors (false positives) and Type II errors (false negatives) decrease as sample size increases. To ensure greater analytic precision, proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, and its counterpart in Part III of the proposed rule chapter (proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code) contain reasonable minimum sample size requirements (ten, with limited exceptions, for placement on the "planning list," and 20 for placement on the "verified list," which is ten more than the TAC recommended37). The NRC Publication contains the following discussion regarding the appropriateness of employing a binomial model to identify impaired waters needing TMDLs: The committee does not recommend any particular statistical method for analyzing monitoring data and for listing waters. However, one possibility is that the binomial hypothesis test could be required as a minimum and practical first step (Smith et al., 2001). The binomial method is not a significant departure from the current approach--called the raw score approach--in which the listing process treats all sample observations as binary values that either exceed the criterion or do not, and the binomial method has some important advantages. For example, one limitation of the raw score approach is that it does not account for the total number of measurements made. Clearly, 1 out of 6 measurements above the criterion is a weaker case for impairment than is 6 out of 36. The binomial hypothesis test allows one to take sample size into account. By using a statistical procedure, sample sizes can be selected and one can explicitly control and make trade-offs between error rates. (see Smith et al., 2001, and Gibbons, in press, for guidance in managing the risk of false positive and false negative errors). Several states, including Florida and Virginia, are considering or are already using the binomial hypothesis test to list impaired waters. Detailed examples of how to apply the test are beyond the scope of this document, but can be found in Smith et al. (2001) and the proposed Chapter 62-303 of the Florida Administrative Code. In a footnote, the committee added the following: The choice of Type I error rate is based on the assessor's willingness to falsely categorize a water body. It also is the case that, for any sample size, the Type II error rate decreases as the acceptable Type I error rate increases. The willingness to make either kind of mistake will depend on the consequences of the resulting action (more monitoring, costs to do a TMDL plan, costs to implement controls, possible health risk) and who bears the cost (public budget, private parties, etc.). The magnitude and burden of a Type I versus Type II error depend on the statement of the null hypothesis and on the sample size. When choosing a Type I error rate, the assessor may want to explicitly consider these determinants of error rates. The TAC recommended a Type I error rate of five percent (or, stated differently, a confidence level of 95 percent) be used in making listing decisions.38 Department staff responsible for drafting the proposed rule chapter, believing that, as a matter of policy, a 95 percent confidence level was too high and that a higher Type I error rate should be tolerated in order to reduce Type II error, reasonably settled on an 80 percent confidence level for placement on the "planning list" and a 90 percent confidence level for placement on the "verified list." Scientific studies generally do not employ a confidence level below 80 percent. A 50 percent confidence level is "comparable to flipping a coin." Use of the binomial model to determine impairment for purposes of TMDL development (based upon exceedances of water quality criteria) further requires the selection of a fixed "exceedance frequency" representing an acceptable rate of violation beneath which a water segment will not be considered impaired. A permissible "exceedance frequency" accounts for the natural variability of water quality and the uncertainty that the measurements taken are representative of the overall condition of the water segment sampled. The Department, pursuant to EPA guidance, has historically used a ten percent "exceedance frequency" for purposes of identifying, in its 305(b) Report, waters not meeting their designated uses. The TAC and Department staff agreed that a ten percent "exceedance frequency" should likewise be incorporated in the proposed rule chapter. The NRC Publication contains the following discussion regarding "exceedance frequencies" in general and a ten percent "exceedance frequency" in particular: Whether the binomial or the raw score approach is used, there must be a decision on an acceptable frequency of violation for the numeric criterion, which can range from 0 percent of the time to some positive number. Under the current EPA approach, 10 percent of the sample measurements of a given pollutant made at a station may exceed the applicable criterion without having to list the surrounding waterbody. The choice of 10 percent is meant to allow for uncertainty in the decision process. Unfortunately, simply setting an upper bound on the percentage of measurements at a station that may violate a standard provides insufficient information to properly deal with the uncertainty concerning impairment. The choice of acceptable frequency of violation is also supposed to be related to whether the designated use will be compromised, which is clearly dependent on the pollutant and on waterbody characteristics such as flow rate. A determination of 10 percent cannot be expected to apply to all water quality situations. In fact, it is inconsistent with federal water quality criteria for toxics that specify allowable violation frequencies of either one day in three years, four consecutive days in three years, or 30 consecutive days in three years (which are all less than 10 percent). Embedded in the EPA raw score approach is an implication that 10 percent is an acceptable violation rate, which it may not be in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, as the chairman of the committee that produced the NRC Publication, Dr. Kenneth Reckhow, testified at the final hearing in these consolidated cases when asked whether he "believe[d] that a determination of ten percent exceedance [frequency] cannot be expected to apply to all water quality situations": the "notion of one size fits all is . . . a pragmatic approach to the limits of what can be done in a regulatory environment." Dr. Reckhow, during his testimony, declined to "endorse[] as a scientist" the use of an "exceedance frequency" of ten percent (as opposed to some other "particular level"),39 but he stated his opinion (which the undersigned accepts) that "it is important to select a level, and from a science perspective it would be useful to see states employ a level like that or levels roughly around that point and see how effectively they have worked in terms of achieving the goal of meeting designated uses." Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth in tabular form, by sample size (from ten samples to 500 samples), the minimum number of exceedances needed for placement on the "planning list." It provides as follows: Water segments shall be placed on the planning list if, using objective and credible data, as defined by the requirements specified in this section, the number of exceedances of an applicable water quality criterion due to pollutant discharges is greater than or equal to the number listed in Table 1 for the given sample size. This table provides the number of exceedances that indicate a minimum of 10% exceedance frequency with a minimum of an 80% confidence level using a binomial distribution. Table 1: Planning List Minimum number of measured exceedances needed to put a water on the Planning list with at least 80% confidence that the actual exceedance rate is greater than or equal to ten percent. Sample Are listed if they Sizes have at least this # of exceedances From To 10 15 3 16 23 4 24 31 5 32 39 6 40 47 7 48 56 8 57 65 9 66 73 10 74 82 11 83 91 12 92 100 13 101 109 14 110 118 15 119 126 16 127 136 17 137 145 18 146 154 19 155 163 20 164 172 21 173 181 22 182 190 23 191 199 24 200 208 25 209 218 26 219 227 27 228 236 28 237 245 29 246 255 30 256 264 31 265 273 32 274 282 33 283 292 34 293 301 35 302 310 36 311 320 37 321 329 38 330 338 39 339 348 40 349 357 41 358 367 42 368 376 43 377 385 44 386 395 45 396 404 46 405 414 47 415 423 48 424 432 49 433 442 50 443 451 51 452 461 52 462 470 53 471 480 54 481 489 55 490 499 56 500 500 57 The "calculations [reflected in Table 1] are correct." Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Storage and Retrieval (STORET) database shall be the primary source of data used for determining water quality criteria exceedances. As required by rule 62- 40.540(3), F.A.C., the Department, other state agencies, the Water Management Districts, and local governments collecting surface water quality data in Florida shall enter the data into STORET within one year of collection. Other sampling entities that want to ensure their data will be considered for evaluation should ensure their data are entered into STORET. The Department shall consider data submitted to the Department from other sources and databases if the data meet the sufficiency and data quality requirements of this section. STORET is a "centralized data repository" maintained by the EPA. It contains publicly available water quality data, contributed by state agencies and others, on waters throughout the nation. Subsection (3) of Rule 62-40.540, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[t]he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water quality data base (STORET) shall be the central repository of the state's water quality data" and that"[a]ll appropriate water quality data collected by the Department, Districts, local governments, and state agencies shall be placed in the STORET system within one year of collection." At the end of 1998, STORET underwent a major overhaul. It is "now more accommodating of meta data," which is auxiliary information about the underlying data. As Ms. Bannister indicated in her April 26, 2001, letter to the Department, there was a "problem in the upload of data into the new Federal STORET data system." This new version of STORET is still not "very user-friendly." Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, however, while it strongly encourages the entry of data into STORET, does not require that data be entered into STORET to be considered by the Department in determining whether there have been the requisite number of exceedances for placement on the "planning list," as the last sentence of Subsection (2) makes abundantly clear. Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, imposes reasonable age-related restrictions on what data can be used to determine whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria." It provides as follows: When determining water quality criteria exceedances, data older than ten years shall not be used to develop planning lists. Further, more recent data shall take precedence over older data if: the newer data indicate a change in water quality and this change is related to changes in pollutant loading to the watershed or improved pollution control mechanisms in the watershed contributing to the assessed area, or the Department determines that the older data do not meet the data quality requirements of this section or are no longer representative of the water quality of the segment. The Department shall note for the record that the older data were excluded and provide details about why the older data were excluded. These provisions are reasonably designed to increase the likelihood that the decision to place a water on the "planning list" will be based upon data representative of the water's current conditions. While the data that will be excluded from consideration by Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, may be objective and credible data, such data merely reflects what the conditions of the water in question were at the time the samples yielding the data were collected. Declining to rely on this data because it is too old to be a reliable indicator of current conditions is not unreasonable. The TAC recommended that listing decisions be based on data no older than five years.40 Department staff, however, believed that, for purposes of compiling a "planning list," a ten-year cut-off was more appropriate. The binomial model is predicated on independent sampling. Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, addresses "in a very straightforward, simple, but reasonable way, the notion of spatial independence and temporal independence." It provides as follows: To be assessed for water quality criteria exceedances using Table 1, a water segment shall have a minimum of ten, temporally independent samples for the ten year period. To be treated as an independent sample, samples from a given station shall be at least one week apart. Samples collected at the same location less than seven days apart shall be considered as one sample, with the median value used to represent the sampling period. However, if any of the individual values exceed acutely toxic levels, then the worst case value shall be used to represent the sampling period. The worst case value is the minimum value for dissolved oxygen, both the minimum and maximum for pH, or the maximum value for other parameters. However, when data are available from diel or depth profile studies, the lower tenth percentile value shall be used to represent worst case conditions. For the purposes of this chapter, samples collected within 200 meters of each other will be considered the same station or location, unless there is a tributary, an outfall, or significant change in the hydrography of the water. Data from different stations within a water segment shall be treated as separate samples even if collected at the same time. However, there shall be at least five independent sampling events during the ten year assessment period, with at least one sampling event conducted in three of the four seasons of the calendar year. For the purposes of this chapter, the four seasons shall be January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1 through September 30, and October 1 through December 31. States may set their "[a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" at either acutely toxic levels or chronically toxic levels. The EPA, based on data from toxicity tests, has determined what these acutely toxic levels and chronically toxic levels should be, and it has provided its recommendations to the states for their use in setting appropriate water quality criteria. With one exception (involving silver in predominantly marine waters), the Department, in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, has opted to establish "[a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" at chronically toxic levels, rather than at acutely toxic levels, because chronic-toxicity-based criteria are, in the Department's view, "more protective." Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, will require the Department, under certain circumstances, to determine whether acutely toxic levels of parameters listed in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code (other than silver in predominantly marine waters) have been exceeded. Neither the Department's existing rules, nor the proposed rule chapter, specifies what these levels are. In making this determination, the Department intends to use the acutely toxic levels recommended by the EPA. The last two sentences of Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, address "seasonal . . . variations," as required by Subsection (3)(b)1. of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and do so in a manner consistent with the TAC's recommendation on the matter. As Subsection (3)(b)1. of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, suggests, water quality may vary from season to season. Such variations tend to be more pronounced in the northern part of the state than in South Florida in the case of certain parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, which is usually "at its critical condition" during the warmer months. While certain types of exceedances may be more likely to occur during a particular season or seasons of the year, exceedances may occur at any time during the year. Department staff, as recommended by the TAC, included the last two sentences in Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, in a reasonable effort to avoid a situation where a listing decision would be based upon skewed data (provided by persons "with an agenda") reflecting only isolated instances of worst or best case conditions, as opposed to "data . . . spread throughout the year as much as possible." Data from each of the four seasons of the calendar year were not required "because then some data sets might be excluded just because they missed a quarterly sample," an outcome the TAC and Department staff considered to be undesirable because they "wanted to be all-inclusive and . . . capture all waters that in fact might even potentially be impaired" on the "planning list." Notwithstanding the "three out of four seasons" data sufficiency requirement of Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, because the proposed rule establishes an "exceedance frequency" threshold of ten percent, a water may qualify for placement on the "planning list" under the proposed rule even though all of the exceedances evidenced by the data in the Department's possession (covering at least three of the four seasons of the year) occurred in the one season when conditions are typically at their worst for the water. (If there were other exceedances, they would not be excluded from consideration under the proposed rule simply because they occurred during a time of year when exceedances are atypical.) The "three out of four seasons" requirement does not completely protect against persons "with an agenda" obtaining the result they want by providing the Department skewed data, but, as Dr. Reckhow testified at the final hearing, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Department to devise a rule which provides for Department consideration of data submitted by members of the public and, at the same time, completely "prevent[s] someone who is clever [enough] from contriving the analysis." As Dr. Reckhow pointed out, to counteract the data submissions of such a person, those who believe that the data is not truly representative of the overall condition of the water can "collect their own data and make the[ir] case" to the Department. Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, which reads as follows, provides two exceptions to the data sufficiency requirements of Subsection of the proposed rule: Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (4), water segments shall be included on the planning list if: there are less than ten samples for the segment, but there are three or more temporally independent exceedances of an applicable water quality criterion, or there are more than one exceedance of an acute toxicity-based water quality criterion in any three year period. The "three or more exceedances" exception (found in Subsection (5)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code) to the proposed rule's minimum sample size requirement of ten was not something that the "TAC ever voted on." It was included in the proposed rule by Department staff at the request of Petitioners. As noted above, the only "acute toxicity-based water quality criterion" in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, is the criterion for silver in predominantly marine waters. Accordingly, Subsection (5)(b) of proposed Rule 62-330.320, Florida Administrative Code, applies only where that criterion has been exceeded (more than once in a three year period). Subsection (6) of proposed Rule 62-330.320, Florida Administrative Code, provides that certain data (described therein) will be excluded from consideration by the Department in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" pursuant to the proposed rule. It reads as follows: Values that exceed possible physical or chemical measurement constraints (pH greater than 14, for example) or that represent data transcription errors shall be excluded from the assessment. Outliers identified through statistical procedures shall be evaluated to determine whether they represent valid measures of water quality. If the Department determines that they are not valid, they shall be excluded from the assessment. However, the Department shall note for the record that the data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. The exclusion of the data described in Subsection (6) of proposed Rule 62-330.320, Florida Administrative Code, is entirely appropriate. Indeed, it would be unreasonable for the Department to consider such data. Earlier versions of Subsection (6) of proposed Rule 62-330.320, Florida Administrative Code, automatically excluded outliers from consideration. The ERC-adopted version, however, provides that outliers will first be identified41 and then examined and, only if they are determined by the Department, using its "best professional judgment," not to be "valid measures of water quality," will they be excluded from consideration. (Values, although extreme, may nonetheless "represent valid measures of water quality."). Subsection (7) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, which provides as follows, addresses "[q]uality assurance and [q]uality control protocols," as those terms are used in Subsection (3)(b)3. of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes: The Department shall consider all readily available water quality data. However, to be used to determine water quality exceedances, data shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., and for data collected after one year from the effective date of this rule, the sampling agency must provide to the Department, either directly or through entry into STORET, all of the data quality assessment elements listed in Table 2 of the Department's Guidance Document "Data Quality Assessment Elements for Identification of Impaired Surface Waters" (DEP EAS 01-01, April 2001), which is incorporated by reference. Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsection (7)(a) of proposed Rule 62- 303.320, Florida Administrative Code, contains "[q]uality assurance requirements" that, with certain limited exceptions, "apply to all programs, projects, studies, or other activities which are required by the Department, and which involve the measurement, use, or submission of environmental data or reports to the Department." Rule 62-160.110, Florida Administrative Code. Adherence to quality assurance requirements such as those in Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, is essential to obtaining data that is objective and credible. Compliance with these requirements makes it less likely that sampling results will be inaccurate. DEP EAS 01-01, April 2001, which is incorporated by reference in Subsection (7)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The Department relies on environmental data from a variety of sources to carry out its mission. Those data must satisfy the needs for which they are collected, comply with applicable standards, specifications and statutory requirements, and reflect a consideration of cost and economics. Careful project planning and routine project and data reviews, are essential to ensure that the data collected are relevant to the decisions being made. Many aspects of a project affect data quality. Sampling design, selection of parameters, sampling technique, analytical methodologies and data management activities are a few such aspects, whether the data are being collected for a compliance program, or for research activities. The level of quality of each of those elements will affect the final management decisions that are based on a project's outcome. Data quality assessment is one activity that is instrumental in ensuring that data collected are relevant and appropriate for the decisions being made. Depending on the needs of the project, the intended use of the final data and the degree of confidence required in the quality of the results, data quality assessment can be conducted at many levels. For the purposes of identification of impaired surface waters, the level of data quality assessment to be conducted (Table 1) requires providing the appropriate data elements (Table 2). If the data and applicable data elements are in an electronic format, data quality assessments can be performed automatically on large volumes of data using software tools, without significant impact to staffing. Department programs can realize significant improvement in environmental protection without additional process using these types of review routinely. Table 1: Recommended Quality Assessment Checks Quality Test Review to determine if analyses were conducted within holding times Review for qualifiers indicative of problems Screen comments for keywords indicative of problems Review laboratory certification status for particular analyte at the time analysis was performed Review data to determine if parts are significantly greater than the whole (e.g., ortho-P>total phosphorous, NH3>TKN, dissolved metal>total metal) Screen data for realistic ranges (e.g., is pH<14?) Review detection limits and quantification limits against Department criteria and program action levels to ensure adequate sensitivity Review for blank contamination Table 2: Data Elements Related to Quality Assessment ID Element Description Sample ID Unique Field Sample Identifier Parameter Name Name of parameter measured Analytical Result Result for the analytical measurement 4. Result Units Units in which measurement is reported DEP Qualifiers Qualifier code describing specific QA conditions as reported by the data provider Result Comments Free-form text where data provider relates information they consider relevant to the result Date (Time) of Sample Collection Date (Time) of Sample Preparations Date (Time) of Sample Analysis Analytical Method Method number used for sample analysis Prep Method Method number used for sample preparation prior to analysis Sample Matrix Was the sample a surface water or groundwater sample, a fresh- water or saltwater sample DOH Certificate Certificate number Number/ issued by the Laboratory ID Department of Health's lab certification program Preservatives Description of Added preservatives added to the sample after collection MDL Method detection limit for a particular result PQL Practical quantification limit for a particular result Sample Type Field identifying sample nature (e.g., environmental sample, trip blank, field blank, matrix spike, etc. Batch ID Unambiguous reference linking samples prepped or analyzed together (e.g., trip preparation, analysis Ids) 19 Field, Lab Blank Results Results for field/laboratory blank analysis required by the methods 20 CAS Number CAS registry number of the parameter measured Having the auxiliary information listed in Table 2 of DEP EAS 01-01 will help the Department evaluate the data that it receives from outside sources to determine whether the data are usable (for purposes of implementing the provisions of the proposed rule chapter). Subsection (8) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, also addresses "[q]uality assurance and [q]uality control protocols." It reads as follows: To be used to determine exceedances of metals criteria, surface water data for mercury shall be collected and analyzed using clean sampling and analytical techniques, and the corresponding hardness value shall be required to determine exceedances of freshwater metals criteria that are hardness dependent, and if the ambient hardness value is less than 25 mg/L as CaCO3, then a hardness value of 25 will be used to calculate the criteria. If data are not used due to sampling or analytical techniques or because hardness data were not available, the Department shall note for the record that data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. The "clean sampling and analytical techniques" referenced in Subsection (8)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, are, as noted above, defined in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, as "those applicable field sampling procedures and analytical methods" permitted by the EPA's "Method 1669." "Method 1669" is a "performance-based," "guidance document" that, as its "Introduction" and introductory "Note," which read, in pertinent part, as follows, reveal, allows for the use of procedures other than those specifically described therein for "[s]ampling [a]mbient [w]ater for [t]race [m]etals at EPA [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria [l]evels": . . . . In developing these methods, EPA found that one of the greatest difficulties in measuring pollutants at these levels was precluding sample contamination during collection, transport, and analysis. The degree of difficulty, however, is dependent on the metal and site-specific conditions. This method, therefore, is designed to provide the level of protection necessary to preclude contamination in nearly all situations. It is also designed to provide the protection necessary to produce reliable results at the lowest possible water quality criteria published by EPA. In recognition of the variety of situations to which this method may be applied, and in recognition of continuing technological advances, the method is performance-based. Alternative procedures may be used, so long as those procedures are demonstrated to yield reliable results. . . . Note: This document is intended as guidance only. Use of the terms "must," "may," and "should" are included to mean that the EPA believes that these procedures must, may, or should be followed in order to produce the desired results when using this guidance. In addition, the guidance is intended to be performance-based, in that the use of less stringent procedures may be used as long as neither samples nor blanks are contaminated when following those modified procedures. Because the only way to measure the performance of the modified procedures is through the collection and analysis of uncontaminated blank samples in accordance with this guidance and the referenced methods, it is highly recommended that any modification be thoroughly evaluated and demonstrated to be effective before field samples are collected. Subsection (8)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, requires that "Method 1669"- permitted procedures be used only where a water is being tested to determine if it exceeds the criterion for mercury (.012 micrograms per liter in the case of Class I waters and Class III freshwaters, and .025 micrograms per liter in the case of Class II waters and Class III marine waters). Use of these procedures is necessary to avoid the sample contamination (from, among other things, standard lab bottles, hair, dandruff, atmospheric fallout, and pieces of cotton from clothing) which commonly occurs when standard, non- "Method 1669"-permitted techniques are used. Because "the criteria [for mercury are] so low" and may be exceeded due solely to such contamination, it is essential to employ "Method 1669"-permitted techniques in order to obtain results that are reliable and meaningful. The "Method 1669"-permitted techniques are approximately five times more costly to employ than standard techniques and the Department's laboratory is the only laboratory in the state (with the possible exception of a laboratory at Florida International University) able to provide "clean sampling and analytical techniques" to measure mercury levels in surface water. Nonetheless, as Timothy Fitzpatrick, the Department's chief chemist, testified at the final hearing in these consolidated cases: [I]f you want to measure methyl mercury or total mercury in surface water, you have to use clean techniques or you're measuring noise. And the whole purpose behind using clean techniques is to do sound science and to have confidence in the number. It's not to determine whether or not you're throwing out a body of data. It's to be able to get numbers that make sense. And there's no point in having a database full of information that's virtually worthless because it contains noise, analytical noise. As Subsection (8)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, suggests, there are certain "metals for which the actual water quality criterion itself changes as the hardness [of the water, measured in milligrams per liter calcium carbonate] changes." Criteria for these metals are set (in the table contained in Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code) at higher levels for high hardness waters than for low hardness waters. To know which criterion applies in a particular case, the Department needs to know the hardness of the water sampled. Subsection (9) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, guards against reliance on data that, due to the use of inappropriate methods, may fail to reveal exceedances that actually exist. It provides as follows: Surface water data with values below the applicable practical quantification limit (PQL) or method detection limit (MDL) shall be assessed in accordance with Rules 62- 4.246(6)(b)-(d) and (8), F.A.C. If sampling entities want to ensure that their data will be considered for evaluation, they should review the Department's list of approved MDLs and PQLs developed pursuant to Rule 62-4.246, F.A.C., and, if available, use approved analytical methods with MDLs below the applicable water quality criteria. If there are no approved methods with MDLs below a criterion, then the method with the lowest MDL should be used. Analytical results listed as below detection or below the MDL shall not be used for developing planning lists if the MDL was above the criteria and there were, at the time of sample collection, approved analytical methods with MDLs below the criteria on the Department's list of approved MDLs and PQLs. If appropriate analytical methods were used, then data with values below the applicable MDL will be deemed to meet the applicable water quality criterion and data with values between the MDL and PQL will be deemed to be equal to the MDL. Subsections (6)(b) through (d) and (8) of Rule 62- 4.246, Florida Administrative Code, provide as follows: All results submitted to the Department for permit applications and monitoring shall be reported as follows: The approved analytical method and corresponding Department-established MDL and PQL levels shall be reported for each pollutant. The MDLs and PQLs incorporated in the permit shall constitute the minimum reporting levels for each parameter for the life of the permit. The Department shall not accept results for which the laboratory's MDLs or PQLs are greater than those incorporated in the permit. All results with laboratory MDLs and PQLs lower than those established in the permit shall be reported to the Department. Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent references to MDL and PQL pertain to the MDLs and PQLs incorporated in the permit. Results greater than or equal to the PQL shall be reported as the measured quantity. Results less than the PQL and greater than or equal to the MDL shall be reported as less than the PQL and deemed to be equal to the MDL. Results less than the MDL shall be reported as less than the MDL. * * * (8) The presence of toxicity (as established through biomonitoring), data from analysis of plant or animal tissue, contamination of sediment in the vicinity of the installation, intermittent violations of effluent limits or water quality standards, or other similar kinds of evidence reasonably related to the installation may indicate that a pollutant in the effluent may cause or contribute to violations of water quality criteria. If there is such evidence of possible water quality violations, then (unless the permittee has complied with subsection (9) below) in reviewing reports and applications to establish permit conditions and determine compliance with permits and water quality criteria, the Department shall treat any result less than the MDL of the method required in the permit or the method as required under subsection (10) below or any lower MDL reported by the permittee's laboratory as being one half the MDL (if the criterion equals or exceeds the MDL) or one half of the criterion (if the criterion is less than the MDL), for any pollutant. Without the permission of the applicant, the Department shall not use any values determined under this subsection or subsection (9) below for results obtained under a MDL superseded later by a lower MDL. The final subsection of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, Subsection (10), provides as follows: It should be noted that the data requirements of this rule constitute the minimum data set needed to assess a water segment for impairment. Agencies or groups designing monitoring networks are encouraged to consult with the Department to determine the sample design appropriate for their specific monitoring goals. Proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a relatively "rigid" framework, based upon statistical analysis of data, with little room for the exercise of "best professional judgment," for determining whether a water qualifies for placement on the "planning list." There are advantages to taking such a "cookbook" approach. It promotes administrative efficiency and statewide uniformity in listing decisions. Furthermore, as Dr. Reckhow pointed out during his testimony, it lets the public know "how a [listing] decision is arrived at" and therefore "makes it easier for the public to get engaged and criticize the outcome." Such "rigidity," however, comes at a price, as Dr. Reckhow acknowledged, inasmuch as observations and conclusions (based upon those observations) made by the "experienced biologist who really understands the system . . . get[] lost." While proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, may rightfully be characterized as a "rigid statistical approach," it must be remembered that, in the subsequent portions of Part II of the proposed rule chapter, the Department provides other ways for a water to qualify for placement on the "planning list." A discussion of these alternatives follows. Code Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Biological Assessment." As noted in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code, it "outline[s]" the requirements that must be met for a water to qualify for placement on the "planning list" based upon a failure to "meet biological assessment thresholds for its water body type." It lists Sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as its "[s]pecific [a]uthority" and Sections 403.062 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as the "[l]aw [i]mplemented." A "[b]iological [a]ssessment" provides more information about the overall ability of a water to sustain aquatic life than does the "data used for determining water quality exceedances" referenced in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code. This is because "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]," as is noted in the NRC Publication, "integrate the effects of multiple stressors over time and space." As Mr. Joyner pointed out in his testimony, a "[b]iological [a]ssessment" is "more than just a snapshot like a water quality sample is of the current water quality [at the particular location sampled]." Unlike proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, deals with "biological criteria," not "numerical criteri[a]," as those terms are used in Subsection (3)(c) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and the method it establishes for determining "planning list" eligibility does not involve statistical analysis. Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[b]iological data must meet the requirements of paragraphs (3) and (7) in section 62- 303.320," Florida Administrative Code, which, as noted above, impose age ("paragraph" (3)) and quality assurance/quality control and data submission ("paragraph" (7)) restrictions on the use of data. While the "biological component of STORET is not . . . usable" at this time and the biological database maintained by the Department "is not a database where members of the public can input data," pursuant to "paragraph" (7)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, data collected by someone outside the Department that is not entered into either STORET or the Department's own biological database may still be considered by the Department if it is provided "directly" to the Department. Inasmuch as "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" reflect the "effects of multiple stressors over time and space," failed assessments are no more likely during one particular time of the year than another. Consequently, there is no need to limit the time of year in which "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" may be conducted. The first sentence of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[b]ioassessments used to assess streams and lakes under this rule shall include BioRecons, Stream Condition Indices (SCIs), and the benthic macroinvertebrate component of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), which only applies to clear lakes with a color less than 40 platinum cobalt units." The BioRecon and SCI, as those terms are defined in Subsections (1) and (18), respectively, of proposed Rule 62- 303.200, Florida Administrative Code, are rapid bioassessment protocols for streams developed by the Department. They are "similar to the original rapid bioassessment protocols that were designed by the U.S. EPA in [19]89." Conducting a BioRecon or SCI requires the deployment of a Standard D frame dip net approximately one and a half meters in length (including its handle), which is used to obtain samples of the best available habitat that can be reached. The samples are obtained by taking "sweeps" with the one and a half meter long dip net. Both wadable and non-wadable streams can be, and have been, sampled using this method prescribed by the BioRecon and SCI, although sampling is "more challenging when the water body is deeper than waist deep." In these cases, a boat is used to navigate to the areas where sampling will occur. The sampling "methods are identical regardless of the depth of the water." The BioRecon and SCI both include an assessment of the health of the habitat sampled, including the extent of habitat smothering from sediments and bank instability. The purpose of such an assessment is "to ascertain alteration of the physical habitat structure critical to maintenance of a healthy biological condition." Like all bioassessment protocols, the BioRecon and SCI employ "reasonable thresholds" of community health (arrived at by sampling "reference sites," which are the least affected and impacted sites in the state) against which the health of the sampled habitat is measured. Impairment is determined by the sampled habitat's departure from these "reasonable thresholds" (which represent expected or "reference" conditions). The BioRecon is newer, quicker and less comprehensive than the SCI. Only four sweeps of habitat are taken for the BioRecon, compared to 20 sweeps for the SCI. Furthermore, the BioRecon takes into consideration only three measures of community health (taxa richness, Ephemeroptera/ Plecoptera/Tricoptera Index, and Florida Index), whereas the SCI takes into account four additional measures of community health. For these reasons, the BioRecon is considered a "screening version" of the SCI. Like the BioRecon and the SCI, the LCI is a "comparative index." Conditions at the sampled site are compared to those at "reference sites" to determine the health of the aquatic community at the sampled site. Samples for the LCI are taken from the sublittoral zone of the targeted lake,42 which is divided into twelve segments. Using a petite PONAR or Ekman sampler dredge, a sample is collected from each of the twelve segments. The twelve samples are composited into a single, larger sample, which is then examined to determine what organisms it contains. The results of such examination are considered in light of six measures of community health: Total taxa, EOT taxa, percent EOT, percent Diptera, the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index, and the Hulbert Index. Lakes larger than 1,000 acres are divided into two subbasins or into quadrants (as appropriate), and each subbasin or quadrant is sampled separately, as if it were a separate site. It is essential that persons conducting BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs know the correct sampling techniques to use and have the requisite amount of taxonomic knowledge to identify the organisms that may be found in the samples collected. For this reason, a second sentence was included in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, which reads as follows: Because these bioassessment procedures require specific training and expertise, persons conducting the bioassessments must comply with the quality assurance requirements of Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., attend at least eight hours of Department sanctioned field training, and pass a Department sanctioned field audit that verifies the sampler follows the applicable SOPs in Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., before their bioassessment data will be considered valid for use under this rule. The Department has developed SOPs for BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs, which are followed by Department personnel who conduct these bioassessments. The Department is in the process of engaging in rulemaking to incorporate these SOPs in Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, but had not yet, as of the time of the final hearing in these consolidated cases, completed this task.43 Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: Water segments with at least one failed bioassessment or one failure of the biological integrity standard, Rule 62- 302.530(11), shall be included on the planning list for assessment of aquatic life use support. In streams, the bioassessment can be an SCI or a BioRecon. Failure of a bioassessment for streams consists of a "poor" or "very poor" rating on the Stream Condition Index, or not meeting the minimum thresholds established for all three metrics (taxa richness, Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Tricoptera Index, and Florida Index) on the BioRecon. Failure for lakes consists of a "poor" or "very poor" rating on the Lake Condition Index. Subsection (11) of Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the following "biological integrity standard[s]" for Class I, II and III waters: Class I The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and composited from a minimum of three Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samplers of 0.10 to 0.15m2 area each, incubated for a period of four weeks. Class II The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and composited from a minimum of three natural substrate samples, taken with Ponar type samplers with minimum sampling area of 2252. Class III: Fresh The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and composited from a minimum of three Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samplers of 0.10 to 0.15m2 area each, incubated for a period of four weeks. Class III: Marine The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and composited from a minimum of three natural substrate samples, taken with Ponar type samplers with minimum sampling area of 2252. The "Index" referred to in these standards is the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index. Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, which reads as follows, allows the Department to rely upon "information relevant to the biological integrity of the water," other than a failure of a BioRecon, SCI, or LCI or a failure of the "biological integrity standard" set forth in Subsection (11) of Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, to place a water on the "planning list" where the Department determines, exercising its "best professional judgment," that such "information" reveals that "aquatic life use support has [not] been maintained": Other information relevant to the biological integrity of the water segment, including information about alterations in the type, nature, or function of a water, shall also be considered when determining whether aquatic life use support has been maintained. The "other information" that would warrant placement on the "planning list" is not specified in Subsection (4) because, as Mr. Frydenborg testified at the final hearing, "[t]he possibilities are so vast." Proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, does not make mention of any rapid type of bioassessment for estuaries, the failure of which will lead to placement of a water on the "planning list," for the simple reason that the Department has yet to develop such a bioassessment.44 Estuaries, however, may qualify for "planning list" placement under proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, based upon "one failure of the biological integrity standard," pursuant to Subsection (3) of the proposed rule,45 or based upon "other information," pursuant to Subsection (4) of the proposed rule (which may include "information" regarding seagrasses, aquatic macrophytes, or algae communities). Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Toxicity," and, as noted in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code, "outline[s]" the requirements that must be met for a water to qualify for placement on the "planning list" based upon it being "acutely or chronically toxic." These requirements, like those found in proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, relating to "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]," are not statistically-based. They are as follows: All toxicity tests used to place a water segment on a planning list shall be based on surface water samples in the receiving water body and shall be conducted and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 62- 160, F.A.C., and subsections 62-302.200(1) and (4), F.A.C., respectively. Water segments with two samples indicating acute toxicity within a twelve month period shall be placed on the planning list. Samples must be collected at least two weeks apart over a twelve month period, some time during the ten years preceding the assessment. Water segments with two samples indicating chronic toxicity within a twelve month period shall be placed on the planning list. Samples must be collected at least two weeks apart, some time during the ten years preceding the assessment. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Subsection (1) of Rule 62-320.200, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, defines "acute toxicity." It provides as follows: "Acute Toxicity" shall mean the presence of one or more substances or characteristics or components of substances in amounts which: are greater than one-third (1/3) of the amount lethal to 50% of the test organisms in 96 hours (96 hr LC50) where the 96 hr LC50 is the lowest value which has been determined for a species significant to the indigenous aquatic community; or may reasonably be expected, based upon evaluation by generally accepted scientific methods, to produce effects equal to those of the concentration of the substance specified in (a) above. Subsection (4) of Rule 62-320.200, Florida Administrative Code, which is also referenced in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, defines "chronic toxicity." It provides as follows: "Chronic Toxicity" shall mean the presence of one or more substances or characteristics or components of substances in amounts which: are greater than one-twentieth (1/20) of the amount lethal to 50% of the test organisms in 96 hrs (96 hr LC50) where the 96 hr LC50 is the lowest value which has been determined for a species significant to the indigenous aquatic community; or may reasonably be expected, based upon evaluation by generally accepted scientific methods, to produce effects equal to those of the concentration of the substance specified in (a) above. Testing for "acute toxicity" or "chronic toxicity," within the meaning of Subsections (1) and (4) of Rule 62- 320.200, Florida Administrative Code (and therefore proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code) does not involve measuring the level of any particular parameter in the water sampled. Rather, the tests focus upon the effects the sampled water has on test organisms. Mortality is the end point that characterizes "acute toxicity." "Chronic toxicity" has more subtle effects, which may include reproductive and/or growth impairment. Historically, the Department has tested effluent for "acute toxicity" and "chronic toxicity," but it has not conducted "acute toxicity" or "chronic toxicity" testing in receiving waters. The requirement of Subsections (2) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, that test data be no older than ten years old is reasonably designed to make it less likely that a water will be placed on the "planning list" based upon toxicity data not representative of the water's current conditions. Requiring that toxicity be established by at least "two samples" taken "at least two weeks apart" during a "twelve month period," as do Subsections (2) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, is also a prudent measure intended to minimize inappropriate listing decisions. To properly determine whether toxicity (which can "change over time") is a continuing problem that may be remedied by TMDL implementation, it is desirable to have more than one sample indicating toxicity. "The judgment was made [by the TAC] that two [samples] would be acceptable to make that determination." The TAC "wanted to include as much data regarding . . . toxicity . . . , and therefore lowered the bar in terms of data sufficiency . . . to only two samples." As noted above, the "minimum criteria for surface waters established in Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C.," which, if not met, will result in a water being placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, include the requirement that surface waters not be "acutely toxic." Whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" because it fails to meet this "minimum criterion" (or "free from") will be determined in light of the provisions of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code. Except for "[s]ilver in concentrations above 2.3 micrograms/liter in predominantly marine waters," "acute toxicity" is the only "free from" addressed in any portion of Part II of the proposed rule chapter outside of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code. Part II: Proposed Rules 62-303.350 through 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rules 62-303.350 through 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, address "nutrients." Nutrients, which consist primarily of nitrogen and phosphorous, stimulate plant growth (and the production of organic materials). Waste water treatment facilities, certain industrial facilities that discharge waste water, phosphate mines, and agricultural and residential lands where fertilizers are used are among the sources of nutrients that affect water bodies in Florida. Nutrients are important to the health of a water body, but when they are present in excessive amounts, problems can arise. Excessive amounts of nutrients can lead to certain species, typically algaes, out-competing native species that are less able to use these nutrients, which, in turn, results in a change in the composition of the aquatic population and, subsequently, the animal population. Factors influencing how a water body responds to nutrient input include location, water body type, ecosystem characteristics, water flow, and the extent of light inhibition. As Mr. Frydenborg testified at the final hearing, nutrients are "probably the most widespread and pervasive cause of environmental disturbance in Florida" and they present "the biggest challenge [that needs to be] overcome in protecting aquatic systems." See also Rule 62-302.300(13), Florida Administrative Code ("The Department finds that excessive nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) constitute one of the most severe water quality problems facing the State."). As noted above, nutrients are among the parameters for which water quality criteria have been established by the Department in Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code. The criterion for nutrients set forth in Subsection (48)(b) of the rule (which applies to all "water quality classifications") is a "narrative . . . criterion," as that term is used in Subsection (3)(c) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. It is as follows: "In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered as to cause an imbalance of natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna." Proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Interpretation of Narrative Nutrient Criteria," and, as noted in Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62- 303.310, Florida Administrative Code, "outline[s]" the requirements that must be met for a water to qualify for placement on the "planning list" based upon excessive "nutrient enrichment." It lists Sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as its "[s]pecific [a]uthority" and Sections 403.062 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as the "[l]aw [i]mplemented." Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Trophic state indices (TSIs) and annual mean chlorophyll a values shall be the primary means for assessing whether a water should be assessed further for nutrient impairment. Other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, including, but not limited to, algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, decrease in the distribution (either in density or areal coverage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings shall also be considered. Any type of water body (stream, estuary, or lake) may be placed on the "planning list" based upon the "other information" described in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code. Whether to do so in a particular case will involve the exercise of "best professional judgment" on the part of the Department. The items specifically mentioned in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, "[a]lgal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, decrease in the distribution (either in density or areal coverage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation,46 changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings," are all indicators of excessive "nutrient enrichment." The "but not limited to" language in this sentence makes it abundantly clear that this is not an exhaustive listing of "other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment" that will be considered by the Department in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list." During the rule development process, there were a number of members of the public who expressed the view that the Department's possession of the "information" described in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, should be the sole basis for determining "nutrient impairment" and that TSIs and annual mean chlorophyll a values should not be used. Department staff rejected these suggestions and drafted the proposed rule chapter to provide for additional ways, using TSIs and annual mean chlorophyll a values, for a water to make the "planning list" based upon excessive "nutrient enrichment." Chlorophyll a is the photosynthetic pigment in algae. Measuring chlorophyll a concentrations in water is a reasonable surrogate for measuring the amount of algal biomass present (which is indicative of the extent of nutrient enrichment inasmuch as nutrients promote algal growth). Chlorophyll a values, expressed in micrograms per liter, reflect the concentration of suspended algae (phytoplankton) in the water.47 High amounts of chlorophyll a indicate that there have been algal blooms. Algal blooms represent significant increases in algal population (phytoplankton) over a short period of time. They have a deleterious effect on the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. Algal blooms may occur in any season. There are no adequate means to predict when they will occur. An annual mean chlorophyll a value reflects the level of nutrient enrichment occurring in a water over the course of a year. Biologists look at these values when studying the productivity of aquatic systems. Using an annual mean is the "best way" of determining whether nutrient enrichment is a consistent enough problem to cause an imbalance in flora or fauna. The TSI was developed for the Department's use in preparing 305(b) Reports. It is a "tried and true method" of assessing lakes (and only lakes) for "nutrient impairment." No comparable special index exists for other types of water bodies in this state. TSI values are derived from annual mean chlorophyll a, as well as nitrogen and phosphorous, values (which are composited). The process of "[c]alculating the Trophic State Index for lakes" was described in the "State's 1996 305(b) report" (on page 86) as follows: The Trophic State Index effectively classifies lakes based on their chlorophyll levels and nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations. Based on a classification scheme developed in 1977 by R.E. Carlson, the index relies on three indicators-- Secchi depth, chlorophyll, and total phosphorous-- to describe a lake's trophic state. A ten unit change in the index represents a doubling or halving or algal biomass. The Florida Trophic State Index is based on the same rationale but also includes total nitrogen as a third indicator. Attempts in previous 305(b) reports to include Secchi depth have caused problems in dark-water lakes and estuaries, where dark waters rather than algae diminish transparency. For this reason, our report drops Secchi depth as a category. We developed Florida lake criteria from a regression analysis of data on 313 Florida lakes. The desirable upper limit for the index is 20 micrograms per liter of chlorophyll, which corresponds to an index of 60. Doubling the chlorophyll concentration to 40 micrograms per liter increases the index to 70, which is the cutoff for undesirable (or poor) lake quality. Index values from 60 to 69 represent fair water quality. . . . The Nutrient Trophic State Index is based on phosphorous and nitrogen concentrations and the limiting nutrient concept. The latter identifies a lake as phosphorous limited if the nitrogen-to-phosphorous concentration ratio is greater than 30, nitrogen limited if the ratio is less than 10, and balanced (depending on both nitrogen and phosphorous) if the ratio is 10 to 30. The nutrient ratio is thus based solely on phosphorous if the ratio is greater than 30, solely on nitrogen if less than 10, or on both nitrogen and phosphorous if between 10 and 30. We calculated an overall Trophic State Index based on the average of the chlorophyll and nutrient indices. Calculating an overall index value requires both nitrogen and phosphorous measurements. Subsections (2) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, which provide as follows, impose reasonable data sufficiency and quality requirements for calculating TSIs and annual mean chlorophyll a values and changes in those values from "historical levels": To be used to determine whether a water should be assessed further for nutrient enrichment, data must meet the requirements of paragraphs (2)-(4), (6), and (7) in rule 62- 303.320, at least one sample from each season shall be required in any given year to calculate a Trophic State Index (TSI) or an annual mean chlorophyll a value for that year, and there must be annual means from at least four years, when evaluating the change in TSI over time pursuant to paragraph 62- 303.352(3). When comparing changes in chlorophyll a or TSI values to historical levels, historical levels shall be based on the lowest five-year average for the period of record. To calculate a five-year average, there must be annual means from at least three years of the five-year period. These requirements do not apply to the "other information" referenced in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code. As was stated in the NRC Publication, and as Department staff recognized, "data are not the same as information." Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, being more specific, modifies Subsection (2)(a) of the proposed rule, to the extent that Subsection (2)(a) incorporates by reference the requirement of Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, that "at least one sampling event [be] conducted in [only] three of the four seasons of the calendar year." Requiring data from at least each season is appropriate because the data will be used to arrive at numbers that represent annual means. Furthermore, as noted above, there is no season in which bloom events never occur in this state. Four years of data, as required by Subsection (2)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a "genuine trend" in the TSI. The requirement, in Subsection (2)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, that the "lowest five-year average for the period of the record" be used to establish "historical levels" was intended to make it easier for a water to be placed on the "planning list" for "nutrient impairment." 190. Proposed Rules 62-303.351, 62-303.352, and 62- 303.353, Florida Administrative Code, establish reasonable statewide TSI and annual mean chlorophyll a values, which if exceeded, will result in a water being placed on the "planning list."48 In establishing these statewide threshold values, Department staff took into consideration that averaging values obtained from samples taken during bloom events with lower values obtained from other samples taken during the course of the year (to get an annual mean value for a water) would minimize the impact of the higher values and, accordingly, they set the thresholds at levels lower than they would have if the thresholds represented, not annual mean values, but rather values that single samples, evaluated individually, could not exceed. Department staff recognized that the statewide thresholds they set "may not be protective of very low nutrient waters." They therefore, in proposed Rules 62-303.351, 62- 303.352, and 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably provided that waters not exceeding these thresholds could nonetheless get on the "planning list" for "nutrient impairment" based upon TSI values (in the case of lakes) or annual mean chlorophyll a values (in the case of streams and estuaries) if these values represented increases, of sufficient magnitude, as specified in the proposed rules, over "historical levels." Proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Nutrients in Streams," and reads as follows: A stream or stream segment shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if the following biological imbalances are observed: algal mats are present in sufficient quantities to pose a nuisance or hinder reproduction of a threatened or endangered species, or annual mean chlorophyll a concentrations are greater than 20 ug/l or if data indicate annual mean chlorophyll a values have increased by more than 50% over historical values for at least two consecutive years. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The TAC and Department staff investigated the possibility of evaluating "nutrient impairment" in streams by looking at the amount of attached algae (measured in milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter) as opposed to suspended algae, but "weren't able to come up with" an appropriate "number." They were advised of a "paper" in which the author concluded that 150 milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter was "indicative of imbalances in more northern conditions rivers." Reviewing Florida data, the TAC and Department staff determined that this threshold would be "non-protective in our state" inasmuch as the "the highest chlorophylls" in the Florida data they reviewed were 50 to 60 milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter. Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, which describes, in narrative terms, another type of "information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment" (in addition to those types of information specified in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62- 303.350, Florida Administrative Code), was included in proposed Rule 62-303.351 in lieu of establishing a numerical "milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter" threshold. The term "nuisance," as used in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, was intended to have the same meaning as it has in Rule 62-302.500, Florida Administrative Code. "Nuisance species," as used in Rule Chapter 62-500, Florida Administrative Code, are defined as "species of flora or fauna whose noxious characteristics or presence in sufficient number, biomass, or areal extent may reasonably be expected to prevent, or unreasonably interfere with, a designated use of those waters." Mr. Joyner knew that the Suwannee River "had problems with algal mats49 and that those algal mats might hinder reproduction of the sturgeon" in the river. The "hinder reproduction of a threatened or endangered species" language was inserted in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, "to address things like that" occurring in the Suwannee River. It was "very difficult" for the TAC and Department staff to come up with a "micrograms per liter" threshold for Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code. All available data on Florida streams were reviewed before the TAC and Department staff decided on a threshold. The threshold ultimately selected, 20 micrograms per liter, "represents approximately the 80th percentile value currently found in Florida streams," according to the data reviewed. The "20 micrograms per liter" threshold, combined with the other provisions of the proposed rule and the second sentence of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, was "thought to be something that would hold the line on future [nutrient] enrichment," particularly with respect to streams "like the lower St. Johns River which tends to act more like a lake." Anything over 20 micrograms per liter of chlorophyll a "is a clear indication that an imbalanced situation is occurring." There are some streams in Florida that have high nutrient concentrations but, because of flow conditions and water color, also have low levels of chlorophyll a in the water column (reflecting that the nutrients' presence in the water has not resulted in significant algal growth). That these streams would not qualify for placement on the "planning list" pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, as drafted, did not concern the TAC and Department staff because they thought it appropriate "to focus on [the] realized impairment" caused by nutrients, not on their mere presence in the stream. If these nutrients travel downstream and adversely affect the downstream water to such an extent that the downstream water qualifies for a TMDL, "all the sources upstream would be addressed" in the TMDL developed for the downstream water. Pursuant to Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.351, Florida Administrative Code, streams with "very, very low chlorophylls," well under 20 micrograms per liter, can nonetheless qualify for placement on the planning list based upon two consecutive years of increased annual mean chlorophyll a values "over historical values." In the case of a stream with "historical values" of two micrograms per liter, for instance, the increase would need to be only more than one microgram per liter. Proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Nutrients in Lakes," and reads as follows: For the purposes of evaluating nutrient enrichment in lakes, TSIs shall be calculated based on the procedures outlined on pages 86 and 87 of the State's 1996 305(b) report, which are incorporated by reference. Lakes or lake segments shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if: For lakes with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units, the annual mean TSI for the lake exceeds 60, unless paleolimnological information indicates the lake was naturally greater than 60, or For lakes with a mean color less than or equal to 40 platinum cobalt units, the annual mean TSI for the lake exceeds 40, unless paleolimnological information indicates the lake was naturally greater than 40, or For any lake, data indicate that annual mean TSIs have increased over the assessment period, as indicated by a positive slope in the means plotted versus time, or the annual mean TSI has increased by more than 10 units over historical values. When evaluating the slope of mean TSIs over time, the Department shall use a Mann's one-sided, upper-tail test for trend, as described in Nonparametric Statistical Methods by M. Hollander and D. Wolfe 16 (1999 ed.), pages 376 and 724 (which are incorporated by reference), with a 95% confidence level. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New As noted above, a TSI value of 60, the threshold established in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code, for darker-colored lakes, is the equivalent of a chlorophyll a value of 20 micrograms per liter, which is the "micrograms per liter" threshold for streams established in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code. A TSI value 40, the threshold established in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code, for lighter-colored lakes, corresponds to a chlorophyll a value of five micrograms per liter, which "is an extremely low level." A TSI value of 40 is "very protective for that particular category of lake[s]." A lower threshold was established for these lighter- colored lakes (having a mean color less than or equal to 40 platinum cobalt units) because it was felt that these lakes needed "extra protection." Providing such "extra protection" is reasonably justified inasmuch as these lakes (due to their not experiencing the "infusion of leaf litter" that affects darker- colored lakes) tend to have a "lower nutrient content naturally" and therefore "very different aquatic communities" than their darker counterparts. Some lakes are naturally eutrophic or even hyper- eutrophic. Inasmuch as the TMDL program is not designed to address such natural occurrences, it makes sense to provide, as Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code, do, that the TSI thresholds established therein will not apply if "paleolimnological information" indicates that the TSI of the lake in question was "naturally greater" than the threshold established for that type of lake (60 in the case of a darker-colored lake and 40 in the case of a lighter-colored lake). Lakes with TSI values that do not exceed the appropriate threshold may nonetheless be included on the "planning list" based upon "increas[es] in TSIs" pursuant to Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code. Any statistically significant increase in TSI values "over the assessment period," as determined by "use [of] a Mann's one-sided, upper-tail test for trend" and a "95% confidence level" (which the TAC recommended inasmuch as it is "the more typical scientific confidence level"), or an increase in the annual mean TSI of more than ten units "over historical values," will result in a lake being listed pursuant to Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code. The first of these two alternative ways of a lake getting on the "planning list" based upon "increas[es] in TSIs" is "more protective" than the second. Under this first alternative, a lake could be listed before there was more than a ten unit increase in the annual mean TSI "over historical values." A ten-unit increase in the annual mean TSI represents a doubling (or 100 percent increase) "over historical values." As noted above, pursuant to Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62- 303.351, Florida Administrative Code, only a 50 percent increase "over historical values" in annual mean chlorophyll a values is needed for a stream to make the "planning list" and, as will be seen, proposed Rule 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, contains a similar "50 percent increase" provision for estuaries; however, because "lakes are much more responsive to nutrients," Department staff reasonably believed that "the ten- unit change was a protective measure." Proposed Rule 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Nutrients in Estuaries," and reads as follows: Estuaries or estuary segments shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if their annual mean chlorophyll a for any year is greater than 11 ug/l or if data indicate annual mean chlorophyll a values have increased by more than 50% over historical values for at least two consecutive years. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Estuaries are at "the very bottom" of the watershed. The amount of nutrients in an estuary is dependent, not only on what is occurring in and around the immediate vicinity of the estuary,50 but also "what is coming down" any river flowing into it. Not all of the nutrients in the watershed reach the estuary inasmuch as "there is assimilation and uptake along the way." The "11 micrograms per liter" threshold ultimately selected as a "protective number in terms of placing estuaries on the 'planning list'" was recommended by the TAC following a review of data reflecting trends with respect to chlorophyll a levels in various Florida estuaries. In addition, the TAC heard a presentation concerning the "modeling work" done by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program to establish "site-specific" chlorophyll a targets for segments of Tampa Bay, including the target of 13.2 micrograms per liter that was established for the Hillsborough Bay segment of Tampa Bay, which is "closer to the [nutrient] sources" than other parts of Tampa Bay. The TAC also considered information about "various bloom situations" in estuaries which led to the "general feeling" that an estuarine algal bloom involved chlorophyll a values "considerably higher" than 11 micrograms per liter. An alternative method for an estuary to make the "planning list" for "nutrient impairment" based upon a 50 percent increase in annual mean chlorophyll a values "over historical values" was included in proposed Rule 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, because the "11 micrograms per liter" threshold was not expected "to be adequately protect[ive]" of "the very clear sea grass communities" like those found in the Florida Keys. Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, establishes four separate ways for a water to be placed on the "planning list" for failing to provide "primary contact and recreation use support." It reads as follows: Primary Contact and Recreation Use Support A Class I, II, or III water shall be placed on the planning list for primary contact and recreation use support if: the water segment does not meet the applicable water quality criteria for bacteriological quality based on the methodology described in section 62-303.320, or the water segment includes a bathing area that was closed by a local health Department or county government for more than one week or more than once during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or the water segment includes a bathing area for which a local health Department or county government has issued closures, advisories, or warnings totaling 21 days or more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or the water segment includes a bathing area that was closed or had advisories or warnings for more than 12 weeks during a calendar year based on previous bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or flow. For data collected after August 1, 2000, the Florida Department of Health (DoH) database shall be the primary source of data used for determining bathing area closures. Advisories, warnings, and closures based on red tides, rip tides, sewage spills, sharks, medical wastes, hurricanes, or other factors not related to chronic discharges of pollutants shall not be included when assessing recreation use support. However, the Department shall note for the record that data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The "water quality criteria for bacteriological quality" referenced in Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62- 303.360, Florida Administrative Code, are set forth in Subsections (6) and (7) of Rule 62-303.530, Florida Administrative Code, which provide as follows: Parameter: Bacteriological Quality (Fecal Coliform Bacteria) Units: Number per 100 ml (Most Probable Number (MPN) or Membrane Filter (MF)) Class I: MPN or MF counts shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum of 5 samples taken over a 30 day period. Class II: MPN shall not exceed a median value of 14 with not more than 10% of the samples exceeding 43, nor exceed 800 on any one day. Class III: Fresh: MPN or MF counts shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum of 10 samples taken over a 30 day period. Class III: Marine: MPN or MF counts shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum of 10 samples taken over a 30 day period. Parameter: Bacteriological Quality (Total Coliform Bacteria) Units: Number per 100 ml (Most Probable Number (MPN) or Membrane Filter (MF)) Class I: < = 1,000 as a monthly avg., nor exceed 1,000 in more than 20% of samples examined during any month, nor exceed 2,400 at any time using either MPN or MF counts. Class II: Median MPN shall not exceed 70 and not more than 10% of the samples shall exceed an MPN of 230. Class III: Fresh: < = 1,000 as a monthly average, nor exceed 1,000 in more than 20% of samples examined during any month, < = 2,400 at any time. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum or 10 samples taken over a 30 day period, using either the MPN or MF counts. Class III: Marine: < = 1,000 as a monthly average, nor exceed 1,000 in more than 20% of samples examined during any month, < = 2,400 at any time. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum or 10 samples taken over a 30 day period, using either the MPN or MF counts. Fecal coliform bacteria are found in the feces of animals and humans. They can be identified in the laboratory "fairly easily, usually within 24 to 48 hours" and "are used worldwide as indicators of fecal contamination and potential public health risks." Enterococci are another "distinct group of bacteria." They too are found in animal and human feces. The recommendation has been made that enterococci be used as bacteriological "indicators" for assessing "public health risk and swimmability," particularly in marine waters. The Department, however, is not convinced that there is "sufficient science at this time" to warrant adoption of this recommendation in states, like Florida, with "warmer climates," and it has not amended Rule 62-303.530, Florida Administrative Code, to provide for the assessment of bacteriological quality using enterococci counts.51 The statistical "methodology described in [proposed Rule] 62-303.320," Florida Administrative Code (which is incorporated by reference in Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code) is as appropriate for determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" based upon exceedances of bacteriological water quality criteria as it is for determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" for "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [c]riteria." Unlike Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d) of the proposed rule, at least indirectly, allow for waters to be placed on the "planning list" based upon enterococci counts. The closures, advisories, and warnings referenced in Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62- 303.360, Florida Administrative Code, are issued, not by the Department, but by local health departments or county governments, and may be based upon enterococci sampling done by those governmental entities. Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, provides for listing based exclusively upon bathing area closures. It was included in the proposed rule upon the recommendation of the EPA "to track their 305(b) guidance." Both freshwater and marine bathing areas in Florida may be closed if circumstances warrant. The Department of Health (which operates the various county health departments) does not close marine beaches, but county governments may. Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, provides for listing based upon any combination of closures, advisories, or warnings "totaling 21 days or more during a calendar year," provided the closures, advisories, and warnings were based upon up-to-date "bacteriological data." Department staff included this provision in the proposed rule in lieu of a provision recommended by the TAC (about which Petitioner Young had expressed concerns) that would have made it more difficult for a water to be placed on the "planning list" as a result of bacteriological data-based closures, advisories, or warnings. In doing so, Department staff exercised sound professional judgment. The 21 days or more of closures, advisories, or warnings needed for listing under the proposed rule do not have to be consecutive, although they all must occur in the same calendar year. Subsection (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, like Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed rule, provides for listing based upon a combination of closures, advisories, or warnings, but it does not require that it be shown that the closures, advisories, or warnings were based upon up-to-date "bacteriological data." Under Subsection (1)(d) of the proposed rule, the closures, advisories, or warnings need only have been based upon "previous [or, in other words, historical] bacteriological data" or "derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or flow." Because assessments of current bacteriological quality based upon "previous bacteriological data" or on "derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or flow" are less reliable than those based upon up-to-date "bacteriological data," Department staff were reasonably justified in requiring a greater total number of days of closures, advisories, or warnings in this subsection of the proposed rule (more than 84) than they did in Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed rule (more than 21). (Like under Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed rule, the days of closures, advisories, or warnings required for listing under Subsection (1)(d) of the proposed rule do not have to be consecutive days.) Subsection (1)(d) was included in the proposed rule in response to comments made at a TAC meeting by Mike Flannery of the Pinellas County Health Department concerning Pinellas County beaches that were "left closed for long periods of time" without follow-up bacteriological testing. Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably limits the closures, advisories, and warnings upon which the Department will be able to rely in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of the proposed rule to those closures, advisories, and warnings based upon "factors . . . related to chronic discharges of pollutants." The TMDL program is designed to deal neither with short-term water quality problems caused by extraordinary events that result in atypical conditions,52 nor with water quality problems unrelated to pollutant discharges in this state. It is therefore sensible to not count, for purposes of determining "planning list" eligibility pursuant to Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, closures, advisories, and warnings that were issued because of the occurrence of such problems. A "spill," by definition (set out in Subsection (16) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, which is recited above), is a "short term" event that does not include "sanitary sewer overflows or chronic discharges from leaking wastewater collection systems." While a one-time, unpermitted discharge of sewage (not attributable to "sanitary sewer overflow") is a "short- term" event constituting a "sewage spill," as that term is used in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, repeated unpermitted discharges occurring over an extended period of time (with or without interruption) do not qualify as "sewage spills" and therefore Subsection (3) of the proposed rule will not prevent the Department from considering closures, advisories, and warnings based upon such discharges in deciding whether the requirements for listing set forth in Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of the proposed rule have been met. Like "sewage spills," "red tides" are among the events specifically mentioned in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code. "Red tide" is a "very loose term" that can describe a variety of occurrences. It is apparent from a reading of the language in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, in its entirety, that "red tide," as used therein, was intended to describe an event "not related to chronic discharges of pollutants." Department staff's understanding of "red tides" was shaped by comments made at a TAC meeting by one of the TAC members, George Henderson of the Florida Marine Research Institute. Mr. Henderson told those present at the meeting that "red tides are an offshore phenomenon that move on shore" and are fueled by nutrients from "unknown sources" likely located, for the most part, outside of Florida, in and around the Mississippi River. No "contrary scientific information" was offered during the rule development process.53 Lacking "scientific information" clearly establishing that "red tides," as they understood the term, were the product of "pollutant sources in Florida," Department staff reasonably concluded that closures, advisories, and warnings based upon such "red tides" should not be taken into consideration in deciding whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62- 303.360, Florida Administrative Code, and they included language in Subsection (3) of the proposed rule to so provide. The "red tides" to which Mr. Henderson referred are harmful algae blooms that form off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico and are brought into Florida coastal waters by the wind and currents. There appears to be an association between these blooms of toxin-producing algae and nutrient enrichment, but the precise cause of these bloom events is "not completely understood." Scientists have not eliminated the possibility that, at least in some instances, these "red tides" are natural phenomena not the result of any pollutant loading either in or outside of Florida. The uncertainty surrounding the exact role, if any, that Florida-discharged pollutants play in the occurrence of the "red tides" referenced in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably justifies the Department's declining, for purposes of determining whether the listing requirements of Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of the proposed rule have been met, to take into consideration closures, advisories, and warnings based upon such "red tides." The exclusions contained in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, will have no effect on the "information" or "data" that the Department will be able to consider under any provision in Part II of the proposed rule chapter other than Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62-303.360. This includes the provisions of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, which, as noted above, provides, among other things, that "planning list" eligibility may be based upon "information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, including . . . algal blooms." Accordingly, notwithstanding the "red tides" exclusion in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, the presence of algal blooms of any type "indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment" will result in the affected water making the "planning list" pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, to be "assessed further for nutrient impairment." Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, provides three separate ways for a water to "be placed on the planning list for fish and shellfish consumption." It reads as follows: Fish and Shellfish Consumption Use Support A Class I, II, or III water shall be placed on the planning list for fish and shellfish consumption if: the water segment does not meet the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality based on the methodology described in section 62-303.320, or there is either a limited or no consumption fish consumption advisory. issued by the DoH, or other authorized governmental entity, in effect for the water segment, or for Class II waters, the water segment includes an area that has been approved for shellfish harvesting by the Shellfish Evaluation and Assessment Program, but which has been downgraded from its initial harvesting classification to a more restrictive classification. Changes in harvesting classification from prohibited to unclassified do not constitute a downgrade in classification. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, which effectively duplicates the provisions of Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, to the extent that those provisions apply to Class II waters, establishes an appropriate means of determining whether a water should "be placed on the planning list for fish and shellfish consumption." Waters that do not qualify for listing pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, may make the "planning list" based upon "fish consumption advisories" under Subsection (2) of the proposed rule. The Department of Health, which issues these advisories, does so after conducting a statistical evaluation of fish tissue data collected from at least 12 fish. A large number of fish consumption advisories have been issued to date for a number of parameters, including, most significantly, mercury. The first fish consumption advisory was issued in 1989 after "high levels of mercury" were found in the sampled fish tissue. Many fish consumption advisories were issued ten or more years ago and are still in effect. Fish consumption advisories are continued until it is shown that they are not needed. Most of the fish tissue data for the fish consumption advisories now in effect were collected between 1989 and 1992. There is no reason to reject this data as not "being representative of the conditions under which those samples were collected." There has been data collected since 1992, but 1992 was "the last peak year" of sampling. Over the last ten years, the "focus has been on the Everglades" with respect to sampling for mercury, although sampling has occurred in "a broadly representative suite of water bodies statewide." The TAC recommended against using fish consumption advisories for listing coastal and marine waters because of the possibility that these advisories might be based upon tissue samples taken from fish who ingested mercury, or other substances being sampled, outside of the state. Department staff, however, rejected this recommendation and did not include a "coastal and marine waters" exclusion in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code. The Shellfish Evaluation and Assessment Program, which is referenced in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62- 303.370, Florida Administrative Code, is administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Division of Aquaculture's Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section (SEAS) is responsible for classifying and managing Florida shellfish harvesting areas in a manner that maximizes utilization of the state's shellfish resources and reduces the risk of shellfish- borne illness. In carrying out its responsibilities, the SEAS applies the "[s]hellfish [h]arvesting [a]rea [s]tandards" set forth in Rule 5L-1.003, Florida Administrative Code, which provides as follows: The Department shall describe and/or illustrate harvesting areas and provide harvesting area classifications as approved, conditionally approved, restricted, conditionally restricted, prohibited, or unclassified as defined herein, including criteria for opening and closing shellfish harvesting areas in accordance with Chapters II and IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance. Copies of the document Shellfish Harvesting Area Classification Maps, revised October 14, 2001, and the document Shellfish Harvesting Area Classification Boundaries and Management Plans, revised October 14, 2001, containing shellfish harvesting area descriptions, references to shellfish harvesting area map numbers, and operating criteria herein incorporated by reference may be obtained by writing to the Department at 1203 Governors Square Boulevard, 5th Floor, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Approved areas -- Growing areas shall be classified as approved when a sanitary survey, conducted in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, indicates that pathogenic microorganisms, radionuclides, and/or harmful industrial wastes do not reach the area in dangerous concentrations and this is verified by laboratory findings whenever the sanitary survey indicates the need. Shellfish may be harvested from such areas for direct marketing. This classification is based on the following criteria: The area is not so contaminated with fecal material or poisonous or deleterious substances that consumption of the shellfish might be hazardous; and The bacteriological quality of every sampling station in those portions of the area most probably exposed to fecal contamination shall meet one of the following standards during the most unfavorable meteorological, hydrographic, seasonal, and point source pollution conditions: 1) The median or geometric mean fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) of water shall not exceed 14 per 100 ml., and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed a fecal coliform MPN of 43 per 100 ml. (per 5-tube, 3-dilution test) or 2) The median or geometric mean fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) of water shall not exceed 14 per 100 ml., and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed a fecal coliform MPN of 33 per 100 ml. (per 12-tube, single-dilution test). Harvest from temporarily closed approved areas shall be unlawful. Conditionally approved areas -- A growing area shall be classified as conditionally approved when a sanitary survey, conducted in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, indicates that the area is subjected to intermittent microbiological pollution. The suitability of such an area for harvesting shellfish for direct marketing may be dependent upon attainment of established performance standards by wastewater treatment facilities discharging effluent directly or indirectly into the area. In other instances, the sanitary quality of the area may be affected by seasonal populations, climatic and/or hydrographic conditions, non-point source pollution, or sporadic use of a dock, marina, or harbor facility. Such areas shall be managed by an operating procedure that will assure that shellfish from the area are not harvested from waters not meeting approved area criteria. In order to develop effective operating procedures, these intermittent pollution events shall be predictable. Harvest from temporarily closed conditionally approved areas shall be unlawful. Restricted areas -- A growing area shall be classified as restricted when a sanitary survey, conducted in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, indicates that fecal material, pathogenic microorganisms, radionuclides, harmful chemicals, and marine biotoxins are not present in dangerous concentrations after shellfish from such an area are subjected to a suitable and effective purification process. The bacteriological quality of every sampling station in those portions of the area most probably exposed to fecal contamination shall meet the following standard: The median or geometric mean fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) of water shall not exceed 88 per 100 ml. and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed a fecal coliform MPN of 260 per 100 ml. (per 5-tube, 3-dilution test) in those portions of the area most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most unfavorable meteorological, hydrographic, seasonal, and point source pollution conditions. Harvest is permitted according to permit conditions specified in Rule 5L-1.009, F.A.C. Harvest from temporarily closed restricted areas shall be unlawful. Conditionally restricted area -- A growing area shall be classified as conditionally restricted when a sanitary survey or other monitoring program data, conducted in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, indicates that the area is subjected to intermittent microbiological pollution. The suitability of such an area for harvest of shellfish for relaying or depuration activities is dependent upon the attainment of established performance standards by wastewater treatment facilities discharging effluent, directly or indirectly, into the area. In other instances, the sanitary quality of such an area may be affected by seasonal population, non-point sources of pollution, or sporadic use of a dock, marina, or harbor facility, and these intermittent pollution events are predictable. Such areas shall be managed by an operating procedure that will assure that shellfish from the area are not harvested from waters not meeting restricted area criteria. Harvest is permitted according to permit conditions specified in Rule 5L- 1.009, F.A.C. Harvest from temporarily closed conditionally restricted areas shall be unlawful. Prohibited area -- A growing area shall be classified as prohibited if a sanitary survey indicates that the area does not meet the approved, conditionally approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted classifications. Harvest of shellfish from such areas shall be unlawful. The waters of all man-made canals and marinas are classified prohibited regardless of their location. Unclassified area -- A growing area for which no recent sanitary survey exists, and it has not been classified as any area described in subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) above. Harvest of shellfish from such areas shall be unlawful. Approved or conditionally approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted waters shall be temporarily closed to the harvesting of shellfish when counts of the red tide organism Gymnodinium breve[54] exceed 5000 cells per liter in bays, estuaries, passes or inlets adjacent to shellfish harvesting areas. Areas closed to harvesting because of presence of the red tide organism shall not be reopened until counts are less than or equal to 5000 cells per liter inshore and offshore of the affected shellfish harvesting area, and shellfish meats have been shown to be free of toxin by laboratory analysis. The Department is authorized to open and temporarily close approved, conditionally approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted waters for harvesting of shellfish in emergencies as defined herein, in accordance with specific criteria established in operating procedures for predictively closing individual growing areas, or when growing areas do not meet the standards and guidelines established by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program . Operating procedures for predictively closing each growing area shall be developed by the Department; local agencies, including those responsible for operation of sewerage systems, and the local shellfish industry may be consulted for technical information during operating procedure development. The predictive procedure shall be based on evaluation of potential sources of pollution which may affect the area and should establish performance standards, specify necessary safety devices and measures, and define inspection and check procedures. Under Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, only the "downgrading" of an area initially approved for shellfish harvesting to a more restrictive classification will cause a Class II water to be "placed on the planning list for fish and shellfish consumption." The temporary closure of an approved harvesting area will not have the same result. Temporary closures of harvesting areas are not uncommon. These closures typically occur when there is heavy local rainfall or flooding events upstream, which result in high fecal coliform counts in the harvesting areas. While these areas are not being harvested during these temporary closures, "[p]ropagation is probably maximized in closure conditions." This is because, during these periods, there are "more nutrients for [the shellfish] to consume" inasmuch as the same natural events that cause fecal coliform counts to increase also bring the nutrients (in the form detritus) into the area. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) does not reclassify an area simply because there have been short-term events, like sewage spills or extraordinary rain events, that have resulted in the area's temporary closure. Where there are frequent, extended periods of closures due to high fecal coliform counts in an area that exceed Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, however, one would reasonably expect that reclassification action would be taken. Even if the DACS does not take such action, the water may nonetheless qualify for placement on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, based upon the fecal coliform data relied upon by the DACS in closing the area, provided the data meets the requirements set forth in proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code. The DACS has never reclassified an area from "prohibited" to "unclassified." David Heil, the head of the SEAS, made a presentation at the April 20, 2000, TAC meeting, during which he enumerated various ways that the Department could determine "impairment as it relates to shellfish harvesting waters" and recommended, over the others, one of those options: combination of the average number and duration of closures over time. None of the options listed by Mr. Heil, including his top recommendation, were incorporated in proposed Rule 62- 303.370, Florida Administrative Code. The TAC and Department staff looked into the possibility of using the option touted by Mr. Heil, but determined that it would not be practical to do so. Relying on the DACS' reclassification of harvesting areas was deemed to be a more practical approach that was "consistent with the way the Department classifies waters as Class II and therefore it was included in the proposed rule."55 Code Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, provides three separate ways for a water to "be placed on the planning list for drinking water use support" and, in addition, addresses "human-health based criteria" not covered elsewhere in Part II of the proposed rule chapter. It reads as follows: Drinking Water Use Support and Protection of Human Health. A Class I water shall be placed on the planning list for drinking water use support if: the water segment does not meet the applicable Class I water quality criteria based on the methodology described in section 62-303.320, or a public water system demonstrates to the Department that either: Treatment costs to meet applicable drinking water criteria have increased by at least 25% to treat contaminants that exceed Class I criteria or to treat blue-green algae or other nuisance algae in the source water, or the system has changed to an alternative supply because of additional costs that would be required to treat their surface water source. When determining increased treatment costs described in paragraph (b), costs due solely to new, more stringent drinking water requirements, inflation, or increases in costs of materials shall not be included. A water shall be placed on the planning list for assessment of the threat to human health if: for human health-based criteria expressed as maximums, the water segment does not meet the applicable criteria based on the methodology described in section 62- 303.320, or for human health-based criteria expressed as annual averages, the annual average concentration for any year of the assessment period exceeds the criteria. To be used to determine whether a water should be assessed further for human-health impacts, data must meet the requirements of paragraphs (2), (3), (6), and (7) in rule 62-303.320. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Use of the statistical "methodology described in [proposed Rule] 62-303.320," Florida Administrative Code, is not only appropriate (as discussed above) for making "planning list" determinations based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife- [b]ased [c]riteria" and "water quality criteria for bacteriological quality," it is also a reasonable way to determine whether a water should "be placed on the planning list for drinking water use support" based upon exceedances of "applicable Class I water quality criteria" (as Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, provides) and to determine whether a water should "be placed on the planning list for assessment of the threat to human health" based upon exceedances of other "human-health based criteria expressed as maximums" (as Subsection (2)(a) of the proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, provides). Subsection (1)(b) was included in proposed Rule 62- 303.380, Florida Administrative Code, because the TAC and Department staff wanted "some other way," besides having the minimum number of exceedances of "applicable Class I water quality criteria" required by Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed rule, for a Class I water to qualify for "place[ment] on the planning list for drinking water use support." Looking at the costs necessary for public water systems to treat surface water,56 as Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, allows, is a reasonable alternative means of determining whether a Class I water should be "placed on the planning list for drinking water use support." Under Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, the cost analysis showing that the requirements for listing have been met must be provided by the public water system. This burden was placed on the public water system because the Department "does not have the resources to do that assessment on [its] own." The Department cannot be fairly criticized for not including in Subsection (1)(b)1. of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, references to the other contaminants (in addition to blue-green algae) that have "been put on a list by the EPA to be . . . evaluated for future regulations" inasmuch as there are no existing criteria in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, specifically relating to these contaminants. Particularly when read together with the third sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300 (which provides that "[i]t should be noted water quality criteria are designed to protect either aquatic life use support, which is addressed in sections 62-303.310-353, or to protect human health, which is addressed in sections 62-303.360-380"), it is clear that the "human health-based criteria" referenced in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, are those numerical criteria in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, designed to protect human health. While laypersons not familiar with how water quality criteria are established may not be able to determine (by themselves) which of the numerical water quality criteria in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, are "human health-based," as that term is used Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, Department staff charged with the responsibility of making listing decisions will be able to so. "[H]uman health-based criteria" for non-carcinogens are "expressed as maximums" in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. "[H]uman health-based criteria" for carcinogens are "expressed as annual averages" in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. "Annual average," as that term is used in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, is defined therein as "the maximum concentration at average annual flow conditions. (see Section 62-4.020(1), F.A.C.)." Subsection (1) of Rule 62- 4.020, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]verage [a]nnual [f]low "is the long-term harmonic mean flow of the receiving water, or an equivalent flow based on generally accepted scientific procedures in waters for which such a mean cannot be calculated." The "annual mean concentration" is not exactly the same as, but it does "generally approximate" and is "roughly equivalent to," the "maximum concentration at average annual flow conditions." Using "annual mean concentrations" to determine whether there have been exceedances of a "human health-based criteria expressed as annual averages" is a practical approach that makes Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, more easily "implementable" inasmuch as it obviates the need to calculate the "average annual flow," which is a "fairly complicated" exercise requiring "site-specific flow data" not needed to determine the "annual mean concentration."57 Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, does not impose any minimum sample size requirements, and it requires only one exceedance of any "human health-based criteri[on] expressed as [an] annual average[]" for a water to be listed. The limitations it places on the data that can be considered (by incorporating by reference the provisions of Subsections (2), (3), (6), and (7) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, which have been discussed above) are reasonable. Part III: Overview Part III of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, contains the following provisions, which describe the "verified list" of impaired waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, how the list will be compiled, and the manner in which waters on the list will be "prioritized" for TMDL development: Proposed Rules 62-303.400, 62-303.420, 62- 303.430, 62-303.440, 62-303.450, 62-303.460, 62-303.470, 62- 303.480, 62-303.500, 62-303.600, 62-303.700, and 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Methodology to Develop the Verified List," and reads as follows: Waters shall be verified as being impaired if they meet the requirements for the planning list in Part II and the additional requirements of sections 62- 303.420-.480. A water body that fails to meet the minimum criteria for surface waters established in Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C.; any of its designated uses, as described in this part; or applicable water quality criteria, as described in this part, shall be determined to be impaired. Additional data and information collected after the development of the planning list will be considered when assessing waters on the planning list, provided it meets the requirements of this chapter. In cases where additional data are needed for waters on the planning list to meet the data sufficiency requirements for the verified list, it is the Department's goal to collect this additional data[58] as part of its watershed management approach, with the data collected during either the same cycle that the water is initially listed on the planning list (within 1 year) or during the subsequent cycle (six years). Except for data used to evaluate historical trends in chlorophyll a or TSIs, the Department shall not use data that are more than 7.5 years old at the time the water segment is proposed for listing on the verified list. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Pursuant to the first sentence of proposed Rule 62- 303.400, Florida Administrative Code, if a water qualifies for placement on the "planning list" under a provision in Part II of the proposed rule chapter that does not have a counterpart in proposed Rules 62-303.420 through 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, that water will automatically be "verified as being impaired." Examples of provisions in Part II of the proposed rule chapter that do not have counterparts in proposed Rules 62-303.420 through 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, are: the provision in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62- 303.330, Florida Administrative Code, that "water segments with at least . . . one failure of the biological integrity standard, Rule 62-302.530(11), shall be included on the planning list for assessment of aquatic life use support"; Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a water will be placed on the "planning list" if it "does not meet applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality based upon the methodology described in section 62-303.320," Florida Administrative Code; Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a Class II water will be placed on the "planning list" if it "includes an area that has been approved for shellfish harvesting by the Shellfish Evaluation and Assessment Program, but which has been downgraded from its initial harvesting classification to a more restrictive classification"; and Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to which a water may qualify for "planning list" placement based upon water treatment costs under the circumstances described therein. Waters that are "verified as being impaired," it should be noted, will not automatically qualify for placement on the "verified list." They will still have to be evaluated in light of the provisions (which will be discussed later in greater detail) of proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code (relating to "pollution control mechanisms") and those of proposed Rules 62-303.700 and 62- 303.710, Florida Administrative Code (which require that the Department identify the "pollutant(s)" and "concentration(s)" that are "causing the impairment" before placing a water on the "verified list"). Of the "minimum criteria for surface waters established in Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C.," the only ones addressed anywhere in proposed Rules 62-303.310 through 62-303.380 and 62- 303.410 through 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, are the requirement that surface water not be "acutely toxic" and the requirement that predominantly marine waters not have silver in concentrations above 2.3 micrograms per liter. In determining whether there has been a failure to meet the remaining "minimum criteria," the Department will exercise its "best professional judgment." Like the second sentence of Proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, the second sentence of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the concept of "independent applicability" by providing that only one of the listed requirements need be met for a water to be deemed "impaired." Neither Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, nor any other provision in the proposed rule chapter, requires that a water be on the "planning list" as a prerequisite for inclusion on the "verified list." Indeed, a reading of Subsection (3)(c) of proposed Rule 62- 303.500, Florida Administration, the "prioritization" rule, which will be discussed later, leaves no reasonable doubt that, under the proposed rule chapter, a water can be placed on the "verified list" without having first been on the "planning list." The second sentence of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, indicates when the Department hopes to be able to collect the "additional data needed for waters on the planning list to meet the [more rigorous] data sufficiency requirements for the verified list," which data the Department pledges, in subsequent provisions of Part III of the proposed rule chapter, will be collected (at some, unspecified time). The Department did not want to create a mandatory timetable for its collection of the "additional data" because it, understandably, wanted to avoid making a commitment that, due to funding shortfalls that might occur in the future, it would not be able to keep.59 If it has the funds to do so, the Department intends to collect the "additional data" within the time frame indicated in the second sentence of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code. The Department will not need to collect this "additional data" if the data is collected and presented to the Department by an "interested party" outside the Department. (The proposed rule chapter allows data collected by outside parties to be considered by the Department in making listing decisions, provided the data meets the prescribed quality requirements.) Requiring (as the third and final sentence of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, does) that all data relied upon by the Department for placing waters on the "verified list," except for data establishing "historical trends in chlorophyll a or TSIs," under no circumstances be older than "7.5 years old at the time the water segment is proposed for listing on the verified list" is a reasonable requirement designed to avoid final listing decisions based upon outdated data not representative of the water's current conditions. As noted above, the TAC recommended that listing decisions be based upon data no older than five years old. Wanting to "capture as much data for the assessment process" as reasonably possible, Department staff determined that the appropriate maximum age of data should be two and half years older than that recommended by the TAC (the two and a half years representing the amount of time it could take to "do additional data collection" following the creation of the "planning list"). Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.410, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.410, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Determination of Aquatic Life Use Support," and provides as follows: Failure to meet any of the metrics used to determine aquatic life use support listed in sections 62-303.420-.450 shall constitute verification that there is an impairment of the designated use for propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Like proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code, its analogue in Part II of the proposed rule chapter, proposed Rule 62-303.410, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the concept of "independent applicability." A failure of any of the "metrics" referenced in the proposed rule will result in "verification" of impairment. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable statistical method, involving binomial distribution analysis, to verify impairment based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" due to pollutant discharges. It reads as follows: Exceedances of Aquatic Life-Based Water Quality Criteria The Department shall reexamine the data used in rule 62-303.320 to determine exceedances of water quality criteria. If the exceedances are not due to pollutant discharges and reflect either physical alterations of the water body that cannot be abated or natural background conditions, the water shall not be listed on the verified list. In such cases, the Department shall note for the record why the water was not listed and provide the basis for its determination that the exceedances were not due to pollutant discharges. If the Department cannot clearly establish that the exceedances are due to natural background or physical alterations of the water body but the Department believes the exceedances are not due to pollutant discharges, it is the Department's intent to determine whether aquatic life use support is impaired through the use of bioassessment procedures referenced in section 62-303.330. The water body or segment shall not be included on the verified list for the parameter of concern if two or more independent bioassessments are conducted and no failures are reported. To be treated as independent bioassessments, they must be conducted at least two months apart. If the water was listed on the planning list and there were insufficient data from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment to meet the data distribution requirements of section 303.320(4) and to meet a minimum sample size for verification of twenty samples, additional data will be collected as needed to provide a minimum sample size of twenty. Once these additional data are collected, the Department shall re-evaluate the data using the approach outlined in rule 62- 303.320(1), but using Table 2, which provides the number of exceedances that indicate a minimum of a 10% exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90% confidence level using a binomial distribution. The Department shall limit the analysis to data collected during the five years preceding the planning list assessment and the additional data collected pursuant to this paragraph. Table 2: Verified List Minimum number of measured exceedances needed to put a water on the Planning list with at least 90% confidence that the actual exceedance rate is greater than or equal to ten percent. Sample Are listed if they Sizes have at least this From To # of exceedances 20 25 5 26 32 6 33 40 7 41 47 8 48 55 9 56 63 10 64 71 11 72 79 12 80 88 13 89 96 14 97 104 15 105 113 16 114 121 17 122 130 18 131 138 19 139 147 20 148 156 21 157 164 22 165 173 23 174 182 24 183 191 25 192 199 26 200 208 27 209 217 28 218 226 29 227 235 30 236 244 31 245 253 32 254 262 33 263 270 34 271 279 35 280 288 36 289 297 37 298 306 38 307 315 39 316 324 40 325 333 41 334 343 42 344 352 43 353 361 44 362 370 45 371 379 46 380 388 47 389 397 48 398 406 49 407 415 50 416 424 51 425 434 52 435 443 53 444 452 54 453 461 55 462 470 56 471 479 57 480 489 58 490 498 59 499 500 60 (3) If the water was placed on the planning list based on worst case values used to represent multiple samples taken during a seven day period, the Department shall evaluate whether the worst case value should be excluded from the analysis pursuant to subsections (4) and (5). If the worst case value should not be used, the Department shall then re-evaluate the data following the methodology in rule 62-303.420(2), using the more representative worst case value or, if all valid values are below acutely toxic levels, the median value. If the water was listed on the planning list based on exceedances of water quality criteria for metals, the metals data shall be validated to determine whether the quality assurance requirements of rule 62- 303.320(7) are met and whether the sample was both collected and analyzed using clean techniques, if the use of clean techniques is appropriate. If any data cannot be validated, the Department shall re-evaluate the remaining valid data using the methodology in rule 62-303.420(2), excluding any data that cannot be validated. Values that exceed possible physical or chemical measurement constraints (pH greater than 14, for example) or that represent data transcription errors, outliers the Department determines are not valid measures of water quality, water quality criteria exceedances due solely to violations of specific effluent limitations contained in state permits authorizing discharges to surface waters, water quality criteria exceedances within permitted mixing zones for those parameters for which the mixing zones are in effect, and water quality data collected following contaminant spills, discharges due to upsets or bypasses from permitted facilities, or rainfall in excess of the 25-year, 24-hour storm, shall be excluded from the assessment. However, the Department shall note for the record that the data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. Once the additional data review is completed pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (5), the Department shall re-evaluate the data and shall include waters on the verified list that meet the criteria in rules 62-303.420(2) or 62-303.320(5)(b). Specific Authority: 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented: 403.021(11), 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The TMDL program is intended to address only water quality impairment resulting from pollutant discharges (from point or non-point sources), as is made clear by a reading of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, particularly Subsection 6(a)2. thereof (which, as noted above, provides that, "[f]or waters determined to be impaired due solely to factors other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution, no maximum daily load will be required"). Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62- 303.420(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, is in keeping with this intent. Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, should be read together with Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed rule. The "physical alterations of the water body" referred to in Subsection (1)(b) are the same type of "physical alterations" referred to in Subsection (1)(a), to wit: "physical alterations of the water body that cannot be abated." "Best professional judgment" will be used by the Department in determining, as it must under Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, whether or not exceedances are due to pollutant discharges. If the Department, exercising its "best professional judgment," finds that there is not proof "clearly establish[ing] that the exceedances are due to natural background or physical alterations of the water body but the Department believes the exceedances are not due to pollutant discharges," the Department, pursuant to Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62- 303.420, Florida Administrative Code, will determine whether the water in question should be "verified as impaired" for aquatic life use support by relying on "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code (which, among other things, prohibit reliance on "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" based on "data older than ten years"). The results of these "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" will not make the Department any better able to "answer the question of whether natural background or physical alterations were responsible for [the] exceedances," but, as noted above, it will enable the Department to make a more informed decision about the overall ability of the water to sustain aquatic life. Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably provides that the water will not be "verified as impaired" for aquatic life use support if there have been two or more "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" conducted at least two months apart over the last ten years and "no failures [have been] reported." That a water has "passe[d]" these "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" establishes "that aquatic life use support is being maintained" and, under such circumstances, it would be inappropriate to include that water on the "verified list." Looking at just the data "from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment," as the first sentence of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, requires the Department to do, rather than all of the data supporting the placement of the water in question on the "planning list," regardless of when the data was collected, makes sense because, to properly discharge its responsibilities under Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, the Department must ascertain what the current overall condition of the water in question is. As noted above, Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.420, Florida Administrative Code, requires a "minimum sample size for verification [of impairment based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria]" of twenty samples," with no exceptions. While this is more than the number of samples required for "planning list" compilation purposes under proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, it "is a very small number of samples relative to the [number of] samples that [the Department] would need to take to do a TMDL." Furthermore, unlike any provision in proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, provides that, if a water (on the "planning list") lacks the required minimum number of samples, the "additional data" needed to meet the minimum sample requirement "will be collected" (at some unspecified time in the future). Because these additional samples "will be collected," the requirement of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, that there be a minimum of 20 samples should not prevent deserving waters from ultimately being "verified as impaired" under the proposed rule (although it may serve to delay such "verification"). Such delay would occur if a water on the "planning list" had five or more exceedances within the "last five years preceding the planning list assessment" (five being the minimum number of exceedances required for "verification" under proposed Rule 62- 303.420, Florida Administrative Code), but these exceedances were based on fewer than 20 samples. The additional samples that would need to be collected to meet the minimum sample size requirement of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, would have no effect on the Department's "verification" determination, even if these samples yielded no exceedances, given that proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, does not contain any provision comparable to Subsection (3) of Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, providing that, under certain circumstances, "more recent data" may render "older data" unusable.60 The water would qualify for "verification" regardless of what the additional samples revealed. That is not to say, however, that taking these additional samples would serve no useful purpose. Data derived from these additional collection efforts (shedding light on the severity of the water quality problem) could be used by the Department to help it "establish priority rankings and schedules by which water bodies or segments will be subjected to total maximum daily load calculations," as the Department is required to do pursuant to Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. The "calculations [reflected in the table, Table 2, which is a part of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code] are correct." They are based on "a minimum of a 10% exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90% confidence level using a binomial distribution." As noted above, the Department did not act unreasonably in selecting this "exceedance frequency" and "confidence level" for use in determining which waters should be "verified as impaired" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria." Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, imposes reasonable quality assurance requirements that must be met in order for "metals data" to be considered "valid" for purposes of determining whether a water has the minimum number of exceedances needed to be "verified as impaired" under the proposed rule. It requires that "Method 1669"-permitted procedures be used only where these procedures are "appropriate." Determining the appropriateness of these procedures in a particular case will require the Department to exercise its "best professional judgment," taking into consideration the amount of the metal in question needed to violate the applicable water quality criterion, in relation to the amount of contamination that could be expected to occur during sample collection and analysis if conventional techniques were used. Doing so should result in "Method 1669"-permitted procedures being deemed "appropriate" in only a few circumstances: when a water is being tested to determine if it exceeds the applicable criterion for mercury, and when testing low hardness waters61 for exceedances of the applicable criterion for cadmium and lead. It is necessary to use "Method 1669"-permitted procedures in these instances to prevent test results that are tainted by contamination occurring during sample collection and analysis. Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably excludes other data from the "verification" process. It contains the same exclusions that pursuant to Subsection (6) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, apply in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" ("[v]alues that exceed possible physical or chemical measurement constraints (pH greater than 14, for example) or that represent data transcription errors, [and] outliers the Department determines are not valid measures of water quality"), plus additional exclusions. Among the additional types of data that will be excluded from consideration under Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, are "exceedances due solely to violations of specific effluent limitations contained in state permits authorizing discharges to surface waters." Permit violations, by themselves, can cause water quality impairment; however, as the Department has reasonably determined, the quickest and most efficient way to deal with such impairment is to take enforcement action against the offending permittee. To take the time and to expend the funds to develop and implement a TMDL62 to address the problem, instead of taking enforcement action, would not only be unwise and an imprudent use of the not unlimited resources available to combat poor surface water quality in this state, but would also be inconsistent with the expression of legislative intent in Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that the TMDL program not be utilized to bring a water into compliance with water quality standards where "technology-based effluent limitations [or] other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority" are sufficient to achieve this result. It is true that the Department has not stopped, through enforcement, all permit violations and that, as Mr. Joyner acknowledged during his testimony at the final hearing, "there are certain cases out there where there are chronic violations of permits." The appropriate response to this situation, however, is for the Department to step up its enforcement efforts, not for it to develop and implement TMDLs for those waters that, but for these violations, would not be impaired. (Citizens dissatisfied with the Department's enforcement efforts can themselves take action, pursuant to Section 403.412(2), Florida Statutes, to seek to enjoin permit violations.) It will be "extremely difficult" to know whether exceedances are due solely to permit violations. Because of this, it does not appear likely that the Department "will be using [the permit violation exclusion contained in] proposed [R]ule [62-303.420(5), Florida Administrative Code] very often." Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, will not exclude from consideration all water quality criteria exceedances in mixing zones . Only those exceedances relating to the parameters "for which the mixing zones are in effect" will be excluded. The exclusion of these exceedances is appropriate inasmuch as, pursuant to the Department's existing rules establishing the state's water quality standards (which the Legislature made clear, in Subsections (9) and (10) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, it did not, by enacting Section 403.067, intend to alter or limit), these exceedances are permitted and not considered to be violations of water quality standards. To the extent that there may exist "administratively- continued" permits (that is, permits that remain in effect while a renewal application is pending, regardless of their expiration date) which provide for outdated "mixing zones," this problem should be addressed through the permitting process, not the TMDL program. A "contaminant spill," as that term is used in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, is a short-term, unpermitted discharge [of contaminants63] to surface waters." (See Subsection (16) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, recited above, which defines "spill," as it is used in the proposed rule chapter). It is well within the bounds of reason to exclude from consideration (as Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62- 303.420, Florida Statutes, indicates the Department will do in deciding whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" under the proposed rule) data collected in such proximity in time to a "contaminant spill" that it reflects only the temporary effects of that "short-term" event (which are best addressed by the Department taking immediate action), rather than reflecting a chronic water quality problem of the type the TMDL program is designed to help remedy. In deciding whether this exclusion applies in a particular case, the Department will need to exercise its "best professional judgment" to determine whether the post-"contaminant spill" data reflects a "short- term" water quality problem attributable to the "spill" (in which case the exclusion will apply) or whether, instead, it reflects a chronic problem (in which case the exclusion will not apply). "Bypass" is defined in Subsection (4) of Rule 62- 620.200, Florida Administrative Code, as "the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment works." "Upset" is defined in Subsection (50) of Rule 62- 620.200, Florida Administrative Code, as follows: "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, careless or improper operation. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of upset provisions of Rule 62-620.610, F.A.C., are met. The "upset provisions of Rule 62-620.610, F.A.C." are as follows: (23) Upset Provisions. A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset; The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in condition (20) of this permit; and The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under condition (5) of this permit. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. Before an enforcement proceeding is instituted, no representation made during the Department review of a claim that noncompliance was caused by an upset is final agency action subject to judicial review. Rule 62-620.610, Florida Administrative Code, also contains "[b]ypass [p]rovisions," which provide as follows: (22) Bypass Provisions. Bypass is prohibited, and the Department may take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass, unless the permittee affirmatively demonstrates that: Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated waste, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and The permittee submitted notices as required under condition (22)(b) of this permit. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the Department, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass within 24 hours of learning about the bypass as required in condition (20) of this permit. A notice shall include a description of the bypass and its cause; the period of the bypass, including exact dates and times; if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the bypass. The Department shall approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effect, if the permittee demonstrates that it will meet the three conditions listed in condition (22)(a)1. through 3. of this permit. A permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause reclaimed water or effluent limitations to be exceeded if it is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provision of condition (22)(a) through (c) of this permit. The "bypasses" to which the Department refers in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, are those that are not prohibited (as Mr. Joyner testified and is evidenced by the grouping of "bypasses" in the same provision with "upsets" and by the fact that there is another provision in Subsection (5) of the proposed rule that deals with permit violations). Since these types of bypasses, as well as upsets, are exceptional events that, under the Department's existing rules, are allowed to occur without the permittee being guilty of a permit violation, it is reasonable, in verifying impairment under proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, to discount data tainted by their occurrence, which reflect atypical conditions resulting from legally permissible discharges. The "25-year, 24-hour storm" exclusion was included in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, in response to the TAC's recommendation that the proposed rule "exclude data from extreme storm events." The "25-year, 24-hour storm" is "commonly used in the regulatory context as a dividing line between extremely large rainfall events and less extreme events." It is a rainfall event (or as one witness, the chief of the Department's Bureau of Watershed Management, Eric Livingston, put it, a "gully washer") that produces an amount of rainfall within 24 hours that is likely to be exceeded on the average only once in 25 years. In Florida, that amount is anywhere from about eight to 11 inches, depending on location. Because a "25-year, 24-hour storm" is an extraordinary rainfall event that creates abnormal conditions in affected waters, there is reasonable justification for the Department's not considering, in the "verification" process under proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, "25-year, 24-hour storm"-impacted data. This should result in the exclusion of very little data. Data collected following less severe rainfall events (of which there are many in Florida)64 will be unaffected by the "25- year, 24-hour storm" exclusion in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable non-statistical approach, involving "[b]iological [a]ssessment," to be used as an alternative to the statistical method described in proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, in verifying aquatic life use support impairment. Proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Biological Impairment All bioassessments used to list a water on the verified list shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., including Department-approved Standard Operating Procedures. To be used for placing waters on the verified list, any bioassessments conducted before the adoption of applicable SOPs for such bioassessments as part of Chapter 62-160 shall substantially comply with the subsequent SOPs. If the water was listed on the planning list based on bioassessment results, the water shall be determined to be biologically impaired if there were two or more failed bioassessments within the five years preceding the planning list assessment. If there were less than two failed bioassessments during the last five years preceding the planning list assessment the Department will conduct an additional bioassessment. If the previous failed bioassessment was a BioRecon, then an SCI will be conducted. Failure of this additional bioassessment shall constitute verification that the water is biologically impaired. If the water was listed on the planning list based on other information specified in rule 62-303.330(4) indicating biological impairment, the Department will conduct a bioassessment in the water segment, conducted in accordance with the methodology in rule 62-303.330, to verify whether the water is impaired. For streams, the bioassessment shall be an SCI. Failure of this bioassessment shall constitute verification that the water is biologically impaired. Following verification that a water is biologically impaired, a water shall be included on the verified list for biological impairment if: There are water quality data reasonably demonstrating the particular pollutant(s) causing the impairment and the concentration of the pollutant(s); and One of the following demonstrations is made: if there is a numeric criterion for the specified pollutant(s) in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., but the criterion is met, an identification of the specific factors that reasonably demonstrate why the numeric criterion is not adequate to protect water quality and how the specific pollutant is causing the impairment, or if there is not a numeric criterion for the specified pollutant(s) in Chapter 62- 302, F.A.C., an identification of the specific factors that reasonably demonstrate how the particular pollutants are associated with the observed biological effect. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, was written in anticipation of the "adoption of applicable SOPs" for BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs "as part of [Rule] Chapter 62-160," Florida Administrative Code, subsequent to the adoption of the proposed rule chapter. As noted above, at the time of the final hearing in these cases, the Department was in the process of engaging in rulemaking to incorporate in Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, the SOPs for BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs that Department personnel currently use to conduct these "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]." Until the rulemaking process is completed and any amendments to Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, become effective,65 to be "used to list a water on the verified list" pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, "[b]iological [a]assessment[s]" need meet only the quality assurance requirements of the pre-amendment version of Rule Chapter 62-160 (which does not include SOPs for BioRecons, SCIs and LCIs). Once the amendments become effective, however, "[b]iological [a]assessment[s]," both pre- and post-amendment, will have to have been conducted in substantial compliance with the applicable SOPs included in the new version of Rule Chapter 62-160. No "[b]iological [a]assessment" will be rejected under Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, because it fails to comply with an SOP that, at the time of the "verification" determination, has not been made a part of the Department's rules. The TAC-approved requirement of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, that there be at least "two failed bioassessments during the last five years preceding the planning list assessment" (as opposed to a longer period of time) in order for a water to be "verified as being [biologically] impaired," without the need to conduct another "[b]iological [a]assessment," is reasonably designed to avoid listing decisions that are based upon test results not representative of the existing overall biological condition of the water in question. Two such failed "[b]iological [a]assessment[s]" will provide the Department with a greater degree of assurance that the water truly suffers from "biological impairment" than it would have if only one failed "[b]iological [a]assessment" was required. If there are fewer than "two failed bioassessments during the last five years preceding the planning list assessment," Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department will conduct another "[b]iological [a]ssessment" to determine whether the water should be "verified as being [biologically] impaired," and failure of this additional "[b]iological [a]assessment" will constitute "verification that the water is biologically impaired." The requirement that there be another failed "[b]iological [a]assessment" to confirm "biological impairment" before a water is "verified as being [biologically] impaired" under Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, is scientifically prudent, particularly in those cases where the water was placed on the "planning list" based upon a "[b]iological [a]ssessment" conducted more than five years earlier. The failure of this additional "[b]iological [a]ssessment" is enough to get the water "verified as being [biologically] impaired" even if there were no failed "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" in the "last five years preceding the planning list assessment." Inasmuch as the SCI, compared to the BioRecon, is a more comprehensive and rigorous test, it is reasonable to require (as Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, does) that, in the case of a stream placed on the "planning list" as a result of a failed BioRecon, the additional "[b]iological [a]ssessment" be an SCI, not a BioRecon, and to also require (as Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, does) that an SCI, rather than a BioRecon, be conducted where a stream has been placed on the "planning list" based upon "other information specified in rule 62-303.330(4) indicating biological impairment." Until such time as the Department develops a rapid bioassessment protocol for estuaries, where the Department is required in Part II of the proposed rule chapter to conduct an additional "[b]iological [a]ssessment, the Department intends to meet this obligation by engaging in "biological integrity standard" testing. TMDLs are pollutant-specific. If a water is "verified as [biologically] impaired," but the Department is not able to identify a particular pollutant as the cause of the impairment, a TMDL cannot be developed. See Section 403.031(21), Florida Statutes (to establish TMDL it is necessary to calculate the "maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards"); and Section 403.067(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes ("The total maximum daily load calculation shall establish the amount of a pollutant that a water body or water body segment may receive from all sources without exceeding water quality standards"). Accordingly, as noted above, in Subsection (3)(c) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, the Legislature has imposed the following perquisites to the Department listing, on its "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, those waters deemed to be impaired based upon "non-attainment [of] biological criteria": If the department has adopted a rule establishing a numerical criterion for a particular pollutant, a narrative or biological criterion may not be the basis for determining an impairment in connection with that pollutant unless the department identifies specific factors as to why the numerical criterion is not adequate to protect water quality. If water quality non-attainment is based on narrative or biological criteria, the specific factors concerning particular pollutants shall be identified prior to a total maximum daily load being developed for those criteria for that surface water or surface water segment. Furthermore, Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, provides that, if a water is to placed on the "updated list" on any grounds, the Department "must specify the particular pollutants causing the impairment and the concentration of those pollutants causing the impairment relative to the water quality standard." The requirements of Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with these statutory mandates. Proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Statutes, does not address waters placed on the "planning list" based upon a failure of the "biological integrity standard" set forth in Subsection (11) of Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, by operation of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, waters meeting the minimum requirements for "planning list" placement based upon failure of the "biological integrity standard" (a single failure within the ten-year period preceding the "planning list" assessment) will automatically be "verified as being impaired." This is a less stringent "verification" requirement than the Department adopted in proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, for "verification" of waters placed on the "planning list" based upon a failed BioRecon, SCI, or LCI. While the results of BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs are more accurate indicators of "biological impairment" than are the results of "biological integrity standard" testing, the Department's decision to make it more difficult for a water to be "verified as being impaired" if it was placed on the "planning list" based upon a failed BioRecon, SCI, or LCI (as opposed to a failure of the "biological integrity standard") is reasonably justified inasmuch as the "biological integrity standard" is one of the water quality criteria that have been established by the Department in Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, whereas, in contrast, neither the BioRecon, SCI, nor LCI are a part of the state's water quality standards. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes another reasonable method, that is not statistically-based, to verify aquatic life use support impairment. It reads as follows: : Toxicity A water segment shall be verified as impaired due to surface water toxicity in the receiving water body if: the water segment was listed on the planning list based on acute toxicity data, or the water segment was listed on the planning list based on chronic toxicity data and the impairment is confirmed with a failed bioassessment that was conducted within six months of a failed chronic toxicity test. For streams, the bioassessment shall be an SCI. Following verification that a water is impaired due to toxicity, a water shall be included on the verified list if the requirements of paragraph 62-303 430(4) are met. Toxicity data collected following contaminant spills, discharges due to upsets or bypasses from permitted facilities, or rainfall in excess of the 25-year, 24-hour storm, shall be excluded from the assessment. However, the Department shall note for the record that the data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403. 062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Pursuant to Subsections (1)(a) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, a water will automatically be "verified as impaired" for aquatic life use support if it was placed on the "planning list" on the basis of being "acutely toxic," provided that the data supporting such placement was "not collected following contaminant spills, discharges due to upsets or bypasses from permitted facilities, or rainfall in excess of the 25-year, 24-hour storm." The TAC and Department staff determined that additional testing was not necessary for "verification" under such circumstances because the end point that characterizes "acute toxicity" is so "dramatic" in terms of demonstrating impairment that it would be best to "just go ahead and put [the water] on the list with the two acute [toxicity] failures and start figuring out any potential sources of that impairment." The TAC and Department staff, however, reasonably believed that, because "chronic toxicity tests, in contrast, are measuring fairly subtle changes in a lab test organism" and there is "a very long history within the NPDES program of people questioning the results of the chronic toxicity test," before a water is "verified as being impaired" due to "chronic toxicity," the impairment should be "confirmed with a bioassessment that was conducted within six months of a failed chronic toxicity test"66 (as Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, provides). It is reasonable to require that the bioassessment, in the case of a stream, be an SCI, rather than a BioRecon, because, as noted above, of the two, the former is the more comprehensive and rigorous test. The requirements of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with the provisions of the Subsections (3)(c) and (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. It may be difficult to identify the pollutant causing the impairment inasmuch as toxicity tests are not designed to yield such information. The rationale for excluding, in the assessment process described in proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, "data collected following contaminant spills, discharges due to upsets or bypasses from permitted facilities, or rainfall in excess of the 25-year, 24-hour storm" (as Subsection (3) of the proposed rule does) is the same, justifiable rationale (discussed above) supporting the exclusion of such data in the assessment of impairment under proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rules 62-303.350 through 62- 303.353, Florida Administrative Code, provides other reasonable ways, not based upon statistics, for waters to be "verified as [being] impaired" for aquatic life use support. It reads as follows: Interpretation of Narrative Nutrient Criteria. A water shall be placed on the verified list for impairment due to nutrients if there are sufficient data from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment combined with historical data (if needed to establish historical chlorophyll a levels or historical TSIs), to meet the data sufficiency requirements of rule 62- 303.350(2). If there are insufficient data, additional data shall be collected as needed to meet the requirements. Once these additional data are collected, the Department shall re-evaluate the data using the thresholds provided in rule 62-303.351- .353, for streams, lakes, and estuaries, respectively, or alternative, site-specific thresholds that more accurately reflect conditions beyond which an imbalance in flora or fauna occurs in the water segment. In any case, the Department shall limit its analysis to the use of data collected during the five years preceding the planning list assessment and the additional data collected in the second phase. If alternative thresholds are used for the analysis, the Department shall provide the thresholds for the record and document how the alternative threshold better represents conditions beyond which an imbalance in flora or fauna is expected to occur. If the water was listed on the planning list for nutrient enrichment based on other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna as provided in Rule 62-303 350(1), the Department shall verify the imbalance before placing the water on the verified list for impairment due to nutrients and shall provide documentation supporting the imbalance in flora or fauna. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The requirement of the first sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Code, that there be sufficient (non-historical) data (as measured against the requirements of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.350, Florida Administrative Code67) "from [just] the last five years preceding the planning list assessment" in order for a "nutrient impair[ed]" water to go directly from the "planning list" to the "verified list" (subject to the provisions of proposed Rules 62-303.600, 62-303.700, and 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code) is reasonably designed to avoid listing decisions based upon outdated data not representative of the water's current conditions. According to the second and third sentences of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Code, if there is not enough data from this five- year time period, the additional data needed to meet the data sufficiency requirements "will be collected" by the Department, and such additional data, along with the data "from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment," will be evaluated to determine whether one of the applicable thresholds set out in proposed Rules 62-303.351 through 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, or an "alternative" threshold established specifically for that water, has been met or exceeded. Deciding whether "alternative, site-specific thresholds" should be used and, if so, what they should be, will involve the exercise of the Department's "best professional judgment," as will the determination as to how, in each case the Department is presented with a water placed on the "planning list for nutrient enrichment based on other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna," it should go about "verify[ing] the imbalance," as the Department will be required to do by Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Code. In some instances, the Department will only need to thoroughly review the "other information" to "verify the imbalance." In other cases, where the "other information" is not sufficiently detailed, new "information" will need to be obtained. How the Department will proceed in a particular case will depend upon the specific circumstances of that case. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable means to determine whether waters should be "verified as [being] impaired" for primary contact and recreation use support. It reads as follows: Primary Contact and Recreation Use Support The Department shall review the data used by the DoH as the basis for bathing area closures, advisories or warnings and verify that the values exceeded the applicable DoH thresholds and the data meet the requirements of Chapter 62-160. If the segment is listed on the planning list based on bathing area closures, advisories, or warnings issued by a local health department or county government, closures, advisories, or warnings based on red tides, rip tides, sewer line breaks, sharks, medical wastes, hurricanes, or other factors not related to chronic discharges of pollutants shall not be included when verifying primary contact and recreation use support. The Department shall then re-evaluate the remaining data using the methodology in rule 62- 303.360(1)(c). Water segments that meet the criteria in rule 62-303.360(1)(c) shall be included on the verified list. If the water segment was listed on the planning list due to exceedances of water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, the Department shall, to the extent practical, evaluate the source of bacteriological contamination and shall verify that the impairment is due to chronic discharges of human-induced bacteriological pollutants before listing the water segment on the verified list. The Department shall take into account the proximity of municipal stormwater outfalls, septic tanks, and domestic wastewater facilities when evaluating potential sources of bacteriological pollutants. For water segments that contain municipal stormwater outfalls, the impairment documented for the segment shall be presumed to be due, at least in part, to chronic discharges of bacteriological pollutants. The Department shall then re-evaluate the data using the methodology in rule 62-303.320(1), excluding any values that are elevated solely due to wildlife. Water segments shall be included on the verified list if they meet the requirements in rule 62-303.420(6). Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The first sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, was included in the proposed rule in response to comments made by stakeholders during the rule development process that the Department would be "abdicating [its] authority" if, in determining whether a water was impaired for purposes of TMDL development, it relied solely on action taken by other governmental entities. Department staff agreed that the Department, "as the agency responsible for preparing this list," should at least "review the data used by the DoH as the basis for bathing area closures, advisories or warnings and verify that the values exceeded the applicable DoH thresholds and the data meet the requirements of Chapter 62- 160," Florida Administrative Code. The rationale for the Department not considering bathing area "closures, advisories, or warnings based on red tides, rip tides, sewer line breaks, sharks, medical wastes, hurricanes, or other factors not related to chronic discharges of pollutants . . . when verifying [impairment of] primary contact and recreation use support" (per the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code) is the same, justifiable rationale (discussed above) supporting the exclusions of these closures, advisories, and warnings from consideration in the determination of whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of the proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code. The exclusions set forth in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, will have no effect on the "information" or "data" that the Department will be able to consider under any provision in Part III of the proposed rule chapter other than Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460. Pursuant to the third and fourth sentences of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, after the Department determines, in accordance with the first and second sentences of this subsection of the proposed rule, what bacteriological data-based bathing area closures, advisories, and warnings should be counted, it will determine whether there were a total of at least 21 days of such closures, advisories, and warnings during a calendar year (the number required by Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, for placement on the "planning list") and, if there were, it will verify the water in question as being impaired for primary contact and recreation use support. This is the only way for a water to be "verified as being impaired" based upon bathing area closures, advisories, or warnings under the proposed rule chapter. The "criteria" set forth in Subsections (1)(b) and (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code (unlike the criteria set forth in Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.360) are not carried forward in proposed Rule 62- 303.460, Florida Administrative Code. Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, provides another way, based upon a statistical analysis of "exceedances of water quality criteria for bacteriological quality," for a water to be "verified as being impaired" for primary contact and recreation use support. It reasonably requires the Department, in determining whether such impairment exists, to use the same valid statistical methodology (discussed above) that it will use, pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, to determine whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [c]riteria." Under Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, the Department, to the extent practical, will evaluate the source of an exceedance to make sure that it is "due to chronic discharges of human-induced bacteriological pollutants," and, if such evaluation reveals that the exceedance was "solely due to wildlife," the exceedance will be excluded from the calculation. While it is true that "microbial pollutants from [wildlife] do constitute a public health risk in recreational waters," the purpose of the TMDL program is to control human-induced impairment and, consequently, the Department is not required to develop TMDLs "[f]or waters determined to be impaired due solely to factors other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution." See Section 403.067(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes. Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable means to determine whether waters should be "verified as being impaired" for fish and shellfish consumption use support. It provides as follows: Fish and Shellfish Consumption Use Support In order to be used under this part, the Department shall review the data used by the DoH as the basis for fish consumption advisories and determine whether it meets the following requirements: the advisory is based on the statistical evaluation of fish tissue data from at least twelve fish collected from the specific water segment or water body to be listed, starting one year from the effective date of this rule the data are collected in accordance with DEP SOP FS6000 (General Biological Tissue Sampling) and FS 6200 (Finfish Tissue Sampling), which are incorporated by reference, the sampling entity has established Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for the sampling, and the data meet the DQOs. Data collected before one year from the effective date of this rule shall substantially comply with the listed SOPs and any subsequently developed DQOs. there are sufficient data from within the last 7.5 years to support the continuation of the advisory. If the segment is listed on the planning list based on fish consumption advisories, waters with fish consumption advisories for pollutants that are no longer legally allowed to be used or discharged shall not be placed on the verified list because the TMDL will be zero for the pollutant. Waters determined to meet the requirements of this section shall be listed on the verified list. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, imposes additional requirements only for those waters placed on the "planning list" based upon fish consumption advisories pursuant to Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.370, Florida Administrative Code. Waters placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsections (1) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, are not addressed in the proposed rule (or anywhere else in Part III of the proposed rule chapter). Accordingly, as noted above, these waters will go directly from the "planning list" to the "verified list" (subject to the provisions of proposed Rules 62- 303.600, 62-303.700, and 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code). The mere fact that a fish consumption advisory is in effect for a water will be enough for that water to qualify for placement on the "planning list" under Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code. The Department will not look beyond the four corners of the advisory at this stage of the "identification of impaired surface waters" process. Proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, however, will require the Department, before including the water on the "verified list" based upon the advisory, to conduct such an inquiry and determine the adequacy of the fish tissue data supporting the initial issuance of the advisory and its continuation. Mandating that the Department engage in such an exercise as a prerequisite to verifying impairment based upon a fish consumption advisory is a provident measure in keeping with the Legislature's directive that the TMDL program be "scientifically based." Department staff's intent, in requiring (in Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code) that there be fish tissue data from at least 12 fish, "was to maintain the status quo" and not require any more fish tissue samples than the Department of Health presently uses to determine whether an advisory should be issued. The SOPs incorporated by reference in Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, contain quality assurance requirements that are essentially the same as those that have been used "for many years" to collect the fish tissue samples upon which fish consumption advisories are based. These SOPs have yet to be incorporated in Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code. Data Quality Objectives are needed for sampling to be scientifically valid. There are presently no Data Quality Objectives in place for the sampling that is done in connection with the Department of Health's fish consumption advisory program. Pursuant to Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62- 303.470, Florida Administrative Code, after one year from the effective date of the proposed rule, in order for data to be considered in determining data sufficiency questions under the proposed rule, the sampling entity will have to have established Data Quality Objectives for the collection of such data and the data will have to meet, or (in the case of "data collected before one year from the effective date of this rule") substantially comply with, these Data Quality Objectives. As noted above, the majority of fish consumption advisories now in effect were issued based upon fish tissue data collected more than 7.5 years ago that has not been supplemented with updated data. It "will be a huge effort to collect additional data that's less than seven-and-a-half years old" for the waters under these advisories (and on the "planning list" as a result thereof) to determine, in accordance with Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, whether the continuation of these advisories is warranted. Undertaking this "huge effort," instead of relying on data more than 7.5 years old to make these determinations, is reasonably justified because this 7.5-plus-year-old data that has already been collected may no longer be representative of the current conditions of the waters in question and it therefore is prudent to rely on more recent data. Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, does not specify the amount of fish tissue data that will be needed in order for the Department to determine that there is sufficient data to "support the continuation of the advisory." The Department will need to exercise its "best professional judgment" on a case-by-case basis in making such sufficiency determinations. Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable means to determine whether waters should be "verified as being impaired" for the protection of human health. It provides as follows: Drinking Water Use Support and Protection of Human Health If the water segment was listed on the planning list due to exceedances of a human health-based water quality criterion and there were insufficient data from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment to meet the data sufficiency requirements of section 303.320(4), additional data will be collected as needed to meet the requirements. Once these additional data are collected, the Department shall re-evaluate the data using the methodology in rule 62-303.380(2) and limit the analysis to data collected during the five years preceding the planning list assessment and the additional data collected pursuant to this paragraph (not to include data older than 7.5 years). For this analysis, the Department shall exclude any data meeting the requirements of paragraph 303.420(5). The following water segments shall be listed on the verified list: for human health-based criteria expressed as maximums, water segments that meet the requirements in rule 62-303.420(6), or for human health-based criteria expressed as annual averages, water segments that have an annual average that exceeds the applicable criterion. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, imposes additional requirements only for those waters placed on the "planning list" for "assessment of the threat to human health" pursuant to Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.380, Florida Administrative Code. Notwithstanding that proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Drinking Water Use Support and Protection of Human Health," waters placed on the "planning list" for drinking water use support pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62- 303.380, Florida Administrative Code, are not addressed in the proposed rule (or anywhere else in Part III of the proposed rule chapter). Accordingly, as noted above, these waters will go directly from the "planning list" to the "verified list" (subject to the provisions of proposed Rules 62-303.600, 62- 303.700, and 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code). Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably requires the Department, in determining whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" for the protection of human health based upon exceedances of "human health-based criteria expressed as maximums," to use the same valid statistical methodology (discussed above) that it will use, pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, to determine whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [c]riteria." Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, also sets forth an appropriate method for use in determining whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" based upon exceedances of "human health-based criteria expressed as annual averages." Only one exceedance of any "human health-based criteria expressed as an annual average" will be needed for a water to be listed under the proposed rule, the same number needed under Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, for a water to make the "planning list." Under proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, however, unlike under Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, the data relied upon by the Department will have to meet the "data sufficiency requirements of section [62]-303.320(4)," Florida Administrative Code, and, in addition, data of the type described in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, as well as data collected more than "five years preceding the planning list assessment," will be excluded from the Department's consideration. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative As noted above, Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, directs the Department, "[i]n association with [its preparation of an] updated list [of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, to] establish priority rankings and schedules by which water bodies or segments will be subjected to total maximum daily load calculations." Proposed Rule 62- 303.500, Florida Administrative Code, explains how the Department will go about carrying out this statutory directive. It reads as follows: When establishing the TMDL development schedule for water segments on the verified list of impaired waters, the Department shall prioritize impaired water segments according to the severity of the impairment and the designated uses of the segment taking into account the most serious water quality problems; most valuable and threatened resources; and risk to human health and aquatic life. Impaired waters shall be prioritized as high, medium, or low priority. The following waters shall be designated high priority: Water segments where the impairment poses a threat to potable water supplies or to human health. Water segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant regulated by the CWA and the pollutant has contributed to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endangered species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the species. The following waters shall be designated low priority: [W]ater segments that are listed before 2010 due to fish consumption advisories for mercury (due to the current insufficient understanding of mercury cycling in the environment). Man-made canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artificial water segments that are listed only due to exceedances of the dissolved oxygen criteria. Water segments that were not on a planning list of impaired waters, but which were identified as impaired during the second phase of the watershed management approach and were included in the verified list, unless the segment meets the criteria in paragraph (2) for high priority. All segments not designated high or low priority shall be medium priority and shall be prioritized based on the following factors: the presence of Outstanding Florida Waters. the presence of water segments that fail to meet more than one designated use. the presence of water segments that exceed an applicable water quality criterion or alternative threshold with a greater than twenty-five percent exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90 percent confidence level. the presence of water segments that exceed more than one applicable water quality criteria. administrative needs of the TMDL program, including meeting a TMDL development schedule agreed to with EPA, basin priorities related to following the Department's watershed management approach, and the number of administratively continued permits in the basin. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New It is anticipated that most waters on the Department's "updated list" will fall within the "medium priority" category. Subsections (4)(a) through (4)(e) of proposed Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code, describe those factors (including, among others, the "presence of Outstanding Florida Waters" and "the number of administratively continued permits in the basin," the latter being added "based on input from the Petitioners") that will be taken into account by the Department in prioritizing waters within this "medium priority" category; but nowhere in the proposed rule does the Department specify how much weight each factor will be given relative to the other factors. This is a matter that, in accordance with the TAC's recommendation, will be left to the "best professional judgment" of the Department. "[T]here is a lot known about mercury" and its harmful effects; however, as the Department correctly suggests in Subsection (3)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code, there is not yet a complete understanding of "mercury cycling in the environment" and how mercury works its way up the food chain. "[T]here are a series of projects that are either on the drawing board or in progress now" that, hopefully, upon their conclusion, will give the Department a better and more complete understanding of what the sources of mercury in Florida surface waters are and how mercury "cycles" in the environment and ends up in fish tissue. Until the Department has such an understanding, though, it is reasonable for waters "verified as being impaired" due to fish consumption advisories for mercury to be given a "low priority" designation for purposes of TMDL development (as the Department, in Subsection (3)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code, indicates it will). Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative As noted above, proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, like Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62- 303.100, Florida Administrative Code, is designed to give effect to and make more specific the language in Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that an impaired water may be listed on the Department's "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated only "if technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, including Everglades restoration activities pursuant to s. 373.4592 and the National Estuary Program, which are designed to restore such waters for the pollutant of concern are not sufficient to result in attainment of applicable surface water quality standards." It reads as follows: Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms Upon determining that a water body is impaired, the Department shall evaluate whether existing or proposed technology- based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards. If, as a result of the factors set forth in (1), the water segment is expected to attain water quality standards in the future and is expected to make reasonable progress towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA,[68] the segment shall not be listed on the verified list. The Department shall document the basis for its decision, noting any proposed pollution control mechanisms and expected improvements in water quality that provide reasonable assurance that the water segment will attain applicable water quality standards. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New It is beyond reasonable debate that, pursuant to Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, before the Department may include impaired waters on the "updated list" of waters for TMDLs will be calculated, it must evaluate whether "technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs" are sufficient for water quality standards in these waters to be attained in the future. (To construe the statute as requiring the Department to simply look back, and not forward into the future, in conducting its mandated evaluation of "pollution control programs" would render meaningless the language in the statute directing the Department to conduct such an evaluation after having determined that these waters are impaired.69 As Mr. Joyner testified at the final hearing in explaining what led Department staff "to conclude that [the Department] should be considering future achievement of water quality standards or future implementation of such [pollution control] programs": [I]t [Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes] basically requires two findings. It's impaired and these things won't fix the problem. If the "won't fix the problem" required it to be fixed right now in the present tense [to avoid listing], then it couldn't be impaired. So it would just be an illogical construction of having two requirements in the statute.) Proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, does not specify when "in the future" water quality attainment resulting from an existing or proposed "pollution control program" must be expected to occur in order for a presently impaired water to not be listed; but neither does Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, provide such specificity. Indeed, the statute's silence on the matter was the very reason that Department staff did "not set a time frame for [expected] compliance with water quality standards." Rather than "set[ting] such a time frame," Department staff took other measures "to address the open nature of the statute" and limit the discretion the Legislature granted the Department to exclude presently impaired waters from the "updated list" based upon there being pollution control programs sufficient to result in these waters attaining water quality standards in the future "for the pollutant of concern." They included language in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, and in proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, requiring that the Department, before exercising such discretion to exclude a presently impaired water from the "updated list," have "reasonable assurance" that water quality standards will be attained and that "reasonable progress" will be made in attaining these standards within a specified time frame, to wit: "by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA." "Reasonable assurance" is a term that has a "long history" of use by the Department in various programs,70 including its wastewater permitting program.71 Neither sheer speculation that a pollution control program will result in future water quality attainment, nor mere promises to that effect, will be sufficient, under Subsection of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, and proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, to exclude an impaired water from the "updated list." The Department will need to examine and analyze the specific characteristics of each impaired water, as well as the particular pollution control program in question, including its record of success and/or failure, if any, before determining (through the use of its "best professional judgment") whether there is the "reasonable assurance" required by these proposed rule provisions. How much time it will take for an impaired water to attain water quality standards will depend on various water- specific factors, including the size of the water body, the size of the watershed, and whether there are pollutants stored in the sediment. The particular circumstances of each case, therefore, will dictate what constitutes "reasonable progress72 towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA," within the meaning of Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, and proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code. Because of the case-specific factors involved in determining "reasonable assurance" and "reasonable progress," it was not practicable for Department staff to specify in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, and in proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, exactly what would be needed to be shown in each case to establish "reasonable assurance" and "reasonable progress." At the April 26, 2001, rule adoption hearing, Department staff proposed an amendment to proposed Rule 62- 303.600, Florida Administrative, to make the proposed rule more specific by adding "a list of elements that needed to be addressed to provide reasonable assurance" and defining "reasonable progress." The amendment, which was opposed by the DACS and regulated interests, was withdrawn before being considered by the ERC because Department staff felt that is was not "quite well thought out enough," particularly insofar as it addressed the concept of "reasonable progress." Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.700, Florida Administrative Code As noted above, proposed Rule 62-303.700, Florida Administrative Code, describes the first two phases of the "basin management cycle" and the TMDL-related events that will occur during these phases. It reads as follows: Listing Cycle The Department shall, to the extent practical, develop basin-specific verified lists of impaired waters as part of its watershed management approach, which rotates through the State's surface water basins on a five year cycle. At the end of the first phase of the cycle, which is designed to develop a preliminary assessment of the basin, the Department shall update the planning list for the basin and shall include the planning list in the status report for the basin, which will be noticed to interested parties in the basin. If the specific pollutant causing the impairment in a particular water segment is not known at the time the planning list is prepared, the list shall provide the basis for including the water segment on the planning list. In these cases, the pollutant and concentration causing the impairment shall be identified before the water segment is included on the verified list to be adopted by Secretarial Order. During the second phase of the cycle, which is designed to collect additional data on waters in the basin, interested parties shall be provided the opportunity to work with the Department to collect additional water quality data. Alternatively, interested parties may develop proposed water pollution control mechanisms that may affect the final verified list adopted by the Secretary at the end of the second phase. To ensure that data or information will be considered in the preliminary basin assessment, it must be submitted to the Department or entered into STORET or, if applicable, the DoH database no later than September 30 during the year of the assessment. Within a year of the effective date of this rule, the Department shall also prepare a planning list for the entire state. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The preference expressed in proposed Rule 62-300.700, Florida Administrative Code, for verified lists to be developed on a "basin-specific" basis "as part of the Department's watershed management approach" is consistent with the directive in the first sentence of Subsection (3)(a) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that the Department conduct its TMDL assessment for the “basin in which the water body . . . is located.” Proposed Rule 62-300.700, Florida Administrative Code, carries out the mandate in the second sentence of Subsection (3)(a) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that, in conducting its TMDL assessment, the Department "coordinate" with "interested parties." Furthermore, the proposed rule makes clear that parties outside the Department will have the opportunity "work with the Department to collect additional water quality data" needed to meet data sufficiency requirements. Identifying the "pollutant and concentration causing the impairment" before including a water on the "verified list," as proposed Rule 62-303.700, Florida Administrative Code, requires be done, is something the Department will need to do to comply with the directive contained in the third sentence of Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code, addresses the "[f]ormat of [v]erified [l]ist and [v]erified [l]ist [a]pproval." It reads as follows: The Department shall follow the methodology established in this chapter to develop basin-specific verified lists of impaired water segments. The verified list shall specify the pollutant or pollutants causing the impairment and the concentration of the pollutant(s) causing the impairment. If the water segment is listed based on water quality criteria exceedances, then the verified list shall provide the applicable criteria. However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met, the list shall specify the concentration of the pollutant relative to the water quality criteria and explain why the numerical criterion is not adequate. For waters with exceedances of the dissolved oxygen criteria, the Department shall identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list both the pollutant and dissolved oxygen on the verified list. For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department shall identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting nutrients, and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the verified list. The verified list shall also include the priority and the schedule for TMDL development established for the water segment, as required by federal regulations. The verified list shall also note any waters that are being removed from the current planning list and any previous verified list for the basin. The verified basin-specific 303(d) list shall be approved by order of the Secretary. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The second and fourth sentences of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code, track the requirements of the third sentence of Subsection (4) and the first and second sentences of Subsection (3)(c), respectively, of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, as a practical matter, a TMDL cannot be developed if the culprit pollutant is not able to be identified. Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code, was included in the proposed rule because, in most instances, the Department does not consider dissolved oxygen to be a pollutant. The pollutants most frequently associated with exceedances of the dissolved oxygen criteria are nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorous). It is essential to identify the "limiting nutrient," as Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code, requires the Department to do, inasmuch as the "limiting nutrient" is the particular pollutant for which a TMDL will be developed. Part IV: Overview Part IV of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Miscellaneous Provisions." It includes two proposed rules, proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, and proposed Rule 62-303.810, Florida Administrative Code. Part IV: Proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, describes how waters may be removed from the "planning list" and the "verified list." The proposed rule, which is entitled, "Delisting Procedures," cites Sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as its "[s]pecific [a]uthority" and Sections 403.062 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as the "[l]aw [i]mplemented" by the proposed rule. Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, addresses the removal of waters from the "planning list." It reads as follows: Waters on planning lists developed under this Chapter that are verified to not be impaired during development of the verified list shall be removed from the State's planning list. Once a water segment is verified to not be impaired pursuant to Part III of this chapter, the data used to place the water on the planning list shall not be the sole basis for listing that water segment on future planning lists. The "removal" provisions of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, will apply to all waters on the planning list "that are verified to not be impaired during development of the verified list," including those waters that had been placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, by virtue of their having been on the state's 1998 303(d) list. Waters removed from the "planning list" pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, will be eligible to reappear on "future planning lists," but not based exclusively on "the data used to [initially] place the water on the planning list." Additional data will be needed. Subsections (2) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, address the removal of waters from the "verified list." They read as follows: Water segments shall be removed from the State's verified list only after completion of a TMDL for all pollutants causing impairment of the segment or upon demonstration that the water meets the water quality standard that was previously established as not being met. For waters listed due to failure to meet aquatic life use support based on water quality criteria exceedances or due to threats to human health based on exceedances of single sample water quality criteria, the water shall be delisted when: the number of exceedances of an applicable water quality criterion due to pollutant discharges is less than or equal to the number listed in Table 3 for the given sample size, with a minimum sample size of 30. This table provides the number of exceedances that indicate a maximum of a 10% exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90% confidence level using a binomial distribution, or following implementation of pollution control activities that are expected to be sufficient to result in attainment of applicable water quality standards, evaluation of new data indicates the water no longer meets the criteria for listing established in section 62-303.420, or following demonstration that the water was inappropriately listed due to flaws in the original analysis, evaluation of available data indicates the water does not meet the criteria for listing established in section 62-303.420. New data evaluated under rule 62- 303.720(2)(a)1. must meet the following requirements: they must include samples collected during similar conditions (same seasons and general flow conditions) that the data previously used to determine impairment were collected with no more than 50% of the samples collected in any one quarter, the sample size must be a minimum of 30 samples, and the data must meet the requirements of paragraphs 62-303.320(4), (6) and (7). For waters listed due to failure to meet aquatic life use support based on biology data, the water shall be delisted when the segment passes two independent follow-up bioassessments and there have been no failed bioassessments for at least one year. The follow-up tests must meet the following requirements: For streams, the new data may be two BioRecons or any combination of BioRecons and SCIs. The bioassessments must be conducted during similar conditions (same seasons and general flow conditions) under which the previous bioassessments used to determine impairment were collected. The data must meet the requirements of Section 62-303.330(1) and (2), F.A.C. For waters listed due to failure to meet aquatic life use support based on toxicity data, the water shall be delisted when the segment passes two independent follow-up toxicity tests and there have been no failed toxicity tests for at least one year. The follow-up tests must meet the following requirements: The tests must be conducted using the same test protocols and during similar conditions (same seasons and general flow conditions) under which the previous test used to determine impairment were collected. The data must meet the requirements of rules 62-303.340(1), and the time requirements of rules 62-303.340(2) or (3). For waters listed due to fish consumption advisories, the water shall be delisted following the lifting of the advisory or when data complying with rule 62-303.470(1)(a) and (b) demonstrate that the continuation of the advisory is no longer appropriate. For waters listed due to changes in shellfish bed management classification, the water shall be delisted upon reclassification of the shellfish harvesting area to its original or higher harvesting classification. Reclassification of a water from prohibited to unclassified does not constitute a higher classification. For waters listed due to bathing area closure or advisory data, the water shall be delisted if the bathing area does not meet the listing thresholds in rule 62-303.360(1) for five consecutive years. For waters listed based on impacts to potable water supplies, the water shall be delisted when applicable water quality criteria are met as defined in rule 62- 303.380(1)(a) and when the causes resulting in higher treatment costs have been ameliorated. For waters listed based on exceedance of a human health-based annual average criterion, the water shall be delisted when the annual average concentration is less than the criterion for three consecutive years. For waters listed based on nutrient impairment, the water shall be delisted if it does not meet the listing thresholds in rule 62-303.450 for three consecutive years. For any listed water, the water shall be delisted if following a change in approved analytical procedures, criteria, or water quality standards, evaluation of available data indicates the water no longer meets the applicable criteria for listing. Table 2: Delisting Maximum number of measured exceedances allowable to DELIST with at least 90% confidence that the actual exceedance rate is less than or equal to ten percent. Sample Sizes From To Maximum # of exceedances allowable for delisting 30 37 0 38 51 1 52 64 2 65 77 3 78 90 4 91 103 5 104 115 6 116 127 7 128 139 8 140 151 9 152 163 10 164 174 11 175 186 12 187 198 13 199 209 14 210 221 15 222 232 16 233 244 17 245 255 18 256 266 19 267 278 20 279 289 21 290 300 22 301 311 23 312 323 24 324 334 25 335 345 26 346 356 27 357 367 28 368 378 29 379 389 30 390 401 31 402 412 32 413 423 33 424 434 34 435 445 35 446 456 36 457 467 37 468 478 38 479 489 39 490 500 40 Any delisting of waters from the verified list shall be approved by order of the Secretary at such time as the requirements of this section are met. Subsection (2)(a)1. of proposed rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a statistical methodology appropriate for "delisting" waters that have been listed as impaired based upon {e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife- [b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria." This "delisting" methodology" is the "equivalent" (as that term is used in Subsection (5) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes) of the statistical methodology that will be used, pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, to verify impairment based upon such exceedances. Both methodologies are based on the binomial model and use an "exceedance frequency" threshold of ten percent with a minimum confidence level of 90 percent. A greater minimum sample size is required under Subsection (2)(a)1. of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, because the Department will need, thereunder, "to have at least 90 percent confidence that the actual exceedance rate is less than ten percent" "as opposed to greater than ten percent, which is a bigger range." The "calculations [reflected in the table, Table 3, which is a part of Subsection (2)(a)1. of proposed Rule 62- 303.720, Florida Administrative Code] are correct." There is nothing unreasonable about the "delisting" criteria set forth in Subsections (2)(c) and (2)(j) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code. Subsection (2)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably requires the Department, where waters have been "listed due to failure to meet aquatic life use support based on toxicity data" (in the form of two failed toxicity tests conducted "two weeks apart over a twelve month period"), to "delist" these waters if the Department has more recent "equivalent [toxicity] data" (in the form of two passed "follow-up toxicity tests," with no failed tests for at least twelve months) showing that the waters are not toxic. Subsection (2)(j) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably requires the Department to "delist" a water "following a change in approved analytical procedures" only where the change calls into question the validity and accuracy of the data that was relied upon to make the original listing determination and there is other data demonstrating that the water meets water quality standards. Code Part IV: Proposed Rule 62-303.810, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.810, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Impairment of Interstate and Tribal Waters." It reads as follows: The Department shall work with Alabama, Georgia, and federally recognized Indian Tribes in Florida to share information about their assessment methodology and share water quality data for waters that form state boundaries or flow into Florida. In cases where assessments are different for the same water body, the Department shall, to the extent practical, work with the appropriate state, Indian Tribe and EPA to determine why the assessments were different. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent Gate Petroleum Company (Gate) has provided reasonable assurances that Water Quality Standards will not be violated by the proposed modification of Gate's dredge and fill permit No. 160462149 and whether Gate has provided reasonable assurances that the proposed modification of that permit will not be contrary to the public interest, nor be the occasion of adverse cumulative impacts to water quality or public interest considerations so as to make this project contrary to the public interest.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Gate Petroleum Company, by and through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Gate Maritime Properties, Inc., proposes to construct a ship- berthing facility for two ships adjacent to Blount Island Channel, along the southeastern portion of Blount Island, in the St. Johns River, in Duval County, Florida. The proposed facility would provide for the berthing of two ships of the United States Navy Military Sea-Lift Command in conjunction with the mission of the Navy's Rapid Deployment Force. The proposed facility would be located along the southeasterly portion of "Cut A" of the Blount Island Channel and will consist of a "T-head Pier", a breasting dolphin and cat walk and two mooring dolphins. The pier would be connected to the land by an approach trestle. The facility involved will be constructed by the insertion of concrete pilings into the bottom of the Blount Island Channel and in the adjacent upland, which would support concrete decks and caps. Removal of dredged material will be necessary to accomplish the project and will be performed by a floating hydraulic dredge with associated "Cutter Head." The resulting dredged material would be disposed of in a diked spoil area on either Blount Island or at the Dayson Spoil Site adjacent to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. The Respondent Gate currently holds a DER dredge and fill permit, No. 160462149, authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged spoil and the installation of an associated 5,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead. The proposed installation of the pier and mooring facilities would result in a modification of that permit so that approximately 1,000 feet of shoreline bulkhead and most of the related dredging will be unnecessary and not performed. Instead, approximately 7,100 cubic yards of dredging would be necessary, without the necessity for bulkheading. The remaining shoreline bulkhead and dredging authorized under the above permit would be rendered unnecessary and replaced by the addition of two additional T-head piers and associated dredging at some indefinite time in the future. The additional piers and dredging are not involved in this permit modification application and are not before the Hearing Officer at this time. The Blount Island Channel of the St. Johns River, the St. Johns River and Clapboard Creek are classified as Class III surface waters of the state pursuant to Sections 17-3.081 and 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code. It has been established by stipulation of the parties that the proposed modification of the dredge and fill permit will not adversely affect navigation nor the flow of water in the Class III state waters involved. It is also stipulated that the proposed modification will not adversely affect historical and archaeological resources pursuant to Section 267.061, Florida Statutes. It is stipulated as well that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson spoil site will not violate water quality standards at the point of discharge in the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. On March 22, 1989, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation issued its intent to approve the proposed permit modification so as to allow the elimination of the previous requirement in the permit to monitor for copper at the site of the effluent discharge; the relocation of the Blount Island spoil site effluent discharge and the construction of a T-head pier on the southeast side of Blount Island adjacent to the Blount Island Channel. The Department did not initially grant the request to relocate the Dayson spoil site effluent discharge from the Corps of Engineer Channel (Dames Point Cut) to the mouth of Clapboard Creek. On January 31, 1986, Gate was issued permit No. 160462149, pursuant to Chapters 403 and 253, Florida Statutes, with an expiration date of January 31, 1991. It authorizes the dredging and filling on and adjacent to Blount Island referenced above. The permit authorizes those operations in two phases, consisting of new dredging of approximately 300,000 cubic yards in the existing slipway and test area to obtain a project depth of 40.2 feet mean low water. Maintenance dredging was authorized in the amount of approximately 1,850,000 cubic yards in the slipway to maintain the above-noted project depth. New dredging of no more than 3 million cubic yards from the northeastern and southern margins of Blount Island to a depth of 38 feet mean low water (MLW) and 20 feet MLW on the northeastern and southern portions of Blount Island respectively, with attendant maintenance dredging, was authorized. The permit also allowed he construction of shoreline bulkheads along the eastern and southern margins of Blount Island. That 1986 permit also required disposal of dredged material from both phases of the project into diked areas on Blount Island and the existing diked off-site disposal area known as the Dayson Site, near the mouth of Clapboard Creek. Effluent from both sites was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut. Effluent from the Dayson site was to be discharged to the Fulton-Dames Point Cut or routed by pipeline to the Blount Island disposal site for additional treatment prior to discharge. All dredging under the 1986 permit was to be done via a suction, cutter-head dredge apparatus, with the speed of the cutter-head to be controlled so as to prevent excessive turbidity; and with all dredged material to be placed in diked areas, with the effluent discharge being conducted over adjustable weirs. The dredging of the approximately 7,100 cubic yards of material associated with the modification application at issue will be performed with the same type of equipment. Both spoil disposal sites have sufficient capacity for disposal of the material involved with the construction of the T-head pier. The effluent or "de-watering water" generated from the disposal of the dredged material at the Dayson on site will be discharged through a pipe under the St. Johns River to a point near the confluence of the Dames Point Cut and the Old River Channel. That material will consist of approximately 10 percent dredged solid material and 90 percent water. The Dayson disposal site is surrounded by dikes 24 feet high and 120 feet wide at their base. They are so constructed that there will be no discharge of effluent from the Dayson disposal site to Clapboard Creek. Since 1974, over four and one-half million cubic yards of material have been disposed of at the Days on site without any violation of state water quality standards in the creek or the adjacent salt marsh. The entire 7,100 cubic yards of dredged material, together with related water could be placed in the Dayson disposal site without causing any discharge. Gate Maritime Properties, Inc. has a five-year lease agreement with Leadermar, Inc. which will operate the T-head pier as a berthing facility for the two ships. The lease was scheduled to commence July 22, 1989. Under the terms of the contract awarded by the Navy to Leadermar, Inc., Gate, or its lessee, is required to maintain a 110 foot, safe working area surrounding the vessels for operation of tugs, lighterage vessels and fendering operations. The contract with the Navy does not require, however, that the safe working area be maintained at a depth of minus 32 feet "mean lower low water" as shown by Gate Exhibit 6 in evidence. 1/ Given the findings made infra., concerning the lack of adverse water quality or public interest impacts caused by the dredging, and the paucity of any attendant suspension of bottom materials in the operation of the ships to be berthed at the proposed facility, the issue of whether the contract with the Navy requires a depth of minus 32 feet "mean low water" or "mean low low water", a reputed difference of 1.03 inches according to the rebuttal exhibit of Respondent Gate, neither Gate's position nor the Navy's reputed position regarding this apparent contractual dispute item, if carried out, would have any adverse water quality or public interest impact in the context referenced in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. The fact remains that Gate has applied for authority to recede from the massive dredging project presently authorized in the existing permit, to stipulate by this modification application that it only seeks to dredge 7,100 cubic yards of material in the area involved. Based upon the depth established by the marine survey conducted by Bennett, Wattels and Associates, there will be an adequate safe working area for tug boats, fuel barges and lighterage vessels, as well as the ships themselves, for operations involving the berthing facilities. See Gate Exhibit 5 in evidence. If the requested modification is granted, Gate will not dredge more than 7,100 cubic yards of material for construction of the pier and related facilities and in order to provide a safe working area as required under Leadermars contract with the Navy. Indeed the amount of material to be dredged for the construction and operation of the T-head pier was based upon the above- referenced Marine survey, unrefuted evidence in this record. The volume of material was calculated by using the Marine Survey depths and the "average end area method," a widely accepted method of such calculation in the marine engineering and construction field. Further, Gate adduced the only substantial evidence in this record concerning the issue of the amount of dredging involved or the extent of the dredged area, as that relates to the "safe working area" and other issues. Water Quality Gates' consulting experts performed various chemical and sediment analyses in the project area in order to establish a general composition of bottom sediments and to establish the likelihood of suspension of any toxic substances or pollutants in those sediments as a result of the dredging operation or the operation of the ships and berthing facilities. Those analyses, and their results, in evidence in this record, were unrefuted. The bottom sediments in the vicinity of the project area are predominantly fine sand with small fractions of silt. In general, the dredged material is most likely to be free from chemical or biological pollutants where it is composed of sand, gravel or other naturally occurring inert materials, as opposed to large percentages of organic materials, which were not shown to exist in the vicinity of the project site. Based upon the characteristics of the bottom sediments in the project area, there will be no re-entrainment of toxins or pollutants which night presently be sequestered in the sediments due to construction, dredging operations or the operations of the berthing facility and ships involved. An elutriate test was performed to predict the effect on water quality from temporary suspension of the bottom sediments during the dredging operation itself. Elutriate testing is a widely recognized, conservative estimate of contaminant releases, caused by dredging, into a water column. The parameters tested for are those specified in the Department's rules for Class III waters and include cyanide, mercury, silver cadmium, selenium, barium, beryllium, nitrogen, (unionized NH3, NO2, total TKN), fluoride, copper, iron, nickel, zinc, aluminum, pesticides, herbicides and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). The elutriate test results did not reveal any excess ion of any of these parameters in terms of the state water quality standards or as to prevailing natural background levels. There are no PCBs, hydrocarbons, heavy metals or pesticides shown to be sequestered in the bottom sediments of the Blount Island Channel in the vicinity of the proposed project. The chemical analyses was performed on composite elutriate samples of sediments which came from the area of the T- head pier location and the area north of the pier, where the propellers of the ships will be located and operated during test trials, after the ships are berthed at the site. Site specific chemical analyses and core borings were taken and compared with historical data or studies for these sites and found to be consistent with them. There is no likelihood of sequestered contaminants in the bottom sediments which would be released, with deleterious effect on water quality, as a result of the action of the dredge equipment or the operation of the ships after the facility is installed. Cutter-head, hydraulic pipeline dredges are not significant generators of turbidity. They are an efficient means of performing dredging and are designed to loosen and remove material from the bottom substrate, without disturbing or redistributing the dredged material around the dredge apparatus in the water column. The use of the hydraulic pipeline dredge will result in minimal water quality disturbance and any dredge-induced turbidity will be of a transitory, short-term nature. It would be localized in the immediate vicinity of the dredge's cutterhead in any event. Ambient water quality conditions can be expected to return to normal background levels in a matter of hours following cessation of the dredging activity. It is estimated by Gate's consultant witnesses that the dredging activity might be accomplished in approximately one day. It has thus been established that the relevant stage water quality standards will not be violated by the action of the dredging equipment and the dredging operation itself. Water Quality Impacts of Facility Operation The two ships of the military sealift command which are to be berthed at the proposed T-head pier are 948 feet in length and approximately 105 feet in beam. They are equipped with two main engines and two propellers. The propellers are 22 feet, 11 and 9/16 inches in diameter. The ships will be in what is known as "reserved operating status". The ships will go through a dry- docking procedure at a local shipyard approximately every two years for major overhauls, repairs and painting. Such maintenance work will not be performed at the project site. The ships will, however, undergo periodic "dock trials" while berthed at the facility. The dock trials will be conducted on a quarterly basis if the vessels have not been out on a mission in that quarter of the year. The dock trial procedure calls for the main propulsion powerplants of the ships to be put into operation and evaluated. Both main engines are tested under this procedure for approximately one hour, at ten revolutions per minute (rpm) ahead and astern. The tests are to be conducted by civilian personnel retained by the Navy or its contractor, with all appropriate safety precaution being taken. These include, but are not limited to, the manning of the bridge during tests by a master or chief mate and by rotating one engine ahead simultaneously with the other engine being rotated astern. The ships are also equipped with onboard, internal sewage treatment plants so as to prevent the discharge of pollutants to state waters. Only routine maintenance or repair work will be performed on the ships at the lay birth facility. The ships will be refueled at the facility from time to time with "bunker c" or diesel fuel brought in by barges. The barges will be conveyed by tugboats of no more than 16 feet draft. The fueling operation will be governed by the U.S. Coast Guard regulations and are performed by Coast Guard certified and licensed personnel. Dr. Neal Boehnke was accepted as an expert in the field of chemical analysis of water and testified on behalf of the Petitioner. In his opinion, water quality in the facility of the proposed project is poor and may contain elevated hydrocarbon levels. His opinions, however, are based upon 1982 and 1983 reports of sampling results allegedly obtained by the City of Jacksonville Bioenvironmental Services Division and the DER, as well as the study entitled "Survey of Hydrocarbons and the Lower St. Johns River in Jacksonville." These documents were not introduced into evidence. While it is true that an expert may base his opinion on facts and data made known to him in the normal course of his practice at or before trial and that those facts or data may be relied upon by him in formulating his opinions, it must be demonstrated that those facts and data are "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinions expressed." See Section 90.704, Florida Statutes. In this proceeding, it was not established by competent evidence or testimony at hearing that the facts or data derived from these documents were of such a type as to be encompassed by this statutory section and thus they cannot serve as a legitimate basis for Dr. Boehnke's opinion. They otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay, not sufficient to support a finding of fact on the water quality impacts from the proposed project and they do not constitute corroborative or explanatory hearsay related to any accepted, competent, substantial evidence in this record for purposes of the hearsay admissibility provision in Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. Therefore, Dr. Loehnke's opinion concerning alleged elevated levels of hydrocarbons in the water at the project site is not credited and is rejected. Dr. Allan Niedororda was accepted as an expert in the fields of oceanography, hydrology and hydrologic assessment. He conducted a study on the potential impact to water quality in the Blount Island Channel which might result from the dock trials to be carried out as a part of the routine maintenance and testing of the ships. His study evaluated the degree to which the propeller wash from the dock trials might entrain and transport bottom sediments, any related pollutants and the effect of this entrainment on water quality in the surrounding water column. His study consisted of field sampling and measurements of currents in the area, laboratory analysis and related data analysis. Bottom sediment samples from the project area were analyzed for particle size and grain size distribution according to standard, scientifically accepted procedures. The bottom sediments in the area of the project site are characterized by a sandy sediment of a fine to medium particle size characteristic. The bottom sediments largely consist of clean sand and small gravels, with some silt composition. The propeller wash which will be generated by the testing of the ships engines was computed to have a speed of approximately one half foot per second. Maximum speed will occur about three propeller diameters behind the plane of the propeller itself or about 72 feet behind the propellers. The bottom tip of the propeller with which the ships are equipped will be six feet off the bottom of the channel at low tide. At the point the propeller wash contacts the bottom, its speed will be approximately two tenths of a foot per second. Such a velocity will not be of sufficient force to produce such sheer stress on the bottom sediments as to entrain them or, that is, to displace them upward into the water column. Dr. Niedororda established that, even if the propeller wash is added to the natural velocity of the water currents at the project site, there would be no entrainment of the bottom sediments which he sampled in the project area. It has also been established that the routine, minor maintenance of the ships and dockage facilities involved in the permit application and the fueling and other operations associated with the berthing, testing, entry and egress of the ships from the proposed berthing facility will occasion no water quality violations, so long as appropriate Coast Guard regulations attendant to fueling and the prevention of the deposition of refuse and other wastes into the waters involved are observed. Any grant of the proposed permit modifications should be conditioned upon the strict observance of those regulations and procedures, especially with regard to the potential for spillage during fueling operations. Public Interest Standards Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes provides that a permit may not be issued unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurances that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In determining whether this is the case, the Department must consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health safety or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of Section 267.061; The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. It has been established by stipulation that the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water and that the project will not adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resources. Unrefuted evidence adduced by Gate and the Department have established that the project will not adversely affect the public, health, safety, welfare or the property of others, if the project is constructed, installed and operated as proposed in the modification application and as proved in this case. The conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats, as well as fishing and recreational values and marine productivity in the project area will not be adversely affected. No harmful erosion or shoaling will be caused by the installation or operation of the project facility. In this connection, Dr. A. Quinton White, a member of the Board of Directors of the Petitioner, C.E.S., acknowledged in his testimony that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program proposed to be inaugurated by Gate will adequately protect any Manatees frequenting the area. Manatees are an endangered species, but it has been established that the permit modification proposed, if installed and operated, will not adversely affect the conservation of Manatees or their habitat. The Petitioner adduced no evidence on this issue or any of the public interest criteria enumerated above. The area at the project site is characterized by fairly firm consolidated bottom substrata, characterized by very few submerged grasses. Due to the sandy, hard bottom in the project vicinity, there is a paucity of marine grass upon which Manatee could feed. Consequently, Manatees do not and are not likely to frequent the area involved at the project site as that might reflect on the likelihood of their injury or destruction due to operation of the ships and any attendant vessels. Dr. Niedoroda established that the project and the attendant operations of the ships will not cause harmful erosion or shoaling and witness Gary Tourtellotte, testifying for Gate, established that the effects of the construction and operation of the T-head pier on the benthic community and marine productivity in the vicinity of the project will not induce any adverse effect on those elements of the public interest standards involved. The Petitioner offered no credible or credited evidence of equivalent value which could contradict the evidence adduced by Gate on this aspect of the public interest standards. It is true that dredging of the bottom substrata will temporarily eliminate the benthic community within the dredged area itself. It was established by expert testimony, however, that the benthic community will rapidly re-colonize itself with similar organisms to a naturally occurring degree within approximately 6-12 months. The benthic community in the project vicinity is of a low density nature, with a low diversity of organisms. Those organisms occurring in the project site area are estuarine, marine benthic species commonly associated with sandy or silty bottom substrates. Because the area to be dredged is quite small or approximately .25 acres, and the dredging operations will be of short duration, approximately one day, the dredging operations will not have a significant adverse effect on the benthic communities occurring in the project area or in the adjacent St. Johns River. The dredging associated with the project will likewise not have a significant long-term adverse impact on fisheries resources or marine productivity of the Blount Island Channel or the St. Johns River. This is because the area to be dredged is minimal in size and does not contain critical marine benthic habitat. The turbidity generated will be minimal because the sediments are predominantly coarse sands and gravels. Because of this, any turbidity occasioned by the installation and operation of the proposed facility will be very brief and not of a sufficient significance as to violate water quality standards. In view of the hydrologic analysis in evidence concerning propeller wash effects, the bottom sediments at the ship mooring area will not be entrained or suspended in the water column to any significant degree due to propeller operation of the ships. Thus the benthic community in the mooring area for the ships will not be disturbed due to currents created by the operation of the propellers. In a similar vein, it has been shown that the dredging and operation of the T-head pier and mooring facilities, including the attendant conduct of periodic dock trials and the entry and egress of the ships will not violate the water quality criteria for biological integrity. Indeed, the periodic dock trials are shown to have no impact on the benthic community, the fisheries or marine habitat involved at the project site. It was neither shown that the dredging associated with the construction of the pier and berthing facilities will have any adverse impact on fin fish or shellfish in the project area. It has been established that the project will be of a permanent nature, but it has not been established that the current condition and relative value of the functions being performed by the areas affected by the proposed activity in terms of their functions as productive marine habitat, as furnishing fishing or recreational values and the like, will be adversely affected by the proposed project and attendant activity. Deletion of Copper Monitoring Requirement The 1986 permit authorizing the removal of approximately 3.4 million yards of dredged material with attendant extensive bulkheading in the Blount Island Channel requires also that Gate Monitor for copper every two weeks during discharges at the downstream boundary of the mixing zone for each point of a effluent discharge. Effluent from both the Blount Island and Dayson Disposal Sites is discharged into the Fulton Dames Point Cut. The Petitioner has stipulated that the discharge of effluent from the Dayson Spoils Site will not violate any water quality standard at that discharge point. Elutriate testing and other analyses submitted in support of the permit modification request to delete the copper monitoring requirement in the present permit have shown that there will be no violation of water quality standards as to copper, or any of the other water quality parameters involved due to any re-suspenions of bottom sediment during dredging. There will be no violation of water quality standards for copper, caused by the deposition of spoil, consisting of those bottom sediments, and the draining of effluent from the spoils site into the Dames Point Cut. The Department has independently verified the data submitted by Gate as a result of this testing and it has been established that there is no occurrence of any man induced pollutants in the sediments at the project site which will be deposited in the spoil site, (from which the effluent will be disposed of in the Dames Point Cut) which represents any elevation over natural background levels. The sediments to be dredged from the berthing area are not distinguishable from naturally occurring sediments and the copper values in the sediments to be dredged are no higher than those naturally occurring throughout the area. Thus there will be no adverse impact on the water quality occasioned by discharge of the effluent from the spoil site to the Dames Point Cut area due to copper occurring in the sediments or as to any of the other pollutants enumerated above. Thus, there has been no demonstrated necessity to continue monitoring the effluent from the spoil site for copper. In this regard, the Petitioner presented no evidence at hearing concerning the issue of whether copper monitoring should be continued or not. Cumulative Impact Blount Island was created in the 1950's and 1960's by the filling of its area with spoil material during the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers' construction of the Fulton-Dames Point Cut-Off Channel. Since that time, port facilities and an industrial complex have been constructed on Blount Island. It is one of the principle port facilities for the City of Jacksonville. Under the 1982 DER dredge and fill permit issued to Off-Shore Power Systems, and later transferred to Gate in 1986, the developed area of the island adjacent to the original St. Johns River Channel (the Blount Island Channel) was required to be bulk-headed and the channel dredged to -38 feet MLW. The amount of material to be dredged in the old channel of the St. Johns River for construction of the vertical shoreline bulk head totalled approximately 3.4 cubic yards. The T-head pier involved in this modification proceeding, if constructed, would replace 1,000 linear feet of that shoreline bulkhead authorized by the present permit and would substantially reduce the amount or quantity of material to be dredged. Construction of the T-head pier, instead of the permitted shoreline bulkhead, will minimize dredging and the environmental impact of the facility. Gate has elected to rescind its plans to construct the shoreline bulkhead along the eastern shore of Blount Island, as authorized under the existing dredge and fill permit. Gate instead intends to seek future modification of its existing dredge and fill permit to substitute at least 2 additional T-head piers for all of the shoreline bulk head authorized for the eastern shore of Blount Island. The construction of the additional T-head piers will require substantially less dredging than is authorized under the existing permit. Instead of the 3.4 million cubic yards of dredged material authorized under the existing permit, associated with installation of the shoreline bulkhead, the amount of material to be dredged, if indeed 2 additional T-head piers were applied-for and constructed, would amount to only 269,000 estimated cubic yards, as opposed to the originally authorized 3.4 million. Kevin Pope, the DER witness, established that there are no other projects in the area, or reasonably expected to be located in the project area, which would create impacts in addition to or cumulative with the proposed permit modification project so as to create adverse water quality impacts or which would make this project, because of cumulative impact, contrary to the public interest. There are no other dredge and fill projects in the area of the proposed T-head pier which would adversely impact the waters of the Blount Island Channel and the St. Johns River. The proposed modifications are shown not to likely cause any adverse environmental results and, in fact, will result in an environmental benefit as represented by the agreed-upon recession from the extensive dredging and bulkheading authorized by the present permit. No evidence was adduced by the Petitioner to contravene that adduced by Gate and the Department, which establishes the lack of any adverse cumulative impacts to be occasioned by the proposed project, both as to water quality standards and the public interest standards involved in this proceeding.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation approving the proposed modification to permit number 160462149 with the proviso that the conditions contained in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law be incorporated as specific conditions in the modified permit, including the additional condition agreed to at Final Hearing that the Manatee Protection Plan and Manatee Watch Program will be inaugurated and be incorporated as a specific condition in the modified permit. DONE and ENTERED this 11th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 1989.
The Issue The issues in this matter concern Petitioner's requests of Respondent to be granted an after-the-fact dredge and fill permit related to the placement of fill. See Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent denied this request and this occasioned the formal hearing of February 10, 1984.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner placed a bulkhead waterward of the line of mean high water and the landward extent of the St. Johns River in Duval County, Florida, to improve his property. He then placed approximately 140 cubic yards of fill material in existing wetlands which were located landward of the bulkhead. This was done without obtaining an environmental permit from Respondent. Subsequently, Petitioner discovered that such permit was necessary and on April 28, 1983, he applied to the Department of Environmental Regulation for the issuance of an after-the-fact dredge and fill permit in keeping with the requirements of Chapters 253 and 403 Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. An on-site inspection was made by reviewing authorities within the Department of Environmental Regulation and, based upon an appraisal of the project, the Department issued a Notice of Intent to Deny the application. The date of the notice was August 15, 1983. A Final Order related to the environmental permit request was issued on August 29, 1983, conditioned upon failure of the Respondent to apply for an administrative hearing within 14 days of the date of that order. Petitioner filed a Request for Formal Hearing on August 31, 1983, and the formal hearing ensued. The placement of the bulkhead and fill material was approximately 15 feet waterward of the line of mean high water in the St. Johns River and 30 feet waterward of the landward extent of the St. Johns River according to the plant indices set forth in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. The St. Johns River is a Class III water body and is a navigable waterway over which the state retains possessory and public trust rights. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner has obtained permission from the State of Florida, Department of Natural Resources, related to property rights and utilization of the waters of the St. Johns River in the area of his project, he is not relieved from obtaining an environmental permit from Respondent. The Department of Environmental Regulation has jurisdiction over the construction of the bulkhead and the placement of the fill in the landward extent of St. Johns River, according to Chapters 253 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the associated rules of the Department. The landward extent of the waters of the St. Johns River was determined by the existence of smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), the dominant vegetation of the area filled by the Petitioner and a variety listed in Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, as an indicator species of the Department's jurisdiction. That vegetation was covered over by the fill material along the 100-foot wide front in which the fill was placed. The previous existence of smooth cordgrass was established by testimony of the Petitioner's son and the continuing existence of that species in a property adjacent to the Petitioner's land along the St. Johns. The effect of the placement of the fill landward of the bulkhead caused the removal of approximately 1,200 to 1,500 square feet of tidal marsh. That tidal marsh was a vital part in the maintenance of water quality in the St. Johns River. In effect, the vegetation and microbiopopulation in soils served to filter out and assimilate pollutants from upland runoff and from the water in the river, and with the placement of the fill those resources and protections were destroyed. Moreover, water quality standards within Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, were also adversely impacted with the installation of the fill, including those standards related to BOD, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and turbidity. Petitioner not only failed to give reasonable assurances that the placement of the fill in its short-term implication would not violate the aforementioned water quality criteria, he has also failed to give reasonable assurances that there will be no violations in the long-term results of the placement of fill. The destruction of the tidal marsh is detrimental to the ecological system in that it takes away detritus which is a necessary part of the food chain. Removal of the marshland is detrimental to the conservation of fish, marine and wildlife, and other natural resources. Petitioner has failed to affirmatively demonstrate that the quality of this detriment will not be contrary to the public interest. In fact, Respondent's presentation shows that the activity of the placement of fill is contrary to the public interest because of the adverse impacts on the natural resources of the area, in that natural marine habitats and grass flats suitable to nursery or feeding grounds for marine life were destroyed when the marshland was removed.
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (the District) should grant the application of the Misty Creek Country Club, Inc. (the Club), to modify MSSW Permit No. 400037.
Findings Of Fact Background Petitioners are owners of property adjacent to Lake No. 7 of the Misty Creek Country Club in a development called The Preserves at Misty Creek-- specifically, lot 113 (Robert and Lee Werner), lot 114 (Charles and Rosemary Biondolillo), lots 115 and 115A (Ignatius and Judith Bertola), lots 117 and 117A (Don and Halina Bogdanske), lots 118 and 118A (Louis and Betty Mitchell), lots 119 and 119A (George and Dorothy Holly), lots 120 and 120A (John and Maureen Higgins), and lot 121 (William and June Spence). Respondent, the Misty Creek Country Club (the Club), operates a golf course and country club located at The Preserves at Misty Creek under a 99-year lease with Gator Creek Lands, the developer of The Preserves at Misty Creek. Existing System Design and Application for Permit Modification In 1985, Respondent Southwest Florida Water Management District, issued a surface water management permit for development of a 730-acre residential development and golf course. The District subsequently issued to the Club operation phase authorization for the surface water management system associated with the golf course portion of the development in March of 1992. Under the original permit, Lake No. 7 was part of the overall stormwater management system for the golf course. The lake is approximately seven and half to eight acres in size and is part of a total drainage basin of approximately twenty-eight acres. As originally designed, Lake No. 7 is a detention with filtration system. An underdrain in the side of the bank provides water quality treatment, filtering out oils and greases, fertilizers and other contaminants. A control elevation of 31.02 was established for Lake No. 7 through construction of a weir. Between elevation 31.00 and 31.02, water discharges through the underdrain system providing water quality treatment. Above elevation 31.02, water flows over the control structure into Lake No. 6, and ultimately discharges to Cow Pen Slough, which is Class III waters of the state. The Club presently has a water use permit from the District which allows withdrawal of groundwater for irrigation of the golf course. Groundwater is stored in Lake No. 7 prior to use for irrigation when needed to augment water in the lake. Special Condition Number 2 of the water use permit required the Club to investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed or reuse water in lieu of groundwater for irrigation purposes at the golf course. As a result of the investigation required by Special Condition Number 2 of the water use permit, the Club filed an application with the District to modify its surface water management permit to allow for the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. Under that application, there would have been no significant modifications to the stormwater management system. Reuse water would have replaced groundwater as a source for augmenting water in the lake when needed for irrigation. An eight-inch service line would convey the reuse water to Lake 7, and a float valve would control the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. When water levels in the lake fell below elevation 30.5', the float valve would open the effluent line to allow introduction of reuse water into the lake; when the water elevation in the lake reached 31.0', the float valve would shut off the flow of water. There would be gate valves on either side of the structure that could be manually closed, if necessary, to stop the flow of reuse water into the lake if the float valve malfunctioned. Club personnel would have access to the gate valves and could manually stop the flow of reuse water into the lake if necessary. On August 9, 1995, just days prior to the final hearing in this matter, the Club proposed to modify its application to make certain structural changes in the design of the surface water management system. Specifically, the Club proposed to plug the window in the weir, raise the elevation of the weir or control structure to elevation 33.6, raise the elevation of the berm along the north end of Lake No. 7 adjacent to the weir to elevation 33.6, and plug the underdrain. The purpose of the proposed modifications to the design of the system was to assure that no discharge from Lake No. 7 would occur up to and including the 100-year storm event. A 100-year storm event is equal to 10 inches of rainfall in a 24-hour period. Source and Quality of Reuse Water The Club also entered into an agreement with Sarasota County to accept reuse water from the county's new Bee Ridge wastewater treatment facility. That agreement specifies the terms under which the Club will accept reuse water from the County. The County's Bee Ridge facility is presently under construction and is not yet operating. As permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection, the Bee Ridge wastewater treatment facility will use a Bardenpho waste treatment system which is a licensed process to provide advanced waste treatment. The construction permit establishes effluent limits for the facility that are comparable to a level of treatment known as advanced secondary treatment, but the County Commission for Sarasota County has instructed the County staff to operate the Bee Ridge facility as an advanced waste treatment plant. Advanced waste treatment is defined by the quality of the effluent produced. For advanced waste treatment, the effluent may not exceed 5 milligrams/Liter of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) or total suspended solids (TSS), 3 milligrams/Liter of total nitrogen, or 1 milligram/Liter of total phosphorus. It also requires high level disinfection. Advanced secondary treatment requires the same level of treatment for TSS but the limit for nitrates is 10 milligrams/Liter. High level disinfection is also required for advanced secondary treatment. In Florida, reuse systems require a minimum of advanced secondary treatment. High level disinfection is the level of treatment that generally is accepted as being a reasonable level of treatment. The Bee Ridge permit issued to Sarasota County identifies the Club as one of the recipients of reuse water for irrigation. Condition Number 21 of that permit provides that the use of golf course ponds to store reuse water is not authorized under the County's permit until issuance of a separate permit or modification of the County's permit. Although the District did not require Misty Creek to submit any information about the modification of the County's permit, there was no basis for assuming that the County permit could not be modified. To the contrary, the permit provides that authorization may be obtained by permit modification. Under the late modification to the Club's application, the reuse water transmission line and float valve system, with backup manual gate valve system, is unchanged. So are the water elevations at which the float valve system will automatically introduce reuse water into Lake 7 and shut off. Sarasota County already has constructed the water transmission system that would deliver reuse water to the Club. At the request of the District, the Club provided copies of the drawings of the float valve structure as permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection. The District did not require certified drawings of that structure. But the District will require the Club to provide as-built drawings following completion of construction prior to the introduction of reuse water into Lake No. 7. Property Ownership Each of the Petitioners owns a residential lot adjacent to Lake No. 7. At the time of the Petitioners' purchase of the individual residential lots, the Club leased certain property immediately west of Lake No. 7 from the developer of The Preserve at Misty Creek. The leased premises included a piece of land extending into the lake known as the 19th green. As a result of negotiations between the Club and the developer, it was determined that the 19th green would be removed and the land between the approximate top of bank of Lake No. 7 and the private residential lots would be released from the Club's lease. The developer subsequently conveyed the property that had been released from the Club's lease to the individual lot owners (the "A" parcels listed in Finding 1). At the time of the conveyance of the additional parcels, the attorney for the developer prepared deeds for each individual parcel with a metes and bounds description off the rear of the residential lots to which they were being added. While the Club's application for modification of its surface water management permit was being processed by the District, counsel for Petitioners provided the District with copies of the individual deeds and questioned whether the Club had ownership or control of the land which was the subject of the application sufficient to meet the District's permitting requirements. In response to a request for information regarding the ownership of the property that was the subject of the application, the Club submitted to the District a topographical survey prepared by Mr. Steven Burkholder, a registered professional land surveyor with AM Engineering. The topographical survey depicted: the elevation of the water in the Lake No. 7 on the day that the survey was conducted, labeled "approximate water's edge"; the elevation of the "top of bank"; and the easternmost line of private ownership by Petitioners. Mr. Burkholder determined the line of private property ownership by reproducing a boundary survey attached to the individual deeds conveying the additional parcels to the Petitioners. He testified that he was confident that the topographical survey he prepared accurately represented the most easterly boundary of the Petitioners' ownership. The elevation of the line of private ownership as depicted on the survey prepared by Mr. Burkholder ranges from a low of approximately 34.5 to 35.2. The elevation of the line labeled "top of bank" ranges from a high of 35.6 to a low of 34.4. The elevation of the water in Lake No. 7 would be controlled by the elevation of the modified control structure which is proposed to be set at elevation 33.6. After modification of the surface water management system to retain the 100-year storm event, at no time would water levels in the lake rise above the existing elevation of the "top of bank." The Petitioners testified that they believed that they owned to the water's edge or edge of the lake, but Mr. Burkholder testified that a property boundary could not be determined based on an elevation depicting the water's edge because that line would change as the level of the water rose and fell. The Petitioners also presented evidence that the developer's attorney made representations to them that their ownership extended to the "approximate high water line." But there appears to be no such thing as an "approximate high water line" in surveying terms. Where the boundary of a lake is depicted on a survey it generally is depicted from top of bank to top of bank. In any event, the legal descriptions of the parcels conveyed to the Petitioners were not based on a reference to either a water line or the water's edge or the lake at all. Instead, the legal descriptions were based solely on a metes and bounds description off the rear of the residential lots. Notwithstanding some contrary evidence, if the Petitioners owned to the water's edge, such ownership would require the Petitioners to consent to or join in the amended application for the modification of the Club's surface water management permit. Information regarding the ownership or control and the legal availability of the receiving water system is required as part of the contents of an application under Rule 40D-4.101(2)(d)6. and 7., Florida Administrative Code. The amended application requires the ability to "spread" Lake 7 in the direction of the Petitioners' property. If the Petitioners own the property on which the Club intends to "spread" Lake 7 in order to make the amended application work, the Petitioners must consent or join. The issue of the legal ownership and control of the Petitioners and the Club currently is in litigation in state circuit court. If the state circuit court determines that the easterly boundary of the "A" parcels lies to the east of the "top of bank," consideration would have to be given to modifying any permit issued to the Club to insure that the designed "spread" of Lake 7 in a storm event up to and including a 100-year storm event does not encroach on the Petitioners' property. District Permit Requirements The District has never before processed an application for a surface water management permit allowing commingling of storm water and reuse water. The District applied Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, in reviewing the Club's permit application. There are no specific provisions in Rule 40D-4 or the District's Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications that address the commingling of stormwater and reuse water; on the other hand, no rules of the District prohibit the introduction of other types of water into a stormwater treatment pond so long as the requirements of Rule 40D-4 are met. The District has the authority to allow stormwater and reuse water to be commingled. Section 40D-4.301, Florida Administrative Code, contains the conditions for issuance of a surface water management permit. Permitting Criteria In order to obtain a surface water management permit to commingle stormwater and reuse water in Lake 7, the Club must provide reasonable assurances that the proposed modifications to its existing system will provide adequate flood control and drainage; not cause adverse water quality and quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands; not result in a violation of surface water quality standards; not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows; not diminish the capability of the lake to fluctuate through the full range established for it in Chapter 40D-8, Florida Administrative Code; not cause adverse environmental impacts to wetlands, fish and wildlife or other natural resources; be effectively operated and maintained; not adversely affect public health and safety; be consistent with other public agency's requirements; not otherwise be harmful to water resources of the District; and not be against public policy. No surface or groundwater levels or flows have been set for this area of the District, so that permit criterion is not applicable to the Club's application. The Club's application will not impact wetlands or fish and wildlife associated with wetlands as described in F.A.C. Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f). There are no wetlands regulated by the District in the project site. The Club has submitted to the District an operation and maintenance plan for the modified surface water management system. The operation and maintenance plan is in compliance with the District's permitting criteria contained in Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g). The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project not adversely affect the public health and safety is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with this criterion. The permitting criterion that a project must be consistent with the requirements of other public agencies was met by inclusion in the permit of Special Conditions Nos. 5 and 6, Limiting Condition No. 3 and Standard Condition No. 3, which require that the surface water management permit be modified if necessary to comply with modifications imposed by other public agencies. The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project not otherwise be harmful to the water resources within the District is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with this criterion. The District's regulation with respect to the requirement that a project may not be against public policy is based on the specific requirements of Chapter 40D-4, Florida Administrative Code, and the Club has complied with that criterion. The project will not have an adverse impact on water quality or quantity in receiving waters or adjacent lands. Under the District's regulations, the project would not be permittable if it caused flooding on property owned by other persons. Two concerns regarding off-site flooding were raised by Petitioners: first, the potential for flooding of the Petitioners' property; and, second, the potential for flooding of secondary systems connecting to Lake No. 7 such as private roads in the development. The project would violate the requirements of Section 40D-4.301(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, which requires that a proposed project provide adequate flood protection and drainage, if raising the weir and berm elevation to 33.6 would cause the level of water in Lake No. 7 to move laterally up the bank and encroach on property owned by Petitioners. However, the Club has given reasonable assurances that the Petitioners own only to the "top of bank" and that raising the weir elevation to 33.6 would not cause water levels to rise above the "top of bank" of the lake. If it is determined in pending state circuit court proceedings that the Petitioners own beyond the "top of bank," any permit for the Club's project might have to be modified to avoid flooding the Petitioners' property. With respect to potential flooding of secondary systems, such as adjacent roadways, raising the elevation of water in Lake No. 7 would decrease the capacity of the storm sewers draining into the Lake. However, the proposed modifications would not increase the area of impervious surface in the drainage basin or decrease the size of the lake, and water levels in the roadways probably would not rise much higher than under present circumstances. The existing storm sewer system is only designed for a 10-year storm event, so the supplemental effect on roadway flooding from retaining a 100-year storm event in Lake No. 7 probably would be negligible. The Club gave reasonable assurances that any increase in water levels on the roadways from the proposed modifications would not be considered a significant adverse effect because it still would not affect public access. Sarasota County's land development regulations allow flooding in streets of up to 12 inches for a 100-year storm event, nine inches for a 25-year storm event, and six inches for a 10-year storm event. No portion of the proposed project area is within the 100-year floodplain. The project will not have an adverse effect on water quantity attenuation or cause flooding of the Petitioners' property or secondary systems, such as adjacent roadways. Petitioners have protested the effect that this project will have on water quality within Lake No. 7, itself. Surface water quality standards do not apply within a stormwater pond. Stormwater ponds are essentially pollution sinks intended to receive polluted runoff. Where there is no discharge from a pond, water quality treatment is irrelevant. Lake 7 is not a "water resource within the District" pursuant to Section 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code, and potential impact on water quality in Lake No. 7 should not be considered. Section 40D-4.301(1)(j) limits the issues to be considered by the District to downstream water quality, water quantity, floodplain impacts, and wetlands impacts. The commingling of wastewater effluent treated to a level of advanced secondary or advanced waste treatment (reuse water) would improve water quality within a stormwater treatment pond at least 90 to 95 percent of the time. Stormwater is very low quality compared to reuse water. In most respects, reuse water also will be better quality than the well water presently being used to augment the pond. It is expected to be better quality than unimpacted water in the receiving waterbody with respect to nitrogen content and only slightly worse with respect to phosphorus content. The addition of reuse water should not promote more algal growth; rather, it should reduce the likelihood of algal growth. It also should not increase the incidences of fish kills in Lake 7. Nor should it alter the nutrient concentrations in Lake 7 so as to result in an imbalance of the natural population of aquatic flora and fauna. In the draft permit originally proposed to be issued to the Club, permit conditions required that water quality be monitored at the point of discharge to waters of the state. This requirement was eliminated from the revised permit as the District determined that it was not necessary in light of the modification of the system to retain the 100-year storm event. The subject design does not account for recovery of the water quality treatment volume within a specified period of time. However, there is no such requirement in District rules when a pond entirely retains the 100-year storm event, as is the case with this project. Even if there were a discharge from the surface water management system in a storm event up to and including a 100-year storm event, the Club gave reasonable assurances that water quality standards in the receiving waterbody would not be violated because of the effects of dilution. This project will not cause discharges which result in any violations of applicable state water quality standards for surface waters of the state. Based on a number of factors, including the peak rate factor, the curve number and the seasonal high water elevation, the water level in Lake 7 would reach an elevation of 33.57 if a 100-year storm event occurs. This results in the retention of the 100-year storm in Lake 7. The District only considers the 100-year storm event, by itself. It does not consider other rainfall events before or after it. However, the District does presume that ponds are at their seasonal high water level when the 100-year storm event occurs and that the ground is saturated. With respect to the seasonal high water level, there was substantial conflicting testimony. The Club's consultant used a seasonal high water level of 31.0' for Lake No. 7 in his calculations. This was based on a geotechnical engineering report prepared by Ardaman & Associates. A seasonal high water elevation of 31.0' was also used in the original permit application in 1985. In concluding that the seasonal high water level should be 31.0, the Ardaman report relied on several assumptions, including plugging of the underdrain and overflow weir and no discharges into or pumping out of the lake. These assumptions were made to establish an historical water level. The Petitioners' consultant disputed the determination in the Ardaman report that the seasonal high for Lake No. 7 was 31 on the grounds that the report indicated groundwater levels of 32.8 on three sides of the lake. He also felt that water levels would rise in the lake over time as a result of it being, allegedly, a closed system. While he did not have an opinion as to what the appropriate seasonal high should be, he felt it would be higher than 31 but lower than 32.8. However, he did no modeling with respect to calculating a seasonal high water level and would normally rely on a geotechnical engineer, such as Ardaman & Associates, to calculate seasonal high water levels. The District generally does not receive information as extensive and detailed as that included in the Ardaman report when it reviews permit applications. Among other things, the Ardaman report indicates a gradient across Lake No. 7 which makes the determination of the seasonal high for the lake difficult. The groundwater flow gradient results from the fact that the elevation of Lake No. 6 is approximately three feet lower than the elevation in Lake No. 7. The elevation determined by Ardaman may well be conservative in that the seasonal high of 31 is above the midpoint of the gradient. Although Lake 7 will be designed as an essentially closed system, it will have inflow from rainfall, surface runoff, introduction of reuse water and groundwater inflow, and outflows by way of evapotranspiration, withdrawal for irrigation purposes, and groundwater outflows. To alleviate any concerns about the validity of the seasonal high, it would be reasonable to include a permit condition requiring the Club to monitor the water level in Lake 7 on a daily basis, using staff gauges, after modification of the control structure. If such monitoring indicated that the seasonal high water level exceeds 31.0, the District could consider options to address that situation, including reducing the level at which reuse water is introduced into the lake or requiring water quality monitoring at the point of discharge to receiving waters. Groundwater quality is regulated by the Department of Environmental Protection, not by the District. The DEP permit issued to Sarasota County for disposal of reuse water at the Club golf course requires the installation of two groundwater monitoring wells, one in fairly close proximity to Lake No. 7. The Overlooked Pond There is a small retention pond northwest of Lake 7, near lot 113. Neither the Club nor the District considered the effect of the Club's late modification of its application on the retention pond northwest of Lake 7 and adjacent properties. Lake 7 and the retention pond to its northwest are connected by an equalizer pipe. As a result, water levels in the pond will be affected by water levels in Lake 7. There was no evidence as to the elevations of the banks of the retention pond. There was no evidence as to whether the modifications to the Club's application will result in flooding of properties adjacent to the pond. There was no evidence that the Club owns or controls the retention pond or the properties adjacent to it that might be affected by flooding that might result from the modifications to the Club's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order denying the Club's amended application. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2196 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-2. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, there was other evidence from which it can be determined that Lake 7 is part of the Club's lease. Accepted and incorporated. However, there was other evidence from which it can be determined that Lake 7 is part of the Club's lease and from which the western extent of the Club's leasehold interests in Lake 7 can be determined. Accepted and incorporated. But the topographic survey, together with other evidence, does show the eastern extent of the Petitioners' property in relation to the "top of bank" of Lake 7 and the western extent of the Club's leasehold interests in Lake 7. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that uses must be "specifically authorized" in that the lease authorizes the use of the premises for a "golf course," which is presumed to include uses inherent to the operation of a golf course that may not be further specified in the lease, such as drainage facilities, like Lake 7, and facilities for irrigation of the golf course. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that the Club does not pay for the maintenance of Lake 7, at least as between the Club and its lessor, which is the subject of the pertinent lease provision. (There was evidence as to a dispute between the Club and the Petitioners, or at least some of them, as to who is responsible for maintenance of land in the vicinity of the western extent of Lake 7 and the eastern extent of the Petitioners' property. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that there are "A" parcels between lots 115 through 120 and Lake 7. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Not clear whether all of the activities listed in the second sentence are done in the entire area up to the water's edge but, otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted, but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. Accepted; subordinate to facts found. Rejected. The intent of the parties is not clear and is the subject of litigation in state circuit court. 17.-18. Accepted that some probably used the words "to the water's edge"; others may have said "to the lake" or "to the approximate high water line." Regardless of what they said, the legal consequences are being litigated in state circuit court. Subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and unnecessary. 19.-20. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary.. Last sentence, accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The rest is rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. The evidence was sufficient to place on Exhibit M-16 the boundary lines of the "A" parcels, as depicted on the Alberti boundary survey that was attached to the individual deeds to all of the "A" parcels, in relation to the "top of bank" of Lake 7 and other topographical features depicted on Exhibit M-16. The 0.679 acre total for the "A" parcels was merely transcribed from the Alberti boundary survey (probably incorrectly, as the boundary survey seems to indicate the acreage to be 0.674, plus or minus.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The modification itself would not cause the water level to rise. If, due to the combined influence of all the pertinent factors, the water level in Lake 7 rises, it will spread more than before the modifications, up to a maximum spread of approximately ten feet. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The Club gave reasonable assurances that the spread would be contained within its leasehold interest. However, consideration would have to be given to modifying the permit if the state circuit court determines in the pending litigation that the easterly boundary of the "A" parcels lies to the east of the "top of bank." Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted. Self-evident and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted, but subordinate, and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. It does not prohibit it; it just does not authorize it. It provides that authorization may be obtained by permit modification. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 32.-36. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Evidence was presented at final hearing.) 37. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that discharges will be "likely." (Accepted and incorporated that no discharges are expected as a result of storm events up to and including a 100-year storm event unless preceding conditions predispose the system to discharge during a 100-year storm event.) 38.-39. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (As for 39., very little construction will be required for the proposed project.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. First, Lake 7 will not be "maintained" at 31'; rather, when it falls below 30.5', a half inch will be added. Second, it is not clear that the Ardaman report established an "artificially low seasonal high water level." (There is a hydraulic gradient across Lake 7 from east to west, approximately. The Ardaman report assumed no flow into or out of Lake 7; it also assumed no pumpage into or out of the lake.) Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence that it is based "solely" on that assumption. Accepted and incorporated that it is based on that and on other assumptions. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. (Evidence was presented at final hearing.) Rejected as not supported by evidence. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence to the extent that the impact is obvious--the water level in the pond will be approximately equal to the water level in Lake 7. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The modification itself would not cause the water level to rise. If, due to the combined influence of all the pertinent factors, the water level in Lake 7 rises, so will the water level in the pond. 47.-48. Accepted and incorporated. 49.-50. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. 51.-52. Accepted and incorporated. Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-7. Accepted and incorporated. 8. Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in that there was more to the application than just substitution of reuse for well water. 9.-10. Accepted and incorporated. 11. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 12.-22. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven. (The two District witnesses disagreed.) Even if true, subordinate to facts contrary to those found. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. 28.-29. Accepted; subordinate to facts found, and in part conclusion of law. 30. Accepted. First sentence, incorporated; second sentence, subordinate to facts found, and in part conclusion of law. 31.-35. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary, or conclusion of law. Accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found. 39.-40. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 41.-43. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Last sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law; rest, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found, and in part conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted, but subordinate, and unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. First sentence, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found; second sentence, accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 51.-52. Accepted and incorporated. 53.-55. Accepted, but subordinate to facts found, and unnecessary. 56. Accepted and incorporated. 57.-62. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. 63. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire D. Robert Hoyle, Esquire Dye & Scott, P.A. 1111 Third Avenue West Bradenton, Flroida 34206 Mary F. Smallwood, Esquire Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuser & Russell, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark F. Lapp, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Edward B. Helvenston,Esq. General Counsel Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
