Findings Of Fact Lake Worth Drainage District requested a variance from the provisions of Rule 17-3.121(13) , Florida Administrative Code, related to dissolved oxygen parameters which would be involved in the installation of a canal known as the S-9 Canal to be located in Palm Beach County, Florida. That request was met by the Department of Environmental Regulation's Statement of Intent to Deny, leading to a request for formal hearing filed by Petitioner with the Department on May 26, 1983. On June 1, 1983, the Department requested the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing in that matter. The variance request became D.O.A.H. Case No. 83-1741. Contemporaneous with the variance request that was pending before the Department of Environmental Regulation, was petitioner's request for necessary construction permits to install the S-9 Canal. Again, the Petitioner was informed of the agency's intent to deny that permit request. As a consequence, Petitioner requested a formal hearing to question the Department's policy decision. That request for formal hearing was made on June 23, 1983. Effective July 1, 1983, the Department asked the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct a formal hearing related to that permit request. The case related to the dredge and fill permit is D.O.A.H. Case No. 63-2132. WITNESSES AND EXHIBITS In the final hearing, petitioner presented the testimony of Richard Wheeliahn, Assistant Manager for Lake Worth Drainage District; John Adams, General Counsel for Lake Worth Drainage District; Mike Slaton, supervisory biologist with the United States Corp. of Engineers; William Winters, Lake Worth Drainage District's in-house engineer; Rebecca Serra, South Florida Water Management District's Water Management Engineer, who was accepted as an expert in water management engineering; Raleigh Griffis, Agricultural Agent with the United States Department of Agriculture, accepted as an expert in the agricultural practices found within the area of the proposed S-9 Canal; William E. Hill, Consulting Engineer for Petitioner, who was accepted as an expert in civil engineering and drainage design; and Robert D. Blackburn, consultant to Lake Worth Drainage District, accepted as an expert in freshwater ecology to include water quality and biology. Respondent called as witnesses Dan Garlick, Environmental Specialist for the Department of Environmental Regulation, accepted as expert in dredge and fill matters; Keith McCarron, Environmental Specialist for the Southeast Branch of the Department of Environmental Regulation, accepted as an expert in dredge and fill matters and Helen Setchfield, Technical Assistant to the Department's Director of the Division of Environmental Permitting. In addition, Richard L. Miller, Rebecca Butts, Francis T. Kuschell, Donald King and Dan alley were public witnesses in favor of the proposed project. Rosa Druando and Sherry Cummings were public witnesses opposed to the project. Petitioner offered 45 exhibits which have been received. Respondent introduced two exhibits which were admitted. The public offered two composite exhibits which were admitted. SPECIFIC FACTS Lake Worth Drainage District is a governmental entity created by the Florida Legislature. The District's function is that of the control of water supply and elevation related to lands within its jurisdiction. Those areas in dispute in the present case are within that jurisdictional ambit. In this instance, Lake Worth Drainage District has proposed the construction of a drainage facility involving dredging and filling of approximately 45,000 cubic yards of material. In particular, Petitioner seeks necessary permits from Respondent to construct a canal known as the S-9 Canal, whose purpose would be to transport the flow of water from an agricultural operation north of the canal site. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 depicts the area in question with the north- south orange tape representing an unnamed drainage ditch or canal and the blue tape showing the proposed S-9 connecting it to the east-west orange tape line which is L23W. The primary type of water expected in the canal is stormwater; however, surface and groundwater will also be in the canal system at times. The agricultural operation is capable of discharging at a rate which would utilize 145 CFS of the potential capacity of the canal system contemplated for construction which ultimate capacity is 170 CFS. The proposed canal by its connection of the existing agricultural drainage ditch or canal and L23W, becomes part of a water transport system flowing to the Atlantic Ocean through the South Florida Water Management District and Lake Worth Drainage District canal network. The principal benefit of the construction of S-9 would be to create a uniform connection of water discharge from the agricultural operation into L23W. Secondarily, it would relieve periodic flooding of a residential area west of the unnamed drainage ditch and northwest of the proposed S-9 Canal. It is not designed to receive direct water input from that residential area. Only the agricultural operation has been granted permits to discharge into the unnamed canal through two pumping stations to the east of that canal and as a result of the present permit request through S-9 and thus to L23W. Those persons living in the residential area west of the unnamed canal have not sought necessary permitting for discharge into the proposed S-9 System. Moreover, even if permits were granted to the residents, the S-9 system would only allow the addition of 25 CPS over and above the 145 which the agricultural operation has preempted. The 25 CPS would not satisfactorily address high water problems found in the residential area. A more particular description of the limited value of the project's benefit to the homeowners is that it protects against occasional flooding which occurs when the farm operation discharges into the unnamed canal, causing water incursion in the southeast corner of the residential area to the west of the unnamed canal. If the S-9 Canal is constructed, it will be built within an 80 foot right-of-way held by petitioner. The canal as depicted in petitioner's Exhibit 35 admitted into evidence is 40-45 feet wide, approximately 5-8 feet deep and is configured in a u-shape transversing an area of 7,730 feet. The applicants in this present proposal have added a vegetated iittoral zone on one side of the canal and it covers approximately 20 percent or 1.9 acres of the canal surface. This zone affords a limited amount of treatment of the water in the system. In this regard, approximately 30 percent of the nutrients found within the water flowing in the system would be expected to be taken up or absorbed in the vegetational zone, except in the months of August and September, when optimum retention time within the system will not be afforded to allow the littoral zone to uptake 30 percent of contaminants in the water. A 21 foot maintenance berm would be constructed on the east side of the canal and bleeder pipes would be installed to control water elevations in the adjacent wetlands. The 170 CFS volume mentioned before is the design capacity of the proposed system. At that volume, the flow velocity is less than 2.6 feet per second, a velocity at which the canal's structural integrity would be expected to continue, i.e., erosion will not occur. The 145 CFS expected from the agricultural operation pursuant to permits for discharge issued by the South Florida Water Management District would promote a flow velocity of approximately 2 feet per second. This farm activity is known as the DuBois farm. (Its permit from the South Florida Water Management District allowing the 145 CFS to be discharged into the unnamed drainage ditch or canal is not contingent upon the construction of S-9.) The configuration of the S-9 Canal has been brought about principally to advantage the Petitioner in obtaining a construction permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. The Corps had an interest in protecting that corridor of land over which it has jurisdiction which is adjacent to the S-9 Canal and is described as a wetland area. A consequence of this choice of design for S-9 is the typical 72 to 80 hour travel time of water introduced into the system providing some settling of pollutants and some assimilation of pollutants within the littoral zone of the canal discussed before. 10..Necessary permits have been obtained from South Florida Water Management District and the United States Corps of Engineers to allow the construction of the proposed project. The configuration of this project takes into account the special concerns of those two agencies. In this sequence of collateral permitting, South Florida Water Management District has been responsible for an examination of stormwater quality considerations in deciding to grant a permit to Petitioner. With the construction of S-9 and connection of the unnamed canal to S- 9 and thus to L23W, all the waters within that conveyance system become Class III waters of the state in keeping with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes and its associated rules of the Florida Administrative Code. In effect, this is a dredge and fill activity under the Respondent's jurisdiction found in Rule 17- 4.20, Florida Statutes. As such, it becomes a stationary installation which can reasonably be expected to be a source of water pollution of waters of the state by discharge of pollutants into waters of the state as envisioned by Section 403.087, Florida Statutes. During the construction phase of the canal, water quality degradation can be controlled related to turbidity, transparency and other criteria. Upon connection of the S-9 Canal to L23W and the utilization of that system, problems will be experienced with dissolved oxygen levels and to a lesser extent, nutrients and total coliform. Oils and greases problems are possible though not probable. No other water quality impacts are expected after connection. In expectation of the difficulty in achieving compliance with Respondent's water quality standards related to dissolved oxygen, the Petitioner has sought a variance under Section 403.021, Florida Statutes. This request is necessary because the dissolved oxygen levels in the proposed S-9 Canal, the unnamed canal or drainage ditch and L23W are not expected to uniformly exceed 5 mg/1. See Rule 17-3.121(13), Florida Administrative Code. The problem with dissolved oxygen in the unnamed canal and L23W and expected in the S-9 canal is not an enigma. This condition is prevalent in the South Florida area to include Palm Beach County, the site of the project. The water in the canals and drainage ditches in the region is frequently in violation of the standards related to dissolved oxygen, given the elevations of the land, climatic conditions, type of plant life, water temperature and constituents of the water. The addition of S-9 to the system would neither improve nor significantly degrade the quality of water related to the dissolved oxygen values for Class III waters, of which this proposed system is constituted. This finding acknowledges the fact that dissolved oxygen values in the unnamed canal are superior to L23W. Nonetheless, upon completion of S-9 and connection to the two other canals, no significant positive improvements of dissolved oxygen will be realized. Moreover, considering the fact that the installation of the S-9 Canal will stop the flooding on the southeast corner of the residential area west of the unnamed drainage ditch or canal, an increased volume of water flowing into L23W at any given moment can be expected, compared to the present outfall primarily along the Florida Power and Light system road into L23W. This has significance related to the dissolved oxygen standard to the extent of an increased volume of water in which substandard dissolved oxygen levels are found being introduced into L23W. It is more significant related to nutrients and bacteriological quality of the water, in particular fecal coliform. While there is no reason to believe that the quality of cleansing of water involved in sheet flow into L23W related to nutrients and coliforms is remarkably better at present, given the sparse vegetation along the power-line road which leads to L23W, than would be the case with S-9 with littoral zone, the increased volume of cater being introduced at the connection of S-9 and L23W during times of peak discharge, can be expected to present greater quantities of nutrients and coliform. In essence, the treatment afforded by the littoral zone and the transport in the S-9 Canal, contrasted with the treatment afforded during the transport of waters by sheet flow along the relatively barren stretch of land adjacent to the power-line road is found to be comparable, and the differences relate only to volume of discharge. This difficulty with nutrients and coliform count has been confirmed by tests made in the unnamed canal showing excessive levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and coliform and the water treatment features of the S-9 Canal will not entirely remove these materials. Although the farming practices of the DuBois operation tend to alleviate some nutrient loading in the unnamed canal, the test results established that those practices do not entirely eliminate the introduction of those nutrient materials into the canal. Consequently, some problems related to the effects of nutrient loading on populations of flora and fauna in the proposed system can be expected. In the context of the variance request, alternatives to the construction of the S-9 Canal are here considered. The alternative to leave the circumstance as it now exists carries with it the risk of periodic flooding of the southeast corner of the residential property west of the unnamed canal. That area and the balance of the residential acreage are subject to flooding without regard for the agricultural operation to the east. To deal with the difficulty related to the elevated water table, rainfall events and the flooding due to farm operation, some persons who reside in that residential tract have employed their own pump systems and ditches and retention areas to combat problems related to the geography of their property. In addition, the property is protected to some extent from outside influences by the existence of a dike and associated ditch, which limit some off-property incursion of water and assists to an extent in the transport of water away from their property. Moreover, the DuBois farm operation recently has placed a barrier at the end of the unnamed canal which directs water south along the Florida Power and Light road into L23W. In addition, the farm management has held down the pump speed during a rain event to protect the residential area. Nonetheless, at times the dike in the southeast corner adjacent to the residential property has breached in heavy rain events. As an alternative, the installation of S-9 would be only partially effective in alleviating the adverse conditions in the residential area west of the unnamed canal. It principally helps the DuBois farm operation. The relief afforded the residents would be the cessation of flooding caused by the operation of the farm pumps to the east as they breach the area in the southeast corner of the residential property, the future possibility of introducing as much as 25 CFS into the S-9 System subject to appropriate permits and the more tenuous possibility that the farm operation and the residential area could share the remaining 145 CPS capacity in the proposed system. The latter point isn't tenable from an examination of testimony at hearing. First, because the farmer wishes to conserve fertilizer and to maintain the moisture gradient and he does this by pumping off stormwater in a rainfall event, which events are most prevalent during his agricultural season. Secondly, the residential area is most in need of relief when the farmer is. Finally, the question of necessary permits to share capacity is unclear. Other alternatives related to a more comprehensive protection of the residential area by diking, a direct connection canal system to L23W from the unnamed canal, or dispersed sheet flow through the wetland area adjacent to the proposed S-9 Canal are not viable either for reason of design infirmity or impediments from other permitting agencies or inadequate property rights. Therefore, the viable choices are to either leave the property as it now stands or grant a permit to allow the construction of S-9. Between the remaining choices, no particular advantage is gained by the construction of this project. Dissolved oxygen problems in L23W, the receiving body of water, will not improve with the S-9 construction in a significant way and given the increased volume of discharge into L23W promoted by this construction are made worse. Nothing in the construction is so compelling to cause the exercise of the Respondent's discretion in favor of the grant of a variance related to dissolved oxygen values. 16..In examining the variance request by affording deference to Petitioner's regulatory responsibility, the need of the Lake Worth Drainage District to provide relief to those residents who are paying for drainage services is conceded. To that end, the proposed project does provide a certain amount of relief but it does not have as its primary emphasis purported assistance to those residents. As often stated, its principal benefit is to the DuBois farm operation. Left unresolved is the major source of suffering which is the lay of the land, a source which has prevailed from the beginning of the utilization of that property on the part of the residents. Plainly stated, much of the residential area was from the beginning and continues to be under water. The removal of the farm flooding and the future possibility of introducing a small increment of discharge into the S-9 system from the residential area subject to necessary permitting does not modify the characterization of this project as being one primarily for the farmer and to a much lesser extent for the residents. On this occasion, Petitioner's choice to fulfill its change is not persuasive enough to create special permission to violate the dissolved oxygen standard. In summary, a variance from the dissolved oxygen standard for Class III waters is not indicated. On the question of the permit application, in addition to failing to give reasonable assurances related to dissolved oxygen, the applicant has failed to satisfactorily address the problems with nutrients and coliforms. Other water quality standards have been satisfactorily addressed. Again, most of the water that will be introduced into the proposed system shall be stormwater; however, there will be other water components in the system constituted of surface water an groundwater, which also carry nutrients arid bacteriological deposits. Surface and groundwater are involved, given the level of elevations in the area, the depths of the unnamed canal, S-9 Canal and L23W and the fact that the DuBois farm operation can extract waters from the E-l Canal to the east of the farm properties as well as discharge water into that canal. It will not always be possible to distinguish whether the water in the proposed system is stormwater, groundwater or surface water. Consequently, South Florida Water Management's permitting related to stormwater is not definitive.
The Issue The issue is whether the applicant for an Environmental Resource Permit ("ERP"), the City of Deltona ("City" or "Applicant"), has provided reasonable assurance that the system proposed complies with the water quantity, environmental, and water quality criteria of the St. Johns River Water Management District's ("District") ERP regulations set forth in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-4, and the Applicant's Handbook: Management and Storage of Surface Waters (2005).
Findings Of Fact The District is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The City of Deltona is a municipal government established under the provisions of Chapter 165, Florida Statutes. The Lake Theresa Basin is comprised primarily of a system of interconnected lakes extending from Lake Macy in the City of Lake Helen to the Butler Chain of Lakes (Lake Butler and Lake Doyle). The Lake Theresa Basin is land-locked and does not have a natural outfall to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. In 2003, after an extended period of above-normal rainfall in the Deltona area, the lakes within the land-locked Lake Theresa Basin staged to extremely high elevations that resulted in standing water in residential yards, and rendered some septic systems inoperable. Lake levels within the Lake Theresa Basin continued to rise and were in danger of rising above the finished floor elevations of some residences within the basin. On March 25, 2003, the District issued an Emergency Order (F.O.R. No. 2003-38) authorizing the construction and short-term operation of the Lake Doyle and Lake Bethel Emergency Overflow Interconnection. Since wetland and surface water impacts would occur, the Emergency Order required the City of Deltona to obtain an ERP for the system. The project area is 4.1 acres, and the system consists of a variable water structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle connected to a series of pipes, swales, water control structures, and wetland systems which outfall to a finger canal of Lake Bethel, with ultimate discharge to Lake Monroe and the St. Johns River. The first segment of the system extends downstream from the weir structure on the west shore of Lake Doyle via a pipe entrenched in the upland berm of the Sheryl Drive right-of-way. The pipe passes under Doyle Road and through xeric pine-oak uplands to the northeast shore of a large (approximately 15 acres) deepwater marsh. Water flows south through the deepwater marsh where it outfalls through four pipes at Ledford Drive. Two of the four pipes are overflow structures, controlled by canal gates. The pipes at Ledford Drive discharge into a ditch and into a large (greater than 20 acres) shallow bay swamp. The south end of the bay swamp is defined (and somewhat impounded) by a 19th Century railroad grade. Water flows through the bay swamp where it outfalls through five pipes at the railroad grade. Three of the five pipes are overflow structures, controlled by channel boards. The pipes at the railroad grade discharge to a 1500-foot long finger canal that was dug some time during the period 1940-1972 from the north central shore of Lake Bethel. The overflow interconnection system has three locations whereby the system can be shut down: 1) Lake Doyle--a control weir, controlled by three sluice gates; 2) Ledford Drive--two thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by canal gates; and 3) railroad grade--three thirty-inch reinforced concrete pipes, controlled by channel boards (collectively referred to as "Overflow Structures"). The Overflow Structures are designed to carry the discharge of water from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. With the Overflow Structures closed the system returns to pre-construction characteristics, meaning there will be no increase or decrease in the quantity or quality of water throughout the path of the system as a result of the project. An unequivocal condition of the permit is that the system would operate with all of the Overflow Structures closed. As an added assurance, the City proposes to place a brick and mortar plug in the Lake Doyle weir structure outfall pipe to prevent any discharge from the weir. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the water level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. The District shall require a separate permit application to be submitted for such future plans. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, has lived on Lake Theresa for 19 years. Ms. Ash lives upstream from the area of the weir that will be plugged in accordance with the ERP. She does not trust either the City of Deltona to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP applied for by the City. Petitioner, Barbara Ash, also served as the qualified representative for Petitioners, Francell Frei, Bernard J. and Virginia Patterson, and Ted and Carol Sullivan. Ms. Ash represented that Ms. Frei has lived on Lake Theresa for 12 years, and both the Pattersons and the Sullivans live on Lake Louise, which is within the area of concern in this proceeding. Petitioner, Diana Bauer, has lived on Lake Theresa since February 2004. She fears that the lake will become too dry if the system is allowed to flow. She also believes the wildlife will be adversely affected if the water levels are too low since many species need a swampy or wet environment to thrive. She fears her property value will decrease as a result of the approval of the ERP. She also does not trust either the City to comply with or the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioner, Howard Ehmer, lives two to three hundred yards down Lake Theresa from Ms. Bauer. He is concerned about the lake bed being too dry and attracting people on all terrain vehicles who enjoy driving around the lake bottom. He is concerned about his property value decreasing if the lake bed is dry. Further, when the lake level is too low, people cannot enjoy water skiing, boating, and fishing on Lake Theresa. Petitioner, Phillip Lott, a Florida native, has also owned and lived on property abutting Lake Theresa since 1995. Mr. Lott has a Ph.D. in plant ecology, and M.P.A. in coastal zone studies, an M.B.A. in international business, and a B.S. in environmental resource management and planning. Mr. Lott has been well acquainted with the water levels on Lake Theresa for many years. Based upon his personal observations of the lake systems in the Deltona area over the years, Mr. Lott has seen levels fluctuate greatly based upon periods of heavy and light rainfall. Mr. Lott is concerned that the District will permit the City to open the weir to let water flow through the system and cause flooding in some areas and low water levels in other areas. He fears that the District will allow the water to flow and upset the environmental balance, but he admits that this ERP application is for a closed system that will not allow the water to flow as he fears. Mr. Lott similarly does not trust the City to comply with and the District to enforce the conditions of the ERP. Petitioners, James E. and Alicia M. Peake, who were represented by Steven L. Spratt at hearing as their qualified representative, live on Lake Louise, which is interconnected with the Lake Theresa basin. The Peakes are concerned that if the level of Lake Louise drops below 21 feet, nine inches, they will not be able to use the boat launch ramps on the lake. Petitioner, Steven L. Spratt, also lives on Lake Louise, and is concerned about the water levels becoming so low that he cannot use the boat launch on the lake. He has lived on the lake since 2000, and remembers when the water level was extremely low. He fears that approval of the ERP in this case will result in low levels of water once again. Petitioner, Gloria Benoit, has live on Lake Theresa for two years. She also enjoys watching recreational activities on the lake, and feels that approval of the ERP will devalue her lakefront property. Ms. Benoit appeared at the first day of the hearing, but offered no testimony on her behalf. J. Christy Wilson, Esquire, appeared prior to the final hearing as counsel of record for Petitioners, Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow. Neither Ms. Wilson nor any of the three Petitioners she represented appeared at any time during the hearing, filed any pleadings seeking to excuse themselves from appearing at the final hearing, or offered any evidence, testimony, pre- or post- hearing submittals. Petitioner, Gary Jensen, did not appear at hearing, did not file any pleadings or papers seeking to be excused from appearing at the final hearing, and did not offer any evidence, testimony, pre- or post-hearing submittals. Both the City and the District recognize that areas downstream from the project site, such as Stone Island and Sanford, have experienced flooding in the past in time of high amounts of rainfall. The system proposed by the City for this ERP will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel. So long as the overflow structures are closed, the system will mimic pre-construction flow patterns, with no increase in volume flowing downstream. The District has considered the environment in its proposed approval of the ERP. The area abutting the project is little urbanized and provides good aquatic and emergent marsh habitat. With the exception of the western shore area of the deepwater marsh ("west marsh area"), the bay swamp and remaining deepwater marsh area have good ecological value. In the 1940's, the west marsh area was incorporated into the drainage system of a poultry farm that occupied the site. This area apparently suffered increased nutrient influxes and sedimentation that contributed to a proliferation of floating mats of aquatic plants and organic debris. These tussocks reduced the deepwater marsh's open water and diminished the historical marsh habitat. Water under the tussocks is typically anoxic owing to total shading by tussocks and reduced water circulation. Thick, soft, anaerobic muck has accumulated under the matted vegetation. Exotic shrubs (primrose willow Ludwigia peruvania) and other plants (cattails Typha spp.) dominate the tussocks. The construction of the project, from the 2003 Emergency Order, resulted in adverse impacts to 1.3 acres of wetlands having moderately high- to high ecological value and 0.2 acres of other surface waters. The 0.2 acre impact to other surface waters was to the lake bottom and the shoreline of Lake Doyle where the weir structure was installed. The 0.3 acres of wetland impacts occurred at the upper end of the deepwater marsh where the pipe was installed. The largest wetland impact (1.0 acre) was to the bay swamp. The bay swamp is a shallow body dominated by low hummocks and pools connected inefficiently by shallow braided channels and one acre is filled with a 1-2 foot layer of sediment following swamp channelization. Disturbance plants (e.g., primrose willow, Ludwigia peruvania, and elderberry Sambucus Canadensis) now colonize the sediment plume. Pursuant to the District's elimination and reduction criteria, the applicant must implement practicable design modifications, which would reduce or eliminate adverse impacts to wetlands and other surface waters. A proposed modification, which is not technically capable of being done, is not economically viable, or which adversely affects public safety through endangerment of lives or property is not considered "practicable." The City reduced and/or eliminated the impacts to the lake bottom and shoreline of Lake Doyle and deepwater marsh, to the extent practicable. The impacts were the minimum necessary to install the weir structure and pipe for the system; the weir structure and pipe were carefully installed on the edges of the wetland and surface water systems, resulting in a minimum amount of grading and disturbance. To compensate for the loss of 1.3 acres of wetlands and 0.2 acres of other surface waters, the City proposes to preserve a total of 27.5 acres of wetlands, bay swamp, marsh, and contiguous uplands. Included in this 27.5 acres are 6.4 acres of the west marsh, which are to be restored. The parties stipulated that the mitigation plan would adequately compensate for losses of ecological function (e.g. wildlife habitat and biodiversity, etc.) resulting from the project. Water quality is a concern for the District. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. Water quality data for Lake Monroe indicate the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Prior to construction of the project, there was no natural outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe and therefore no contribution from this basin to nitrogen and phosphorous loadings to Lake Monroe. Lake Colby, Three Island Lakes (a/k/a Lake Sixma), and the Savannah are surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin for which minimum levels have been adopted pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 40C-8. The system will operate with the overflow structures closed and a brick and mortar plug in the outfall pipe to prevent water flow from Lake Doyle to Lake Bethel, resulting in no outfall from the Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. Minimum flows established for surface waters within the Lake Theresa Basin will not be adversely impacted. Under the first part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts from construction, alteration, and intended or reasonable expected use of the project will not adversely affect the functions of adjacent wetlands or surface waters. The system is designed as a low intensity project. As proposed, little activity and maintenance are expected in the project site area. The reasonably expected use of the system will not cause adverse impacts to the functions of the wetlands and other surface waters. None of the wetland areas adjacent to uplands are used by listed species for nesting or denning. In its pre-construction state, the project area did not cause or contribute to state water quality violations. Under the second part of the secondary impact test, the City must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, and intended or reasonably expected uses of the system will not adversely affect the ecological value of the uplands to aquatic or wetland dependent species for enabling existing nesting or denning by these species. There are no listed threatened or endangered species within the project site area. Under the third part of the secondary impact test, and as part of the public interest test, the District must consider any other relevant activities that are closely linked and causally related to any proposed dredging or filling which will cause impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources. When making this determination, the District is required, by rule, to consult with the Division of Historical Resources. The Division of Historical Resources indicated that no historical or archaeological resources are likely present on the site. No impacts to significant historical and archaeological resources are expected. Under the fourth part of the secondary impact test, the City must demonstrate that certain additional activities and future phases of a project will not result in adverse impacts to the functions of wetlands or water quality violations. The City has submitted to the District preliminary plans for a future phase in which the system would be modified for the purpose of alleviating high water levels within the Lake Theresa Basin when the level in Lake Doyle rises above an elevation of 24.5 feet. Based upon the plans and calculations submitted, the proposed future phase, without additional measures, could result in minor increases in the loadings of nitrogen and phosphorous to Lake Monroe. Lake Monroe is included on the Florida Department of Environmental Protection's verified list of impaired water bodies due to water quality data indicating the lake has experienced high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous, and low levels of dissolved oxygen. Under this potential future phase, there would be an outfall from the Lake Theresa Basin to Lake Monroe. To address the impact on water quality of this potential future phase, the City has submitted a loading reduction plan for nitrogen, phosphorous, and dissolved oxygen. The plan includes compensating treatment to fully offset the potential increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Specifically, the loading reduction plan includes: Construction and operation of compensating treatment systems to fully offset anticipated increased nutrient loadings to Lake Monroe. Weekly water quality monitoring of the discharge from Lake Doyle for total phosphorous and total nitrogen. A requirement that the overflow structure be closed if the total phosphorous level reaches 0.18 mg/l or higher or the total nitrogen level reaches 1.2 mg/l or higher in any given week and will remain closed until levels fall below those limits. The implementation of these water quality mitigation measures will result in a net improvement of the water quality in Lake Monroe for nitrogen, phosphorous, or dissolved oxygen. The future phase was conceptually evaluated by the District for impacts to wetland functions. The future phase as proposed could result in adverse impacts to wetland functions. Operation of the system with the overflow structures open could impact the bay swamp and deepwater marsh. The City has demonstrated that any adverse impacts could be offset through mitigation. Based upon the information provided by the City and general engineering principles, the system is capable of functioning as proposed. The City of Deltona will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface waster management system. A local government is an acceptable operation and maintenance entity under District rules. The public interest test has seven criteria. The public interest test requires the District to evaluate only those parts of the project actually located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands, to determine whether a factor is positive, neutral, or negative, and then to balance these factors against each other. The seven factors are as follows: the public health, safety, or welfare of others; conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats; fishing, recreational value, and marine productivity; temporary or permanent nature; 5) navigation, water flow, erosion, and shoaling; 6) the current condition and relative value of functions; and 7) historical and archaeological resources. There are no identified environmental hazards or improvements to public health and safety. The District does not consider impacts to property values. To offset any adverse impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats, the City has proposed mitigation. The areas of the project in, on, or over wetlands do not provide recreational opportunities. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will be permanent in nature. Construction and operation of the project located in, on, or over wetlands will not cause shoaling, and does not provide navigational opportunities. The mitigation will offset the relative value of functions performed by areas affected by the proposed project. No historical or archaeological resources are likely on the site of the project. The mitigation of the project is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts. The project is not expected to cause unacceptable cumulative impacts.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the City of Deltona's application for an environmental resource permit with the conditions set forth in the Technical Staff Report, and dismissing the Petitions for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Gary Jensen in Case No. 04-2405, and by Steven E. Larimer, Kathleen Larimer, and Helen Rose Farrow in Case No. 04-3048. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: George Trovato, Esquire City of Deltona 2345 Providence Boulevard Deltona, Florida 32725 Diana E. Bauer 1324 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Barbara Ash, Qualified Representative 943 South Dean Circle Deltona, Florida 32738-6801 Phillip Lott 948 North Watt Circle Deltona, Florida Howard Ehmer Nina Ehmer 32738-7919 1081 Anza Court Deltona, Florida 32738 Francell Frei 1080 Peak Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Bernard T. Patterson Virginia T. Patterson 2518 Sheffield Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kealey A. West, Esquire St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177 J. Christy Wilson, Esquire Wilson, Garber & Small, P.A. 437 North Magnolia Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Gloria Benoit 1300 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 Gary Jensen 1298 Tartan Avenue Deltona, Florida 32738 James E. Peake Alicia M. Peake 2442 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Steven L. Spratt 2492 Weatherford Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Ted Sullivan 1489 Timbercrest Drive Deltona, Florida 32738 Kirby Green, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District 4049 Reid Street Palatka, Florida 32177
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-10.041(3)(d) of the South Florida Water Management District (“the District”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Conservancy is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Naples, Florida. It has 6,200 members residing in Southwest Florida. The mission of the Conservancy is to protect the environment and natural resources of Southwest Florida. The Caloosahatchee River is an important focus of the Conservancy’s organizational activities and objectives. A substantial number of the members of the Conservancy use the Caloosahatchee River for drinking water, boating, fishing, wildlife observation, and scientific research. The proposed rules create a prospective reservation of water in the not-yet-operational Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Reservoir “for fish and wildlife.” The Conservancy’s interests would be substantially affected by the proposed reservation. The District is a regional water management agency created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2013). It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. Proposed rule 40E-10.041(3) states: (3) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir: All surface water contained within and released, via operation, from the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is reserved from allocation. The water reserved under this paragraph will be available for fish and wildlife upon a formal determination of the Governing Board, pursuant to state and federal law, that the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is operational. The reservation contained within this subsection and the criteria contained in section 3.11.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-2.091, F.A.C., shall be revised in light of changed conditions or new information prior to the approval described in paragraph (3)(b) above. Pursuant to subsection 373.223(4), F.S., presently existing legal uses for the duration of a permit existing on [RULE ADOPTION DATE] are not contrary to the public interest. The Conservancy challenges only paragraph (3)(d), contending that it modifies or contravenes the implementing statute, section 373.223(4).
The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Applicant applied for a permit for a public supply of water from two (2) wells to accommodate 3,100 family units in Hillsborough County, Florida. Each well to be 500 feet deep and designated as "new use", i.e., a use not existing prior to January 1, 1975. Well "No. 1" would draw 72,000 gallons per day and well "No. 2", 682,000 gallons per day. The center of withdrawal is located at latitude 28 degrees 6' 18" North, longitude 82 degrees 29' 48" West in Hillsborough County, Florida. The applicant lists 802.2 acres as being owned, leased or otherwise controlled by it. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune on April 28 and May 5, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were sent by certified mail to Lorenzo Lakes, A Joint Venture, Route 2, Box 737A, Lutz, Florida, and Hillsborough Dairy, Route 1, Box 115, Tampa, Florida A letter was received although it was not designated a letter of objection. The author of said letter is present at this hearing. His name is Mr. John Logan, Water Resources Director, Hillsborough County, Florida. The letter suggests that action on the subject application would be inappropriate at this time inasmuch as a part of the development is to be deeded to Hillsborough County for public roadways. A specific area does not appear to be established but it may exceed 50 acres. Additional acreage may be needed for flood easements for the extension of channel "F", a proposed part of the upper Tampa Bay Watershed Project. No formal letters of objection were received. The following exhibits were introduced without objection: Application for permit Proof of publication Letter from Mr. John Logan The witnesses were duly sworn and agreement by the parties reached on each point to be considered under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Rules and Regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, particularly Rule 16J-2.11, with the exception that certain conditions were recommended by Mr. George Szell, Hydrologist for the Permittee, and said conditions were agreed to by the Permittee. Mrs. Sally Casper appeared as a member of the public questioning the need for new housing and objecting in essence to Rule 16J-2.11(2)(e) which restricts consideration of lake stages or vegetation to those not controlled by the applicant. Upon the request of the Hearing Officer the parties agreed to enter into a joint order of stipulation and submit said order to the Hearing Officer. Said stipulation was received by the Hearing Officer on July 7, 1975, and is attached hereto and made a part hereof and marked "Supplement to Record".
Findings Of Fact Based upon the above testimony and the exhibits received into evidence in this cause, the undersigned Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact with regard to the issue in dispute: The applicants, as owners and lessees of 3,300 acres of land to be used for sugar cane production, propose to install a surface water management system consisting of levees, ditches, culverts, and pumps for drainage and irrigation purposes. Irrigation will be drawn from and drainage water will be discharged into Canal 51, a project works of the FCD. There is no dispute between the applicant and the FCD staff concerning the permit for water use and connection to C-51. The applicant proposes to discharge, via two 30,000 gallon per minute pumps, one inch per acre per day or 62,239 gallons per minute into C-51. The soils on the applicants' land are primarily muck types which are high in organic nitrogen. A water level of three feet below ground level, as proposed, will probably cause such nitrogen in the muck soil to decompose, resulting in soil subsidence and production of inorganic nitrogen. Nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus) resulting from muck decomposition and crop fertilization may enter the water in the interior canals and cause such water to have a higher nutrient content. The water in Canal 51 now has low concentrations of nutrients, as compared with the waters in canals appurtenant to other sugar cane producing areas. There appear to be unique hydrological conditions on the land in question which may keep the drainage system flushed and nitrate-free and there is evidence that sawgrass areas act as an effective nutrient filter. There was no evidence that additional nutrients entering C-51 would be environmentally harmful or degrading to the waters in C-51, both parties admitting that further research and scientific data is needed to determine the safe level of nutrients in this area. The applicants and other interested groups have shown that the construction. and operation of a retention or impoundment area would cause an adverse economic impact upon landowners and would have an adverse economic effect upon consumers, the general labor force and the community. The FCD has not adequately demonstrated that the waters of C-51 would be degraded by the applicants' proposed project or that a 140 acre impoundment area would be a reasonable condition to impose upon the issuance of the permits in question. A water quality monitoring system, such as proposed in the original and revised staff reports, will permit the parties to determine whether the water in C-51 is being degraded by the addition of nutrients.
Recommendation Based upon the above cited testimony, evidence, findings of fact and conclusions off law, the following recommendations are made: It is recommended that a water use permit, a Surface water management permit and a right-of-way occupancy permit be issued, all in accordance with the recommendations and conditions set forth in the original Staff Report dated August 5, 1975, attached hereto as Exhibit A. It is recommended that the additional requirement of a 140-acre retention area set forth in the Revised Staff Report be rejected. It is further recommended that an additional condition be attached to the surface water management permit. That condition would be to have such permit expire at the same time as the water use permit; to wit: July 15, 1977, so as to allow the FCD and the applicants sufficient time to collect further data on the effect of nutrients on the waters of C-51 and compare said data with the information derived from the monitoring program required under the permits. If such data and comparisons sufficiently demonstrate that the waters of C-51 will be degraded by the applicants' project, a retention area requirement would then be a reasonable condition to the reissuance of a permit. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of October, 1975, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George H. Bailey, Esquire JONES, PAINE & FOSTER, P.A. 601 Flagler Drive Court Post Office Drawer E West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 John Wheeler, Esquire Attorney for the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control District Post Office Box V West Palm Beach, Florida =================================================================
Findings Of Fact In June 1984, Clark Vargas applied for a permit with the Department of Environmental Regulation for activities in the waters of the state. The application stated that the proposed activity was to construct a soil road 700 feet long and constructed of 2,000 cubic yards of fill to be deposited landward of the mean high water line. The roadway proposed was to have Geotextile Fabric placed over it, and would have fifteen inch culverts for cross flow. The purpose of the road was to allow 8 property owners to have automobile access to their lots. Attached to the application was a copy of a larger engineering drawing of the project, reduced to letter size paper. The larger drawing C in evidence as Responder's Exhibit 1, and the original application is in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2. The drawing depicts the construction that is proposed, and in the notes states that the mean high water line is 1.1 feet above mean sea level. The drawing (Respondent's Exhibit 2) shows a number of elevation readings along the road. The elevation readings on the land upon which approximately one half of the road is to be located, the southerly portion closest to Julington Creek, and adjacent to lots 19 through 26, are all below the elevation of mean high water. The data as to the mean high water elevation for the note on the drawing was obtained by Mr. Vargas from the Corps of Engineers. The elevations on the road were the elevations measured by a survey caused to be conducted by Mr. Vargas starting from a U.S.G.S. benchmark three quarters of a mile away. The survey was conducted by a registered land surveyor. Mr. Vargas stated that the survey was not meant to be a survey to establish mean high water, and that it was intended to determine a price and plan for construction. In Mr. Vargas's professional opinion, the survey was not adequate to establish the mean high water line. Timothy J. Deuerling, an Environmental Supervisor I for the Northeast District, visited the site of the project in the summer of 1984. He saw water throughout the area. He developed the initial opinion that the project was landward of the mean high water line. When he returned to the office, he looked at the small attached drawing and decided that the project appeared to be mostly landward of the mean high water line. The elevations are very unclear on the reduced size version attached to the application. Mr. Deuerling's statement as to the mean high water line is contained in Respondent's Exhibit 4. It is the finding of the Hearing Officer that the drawing was so small and the elevations so unclear that Mr. Deuerling's opinion as to the mean high water line in Exhibit 4 is not reliable, and is rejected. Jeremy G. Tyler, Environmental Supervisor of the Dredge and Fill Section, North East District, said that the conclusions contained in the Intent to Deny and Final Order of Denial, Respondent's Exhibits 7 and 6, that one-third of the fill was to be placed waterward of the mean high water line, was based upon the data provided to DER by Mr. Vargas, Respondent's Exhibit 2. Mr. Tyler said that it is very hard to determine mean high water line by site inspection, and that he credited the survey as better evidence. It is she finding of the Hearing Officer that the location of the mean high water line has not been established by the evidence. This finding is not based upon the testimony of Mr. Vargas, however. Mr. Vargas did not present any evidence that the standard for mean high water, which was obtained from the Corps of Engineers, was inaccurate, and he did not present any evidence that the survey elevations on the drawing were inaccurate. There is good reason to believe that the proposed road in this case may be, at least with respect to the one half from lots 19 through 26, waterward of the mean high water line. The evidence shows there is an elevated ridge along the edge of the canal, that this ridge was caused by deposit of dredged material when the canal was dredged in the 1950's or 1960's, and that the ridge has eroded in places, and the water from the canal and Julington Creek floods much of the area from time to time through low places in the ridge. The engineering drawing, however, runs a series of elevation readings across only two places on the ridge, and in both cases there is at least one reading above mean high water level. Further, the only reading at a spot directly on the open water is at the southerly end of the proposed road, and it also is above mean high water. It is possible, therefore, that although portions of the road are below mean high water elevation, these portions may be completely surrounded by higher ground. It is also possible that the several low spots on the canal ridge bring the mean high water line to the road itself. On this record, it is not possible to conclude where the mean high water line is. The site of the proposed road and surrounding lots are located in a hardwood swamp associated with Julington Creek in Duval County. The land upon which the road would be built is heavily wooded. Julington Creek is Class III waters of the state. The land upon which the road is to be built is the landward extent of the waters of the state. All of the Petitioners stipulated at the hearing that the Department of Environmental Regulation has jurisdiction to require a permit for fill pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. The proposed project would result in the placement of silica fill upon a strip of wetlands described above measuring 25' by 702.5', which is 17,562.5 square feet, plus four driveway pads to lots measuring 25' by 30', for an additional 3900 square feet, for a total of 20,562.5 square feet, which is 0.47 of an acre. (An acre is 43,560 square feet.) The sand of the roadway and driveway pads will not pollute the waters of the state. The sand of the road will not increase biological oxygen demand or nutrients. During construction, turbidity could be increased if high waters are experienced and the area is not properly stabilized, but turbidity could be monitored and controlled. The materials of the roadway further will not depress the oxygen levels in Julington Creek. The project originally proposed that seed and fertilizer be used to stabilize the banks of the road, and fertilizer would contribute to nutrients in the waters of the state, but Petitioners at the hearing gave reasonable assurances that seeding could be accomplished without fertilizer by using burlap and seed. The roadway itself will also not generate unlawful bacteria that could make its way to the waters of the state. The road will disturb the biological integrity of the organisms living in the soil beneath the roadway and driveway pads. The proposed project will permanently destroy 0.47 of an acre of the wetlands associated with Julington Creek. These and adjacent wetlands function as a natural kidney, cleansing the water of pollutants, in a continuous cycle. Wetlands contain soil and living organisms that, in balance, filter out pollutants, assimilate nutrients, and provide habitat for organisms. The silica road proposed by Petitioners will not perform these functions. Petitioners presented no evidence to rebut these findings, except to argue that the loss of wetland was insignificant and to argue that wetlands, at times, will also cause pollution. Petitioners gave no other reasonable assurances that the long-term effects of the road would not degrade water quality. The exchange of water, which results in the natural filtration and cleansing described above, occurs from waters coming from the uplands, from the wetlands, and from open waters such as Julington Creek. Julington Creek is tidal, and the testimony indicated that with significant regularity the wetlands associated with this proposed road were inundated with water. In a natural state, wetlands will experience dry conditions. During such periods, which are natural and cyclical, water will drain from the swamp and there can be a natural depression of oxygen levels in the open waters, increasing suspended solids. While these facts are true, Petitioners did not present evidence to show with particularity whether this had occurred or to what extent this had occurred with respect to the wetland area where the road is to be located, and did not show with particularity how removal of these wetlands by constructing this road would prevent natural degradation of the water in the future. Moreover, whether or not the natural filtration system of a wetland becomes less efficient due to natural cycles is not relevant in this case. Petitioners here do not propose to replace nature's cyclical inefficiencies with a better, manmade system, but propose, rather, to remove a significant portion of the only filter now operating, without replacement. The entire Julington Creek drainage basis is 30 or 40 square miles. The relevance of this figure was not established, since from the map which is Respondent's Exhibit 9 it is clear that the drainage basis of Julington Creek, with its associated wetlands, serves to filter pollutants from an equally large, if not larger, upland area. Petitioners argue that removal of 0.47 acre is insignificant if the entire area is 30 to 40 square miles, but from Respondent's Exhibit 9 it is evident that much of that other part of the wetland is not available to function as a filter for the waters currently filtered by the wetlands in the vicinity of the pro- posed roadway. The proposed road is near the conjunction of Julington and Durbin Creeks, and near the place where the open waters enlarge. The wetlands of the proposed road would be expected to serve the filtration function for those open waters and the uplands immediately above the wetlands, and not some other part of the 30 or 40 square miles. The land at the headwaters of Julington Creek is now being developed for multifamily housing and industrial uses, and the whole watershed of the Creek is being developed. The waters of Julington Creek have already been stressed in a general way by this development. Petitioners Vargas, Mrs. M. E McCullough, Dr. Robert L. Barksdale, and Mr. Steve Scecere, all testified at the hearing, and own, respectively, lots 22, 21, 19, and 24. All testified that they intend to build houses on their lots, but have not yet applied for permits. Since 1977, the Department of Environmental Regulation has consistently taken the position that deposit of fill on the wetlands which are the landward extent of Julington Creek will degrade the quality of the waters of the state, and have consistently acted to prohibit such fill. See Respondent's Exhibits 8, 10, and 11. The Department further has consistently told prospective buyers of this position with regard to these wetlands. Of particular relevance to this application, in 1977 the Respondent denied a fill permit to place 2,500 cubic yards of fill on lot 20 as depicted on Respondent's Exhibit 1. This lot is now owned by Debra H. Prevatt, and is contiguous to lot 19 owned by Petitioner, Dr. Robert L. Barksdale. The fill proposed in 1977 would have eliminated 20,000 square feet of wetlands, approximately the same as the proposed project in this case. Petitioner proposes the finding that the Corps of Engineers stands ready to issue their permit pending resolution of their application by the Department of Environmental Regulation. This finding is based solely upon the testimony of Mr. Vargas as to the intentions of unnamed officials in the Corps of Engineers, and as such, is hearsay. Therefore, absent direct evidence on the point, the proposed finding is rejected. Petitioners propose a finding that the permitting process progressed "without negative feedback" until objections were raised by adjacent property owners. This finding was not supported by any evidence other than the opinion of Mr. Vargas, and will be rejected as unsupported and possibly hearsay. It is also rejected as irrelevant since there was no evidence that the Respondent denied the permit for reasons other than those provided by statute and regulation. The Petitioners have paid taxes on their property, are of the opinion that they cannot build on their land if the permit is denied, and would be willing to sell their land to the state for a reasonable amount if the permit is denied. Respondent has not placed a monetary value on the wetlands which Petitioners propose to fill. If Petitioners proposed to build the road on pilings, elevated above the wetlands so that most of the wetlands would continue to function, the application would be approved.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the application for a dredge and fill permit to construct the road and driveway pads as proposed by Petitioners be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Clark Vargas, P.E. President C. Vargas & Associates 8596 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 M. E McCullough 9139 Warwickshire Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Steve Scecere 9058 Kentism Court Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Dr. Robert L. Barksdale 2423 Acadie Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Ross Burnaman, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinke, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) should approve applications to renew consumptive use permits filed on behalf of the West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority), Pinellas County (County), and Freeman F. Polk (Polk), and if so, what conditions should be included in the permits. The District proposes to issue renewed permits to these applicants with specified conditions, but Polk seeks certain additional condition; to the permits sought by the Authority and the County, and similarly, the Authority and County seek the imposition of additional conditions on Polk's permit. The parties seek these additional conditions to insure that the permitted uses will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the applications, and will also not cause the water table to be lowered so that lake stages or vegetation are adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased or controlled by the applicants.
Findings Of Fact The following findings are based upon relevant stipulations of the parties: The Authority is a special taxing district of the State of Florida encompassing Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, which was created by interlocal agreement on October 25, 1974. It is responsible for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of facilities in locations, and at times, necessary to insure that an adequate supply of water will be available to all persons residing within its boundaries. The District is an agency of the State of Florida which is charged with regulating consumptive uses of water in a sixteen county area, including Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. It has implemented a permitting program that requires all persons seeking to withdraw water in excess of an annual average daily rate of 100,000 gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 1,000,000 gallons, to obtain a consumptive use permit. The Cypress Creek Wellfield is located on a 4,895 acre site in central Pasco County, lying east of U.S. 41 between State Roads 52 and 54. The District owns 3,623 acres of this Wellfield, and the remaining 1,272 acres are owned by the City of St. Petersburg. Construction on the Cypress Creek Wellfield commenced in 1974, and it currently consists of thirteen production wells, numerous monitor wells, several thousand feet of transmission lines, two 5 gallon storage tanks, a pump station and several buildings. The City of St. Petersburg, Pinellas and Pasco Counties, and the District have transferred their rights and privileges in this Wellfield, as well as the Wellfield facilities, to the Authority by contracts entered into in November, 1973, and August 1974. Water produced at the Cypress Creek Wellfield is sold at cost by the Authority to users which include the City of St. Petersburg and Pinellas County. The water produced at this Wellfield comprises 29% of the County's total water system demand (20 million gallons a day), and 25% of the City of St. Petersburg's total system demand (10 million gallons a day). These water systems serve approximately 470,000 and 330,000 persons, respectively. In March 1978, the District issued a six-year consumptive use permit to the Authority, the City of St. Petersburg, and the County authorizing an annual average and maximum daily withdrawal of 30 million gallons a day from the Cypress Creek Wellfield. The Authority also began a detailed ecological monitoring program in, and around, this Wellfield in 1978. A three-year permit was then issued to the Authority in December, 1982, authorizing withdrawals of 30 million gallons a day, annual average, and 40 million gallons a day, maximum daily, from the Wellfield. The District determined by Order No. 82-28, dated December 1, 1982, that an average annual daily rate of withdrawal of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of withdrawal of 40 million gallons from the Cypress Creek Wellfield was a reasonable-beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. An application for renewal of the Cypress Creek Wellfield consumptive use permit at the quantities permitted in 1982 was filed with the District on November 7, 1985, by the Authority, the County and the City of St. Petersburg. The continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons is needed in order to meet the water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas and Pasco Counties, is in the interest of residents of Pinellas County, and will not cause the rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse to be lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the District. The regulatory level of the potentiometric surface established by the District for the Cypress Creek Wellfield has never been exceeded by prior withdrawals of water at permitted rates. Continued withdrawal of water from the Cypress Creek Wellfield at an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 40 million gallons will not cause the potentiometric surface level to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory level established by the District, will not cause the surface level of water to be lowered below any minimum established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield is located on a 8,060 acre site in north central Pasco County, lying approximately one mile south of the Pasco-Hernando County line, and immediately east of U.S. 41. The Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield property has been owned by Pinellas County since 1976. Wellfield construction was completed in 1981. By agreement entered into on April 11, 1979, the Authority is obligated to sell the County water produced from the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield, but any excess not currently being used by the County may be sold to other members of the Authority. A significant amount of water produced at Cross Bar Ranch is pumped to the Cypress Creek Wellfield where it is combined with that Wellfield's water, and then distributed to Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties, as well as the City of St. Petersburg, for further distribution. The water produced at these two Wellfields in combination accounts for about 60% of the County's total water system demand. Following pump tests performed from 1977 to 1979, as well as an ecological monitoring program, the District issued a modified consumptive use permit to the Authority by Order 80-9, dated February 6, 1980, for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. The District determined that withdrawals at an average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield was a reasonable beneficial use, was consistent with the public interest, and would not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of that application. On November 7, 1985, the Authority and County jointly applied to the District for renewal of the consumptive use permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at the current permitted quantities of an annual average daily rate of 30 million gallons, and a maximum daily rate of 45 million gallons. These withdrawal rates are needed in order to meet present and future water supply demands of the residents of Pinellas, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties, provide water for environmental mitigation, and make up water when one or more production facilities cannot pump at their permitted levels. The withdrawal of water from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield at permitted rates will not cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below sea level, or any regulatory levels established by the District, and will not significantly induce salt water encroachment. Jumping Gully is the only stream or watercourse in the vicinity under the influence of this Wellfield, and the District has not established a minimum rate of flow for Jumping Gully. Hydrologic data collected from monitor wells located at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield show the potentiometric surface has been above mean sea level during the operation of this facility. The District has renewed consumptive use permits for a period of ten years for the City of St. Petersburg, and the City of Lakeland Power Plant. The Authority owns, leases or otherwise controls the area within both the Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields. Polk owns, leases or otherwise controls the property identified in his amended permit application of July 26, 1988. Both the Authority's and Polk's permit applications were filed on the proper forms, and otherwise comply with the District's procedural requirements for consumptive use permits. Each party has standing to participate in this case. The proposed uses of water which are the subject of these proceedings are reasonable beneficial uses, and in the public interest. The only permit criteria that remain at issue in this case are set forth in Rules 40D-2.301(1)(c) and (2)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The following findings of fact are based upon the evidence presented at the hearing: Polk was first issued a consumptive use permit for Ft. King Ranch in August, 1981, after both the Cypress Creek Wellfield and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield had each been permitted to withdraw 30 million gallons per day. Polk's permit authorized him to withdraw ground water at an average annual rate of 420,000 gallons per day, and a maximum rate of approximately 1.94 gallons per day for irrigation of pasture grass and citrus, and cattle drinking water. A temporary consumptive use permit issued to Polk in August, 1981, was signed by him and states on its face that these additional groundwater withdrawals were necessary because of drought conditions. A modified permit was issued to Polk by the District in July, 1982, authorizing him to increase his withdrawals to an average annual rate of approximately 1.94 gpd, and a maximum rate of 5.9 gpd. Polk's wells are not metered. Prior to August, 1981, Polk did not have man made surface or groundwater withdrawal on his property. As it relates to this proceeding, the property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk is known as the Ft. King Ranch, which is generally located between the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, and consists of approximately 6,000 acres. The Ft. King Ranch is comprised of five tracts which were separately acquired by Polk commencing in January, 1969, and ending in 1984. By 1978, Polk had acquired two of these five tracts. He leased a third tract beginning in 1971, before acquiring an ownership interest in 1981. These three tracts were designated parcels A, B, and C, and are located in the eastern and northern portion of the Ranch. These three parcels were the only tracts owned, leased or otherwise controlled by Polk at the time the first Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield permits were issued in 1978. The western tracts were acquired in 1982 and 1984, and were also referred to as the AL-BAR Ranch at hearing. Polk uses the Ft. King Ranch for a cow-calf operation, and also sod farming and seeding. From 1969 to approximately 1978, there was sufficient surface water on the Ft. King Ranch for these farming activities to be carried out without irrigation or wells. Water holes used by cattle were always wet, and lakes on the property were used for swimming and fishing. His pasture, hay, seed and sod grasses received moisture solely from rainfall. However, Polk did not establish the amounts of water used in his operations prior to the issuance of Wellfield permits. In 1976, parcels A, B, and C were used for these purposes, although Polk has frequently changed the specific size and location of acreages devoted to these land uses. In order to correct flooding that occurred on portions of the Ft. King Ranch during times of heavy rainfall, Polk sought the advice of the Soil Conservation Service in the mid-1970's. He was advised to construct a series of dikes and swales to control the flow of surface water on his property. During 1980 and 1981, Polk constructed a network of swales and ditches to divert and control the flow of surface water from portions of the Ranch needing less water to those requiring wetter conditions, such as his sod and seed operation. The swales interconnect lakes and ponds on his Ranch. He also constructed a levee on the property, and installed a lift pump. These activities have converted most of the eastern portion of his ranch to improved pasture and sod grasses, and virtually eliminated native vegetation. Polk had no professional help in the construction of his ditch-swale systems, or the levee. Beginning in approximately 1980, drier conditions were experienced at the Ranch. One of the ten driest years on record in this area occurred in 1980, and continued drought conditions in 1981 caused the District's Governing Board to declare a water shortage, and impose water conservation measures throughout the District. Some lakes and cypress swamps dried completely and failed to recharge to pre-1980 levels after rainfall. Due to reduced water availability since 1980, including drought conditions in 1985, Polk's calf weights have decreased, while the number of non-breeding cows has increased. Feed bills have increased due to reduced hay and grass production at the Ranch. Polk's bahia seed and sod crops have also declined since 1980 due to reduced surface water levels. Adequate and stable moisture is essential for seed production, and while such conditions did exist on the Ft. King Ranch prior to 1980, they have been absent since 1980. Due to the drier conditions which he noted in 1980 and 1981, Polk filed a formal complaint with the District in 1981. A site visit and pump test were conducted, and the District concluded that the Wellfields were causing less than a one foot drawdown in the Ft. King Ranch water table, and that dry conditions at his ranch were due primarily to drought. In 1985, Polk complained to the District again, and requested that it augment two lakes within the Ranch. After review of surrounding lake conditions, the District declined his request since Polk's lakes had not experienced water level declines atypical of lakes well beyond the influence of the Authority's Wellfields. Studies of water level elevations in the area indicate that the effect of Cypress Creek Wellfield pumpage is quite small when compared to natural changes in water levels due to variable rainfall and evapotransporation. Rainfall in this region is variable, and there has been a significant negative trend over time in surficial and potentiometric water levels that predates Wellfield pumpage. According to J. B. Butler, who was accepted as an expert in hydrology, the swales, dikes and levees constructed by Polk have not caused the water table or surface water level reductions experienced since late 1981. Rather, these are an attempt to divert and retain water on the property, and even in their absence, there would be no significant flow of surface water across Ft. King Ranch from an east to west direction. In addition, Butler testified that a fence line berm constructed along the northern border of the Ranch is an insignificant obstacle to the flow of surface water from the north to south across the Ranch when compared to topographic features, and has had no impact on the water tables of the Ranch. However, evidence introduced at hearing established that as early as 1981, the staff of the District concluded that the swales and elevated fence lines could be aggravating low water conditions by increasing evaporation and leakance, and by excluding surface water which would have entered the Ft. King Ranch from the north. The Authority offered competent substantial evidence to rebut the Butler testimony. Thomas Schanze, who was accepted as an expert in agricultural engineering, testified that Polk's elevated berm along his northern fence line has significantly restricted the flow of surface water onto Ft. King Ranch, and has contributed to the eastern portion of the Ft. King Ranch becoming a closed watershed. Between 1984 and 1986, approximately 700 million gallons of surface water have been excluded by Polk's water control and diversion activities. This exclusion has resulted in a diminished water table within the Ft. King Ranch of about one half foot compared with the water table on the northern side of the berm. Surface water cannot flow onto Polk's property until water levels immediately north reach flood stage. Aerial photographs of the Ft. King Ranch and surrounding properties show that the Polk property is significantly drier than surrounding properties, which include predominant wetlands. If the dry conditions experienced by Polk had been due to pumpage, the same dry conditions should be observed on surrounding properties and lands nearer the Wellfields. However, aerial photos show that lands closer to the Wellfields than Ft. King Ranch are less dry than the Ranch itself. This supports the position of the District and the Authority that Polk's own activities have had a significantly greater impact than pumpage on surface and groundwater levels. The reduction in productivity of Polk's farming activities is reasonably related to his northern berm which serves as a dike, preventing water from flowing onto Ft. King Ranch, as well as drought conditions existing in 1980, 1981 and 1985. The cumulative effect of water excluded from this property and dry weather conditions is significant, and accounts for decreased production. It was not established through competent substantial evidence that Polk's decreased production has resulted from any hydrologic impact of Wellfield pumpage. The District's expert in hydrology and ground water modeling, Robert G. Perry, concluded that significant water table declines on Ft. King Ranch due to pumping from Cypress Creek and Cross Bar Ranch Wellfields could not be confirmed. Through groundwater flow modeling and statistical analysis, he concluded that a one foot water table drawdown contour resulting from withdrawals at the rate of 30 mgd for 30 days without any recharge would not reach the Ft. King Ranch. Even in a worse case scenario of 120 days without recharge and pumpage at Cypress Creek of 30 mgd for 30 days, then 40 mgd for 30 days, and finally 30 mgd for 60 days, Perry concluded that the one foot water table drawdown contour would not reach Polk's Ranch. There is some evidence that under a worse case condition, pumpage at the Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield could result in the one foot water table drawdown contour intersecting a small portion of the western tract of the Ft. King Ranch, but this tract was not owned or leased by Polk in 1978, when the first Wellfield permits were issued. Conflicting evidence based upon steady state modeling by Craig Hutchinson of the United States Geological Survey was introduced on behalf of Polk to establish that the cumulative impact of the Wellfields could induce a significant drawdown in the water table in the area between the Wellfields, including the Ft. King Ranch. However, this evidence is rejected as less credible than the analysis conducted by Park and Phillip Davis, who was also accepted as an expert in hydrology and groundwater flow modeling. The steady state approach used by Hutchinson is inappropriate for analyzing the effects of wellfield withdrawals on the water table, because the water table is a dynamic system which is never at steady state. The transient groundwater simulation model used by the District is better suited for an analysis of impacts to the water table, although it does tend to overpredict such impacts, since it accounts for changes in rainfall. The Hutchinson analysis is also unreliable since it is based upon artificially derived antecedent water levels, rather than observed levels. Finally, he did not have required predevelopment water table data, and thus, could not verify water table predictions derived from his steady state model. A transient groundwater flow computer model used by Terry Bengtsson to estimate greater potentiometric surface and water table declines due to withdrawals from the Wellfields than predicted by Park or Davis was discredited, and shown to be unreasonable, by the results of a 28 day pump test in September and October, 1988. According to Rick Stebnisky, who was called on behalf of Polk and accepted as an expert in groundwater hydrology, the combined effect of pumping at the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields has resulted in a significant reduction in water table and potentiometric surface levels at Ft. King Ranch, with such reductions being greater in the southern areas than northern portions of Polk's property. He testified that drawdowns have been noted since pumping began at Cypress Creek in April, 1976, with greater drawdowns occurring closest to the Wellfields, and for this reason drawdowns appear to be related to pumping rather than drought conditions. However, Stebnisky's conclusions were drawn from an overly simplistic hydrographic analysis which ignored factors other than pumpage, such as reduced rainfall, regional trends, surface drainage and non-wellfield pumpage, according to Robert G. Perry, an expert in hydrology and groundwater modeling. Stebnisky was not accepted as an expert in groundwater flow modeling. It was also established that some of the basic assumptions used by Stebnisky in predicting drawdowns were inaccurate, and not based upon accepted hydrologic principles. Therefore, when weighed and considered against other expert testimony, including that of Perry and Dr. J. I. Garcia-Bengochea, Ph.D., an expert in hydrology and environmental engineering, the testimony of Stebnisky is found to lack credibility. While Dr. Garcia-Bengochea agreed with the testimony of Stebnisky that the potentiometric surface and water table levels on the Ft. King Ranch had been somewhat reduced due PAGE 18 MISSING individual well meters, regardless of whether on-site wetlands are being augmented, and is sufficiently accurate for use in evaluating the impact of withdrawals on the water table and Floridan Aquifer. As a condition for renewal of the Authority's permits, the District has required that flow measuring devices or methods be installed for each augmentation discharge point, although generally augmentation of lakes and wetlands within wellfields is not metered. The allowable drawdown levels of potentiometric surface for the Cypress Creek Wellfield established by the District have never been reached. The lowest levels occurred during severe drought conditions in 1981 and 1985. However, even during these times, the lowest potentiometric surface level was 8.53 feet above regulatory levels. Notwithstanding the testimony of Philip Waller, an expert in hydrology, pumping from Polk's irrigation Wellfields have not had a significant impact on the Cypress Creek Wellfield because Waller's model assumptions are extreme, according to Robert G. Perry, whose field of expertise includes groundwater modeling. These unrealistic assumptions included that Polk would operate his irrigation wells at maximum capacity for 120 days, and that there would be no recharge, even though irrigation, like rainfall, would be expected to result in some recharge. Even under these extreme assumptions, Waller's modeling only produced a one foot drawdown at Cypress Creek Wellfield, which would still be well within regulatory levels established by the District, based upon data for the drought years of 1981 and 1985. Since 1979, Cypress Creek Wellfield has averaged approximately 30 million gallons per day, with the maximum withdrawal occurring in May, 1983, when it averaged 34.2 mgd. From 1981 to 1985, the average withdrawals from Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield remained stable at 13 mgd, but since 1986, the pumpage has increased to over 15 mgd due, in part, to the use of water from Cross Bar to compensate for contaminated wells shut down at the Eldridge-Wilde Wellfield. For purposes of Rule 40D-2.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, the District does not consider the use of water that occurs naturally, without pumping or diversion, for use on crops or other agricultural purposes to be, an existing legal use of water, because it does not require a permit. The District does not apply Rule 40D-2.301(2)(e) to protect agricultural crops, but rather to protect naturally occurring vegetation. When an application to renew a consumptive use permit is reviewed by the District, and that renewal does not seek an increase in the quantity of water withdrawals, "legal users" are those present prior to the original permit. On May 17, 1988, a Final Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 88-0693R declaring the District's Rules 40D-2.301(3)(b), (c), and (d), Florida Administrative Code, which otherwise would apply in this proceeding, to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The Authority's applications were declared complete by the District on June 18, 1987, and the District staff recommended issuance of these permits on August 14, 1987. Modifications to the draft permit were made by the District on December 28, 1988, and these modified draft permits are acceptable to the Authority. The latest draft permits contain stated conditions which include the requirement that the Authority directly measure the amount of water it uses to augment the water level of on-site wetlands. On February 22, 1989, the Authority and the District filed a Joint Notice of Settlement in Case Number 87- 4644 by which they settled their dispute as to the duration of consumptive use permit renewals for the Wellfields, and provided for a ten year permit for Cypress Creek, and a six year permit for Cross Bar Ranch Wellfield. Polk submitted his original permit application on April 13, 1987, and then amended his request on July 26, 1988. The District has proposed to issue a draft permit to Polk, with stated conditions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a Final Order approving the consumptive use permit applications of the West Coasts Regional Water Supply Authority and Pinellas County for the Cross Bar Ranch and Cypress Creek Wellfields, with conditions proposed by the District, and also approving the consumptive use permit application of Freeman F. Polk, with conditions proposed by the District. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 10th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 87-4644, 87-4645, 87-4647, & 88-1169 Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings 6, 21. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in Finding 6. Adopted in Finding 38. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 11. Adopted in Finding 38. 8-11. Adopted in Finding 20. 12. Adopted in Finding 21. 13-14. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted in Finding 27. Adopted in Finding 25. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 25, 26. 20-22. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 23-48. Adopted in Findings 31 through 35. 49-60. Adopted in Findings 28 through 30. 61-64 Adopted in Finding 36. 65-68. Adopted in Finding 37. Rulings on the Authority's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 4, 10. Adopted in Finding 2. 4-6. Adopted in Finding 39. Adopted in Finding 18. Adopted in Findings 21, 22. Adopted in Finding 40. 10-11. Adopted in Finding 3. 12-14. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 6, 38. Adopted in Finding 5. 17-19. Adopted in Findings 6, 21. 20. Adopted in Findings 7, 16. 21-23. Adopted in Finding 41. 24-25. Adopted in Finding 9. 26-27. Adopted in Finding 36. Adopted in Findings 11, 38. Adopted in Finding 10. Adopted in Finding 11. 3132 Adopted in Findings 11, 21. 33. Adopted in Findings 12, 16. 34-36. Adopted in Finding 41. Adopted in Finding 21. Adopted in Finding 24. Adopted in Finding 29. Adopted in Finding 24. 41-42. Adopted in Finding 22. 43-45. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 26. Adopted in Findings 26, 28. 50-53. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Findings 20, 21. Adopted in Finding 20. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding 41. Rejected as unnecessary. 60-62. Adopted in Finding 35. 63. Adopted in Finding 36. 64-70. Adopted in Findings 34, 35. 71-76. Adopted in Findings 33 through 35. 77-78. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. 79-80. Adopted in Finding 34. 81-87. Adopted in Finding 32. 88-91. Adopted in Findings 26 through 35. 92-96. Adopted in Findings 29, 30, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 28. Adopted in Finding 29. 99-100. Adopted in Finding 30. 101-102. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected in Finding 37. Adopted and Rejected in part in Finding 37 Ruling on Pinellas County's Proposed Finding of Fact: (The County also adopted the Authority's Proposed Findings.) 1. Rejected since the statement proposed by the County is not a finding of fact, but simply a statement on the evidence. Evidence which was not admitted at hearing has not been considered. Rulings on Polk's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 3. Adopted in Findings 9, 10. Adopted in Finding 21. Rejected in Findings 6, 11, 21. Adopted in Finding 22. Adopted and Rejected in part in Findings 25 through 27. 7-8. Rejected in Findings 25 through 27. Adopted in Finding 25. Adopted in Finding 24. 11-13. Rejected in Findings 24, 29, 30. Adopted in Finding 37. Rejected as argument on the evidence and not a proposed finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Douglas M. Wyckoff, Esquire 705 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Thomas E. Cone, Jr., Esquire 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 John T. Allen, Jr., Esquire Chris Jayson, Esquire 4508 Central Avenue St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Bram D. E. Canter, Esquire 306 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Peter G. Hubbell, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34699-6899
Findings Of Fact Findings based on stipulations The District first advertised the subject bid on September 4 and 11, 1994. Three bidders, Environmental Waterway Management, Inc., Aquatic Vegetation Control, Inc., and Arbor Tree and Land, submitted timely responses to the bid. Two of the three bidders, Environmental Waterway Management, Inc., and Arbor Tree and Land, submitted bid bonds as security although the bid documents specified certified or cashiers' checks. At the District's monthly Board of Supervisors' meeting held on September 26, 1994, the Board rejected all three bids and authorized a re- advertisement and re-bidding due to the facts set forth in paragraph 3, above. The District advertised the subject bid again on October 2 and 9, 1994. The same three bidders submitted timely responses to the bid. The District found all three bids to be responsive. The bid from Aquatic Vegetation Control, Inc., was approximately $240.00 lower than the bid of Environmental Waterway Management, Inc., while the bid from Arbor Tree and Land was substantially higher. At the District's October 24, 1994, Board of Supervisors' meeting, the Board authorized a Conditional Notice of Intent to award the subject contract to Environmental Waterway Management, Inc. On approximately October 27, 1994, Petitioner filed its Notice of Protest of the subject bid. On approximately November 4, 1994, Petitioner filed its Formal Protest. On approximately November 17, 1994, Petitioner submitted information to the District regarding past fines levied against Environmental Waterway Management, Inc., by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture. At the District's November 21, 1994, Board of Supervisors' meeting, the Board reconsidered its action taken in October and then again rejected all three bids and authorized a re-advertisement and re-bidding. On approximately December 1, 1994, Petitioner filed its Amended Formal Protest. There exist no differences between the bid specification documents for which the District received two sets of bids (in 9/94 and 10/94). Petitioner is not aware of any conviction of EWM or the Cheslers specifically involving business with a public entity. Additional findings based on evidence at hearing Petitioner, AVC, is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in the City of Riviera Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida. Respondent, the District, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida, created by Chapter 57-646, Laws of Florida, as amended. The District's administrative offices are located in unincorporated Palm Beach County, Florida. In September 1994, the District advertised for sealed bids on a unit price basis for an aquatic weed growth control spray program and a canal bank growth control program in the District's easements and other related environmental/safety services. The bid documents that were provided to the bidders, specifically the Advertisement for Bids, General Conditions, and Bid Form, all expressly stated that the District reserved the right to reject any and all bids. The bid specifications also reserved to the District the right to waive minor irregularities in bid's received. The "Total Bid Price" from AVC in October was $322,025.00, while the "Total Bid Price" from EWM was $322,265.00. The "Total Bid Price" from Arbor was $390,005.00. Therefore, there was a $240.00 difference between AVC's and EWM's "Total Bid Prices." At the District's October 24, 1994, Board of Supervisors' meeting, the District Administrator recommended that the Board award the contract to either AVC or EWM due to the closeness of their "Total Bid Prices." The District Engineer advised the Board that the bid prices were merely "guesstimates," meaning they were projections of the proposed work to be performed, and that the exact nature and amount of the work to be actually required, depending on weather, rainfall, etc., could not be quantified at that time. Therefore, depending on these variable factors, along with policy decisions of the Board of Supervisors, as to what specific work would be undertaken, it was not possible to evaluate whether the bids of AVC or EWM would actually prove to be lower since the unit price bids by each entity varied substantially on certain individual line items, thereby resulting in "unbalanced bids." The District Engineer also advised the Board, in response to a supervisor's inquiry, that he was not personally familiar with EWM, but that AVC had provided similar services for the District in the past, and the District had had to provide "additional monitoring" of these services, costing the District additional time and money. This "additional monitoring" involved three invoices submitted to the District by AVC in March, April, and May of 1993 in which the District was charged for services which were not in fact rendered. This "additional monitoring" resulted in the District's being required to retain the services of the District Engineer's staff for extra field supervision. The Board, on a split vote, then authorized a Conditional Notice of Intent to award the subject contract to EWM. At the District's November 21, 1994, Board of Supervisors' meeting, the Board, upon advice of legal counsel, considered the following three options: 1) remain with the prior conditional award of the contract to EWM, thereby incurring the possibility of a bid protest by AVC; 2) reconsider its action taken at the October meeting and award the contract to AVC, thereby incurring the possibility of a bid protest by EWM; or 3) reconsider its action taken at the October meeting, reject all bids, and fully evaluate its alternatives. The Board, after carefully considering all the factors, chose the third option, reconsidering its award to EWM, rejecting all the bids, and directing that the subject services be re-bid. Although revised bid documents have not been finalized because of the pendency of these proceedings, the District is considering retaining the right to award the subject contract on a line-item unit price basis to one or more entities, thereby attempting to solve the "unbalanced" bid issue.
Recommendation On the basis of all the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Indian Trail Water Control District issue a Final Order in this case denying the relief sought by the Petitioner and dismissing the petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March 1995 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 29th day of March 1995. APPENDIX The following are the specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties: Findings submitted by Petitioner Except as specifically noted immediately below, the substance of all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner has been accepted. Paragraph 5: Rejected as consisting of subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 7: Rejected as consisting of subordinate and unnecessary details. First unnumbered paragraph following Paragraph 7: Rejected as consisting of subordinate and unnecessary details. Last two unnumbered paragraphs: Rejected as consisting of subordinate and unnecessary details. Findings submitted by Respondent Except as specifically noted immediately below, the substance of all proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent has been accepted. Paragraphs 18 and 19: Rejected as consisting of subordinate and unnecessary details. COPIES FURNISHED: Michelle Leah Azar, Esquire Patrick M. O'Hara, P.A. 100 Commerce Center 324 Datura Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 William P. Doney, Esquire Vance & Doney, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 200 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Betsy S. Burden, Esquire Charles F. Schoech, Esquire Caldwell & Pacetti 324 Royal Palm Way Palm Beach, Florida 33480-4352 John Bonde, District Administrator Indian Trail Water Control District 13476 61st Street North West Palm Beach, Florida 33412-1915
The Issue In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on September 5, 2003, the Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" or the "Department") proposed amendments (the "Proposed Rule") to an existing rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 304.700. The Proposed Rule establishes a Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") for Total Phosphorus ("TP") for a number of streams (referred to in this proceeding as the Nine Northern Tributaries) in the Lake Okeechobee Basin and addresses other related matters. The issue in this proceeding is whether the Proposed Rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Lake Okeechobee Of the freshwater bodies located wholly within the forty-eight contiguous states in the continental United States, Lake Okeechobee (the "Lake") is the second largest. Given its size, it is not surprising that the Lake is a water source of great import to its region. It provides drinking water for lakeside cities and towns in South Florida and is a potential backup water supply for the urban communities of Florida's southeast coast. The Lake supplies irrigation water for the Everglades Agricultural Area ("EAA") and in times of drought, it serves as a critical supplement to the rain upon which the Everglades, an ombrotrophic system, is dependent. Home to one of the nation's prized bass and speckled perch fisheries, the Lake is also an "economically important commercial fishery." Petitioners' Ex. 12, p. 9. Most significantly to this proceeding (one involving the application of Florida's water resources and environmental control laws), Lake Okeechobee is a key component of Central and South Florida's Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades ecosystem which extends from the chain of lakes at the headwaters of the Kissimmee River in the north to Florida Bay in the south. As such, it has had tremendous ecological value in the past. Despite significant detrimental changes in the Lake's hydrological regime and water quality since the early 1900s, the Lake continues to "provide[] habitat for a wide variety of wading birds, migratory waterfowl, and the federally-endangered Everglades Snail Kite." Id. The Lake suffers from major impacts due to hydrologic modifications. In the making since the days of the Great Depression, these include the construction of the Herbert Hoover Dike prior to World War II and the installation of a system of canals and levees built following congressional authorization just after the war in 1948. The latter was part of a comprehensive water resources project undertaken by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and known as the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control (the "C&SF Project"). Whether producing water levels too high or too low, the changes in hydrology brought about by mankind over the past century have led to various impacts that have been significantly detrimental to the ecology of the Lake and the surrounding area. Aside from hydrologic modifications, there have been other factors that have led to significant impacts detrimental to the Lake and its ecology. Excessive nutrient loading is one of them. Nutrient loading has occurred because of the conversion of much of the land around the Lake to agriculture, cattle ranches and dairy farms. The conversion is described in the Lake Okeechobee Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Plan, Planning Document dated February 28, 2003, prepared by the Lake Okeechobee Division of the Northern District Restoration Department of the South Florida Water Management District (the "SWIM Planning Document"): To the north [of the Lake], dairy farms and beef cattle ranching became the major land uses, while to the south, sugarcane and vegetable farming increased rapidly. These land use changes resulted in a large increase in the rate of nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) inputs to the lake, and detrimental changes occurred in the lake's water quality. Id. at 10. The inputs of phosphorus and their impact is also described in the SWIM Planning Document. Pertinent to this proceeding, in particular, the document describes the phosphorus inputs north of the Lake and their impacts: Phosphorus inputs from the northern watershed increased dramatically, and can be traced primarily to the animal agricultural activities in that watershed. Loads (concentrations times flow) of total phosphorus to the open water region of the lake nearly tripled between the early 1970s and mid-1980s, and coincident with this trend, the concentration of phosphorus in the lake itself increased from below 40 to over 100 parts per billion (ppb). Blooms of blue-green algae became more common, with particularly large blooms covering more than 40 percent of the lake surface in the 1980s. Id. at 10-11. The Nine Northern Tributaries Among the rivers, streams, creeks, canals and sloughs that comprise the Lake Okeechobee Basin are nine tributaries to the north: Taylor Creek, Nubbin Slough, the S-135 Canal, Mosquito Creek, Otter Creek, Lettuce Creek, Henry Creek, Myrtle Slough, and Chandler Hammock Slough (the "Nine Northern Tributaries"). Located in sub-basins (the S-191, S-133, S-135, and S-154 Basins) within the Lake Okeechobee Basin, the Nine Northern Tributaries contribute between five and fifteen percent of the annual water flow into the Lake. All are plagued by nutrient pollution that consists mainly of excess nitrogen and phosphorus. The Nine Northern Tributaries were relatively unpolluted prior to agricultural development in the area. In the aftermath, the environments in their respective watersheds have been profoundly altered by pollution. The pollution has been especially dramatic with regard to phosphorus. For example, phosphorus levels in the area were lower than 60 parts per billion ("ppb") in 1953. In recent years, phosphorus levels for most basins in the Lake Okeechobee water levels have been double and triple 1953 levels. In some cases phosphorus levels have been at even greater multiples of 1953 levels. One of the higher examples is the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Basin where the level of phosphorus for the period 1990-1994 was 602 ppb, an increase ten-fold over that forty years earlier. Between nitrogen and phosphorus (and all other pollutants, for that matter), phosphorus is the pollutant of primary concern in the Nine Northern Tributaries. Designated Uses In 1967, Florida adopted Chapter 403, entitled "Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act" (the "Pollution Control Act.") Ch. 67-436, Laws of Fla. The Pollution Control Act recognized that water bodies serve multiple beneficial uses that must be protected to promote the public welfare. Water quality standards were adopted for this purpose. Chapter 403 established a policy to "conserve the waters of the state and to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish, and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses." § 403.021(2), Fla. Stat. The Pollution Control Act empowered the Department to "develop . . . a grouping of water into classes . . . in accordance with the present and future most beneficial uses," and to "establish . . . water quality standards for the State as a whole or for any part thereof[.]" § 403.061(10) and (11), Fla. Stat. In 1968, the Department of Air and Water Pollution Control (one of DEP's predecessor agencies) promulgated regulations enumerating five classes of beneficial uses to be protected. The Rule enumerating the five classes can now be found at Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.400. Water bodies not specifically identified in the Rule are listed as Class III on the basis of the designated uses "Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.400(1) and (12). The Nine Northern Tributaries are all Class III waters. See Department's Ex. 4. The import of a Class III designation was described at hearing by Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen: The designated uses is intended as a way to describe quickly and easily to those in the profession, and to the public, as to what the intent and the use of that water body ought to be. So that for Class [III], for example, . . . we would intend to protect those [so designated] to ensure that they have a healthy and well-balanced natural population of fish and wildlife (Tr. 195-196) "Water quality criteria" were adopted for each class to protect the uses in that class and all higher numbered classes. Fla. Admin. Code Ch. 28-5 (1968). Since then, the Department has updated the criteria and added a narrative nutrient criterion that applies to Class III waters: (48)(b) Nutrients - in no case shall nutrient concentration of a body of water be altered so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna. Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302. The phrase "imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora and fauna" for this narrative criterion, however, has not been defined by rule. The nutrient criterion also requires that the nutrient level be "limited as needed to prevent violations of other standards contained in this chapter." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302. Phosphorus in Florida and Imbalance of Flora and Fauna There is a wide range of natural nutrient conditions in the state of Florida especially with regard to phosphorus. Phosphorus is common in Florida soils. In fact, some Florida soil is so rich in phosphorus that it is the site of phosphate mines, where phosphorus is mined for use in fertilizers and for other purposes. The presence of such large amounts of phosphorus is due to a combination of factors. Limestone formations, the base of Florida rock, and shallow reef systems inundated by marine waters over millions of years led to a sedimentary deposit system laden with phosphorus in the land mass that is Florida. The sedimentary system is now composed of phosphatic sands and clays. Soils laden with phosphorus contribute phosphorus to adjacent water bodies as part of a natural process independent of human activities. The presence of so much phosphorus in Florida soils and its natural leaching into water bodies poses a problem for the scientist asked to determine when phosphorus has created an imbalance in natural flora and fauna especially when other factors contribute to imbalance. There is no question, however, that there is too much phosphorus in the Nine Northern Tributaries and Lake Okeechobee to maintain a balance of natural flora and fauna and that the presence of this phosphorus is largely the result of human activity and disturbance. The Florida legislature, moreover, has said so. See Finding of Fact 36. The question for the investigator in pursuit of a TMDL for TP, such as the Department in this proceeding, is how much phosphorus can these water bodies tolerate before imbalance is reached. Another way of looking at the problem with regard to the streams at issue in this proceeding is: at what concentration level does TP allow the streams to sustain a healthy population of aquatic flora and fauna so as to avoid phosphorus impairment? Phosphorus Impairment The Nine Northern Tributaries were included on the list of impaired surface waters adopted by the Department through Secretarial Order issued August 28, 2002. They are central to this proceeding because they are the subject of the Proposed Rule by virtue of their identification in the Proposed Rule as "[o]ther waterbodies in the Lake Okeechobee Basin" subject to a TMDL set at "an annual median TP [total phosphorus] concentration of 0.159 mg/L." See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, September 5, 2003, OR-1, Department's Exhibit No. 5, p. 3. Like the Nine Northern Tributaries, Lake Okeechobee has also been determined to be impaired due to the presence of excessive phosphorus. It is not an exaggeration to deem the Lake profoundly polluted by phosphorus. Concentrations have risen from 40 ppb in the early 1970s to 145 ppb in 2000. The Lake receives phosphorus both from external (such as the Nine Northern Tributaries) and internal sources. A large percentage of the lake bottom that was formerly covered in sand is overlain by organic mud, estimated to contain over 30,000 metric tons of phosphorus. Mud sediment accumulation and phosphorus deposition have increased significantly in the last 50 years. Phosphorus in the water column in the Lake, therefore, has an external and an internal source as well: sediment and deposition on the lake bottom. Over time, elevated phosphorus loadings from external and internal sources have intensified the eutrophication of the Lake. Eutrophication is apparent to the eye by the presence of widespread algal blooms. The algal blooms, in turn, have caused die-off of macro-invertebrate communities due to toxic byproducts of algal decay. Dense blooms of algae, moreover, adversely affects the quality of drinking water. As part of the commencement of the restoration process in the hope of overcoming the eutrophic nature of the Lake, the Department has adopted a phosphorus TMDL of 140 metric tons for the Lake. Atmospheric deposition will account for 35 metric tons of phosphorus entering the lake externally every year. The TMDL for the Lake, therefore, requires that phosphorus from surface water loading not exceed a maximum of 105 metric tons per year (the difference between the Lake's TMDL of 140 metric tons and the 35 metric tons contributed by precipitation and other contributions from the atmosphere). This limitation on surface water loading applies to the Nine Northern Tributaries and other surface waters in the Lake Okeechobee Basin. Phosphorus Impairment in the Okeechobee Basin The Lake Okeechobee Basin is heavily impacted by phosphorus. Streams within the basin are likely to be impacted by phosphorus as opposed to streams that meet reference conditions, that is, that are under minimal impacts, as explained, below. If the Lake is ever to be restored it is critical that the phosphorus that is introduced from external sources (other than atmospheric deposition) be reduced. External Phosphorus Load Reduction Four "major issues" critical to the restoration of the Lake Okeechobee ecosystem have been identified by the SWIM Planning Document. This proceeding is concerned with one of them: "[e]xternal loads of phosphorus [that] must be substantially reduced." Petitioners' Ex. 12, p. 10. Two enactments of the Florida Legislature address or relate to phosphorus pollution in the Lake and the Nine Northern Tributaries: the most recent, passed in 1999, is the Florida Watershed Restoration Act1; the other, passed in 1987, codifies the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program.2 The Lake Okeechobee Protection Program Unique among watersheds in the State, Lake Okeechobee is specially protected by the Legislature through the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program (the "Protection Program"). Under the Protection Program, the Legislature's goal is to provide "a reasonable means of achieving and maintaining compliance with state water quality standards" in conjunction with Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. See § 373.4595(1)(g), Fla. Stat. The "findings and intent" section of Section 373.4595, Florida Statutes (the "Protection Statute") bearing the catchline, "Lake Okeechobee Protection Program," sets out both the import of Lake Okeechobee to the State as well as the hydrological and water quality impacts the Lake has suffered due to the use of land in its watershed and construction of the C&SF Project. Section (1)(c) announces, moreover, the Legislature's finding "that improvement to the hydrology and water quality of Lake Okeechobee is essential to the protection of the Everglades." The statute goes on to declare "it . . . imperative for the state, local governments and agricultural and environmental communities to commit to restoring and protecting Lake Okeechobee and downstream receiving waters," Section 373.4595 (1)(d), Florida Statutes, and to develop and implement immediately a "watershed-based approach to address these issues." Id. With regard to phosphorus, the Legislature, in the Protection Statute, "finds that phosphorus loads from the Lake's watershed have contributed to excessive phosphorus levels in the Lake and downstream receiving waters and that reduction in phosphorus levels will benefit the ecologies of the systems." § 373.4595 (1)(e), Fla. Stat. This finding is supported by Petitioners' Exhibit 43, a page from the Lake Okeechobee SWIM Plan, in which it is stated: "Phosphorus is of particular concern in this system because it is an essential element that contributes to eutrophication in Lake Okeechobee [citations omitted]. Phosphorus within the Lake's water column increased dramatically from 40 ppb in the early 1970s to 145 ppb in 2000 [reference omitted]." Toward reducing phosphorus levels, the Protection Statute references a technical publication,3 South Florida Water Management District's Publication 81-2. See § 373.4595(1)(f), Fla. Stat. The technical publication is also referred to in Petitioners' Ex. 43, which describes attempts at phosphorus load reduction to the Lake that took place from the early 1980s to the early 1990s: A phosphorus load reduction goal was developed to restore the ecological condition of Lake Okeechobee. This goal requires a 40 percent reduction in phosphorus loading to the lake based on the data collected from 1973 to 1979 (Federico et al., 1981). Tributary phosphorus limitations were based upon reaching an in- lake phosphorus concentration of 40 ppb by July 1992 as recommended by a modification of the Vollenweider (1976) nutrient loading model, described in SFWMD Technical Publication 81-2 (Federico et al., 1981). As controls within the basin surrounding Lake Okeechobee increased, a noticeable decline in the phosphorus load to the lake occurred from 1983 to 1993 [reference omitted].[4] Despite this load reduction, no reduction of phosphorus occurred within the lake [reference omitted]. This in part was attributed to the huge amount of phosphorus that has accumulated over decades in sediments within this shallow lake [reference omitted]. As the external loads have declined, internal loads from the sediments have become more significant, acting as a buffer to the system and preventing the phosphorus concentration in the water column from declining. Petitioners' Ex. 43 (emphasis added). Recent data demonstrate the phosphorus pollution problem in Lake Okeechobee. The five-year moving average of the long-term phosphorus load to Lake Okeechobee (that includes an atmospheric load of 35 metric tons per year) was 554 metric tons as of 2002. According to the January 1, 2004, Lake Okeechobee Protection Plan, this included the "smallest measured historical load (169 Mtons in 2000), due to the worst drought in recent history; and the largest measured load in the past decade (780 metric tons in 1998) that was a very wet year " Petitioners' Ex. 14, p. 4. The Protection Statute also references the Legislature's call in 1999 for "subsequent phases of phosphorus load reductions [to be] determined by the total maximum daily loads [TMDLs] established in accordance with s. 403.067": "Florida Watershed Restoration Act," (or the "TMDL Act"). The Florida Watershed Restoration Act Originally passed in 1999 as Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, the Florida Watershed Protection Act, in its present form5 (the "TMDL Act") 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 [citation omitted], will promote improvements in water quality throughout the state through the coordinated control of point and non-point sources of pollution." § 403.067(1), Fla. Stat. The TMDL Act requires the Department to "submit periodically to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the "USEPA") a list of surface waters for which total maximum daily load assessments will be conducted." § 403.067(2), Fla. Stat. The parties' descriptions of the requirements of the TMDL Act are in accord: In short, the [TMDL] Act requires the Department to formulate a prioritized list of "impaired waters' (i.e., that fail to meet water quality standards) to develop TMDLs for the listed impaired waters, and to allocate pollution load reductions so as to restore all impaired waters to water quality standards. §403.067, Fla. Stat. Petitioners' Proposed Final Order, pp. 9-10. Through the TMDL Act, the Legislature directed the Department to develop a methodology to identify waters of the state that were failing to meet the state's water quality standards due to pollutants. Using that methodology, the Department has been directed to assess the waters of the state and list as impaired those waters that fail to meet water quality standards because of a particular pollutant. Once those waters and causative pollutants have been identified, the Department is to establish a TMDL. Respondent's Proposed Final Order, pp. 11-12. TMDLs Defined as "the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources and the load allocations for nonpoint source and natural background," the statutory definition of TMDLs in the chapter of the Florida Statutes that contains the TMDL Act continues, "[p]rior 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." § 404.031(17), Fla. Stat. This definition was simplified at hearing by the Department's expert in the "development of total maximum daily load, DEP's Watershed Assessment Section Administrator Jan Mandrup-Poulsen. Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen testified that a TMDL, "is quite simply the amount of a pollutant that can be assimilated by a water body without causing the water body's designated use to be exceeded." (Tr. 194) As explained in a draft publication of the USEPA's Region 4 office, TMDL formulation is a process that: establishes the allowable loadings of pollutants or other quantifiable parameters for a waterbody based on the relationship between pollution sources and in-stream water quality conditions, so that states [such as Florida] can establish water quality based controls to reduce pollution from both point and non-point sources and restore and maintain the quality of their water resources [citation omitted]. Petitioners' Ex. 3, p. 2. Establishment of the amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive without exceeding water quality standards is not the end of the TMDL process for the Department. With the establishment of a TMDL, the Department is also required to "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." § 403.067(6)(a)2., Fla. Stat. This is what the Department has set about do for TP in the Lake Okeechobee Basin through its Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule An Amendment to the Existing Rule The existing rule is Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-304.700 (the "Existing Rule"). The Existing Rule sets the TMDL for total phosphorus ("TP") in Lake Okeechobee at 140 metric tons. Atmospheric loading to Lake Okeechobee is considered to be 35 metric tons. That leaves 105 metric tons as the total amount of phosphorus that can flow into the Lake annually from surface sources such as the Nine Northern Tributaries. The 140-metric ton total phosphorus TMDL is to be met by the year 2015. Presently entitled "Total Maximum Daily Loads in the Southeast Florida District," the Proposed Rule will change the title of the Existing Rule to "Lake Okeechobee Basin TMDLs." In addition to a revision of the numbering scheme in the Existing Rule, the Proposed Rule adds the proposed TMDL (the "Proposed TMDL") for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries expressed as a concentration level: 0.159 mg/L. ii. 0.159 mg/L In collaboration with the USEPA, the Department calculated the Proposed TMDL for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries as "an annual median TP concentration of 0.159 mg/L." The Proposed Rule, § (2)(a). The Proposed Rule makes no allocation between point sources and non-point sources. The TMDL is allocated entirely to nonpoint sources because "there are currently no permitted point sources in the watershed." The Proposed Rule, § (2)(a)2. The Margin of Safety for the TMDL, required by the TMDL statute to be included in the TMDL's calculation,6 is declared to be "implicit." The following contains the textual amendments proposed by the Proposed Rule as they appear in the Proposed Rule's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. They are underscored because they are new language added to the Existing Rule: Other Waterbodies in the Lake Okeechobee Basin Other waterbodies in the Lake Okeechobee Basin include Chandler Hammock Slough, Nubbin Slough, Mosquito Creek, Lettuce Creek, Henry Creek, S-135 Canal, Myrtle Slough, Taylor Creek, and Otter Creek. The Total Maximum Daily Load for these waterbodies is an annual median TP concentration of 0.159 mg/L, and is allocated as follows: the Wasteload Allocation for point sources is not applicable because there are currently no permitted point sources in the watershed. the Load Allocation for nonpoint sources is an annual median TP concentration of 0.159 mg/L, and the Margin of Safety is implicit. As tributaries to Lake Okeechobee, the load from these other waterbodies in the Lake Okeechobee Basin must also be consistent with the TP TMDL for Lake Okeechobee, above. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published September 5, 2003, OR- 1, Tab 5, p. 3. The Challenge to the Proposed Rule On September 26, 2004, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, the Petitioners filed at DOAH their petition to invalidate the Proposed Rule. The petition was amended several times. The petition at issue in the proceeding is the Second Amended Petition to Invalidate Proposed Rules. It was filed June 24, 2004, just more than one month before final hearing commenced. By virtue of the filing of the petition by the three Petitioners challenging the Department's rules, there are four parties to this proceeding: Florida Wildlife Federation, Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc., Save Our Creeks, Inc., and the Department. Identification of the Parties Florida Wildlife Federation Florida Wildlife Federation ("FWF"), one of the three Petitioners in this case, is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Tallahassee, Florida. It has approximately 14,000 members throughout the state. Its purpose is to promote the preservation, management, and improvement of Florida's fish, wildlife, soil, water and plant life. Lake Okeechobee is a particular focus of FWF as well as the adverse affects of past management practices in the Lake's watershed that threaten the continued existence of the Lake. On behalf of its members, FWF has participated and continues to participate in legal and administrative challenges to defend and otherwise support rules that protect Lake Okeechobee. The organization also brought the civil action that resulted in a Consent Decree that requires promulgation of a TMDL for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries. A substantial number of FWF members reside near Lake Okeechobee. They use and enjoy the waters of the Lake and the waters of the Nine Northern Tributaries. They observe and enjoy wildlife that rely on these waters for habitat. If the Proposed Rule is not determined to be invalid, there will be continuing adverse impacts to the waters of Lake Okeechobee and the Nine Northern Tributaries.7 These impacts will substantially affect a substantial number of FWF's members in their ability to observe, study and enjoy the waters and wildlife of the Lake Okeechobee basin. Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida, Inc. ("ECOSWF"), the second of the three Petitioners, is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Sarasota, Florida. It has approximately 100 members. They are business entities, governmental agencies and other organizations, and individuals who live in South Florida. Organized for the purpose of conserving natural resources in Southwest Florida, ECOSWF has participated in numerous legal challenges with the aim of preserving Florida's waters. The members of ECOSWF use and enjoy the waters of Lake Okeechobee and the Nine Northern Tributaries. They also observe and enjoy the wildlife that depend upon the waters for habitat. If the proposed rules are not determined to be invalid, there will be continuing adverse impacts to the waters of the Nine Northern Tributaries and the Lake.8 These impacts will substantially affect a substantial number of ECOSWF's members in their ability to observe, study, and enjoy the waters and wildlife of the Nine Northern Tributaries and the Lake. Save Our Creeks, Inc. Save Our Creeks, Inc. ("SOC"), the third of the Petitioners, is a Florida not-for-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Moore Haven, Florida. It has about 100 members who reside primarily in South Florida. Organized to preserve Fisheating Creek and other South Florida water bodies for the use and enjoyment of the public and for their natural resource value, SOC has participated in legal actions with the aim of preserving the environmental integrity of South Florida's rivers, streams, and lakes. A substantial number of SOC's members use and enjoy the waters of Lake Okeechobee and its tributary waters of the Nine Northern Tributaries and also observe and enjoy the fish and wildlife depend upon these waters for habitat. Department of Environmental Protection The Department is the state agency authorized to adopt TMDLs through rulemaking under Chapter 403. See §§ 403.061 and 403.067, Fla. Stat. Standing The parties stipulated to facts related to the standing of Petitioners. See Exhibit 4 to the Pre-hearing Stipulation, paragraphs 5-7. The Elements of the Challenge or Petitions The Petitioners' challenges may be divided broadly into two categories. The first of these is that the derivation by the Department of the Proposed TMDL for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries (0.159 mg/L.) was so flawed as to render the Proposed TMDL arbitrary and capricious ("Flawed Derivation"). The second is that the Proposed TMDL contravenes the provisions of the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program because it has been set prior to the allocation among sources in the water basin, a condition precedent to the establishment of the TMDL in the view of Petitioners, allowed by the TMDL Act ("The Lake Issue"). The first of these two categories of the challenge is further sub-divided into discreet elements as shown in the findings below. Before addressing the two main categories of Petitioners' challenge, however, there is a preliminary matter to be addressed: the Department's decision to reject water quality modeling results when water quality modeling is the only statutorily-recognized method for developing a TMDL. The Department's decision to forego water quality modeling and accept the method eventually followed for development of the Proposed TMDL must be understood in context. The context includes the TMDL Law, a lawsuit filed against the USEPA, and the various methods for establishing a TMDL. The Law, the Lawsuit and the Methods In Subsection (1) of the TMDL Act, the Legislature declares "that the development of a total maximum daily load program for state waters as required by s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act [citation omitted] will promote improvements in water quality throughout the state through the coordinated control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution." § 403.067(1), Fla. Stat. Before 1998, the Department had not extensively implemented the TMDL requirements of the Clean Water Act. As a result of a lawsuit against the USEPA, however, a consent decree was entered by USEPA and Earthjustice, the plaintiff in the lawsuit and organization that has some relationship with the Petitioners (the "Consent Decree"). Under the Consent Decree, USEPA agreed to require the Department to evaluate the Nine Northern Tributaries for TMDL development for nutrients by 2002. The USEPA followed through on its agreement under the decree and imposed the requirement for TMDL nutrient development by 2002 on the Department. In the same year that the Consent Decree was entered, 1999, the Florida Legislature passed the TMDL Act. Subsection (6) of the TMDL Act, bearing the catchline "CALCULATION AND ALLOCATION," imposes at its outset requirements on the Department before development of a TMDL for any water body or water segment determined to be impaired. The requirements include coordination with other groups to determine the data required, the methods of collection and analysis, and requirements for quality control: 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. § 403.067(6)(a)1., Fla. Stat. The Department coordinated with groups that had data concerning the Nine Northern Tributaries. In the words of Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen, "[t]he Department considered all readily available data. The primary provider of data . . . is the South Florida Water Management District." (Tr. 204) The Department gave notice by publication on June 27, 2003, of three public workshops in Tallahassee, Perry, and Okeechobee, Florida, and public comment periods on "draft total maximum daily loads . . . for . . . the Northern Tributaries to Lake Okeechobee (nutrients and dissolved oxygen)." Department's Ex. 2. The notice set a period for acceptance of public comment on the draft TMDLs through July 31, 2003, and announced placement of the draft TMDLs on the Department's web site. The TMDL Act endorses only one principal method of analysis of TMDL data: water quality modeling.9 The TMDL Act, however, does not restrict the method of analysis to water quality modeling. In fact, there are at least three other methods that are valid, albeit not endorsed statutorily by the Florida Legislature. These methods are set out in a publication of the Office of Water and the Office of Science and Technology of the USEPA bearing a date of July 2000. The publication is entitled "Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual" (the "Guidance Manual.") Before involving itself with the three methods in the Guidance Manual or any other method not statutorily-recognized, DEP, as to be expected from the legislative endorsement, attempted to use water quality modeling. This attempt was not merely because of the statutory endorsement. Aside from being statutorily-recognized, water quality modeling was the method "routinely use[d by DEP] in developing maximum daily loads." (Tr. 197) Water quality modeling, moreover, is DEP's "standard operating procedure," id., and a method that the Department has used successfully on a number of occasions and one that, as of the date of final hearing, it continues to use. Water quality modeling requires a great deal of data. In pursuit of data collection and other activities required by water quality modeling, the Department pursued the development of TMDLs for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries "for many months and at great expense both in personnel time and contractual time." Id. Nonetheless, on the basis of the water quality modeling results, the Department was "unable to come to a scientifically defensible conclusion." Id. Approaches to the Development of the TMDL According to Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen, in developing the TMDL for TP, the Department was not looking for a level of phosphorus that would or would not cause an imbalance in flora and fauna. Instead, the focus was "to ensure that [the Department] had evidence sufficient to support the fact that the concentrations in the TMDL were protective, conservative, and did allow for a healthy population of fish and wildlife." (Tr. 197) Presumably, this would be at a level below the concentration level at which imbalance would occur and, therefore, would comply with the narrative criterion. After the inability to reach a scientifically defensible conclusion on the basis of water quality modeling, the Department attempted alternative approaches. The first post-water quality modeling attempt was by way of an "Artificial Neural Network." (Tr. 198) The employment of a "Neural Network" required the Department to recognize certain realities. For example, the Class III criterion for dissolved oxygen ("DO") of 5.0 milligrams per liter mg/L, at present, is not achievable in the part of the watershed in which the Nine Northern Tributaries are located. Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen, the administrator of the Watershed Assessment section in the Bureau of Watershed Management within the Department's Division of Water Resource Management, therefore, set the DO criterion at a much lower level for purposes of the Neural Network approach. The criterion selected for DO was 1.5 mg/L. The selection of such a low numeric value for DO was criticized by the USEPA. In a document entitled "EPA Comments on FEDP's Nutrients and DO TMDL for the Northeast Tributaries to Lake Okeechobee [the Nine Northern Tributaries]," the EPA wrote, Please explain how the minimum DO requirement of 1.5 mg/l was selected. The DO water quality criterion for Class III fresh water in Florida is "Shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L. Normal daily and seasonal fluctuations above these levels shall be maintained." (See Section 62-302.530(31), F.A.C.) Pursuant to 40 CFR §130.7(c)(1), "TMDLs shall be established at levels necessary to attain and maintain the applicable narrative and numerical WQS..." If FDEP's intent is to change the DO water quality criterion for these water bodies from 5.0 mg/L to 1.5 mg/L, then a Site Specific Alternative Criterion (SSAC) must be developed through Florida normal administrative process or the State must explain how the target properly implements water quality standards. Otherwise, the stated goal of the TMDL must be to attain the 5.0 mg/L DO water quality criterion. Petitioners' Ex. 86D, para. 5 (emphasis added). The selection of 1.5 mg/L for DO was also criticized by the South Florida Water Management District as "arbitrary," see Petitioners' Ex. 86-E, page stamped 002178, and as without "acceptable justification . . . because it will not support a well-balanced community . . . of fish." Id. at pages stamped 002175 and 002176. The Department was not unaware that the DO level selected was far below the level necessary to sustain Class III water uses. Being so far below the Class III criterion referred-to by USEPA, the 1.5 mg/L., was not intended by DEP to be a replacement criterion. In Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's view, it "was the floor . . . as low as [one should] go with this particular approach [the Neural Network approach.]" (Tr. 200) The Neural Network Approach yielded a value of 115 ppb for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries, a lower numeric value, and hence more protective, than the Proposed TMDL of 159 ppb. Rulemaking was initiated to establish a TMDL of 115 ppb. A draft of the rule was presented at a public hearing on July 8, 2003. The value produced disagreement within DEP or as it was put in an internal DEP memorandum dated July 14, 2003, "among ourselves (DEP)." Petitioners' Ex. 96A, stamped 002063. Written evidence of the dissension is the following which appears in another memorandum internal to DEP, dated July 14, 2003, that is attached to the first July 14 memorandum: "c) It is highly unlikely that tributary concentrations of 0.115 mg/l will result in the Lake meeting its TMDL requirement, and as such will require the eventual lowering of these tributary TMDLs. Using a DO criteria of 2.0 or 2.5 mg/l might result in a tributary TP concentration more amenable to Lake restoration." Petitioners' Ex. 86-A, second page, stamped 002064, (emphasis added). The 0.115 mg/L concentration level produced by the Neural Network Approach also yielded the contradictory result that to improve the DO level necessary to sustain fish and other aquatic biota would require the addition of more phosphorus to the Nine Northern Tributaries.10 Such an outcome was neither scientifically supportable nor acceptable to the Department and so the Neural Network Approach was rejected and its concentration level abandoned. Proceedings to propose the 0.115 mg/L in rule, accordingly, were halted. Driven by USEPA-imposed requirements under the deadline set by the Consent Decree and with the results of the Neural Network Approach having proved unsatisfactory, the Department made a second attempt at water quality modeling. This attempt, just as the first, proved to be scientifically indefensible. The process was described in more detail by Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen at hearing: The Department had a comment period that extended for 30 days, and our modeling efforts were made known to both the public and to EPA. EPA was very much involved with the model development process. They were concerned because, again, they have a consent decree with Earthjustice that they were obligated to report to a judge whether they were generating the TMDLs per the consent decree and the time line in that consent decree. When the results were not satisfactory for either of those two approaches [water quality modeling and the Neural Network approach], we had advised EPA that we would continue to pursue the water quality modeling contract, and had hoped that we would be able to get improvements on that model. We provided as much data as we could, and we continued to provide our expertise to Dr. Bottcher and his staff [the water quality modelers] in hopes that we would get a better outcome. (Tr. 202) The continued resort to the water quality modeling method failed again to yield a better outcome. The Department alerted the USEPA that its models were not producing scientifically defensible results. With the Consent Decree deadline looming, the USEPA, therefore, encouraged the Department to take an approach referred to as the "Reference Stream Approach." In actuality, the USEPA's role was more than mere encouragement. Personnel from USEPA made the calculations that produced the Proposed TMDL on the basis of data submitted to USEPA by the Department. This data involved streams, most of which were initially identified by the Department, as described in more detail below. Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's expression of this arrangement was that the Department "evaluated [the work of the USEPA] and then produced [the Proposed] TMDL in September of 2003." (Tr. 203) In other words, while the USEPA performed the calculations used to determine the 75th percentile, the Department evaluated that work, so as, in essence, to adopt the calculations of USEPA as its own in support of the Proposed TMDL derived by the 75th Percentile Method. The value ultimately derived for the Proposed TMDL, therefore, was the result of collaboration between USEPA and the Department or as the Department put it in one of its reports, "[f]or this TMDL [the Proposed TMDL], the Department worked with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine a target TP concentration using a reference stream approach." Petitioners' Ex. 2, p. 4. Mr. Mandrup-Poulsen's concessionary opinion of the Proposed TMDL is that while it is not based on the highest quality model it is based on "the best science available at the time." (Tr. 203, (emphasis added)) He believes it provides the protection necessary "to begin the restoration process" id., for the Nine Northern Tributaries. (Id. (emphasis added)) He sees the Proposed TMDL as supported by three factors: (1) a guidance manual published by the USEPA; (2) support by USEPA's technical staff; and (3) "multiple layers of management review." Id. In its Proposed Recommended Order, the Department describes the Reference Stream Approach as follows: "The reference stream approach is one of the USEPA's recommended approaches for the development of nutrient criteria. The approach examines the phosphorus concentrations in healthy streams and designat[es] the 75th percentile of phosphorus concentrations in these reference streams as a target in the stream to be remediated." Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, pp. 25-26. In fact, the USEPA's Reference Stream Approach is more complicated than the Department's position in this proceeding would lead one to believe. The Department's over-simplification of the Reference Stream Approach is plain from reading of the source extolled by the Department as support for the Proposed TMDL: the "Nutrient Criteria Technical Guidance Manual" for "Rivers and Streams" published in July of 2000 by the USEPA's Offices of Water and Science and Technology (the "Guidance Manual.") The Guidance Manual Chapter 7 of the Guidance Manual was admitted into evidence as Petitioners' Ex. 16. Entitled "Nutrient and Algal Criteria Development," the chapter "addresses the details of developing scientifically defensible criteria for nutrients and algae." Petitioners' Ex. 16, Page 93. Three approaches are provided by the Guidance Manual for use by states in deriving numeric criteria related to nutrients for streams in their eco-regions. These are described in the Guidance Manual as: "(1) the use of reference streams, (2) applying predictive relationships to select nutrient concentrations that will result in appropriate levels of algal biomass, and (3) developing criteria from thresholds established in the literature." Id. The Department did not attempt to derive a TMDL for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries using either the second or the third approach offered by the Guidance Manual. The USEPA encouraged the first approach, the use of reference streams. The Department provided stream data to the USEPA and then USEPA calculated a phosphorus concentration level based on that data. (An extended discussion of the way this data was provided by the Department - a part of Petitioners' case - takes place below.) The USEPA, however, with the Department's concurrence or acquiescence, did not follow the complete methodology under the Reference Stream Approach. It followed only part of the methodology. Petitioners challenge the method used to derive the Proposed TMDL because it entailed only part of the entire, more involved, methodology. In their view, the Department's acceptance of a concentration level determined by USEPA's calculations under only part of a methodology renders the Proposed TMDL arbitrary. The Guidance Manual bears out Petitioners' assertion that the method used to derive the Proposed TMDL was, indeed, only a part of a more comprehensive methodology. The Guidance Manual's discussion of the Reference Stream Approach under the heading, "Using Reference Reaches to Establish Criteria," see Petitioners' Ex. 16, Page 94, takes up the better part of four pages of the publication, i.e., pages 94 through 97. As a preliminary matter, the use of reference streams Reference Stream Approach, "requires identification of reference reaches for each established stream class based on either best professional judgement (BPJ)or percentile selections of data plotted as frequency distributions." Id. The process of identifying reference streams "allows the investigator to arrange the streams within a class in order of nutrient condition (i.e., trophic state) from reference, to at risk, to impaired." Id. The Guidance Manual warns that when minimally- disturbed streams are rare in an ecoregion, "[c]riteria developed using reference reach approaches may require comparisons to similar systems in States or Tribes that share the ecoregion so that criteria can be validated." Id. Thus, the manual recognizes a difference between streams that exhibit reference conditions ("reference streams") and other streams that are too degraded or impaired to qualify as reference streams and, in methods using the latter types of streams, indicates the import of comparative review for purposes of validation. The difference between "reference" streams and streams that do not exhibit "reference conditions" is apparent from the definition of reference reaches or reference streams provided by the manual: "relatively undisturbed stream segments that can serve as examples of the natural biological integrity of a region." Id. Furthermore, the manual refers to reference streams elsewhere as "acknowledged to be in an approximately ideal state for a particular class of streams." Petitioners' Ex. 16, Page 95. Reference streams, therefore, do not include degraded streams or streams that are degraded even if they are the "least" impacted in an impacted region. This definition is crucial to the Petitioners' case. The reference streams chosen, as discussed below, did not meet the Guidance Manual's definition. Rather than being "relatively undisturbed stream segments" that serve as "examples of the natural biological integrity of a region," or that are "in an approximately ideal state," the reference streams chosen by the Department were "the least impacted streams for that stream class" within the area of the Nine Northern Tributaries, an area that has been greatly impacted. Use of Reference Reaches The Guidance Manual offers three methods of using reference reaches (the "Three Reference Streams Methods") to derive a numeric value for nutrients. They are: Characterize reference reaches for each stream class within a region using best professional judgement and use these reference conditions to develop criteria (the "BPJ Method"). Identify the 75th percentile of the frequency distribution of reference streams for a class of streams and use this percentile to develop the criteria ([reference omitted]) (the "75th Percentile Method"). Calculate the 5th to 25th percentile of the frequency distribution of the general population of a class of streams and use the selected percentile to develop the criteria ([reference omitted]) (the "25th Percentile Method"). Petitioners' Ex. 16, Page 94. The three methods are not three separate methodologies, however; the latter two, the "percentile" methods, are part of one methodology that is more comprehensive then either of the two percentile methods, alone. Under this comprehensive methodology, as a preliminary step, "a reference condition may be selected using either of two frequency distribution approaches." Petitioners' Ex. 16, Page 95. In the first of the two frequency distribution approaches, the 75th Percentile Method: a percentile is selected (EPA generally recommends the 75th percentile) from the distribution of primary variables of known reference systems (i.e., highest quality or least impacted streams for that stream class within a region). As discussed in Chapter 3, primary variables are TP, TN, chl a, and turbidity or TSS. It is reasonable to select a higher percentile (i.e., 75th percentile) as the reference condition, because reference streams are already acknowledged to be in an approximately ideal state for a particular class of streams [reference omitted]. Id. (emphasis added) The second of the two frequency distribution approaches, the 25th Percentile Reference Stream Method is also described in the Guidance Manual: [It] involves selecting a percentile of (1) all streams in the class (reference and non- reference) or (2) a random sample distribution of all streams within a particular class. Due to the random selection process, an upper percentile should be selected because the sample distribution is expected to contain some degraded systems. This option is most useful in regions where the number of legitimate "natural" reference water bodies is usually very small, such as highly developed land use areas (e.g., the agricultural lands of the Midwest and the urbanized east or west coasts.) The EPA recommendation in this case is usually the 5th to 25th percentile depending upon the number of "natural" reference stream available. If almost all reference streams are impaired to some extent, then the 5th percentile is recommended. Id. (emphasis added) (Although described as involving selection of a 5th to 25th percentile, for shorthand purposes, this second percentile method is referred-to in this order as the "25th Percentile Method Reference Stream Method.") There is a critical distinction between stream data used under the two percentile methods. Under the 75th Percentile Method, the streams are to exhibit reference conditions, that is, they are to be minimally impacted or in an approximately ideal state for their class. Data used for the 75th Percentile Method should not include data from streams that are impacted or degraded or the least-impacted for a region that is heavily impacted. The 25th Percentile Method, on the other hand, is expected to use data from streams that have been impacted since it uses data from the general population of streams in a region. This population would include impacted, degraded streams or, in a region that is heavily impacted, some of the least-impacted streams as well as more impacted streams. If the streams were generally impacted or impacted to a great extent, then the percentile chosen to derive a numeric value would not be the 25th percentile, but a lower percentile with a range that reaches as low as the fifth percentile if the general population is sufficiently impacted. Ultimately, the Guidance Manual points out, the 75th Percentile Method and the 25th Percentile Method are "only recommendations" because the "actual distribution of the observations should be the major determinant of the threshold point chosen." Id. An example is given in the Guidance Manual of when the 75th Percentile Method produces a concentration level of 20 ppb and the 25th Percentile Method produces a level of 25 ppb. "Because there is little distinction [in such a case], the Agency may select either 20 [ppb], 25 [ppb], or the intermediate 23 [ppb] . . . ." Id. Each state is cautioned, however, to "similarly calculate reference conditions initially using both approaches [the 75th Percentile Reference Stream Method and the 25th Percentile Reference Stream Method] to determine which method is most protective." Id. Once the calculations are made, the Guidance Manual is clear: "[t]he more conservative approach is recommended for subsequent reference condition calculations." Id. In other words, the State is to choose the lower value produced by the two methods when deriving a TMDL. Margin of Safety The margin of safety contained in the Proposed Rule (one that is implicit in the Proposed TMDL) is viewed favorably by DEP because it used the "75th Percentile Method" to establish the TMDL. Since the concentration of TP theoretically could be higher, that is at a level in excess of the 75th percentile derived from the method, the Department's view of the Proposed TMDL is that it is a conservative one. The Department's view depends, however, on the validity of using only the 75th Percentile Method to establish the Proposed TMDL and not deriving a value based on the 25th Percentile Method for purposes of comparison and selection of the more protective value. It also depends on the validity of the streams chosen as the reference streams for the purposes of data collection. In addressing the selection of reference streams by DEP for use in deriving the Proposed TMDL, it is useful to understand the background that preceded the selection of the reference streams as well as historical information about phosphorus in Florida waters. Historical Information Historical information plays a role in the analysis of appropriate nutrient levels in water bodies. Numbers for historical phosphorus levels inform the analysis or, as Dr. Boyer put it at hearing, gives the investigator "another piece of evidence as to what . . . that system had been before and what could be achieved now." (Tr. 93) Two pieces introduced into evidence by the Petitioners comprise the historical evidence in the record of this proceeding. One, not quite two decades old, is more recent, a 1986 USEPA publication for guidance to the states; the other is a report submitted to the Florida Geological Survey more than half a century ago. The report sums up the analysis of phosphorus data collected prior to many of the drastic changes in land use in the State that have contributed to so much of the problem decried by the Florida Legislature that the Proposed TMDL is intended to address. The report regarding phosphorus in Florida water bodies in the mid-20th Century was referred-to in the record as the "Odum Report." The Odum Report On January 9, 1953, Howard T. Odum of the Department of Biology at the University of Florida submitted a report (the "Odum Report") to the Florida Geological Survey. Entitled "Dissolved Phosphorus in Florida Waters," it appears as Part I in a 1953 Report of Investigations and Miscellaneous Studies published by the State through the State Board of Conservation and the Florida Geological Survey. Mean values of phosphorus in Florida streams are divided into two categories by the report: those in the Phosphate District where "streams are enormously laden with phosphorus" and those elsewhere under the category of "Other." See Petitioners' Ex. 20, p. 13. Data was collected from 18 streams in the Phosphate District and from 44 "other" streams. In the "Phosphate District," the mean value was 0.876 micrograms per liter or 876 ppb; in the "Other" streams the mean value is listed as 0.046 micrograms per liter or 46 ppb. Id. The Department considered the historical data of the Odum Report but gave it short shrift for several reasons: first, the data set is "very limited." (Tr. 206) Second, "collected back in the fifties, [it] might not have met the quality assurance that we would expect for data [today]." Id. Third, the data refers to "dissolved" phosphorus which is a fraction of total phosphorus and therefore a subset of the data needed to establish a TMDL for TP or "total" phosphorus. Most significantly, in the Department's view, the data does not assist in the Department's inquiry to "find values that are still protective of the designated use" (tr. 207) that is, a value that is higher than the historical value but one that will still support the designated use. ii. 1986 USEPA Document On May 1, 1986, the Office of Water Regulations and Standards for the USEPA published a guidance document entitled "Quality Criteria for Water 1986." See Petitioners' Ex. 19. It stated that "[t]o prevent the development of biological nuisances and to control accelerated or cultural eutrophication, total phosphates as phosphorus (P) should not exceed 50 [ppb] in any stream at the point where it enters any lake or reservoir, nor 25 [ppb] within the lake or reservoir." Id. As with other historical reporting, the 1986 Statement by the USEPA has been rejected by the Department. This time the rejection is on the ground that "it is very difficult to generalize. There is a very strong need to assess on a case-by-case basis the capacity of each water body as it enters into a different water body." (Tr. 210) Background Provided by Mr. Frydenborg Russell Frydenborg, the Department's expert in aquatic ecology (among other fields), was not involved in the selection of the Five Reference Streams. He was the main witness for the Department, however, in defense of their selection, largely on the basis of a post-proposal inquiry he conducted to confirm the validity of the Proposed TMDL. In addition to testifying about his after-the-fact justification, he provided background by way of testimony that included the Department's experience with reference streams and the Nine Northern Tributaries, in general. A Reference Stream Approach for establishing numeric criteria for nutrients had never been used prior to its use in this case. A reference site approach was used to set a phosphorus concentration level for the water bodies in the Everglades. It is an approach similar to the approach used for the Proposed TMDL.11 But a reference site approach and a reference stream approach are not precisely the same. Streams are "a whole different type of beast." (Tr. 241) For example, unlike a lake or a standing body of water, "stream biology is very dependent upon flow regime." (Tr. 246) Artificial channelization of a stream affects its habitability for biota. As explained by Mr. Frydenborg: [O]nce you channelize a stream and take out its bends, . . . you will eliminate vast quantities of habitat that the organisms can be able to colonize . . . [Y]ou'll destroy [habitat] when you channelize, and you destroy the hydrologic regime as well. [There will no longer be] microhabitats within the stream where you have different areas of different flow. [It will cause the organisms] to catastrophically drift. (Tr. 247) Bank stability is another factor important to stream evaluations. Erosion can cause sediment flow into a stream system and bring unwanted sand, silt, muck and organic debris that will cover the substrates and keep them from being suitable for macroinvertebrate colonization. The state of riparian buffer systems has an impact on stream ecological health particularly in cases of human encroachment. Likewise the riparian vegetation zone, particularly leaf-litter fall originating within the zone, has an impact on ecological stream health. The impact is detrimental when the zone is disturbed by human activities. Selection of the Reference Streams by DEP Data from five reference streams (the "Five Reference Streams") were used in deriving the Proposed TMDL by the 75th Percentile Method. The Five Reference Streams are Fish Slough, Cypress Slough, Fort Drum Creek, the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee River (the "NW Fork") and the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River (the "North Fork"). With the exception of Fish Slough, the reference streams were initially identified by an Environmental Manager in the Department: Julie Espy. Ms. Espy was not called by the Department to the witness stand to explain at hearing the identification of the reference streams. Her deposition was introduced into evidence, however, by Petitioners because the circumstances surrounding the identification of these four streams (the "Four Reference Streams") inform their claim that the process for the derivation of the Proposed TMDL was arbitrary and capricious. Ms. Espy was a logical person to have assisted in the selection of reference streams. Her duties includes the supervision of algal and freshwater macroinvertebrate taxonomy groups, the management of freshwater data and filed assessments and sampling of rivers, wetlands, lakes, canals, and streams. The data she manages, moreover, is collected for various programs that include TMDL programs. All in all, in her words, they include "Everglades, TMDL, small projects, like restoration projects [and] monitoring. Some of it is method development data." Petitioners' Ex. 90, p. 7. Ms. Espy was a logical choice to choose reference streams based on experience with programs and the types of data she managed. Yet, when asked to identify streams in the area in which the Nine Northern Tributaries are located, Ms. Espy was not informed of the purpose of the identification. The request was made by USEPA when Ms. Espy was contacted in mid-2003 by "David Melgaard from EPA." Id. at 10. Prior to the request by Mr. Melgaard, no one from the Department had requested or ordered that she participate in the development of the Proposed TMDL. When Mr. Melgaard asked about some "six or seven" (id. pp. 10-11) specific streams in the area of Lake Okeechobee, that included Fish Slough and Cypress Slough, he did not inform Ms. Espy why she had been contacted or the use to which the information would be put. Mr. Melgaard suggested that she search in Ecoregion 75(d). Canals were excluded because they "don't act the same as a stream echo system. With all the hydrological modification, the SCI metrics [for canals] . . . don't work the same [as for streams]." Id. at 11-12. The following colloquy took place in Ms. Espy's deposition when she was asked the basis of her recommendation for the Four Reference Streams: Q What were you looking at in making these recommendation? A I was using our GIS coverage. We have data layer that includes all of our biological stations, so that one thing I looked at, because it also had the ecoregion coverage, so I could see spatially the proximity of the sites and that type of thing. Q What else were you looking at? * * * A That's all I was looking at. He was just asking me for sites. Q You were not making an assessment about the appropriateness of the stream for any purpose? A No. Q You were strictly identifying streams that were in proximity -- A Biological samples -- where biological samples had occurred. I might add, that at the time that I requested this, he did not approach me with we are looking for streams for the Lake Okeechobee tributary TMDL. I was totally unaware of why he was asking for the information. I really didn't have any context to base that on. Q Have you ever visited any of these streams A I went -- Q I mean prior to the site visit that took place in April [of 2004]. A No. Q At the time you were making these suggestions to EPA had you ever visited any of these streams? A No. Id. at 13-15. On August 18, 2003, Ms. Espy sent an e-mail message to Mr. Melgaard. The message listed the Four Reference Streams. Ft. Drum Creek and Cypress Slough were listed as "closest to the Fish Slough site" (Petitioners' Ex. 90, Ex. 2.); the "NW Fork of the Loxahatchee River" and the "North Fork of the Loxahatchee River" were described as "further away, but . . . very good (biologically). They've been sampled numerous times but may be too large to compare to the others." Id. After informing Mr. Melgaard that they were in "ecoregion 75d," the message from Ms. Espy stated as she later confirmed at her deposition, "I haven't been to any of these sites." Id. Following the transmission of the message to EPA, Ms. Espy received an e-mail message from Mr. Melgaard. See Petitioners' Ex. 90, Ex. 3. It asked her to "ask the biologists from that area if comparing nutrient levels in the reference streams to those in the North Okeechobee Tribs is appropriate considering all the hydrological modifications in the Lake O [Lake Okeechobee] area." Id. Ms. Espy spoke to Mark Thompson, a biologist from the Department's southeast district office but Mr. Thompson "wasn't very familiar with any of the sites." Ms. Espy did not check with anyone else. She relayed the outcome of her inquiry to EPA but was not asked any further about the Four Reference Streams prior to the publication of the Proposed Rule in September 2003. In October of 2003, approximately 6 weeks after the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with regard to the amendments to the Existing Rule that establish the Proposed TMDL, Dan Scheidt of Region 4 of the USEPA, sent an e-mail message (the "October 2003 E-Mail Message") to Ms. Espy: Julie- I am trying to follow up and close the loop on proposed stream TP reference sites for the S-191 basin. There are 5 reference sites proposed for S-191 basin TP: these four along with Fish Slough: [Code and No. IDs omitted] Ft. Drum Creek [" " " " " " " " ] Cypress Slough [" " " " " " " " ] NW Fork of the Loxahatchee River [" " " " " " " " ] North Fork of the Loxahatchee River For which of these sites does FDEP have bio data that confirms that these are in fact reference sites, ie., there is no impairment due to nutrients. Thanks Ex. 4 attached to Petitioners' Ex. 90. Not surprisingly, since the rule amendment containing the Proposed TMDL had been published more than a month earlier, Ms. Espy did not respond promptly to Mr. Scheidt. At the time of her identification of the Four Reference Streams for USEPA, Ms. Espy had not been involved in the selection of Fish Slough as the fifth reference stream. Nor did she have any familiarity with Fish Slough. Of the Four Reference Streams she identified for USEPA, Ms. Espy was familiar at the time she suggested them with only two: the NW Fork and the North Fork. Her familiarity was based on receipt of "samples from those two sites on a few occasions in the laboratory." (Petitioners' Ex. 90, p. 15). The basis of her familiarity was described in this way: "I was familiar with analyzing the samples, putting the data into the database and what those results were." Id. When the streams were recommended Ms. Espy had not examined their SCI scores nor the data that supported the scores. Ms. Espy had never looked at any bio assessment data with regard to the reference streams prior to December 16, 2003. In response to the USEPA October E-mail Message, however, Ms. Espy eventually provided Stream Condition Index ("SCI") scores. The entirety of the scores consisted of one score for Fish Slough, one score for Cypress Slough, six scores for Fort Drum Creek, 15 for the North Fork of the Loxahatchee and 16 for the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee. These scores were compiled from the statewide biological database. The scores were sent to USEPA in a November 2003 e- mail message. In her e-mail message, Ms. Espy wrote to Mr. Scheidt at USEPA: Attached find the macroinvertebrate data we have for these sites [the Four Reference Streams ]. These data are the Stream Condition Index scores for these sites. I would not say that because these sites have good SCI scores they have NO impairment for nutrients. These sites are just the best available for that area in the state. Ex. 4, 3rd page, attached to Petitioners' Ex. 90 (emphasis added). This message is consistent with the Department's position that the Five Reference Streams are "least impacted in the region," a status to be distinguished from the requirement that streams be minimally impacted or in a nearly ideal state to qualify as reference streams. Ms. Espy does not believe that the SCI scores confirm that there is no impairment due to nutrients to the Four Reference Streams because "[t]he SCI isn't necessarily a tool that is used just to point out or indicate nutrient impairment." (Petitioners' Ex. 90, p. 23). Mr. Frydenborg's After-the-Fact Efforts Mr. Frydenborg visited the Nine Northern Tributaries in order to collect data for purposes of supporting the Proposed TMDL after the Proposed Rule was published and challenged by Petitioners. The collection effort, as expected, revealed widespread hydrologic modification in the area of the Nine Northern Tributaries. The majority of the sites visited in the area had unacceptable, that is, "very low" (tr. 252) habitat scores. The habitat and the hydrology of the sites led Mr. Frydenborg to conclude that no matter what improvement was made to water quality with regard to TP, "you wouldn't get very good biological communities." Id. The only potential exception among the Nine Northern Tributaries is Mosquito Creek. Mosquito Creek Among the Nine Northern Tributaries, Mosquito Creek had the best habitat. Under a recalibrated Stream Condition Index ("the New SCI"), conducted by the Department, it scored a 102, just below the threshold level of 105 that is considered optimal. The scores for the other Nine Northern Tributaries ranged from 21 to 69. Mosquito Creek also enjoyed the best hydrologic score ("7") while the others all scored 9 or 10, indicating that the others enjoyed very few natural hydroperiods but rather suffered with impaired hydroperiods, "completely human-controlled." (Tr. 253) Mr. Frydenborg's assessment of Mosquito Creek does not square precisely with an earlier assessment conducted by the Department in 1999 and summarized in Petitioners' Ex. 25. Petitioners' Exhibit 25 is an Ecosummary of Mosquito Creek prepared by the Department's Southeast District's Assessment and Monitoring Program. Issued in September of 1999, it describes Mosquito Creek in much the same way as Mr. Frydenborg at hearing but with a few differences: Despite water quality problems, the creek has beautiful stretches with luxurious aquatic and riparian vegetation and an extensive and populous benthic invertebrate community, all thriving on the excessive nutrient load. Native vegetation such as maple, cypress, willow, and oak dominate the canopy while noxious and rank growths of exotics (water hyacinth, water lettuce, wild taro, and pepper trees) clog the water surface and understory. A diverse assemblage of aquatic insects, worms, and mollusks utilize the nutrient enriched water. Petitioners' Ex. 25, 1st page (emphasis added). The exhibit refers to the historical use of the watershed for dairy and beef cattle production. Although data was limited, the exhibit reflected the finding that "water quality in the creek appears to be improving." Id. This was attributed to best management practices and changes in land use away from dairy and beef cattle production. "Nevertheless," the document states, "water quality continues to be poor." Id. From 1992 to 1998, TP averaged 0.728 mg/l, or over seven times what an acceptable limit might be . . . ." Id. The document describes "Type II Error" that occurs with regard to environmental assessments: Contrary to its obvious water quality impairment (which includes very high phosphorus and nitrogen nutrient concentrations and chronically low dissolved oxygen), Mosquito Creek scored very highly (33 or "excellent") during a 1994 biological dipnet macroinvertebrate assessment using FDEP's SCI method. This misleading evaluation may have occurred due to the good habitat and flow present at the Mosquito Creek site, and illustrates the potential danger of employing "cookie-cutter" environmental assessment approaches. An incorrect assessment such as this is called a "Type II Error" wherein a polluted stream is deemed to be in "excellent" condition. * * * Failure to avoid "Type II Error" may result in a false public perception about the true condition of a polluted waterway. Petitioners' Ex. 25, 2nd page. The exhibit further warns of the effects of the excessive nutrient loading in the creek on Lake Okeechobee: Although Mosquito Creek is but a small tributary to Lake Okeechobee, many such sources combine to exacerbate the Lake's problems. Heavy loads of nutrients have resulted in massive algal blooms which can deplete dissolved oxygen levels and cause Id. fishkills. The type of algae that make up these blooms can include those which produce toxins. These Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) can sicken, kill, and even be carcinogenic to a wide variety of organism. The exhibit, as far as its attribution of Type II error to the assessment of Mosquito Creek as "excellent" was dismissed by the Department at hearing. The exhibit was authored by a chemist who "has not passed the stream condition audit". It failed in Mr. Frydenborg's view to consider, moreover, that excessive nutrient loading may not cause poor biological health when there are other factors that would allow biological health despite excessive nutrients such as shading and the darkness of the water that would prevent the penetration of light. The exhibit pointed to other indicators of poor biological health, that in the opinion of the author of Petitioners' Exhibit 25 were overlooked: While the macroinvertebrate fauna collected from Mosquito Creek was diverse, it included many species tolerant to pollution that opportunistically exploited the conditions which pollution caused. Thus air-breathing taxa were common in Mosquito Creek (they can tolerate low dissolved oxygen). The exotic bivalve, Corbicula fluminea, was extremely abundant, but was under-reported by the dipnet method. This species thrives in areas receiving high nutrients, filtering abundant suspended organic materials that result from the over-growth of plants fertilized by runoff. Id. Whatever Mosquito Creek's status, the eight other tributaries among the Nine Northern Tributaries have major problems as all parties to this proceeding agree and as further described by Mr. Frydenborg at hearing. Problems Associated with the Nine Northern Tributaries A major problem for most of the Nine Northern Tributaries is that hydrologic modifications, such as ditching and draining, create a "spike in [the] hydrograph." Id. In rain events, they endure large influxes of water that cause turbulent flow and scouring to the stream system. The result is that the stream's ability to support benthic macroinvertebrate communities is severely reduced. At bottom, an improvement in TP concentrations for the Nine Northern Tributaries is not anticipated by the Department to lead to a normally-expected biological community because major improvements in stream habitat and hydrologic regime are also required. This expectation by the Department, however, is not supported by a Use Attainability Analysis. Use Attainability Analysis A "Use Attainability Analysis" was not done on the Nine Northern Tributaries to determine if they could attain Class III uses. A structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting the attainment of use, a Use Attainability Analysis has been adopted by the federal government. The Department conducted such an analysis of the Fenholloway River, polluted by a the point source of a pulp mill. But there was no evidence that the Department had conducted such an analysis on streams polluted by non-point sources as in the case of the Nine Northern Tributaries. Certainly, Mr. Frydenborg has never been involved in such an analysis. Without having conducted a Use Attainability Analysis, the Department nonetheless continues to anticipate that an improvement in TP concentrations in the Nine Northern Tributaries will not serve to attain Class III uses. DEP Reaction to the Rule Challenge The record does not reflect any response other than the SCI data provided by Ms. Espy to USEPA's request for "bio data that confirms that these are in fact reference sites, i.e., there is not impairment due to nutrients." When this Rule Challenge was filed at DOAH, however, Mr. Frydenborg was asked by Mr. Brooks to visit the sites of the Reference Streams and the Nine Northern Tributaries to "collect some additional data so that we had an objective evaluation . . . ." (Tr. 244) He visited the Nine Northern Tributaries and three of the Five Reference Streams in April of 2003. He was accompanied by Ms. Espy. They spent two days visiting all of the Nine Northern Tributaries but, according to Ms. Espy, we're only able to spend time at two of the reference streams and "drive-by . . . one other." (Petitioners' Ex. 90, p. 38). The reference streams not visited, according to Ms. Espy, were Fish Slough (this may be because Mr. Frydenborg knew from an earlier visit that it would not qualify as a reference stream in its present state, see Finding of Fact 165) and the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee. They drove by the North Fork of the Loxahatchee and actually spent time at Cypress Slough and Fort Drum Creek. Mr. Frydenborg, whether with Ms. Espy or not, did visit Fish Slough at some point. (It may be inferred from his testimony that he saw Fish Slough on the April 15-16, 2003 visit.) He was asked about it in the context of the April 15, 2003, trips taken by him and Ms. Espy: Q [C]an you describe what you saw when you visited the reference streams? A Well, when I went to Fish Slough, I immediately determined that it is not a reference site currently. It had a completely channelized system with [no] riparian zone. There were exotic plants in the water. I believe there was hydrilla. . . . I would not characterize the condition of Fish Slough as a reference community today. Gary Ritter [of the water management district] . . . was along with me. I said, "Gary, this is a bad reference site," and he said, "Well, there have been some changes in the basin around 1995," and I believe that the Department used pre-1995 data for that site because it currently would not qualify as a reference site. (Tr. 263-264) In apparent reliance on Mr. Ritter's statement and its interpretation of the statement, the Department used pre- 1995 data for Fish Slough in the calculations for the derivation of the Proposed TMDL. This is noted in the report issued by the Department through its Watershed Assessment Section on September 16, 2003. The report introduced into the record by Petitioners, describes its purpose as "[to] represent[] the efforts to develop a . . . TMDL for . . . TO for impaired waterbodies within the Lake Okeechobee Basin " Petitioners' Ex. 2, pg. 1. With regard to the present status of Fish Slough as not an appropriate reference stream the report states, It should be noted that the entire data record was not used for each station. For Fish Slough, which is within the Lake Okeechobee Watershed and which has a similar soil and topography there were phosphorus data back to 1986. However, land use changes and increased agricultural activity in the watershed since 1996 have led to the concern that Fish Slough may no longer be suitable as a reference site. For this reason, only the Fish Slough data for 1986- 1995 were used to determine the TP target. Using this shorter period of record, there were 490 TP samples for these five streams and the 75th percentile value for TP is 0.159 mg/L. Petitioners' Ex. 2, p. 4, emphasis added. The decision to accept Fish Slough as a reference stream prior to 1996 was made on the basis of Mr. Ritter's statement and the suggestion of Kim Shugar, who, like Mr. Ritter, has been involved in water quality restoration work in South Florida. Neither Mr. Ritter nor Ms. Shugar testified at hearing, however, as to the basis of their belief. Nor with one exception is there any evidence of record that Fish Slough was a reference stream prior to 1996. That exception is the following testimony of Mr. Frydenborg: Well, I did the habitat and the hydrologic index, and, interestingly, the LDI, the Landscape Development Intensity Index I believe was around 2.2 for Fish Slough, and that data that we have that's a complete data set for the State of Florida was like 1996 data. So I guess that is an independent way of confirming that at that point there was a relatively benign land use at Fish Slough ... See Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order, para. 91, p. 34. Otherwise, Mr. Frydenborg disclaimed any knowledge of whether Fish Slough would have qualified as a reference stream prior to 1996: "I really don't have the knowledge to be able to tell you what it [Fish Slough] was like before 1995 " (Tr. 267) Without doubt, however, it is "not an acceptable reference site today . . . ." Id. Infested with exotic plants such as hydrilla, Fish Slough, is a completely channelized system with no riparian zone. At Cypress Slough and Fort Drum Creek, Mr. Frydenborg and Ms. Espy "walked the system probably 200 or 300 meters down from the road crossing and then [conducted] a 100-meter stretch assessment within that." (Petitioners' Ex. 90, p. 39). The 100-meter stretch assessment was described at hearing by Mr. Frydenborg: You pull a tape measure out and you flag the site every ten meters so you can get an accurate map of the habitats, and then you do a series of evaluations. There's eight procedures that you go through for the habitat assessments. (Tr. 245) The procedures which measure "habitat parameters" (see Department Exs. 7 and 9) include an examination of substrate diversity and substrate availability. Substrate in Florida are "snags, leaf packs, root materials, aquatic vegetation" (id.) and may include limestone rock. The habitat parameters also include an examination of water velocity, habitat smothering (affects of sand or silt accumulation), the degree of artificial channelization, bank stability, riparian zone buffer, and riparian zone vegetation. The vegetation in a riparian zone is crucial to a stream's trophic system, particularly its leaf litter fall. The contribution by leaf-producing organisms in the riparian zone to stream habitat was stressed by Mr. Frydenborg at hearing: (Tr. 248) They shed their leaves periodically, and that's a very important source of habitat because organisms . . . live in those leaf packs, and [they are] also a source of organic matter that is naturally found in the systems . . . . [O]rganisms . . . called shredders . . . move in and cut . . . the leaf litter into smaller pieces and produce usable organic matter that then ... [serves] the whole community[.] [At] the base of the food web . . . the organisms . . . eat the native algae . . . the diatoms . . . the leaf litter[.] [For] aquatic macrophytes or aquatic plants in the system, [its] a source of organic production . . . used as food throughout . . . the trophic system[.] . . . [I]t is [the source of] energy [that] moves from one level to the next [within healthy stream habitat] . . . . In addition to the eight procedures for habitat assessment, Mr. Frydenborg also calculated a hydrologic modification score on a form he developed as an off-shoot of USEPA's Human Disturbance Gradient. The form had been used in the recalibration of the Old SCI that led to the New SCI. See Finding of Fact 171 below. The calculation revealed "widespread hydrologic modification in that northeastern tributary area" (tr. 251) the area of the Nine Northern Tributaries. Optimum habitat scores are in excess of 105. Eight of the Nine Northern Tributaries had scores below 69, "unacceptable habitat scores, very low." (Tr. 252) The exception with the highest score was Mosquito Creek. With regard to the Reference Streams, no SCI scores were calculated on the April, 2003 trip. No samples of the reference streams were taken because Mr. Frydenborg and Ms. Espy "didn't feel there would be sufficient time before the hearing was scheduled" (Petitioners' Ex. 90, p. 42) to analyze any such samples. Instead, Mr. Frydenborg and Ms. Espy, as they had done with regard to the Nine Northern Tributaries conducted "habitat assessment and hydrologic scoring" (tr. 261) for the two Reference Streams they visited: Fort Drum Creek and Cypress Slough. The scores for the two are found on Department Exhibit The exhibit consists of three documents for each of the Reference Streams: a "Stream/River Habitat Sketch Sheet," a "Physical/Chemical Characterization Field Sheet," and a "Stream/River Habitat Assessment Field Sheet." See Department Ex. 9. The latter sheet scores the stream on the eight habitat parameters that are included in the habitat assessment. Fort Drum Creek received a hydrologic score of five, "in [the] moderate range of disturbance . . . ." (Tr. 264) Its habitat score was "125." The Stream/River Habitat Assessment Field Sheet has four categories for each habitat parameter. They are "Optimal," "Suboptimal," "Marginal" and "Poor." The creek received optimal scores in four of them: habitat smothering, artificial channelization, riparian buffer zone width and riparian zone vegetation quality. It received suboptimal scores in three habitat parameters: substrate diversity, water velocity, and bank stability and a marginal score in substrate availability which indicates that the creek has only "6% to 15% productive habitat". Department's Ex. 9, p. 3. Cypress Slough received a slightly higher score of 127. Although it had only a marginal score of "8" in substrate availability indicating something less than 15% of productive habitat, Mr. Frydenborg described the segment of the slough in which the assessment was made as a "tropical paradise . . . [with] a beautiful riparian zone [and] nice habitats." (tr. 266) The description matches the maximum optimal scores Cypress Slough received for artificial channelization, bank stability, riparian buffer zone width and riparian zone vegetation quality. With regard to the three other habitat parameters, substrate diversity, water velocity and habitat smothering, the slough received suboptimal scores. Assessments were not taken at the Northwest and North Forks of the Loxahatchee because eight previous samplings had been taken that produced data for habitat assessment and hydrologic scoring had been done of them during the recalibration process of the SCI. In the end, the Department was satisfied with the Reference Streams used for purposes of data in calculating the 75th percentile of TP because of two reasons: (1) their high 1996 Stream Condition Index Scores and (2) their proximity to the Lake Okeechobee basin. In the Department's view, the Proposed TMDL should protect the Nine Northern Tributaries from imbalance "because that is what is represented in the reference site population data." (Tr. 270) That view was confirmed for the Department by three analyses that Mr. Frydenborg conducted after the Proposed TMDL was challenged by Petitioners. The first analysis used cases "where there was an SCI score of good, and in conjunction with [that], on that day, a total phosphorus of greater than 159 . . . ." (Tr. 134) Out of a total of 629 scores available, only 7 qualified in the analysis. Dr. Boyer, Petitioners' expert witness, explained that the analysis was scientifically invalid because it ignored the high variability of phosphorus data over time, ignored the existence of additional SCI scores (New SCI scores) for the same streams in which the streams received only "fair" or "poor" assessments, and ignored the existence of data showing that there was only one stream that had a phosphorus reading of over 159 ppb which also had a consistent New SCI scores of "good." As Dr. Boyer explained: [T]his site is Little Orange [Creek] . . . . [I]t also has TP values of 29 and 39 on different days. There is a lot of variability in the data. So to come to the conclusion that this site is good because on one day it had a high TO and it scored good is invalid . . . . (Tr. 137) The second analysis was a regression analysis, a statistical tool, that showed no relationship between total phosphorus and biological health of a system. The Department again used an approach that employed only the phosphorus level on the day the SCI score was taken and not all the data over a period of time. The approach is invalid. It inappropriately uses point data rather than all available data. The third analysis examined all "good" SCI scores in the Peninsular Region that had a phosphorus reading the same day and took the 75th percentile of the phosphorus data. It then examined all "good" and "fair" SCI scores in the same region that had a phosphorus reading the same day and took the 75th Percentile of the phosphorus data. These two produced 75th percentiles of 243 ppb and 230 ppb. Dr. Boyer criticized the third analysis because "the text category . . . were not what's used of the new method [the New SCI]." (Tr. 146) Under the new method "it dropped several goods into the fair categories and several fairs into the poor category." Id. The analysis also suffered from point phosphorus data rather than all data available for a stream as required under the USEPA's 75th Percentile Method. The limitation of the data set, moreover, because of the point data used rather than all data, produced a result with a large confidence level that fell anywhere between 31 ppb and 441 ppb, hardly a confirmation of the Proposed TMDL. If one categorizes the streams according to their New SCI rating (good, fair, poor and very poor), and takes a mean of the phosphorus data, an entirely different conclusion is reached about the relationship between TP and biological health. The mean phosphorus for good systems is 31 ppb, for fair 88 ppb, for poor 141 ppb and very poor is 193 ppb. Maximum phosphorus for a good system would be 78 ppb. One concludes from this analysis that there is a definite relationship between TP and the health of a biological system. As Dr. Boyer put it, "you're not going to find a . . . system . . . that's consistently good that has high phosphorus." (Tr. 145) The New SCI assesses ten metrics of macroinvertebrate community health. The ten metrics "represent a category of biological attributes so that you can get the best holistic data set [for] an accurate evaluation of the biological community." (Tr. 302) The New SCI also is based on a Human Disturbance Gradient ("HDG"). At the end of the calculation, a stream falls into one of four categories: good, fair, poor or very poor. The scores span a scale from 1 to 100 with 100 being the best. A score of 73 and above qualifies a stream as "good." Of "[t]he sites that got zero on the Human Disturbance Gradient . . ., no observable type of human disturbance . . ., only about 25 percent . . . exceeded . . . 73 . . . ." The remainder fell into the fair category, an indication that a rating of "fair" may not indicate impairment, according to Mr. Frydenborg. Petitioners' Ex. 98, a publication of DEP's bearing a revision date of February 1, 2004, however, indicates otherwise in its description of the SCI category "Fair:" "Significantly different from natural conditions; 20-30% loss of Ephemeroptera, Trichoptera and long-lived taxa; 40% loss of clinger and sensitive taxa; percentage of very tolerant individuals double." Petitioners' Ex. 98, p. 21 of 32, (emphasis added). In addition to testifying about the reference streams, Mr. Frydenborg explained why the Department did not calculate a TMDL under the 25th Percentile Method recommended by the USEPA. The Department regarded the recommendation of that method as a disservice by the USEPA. "Disservice by the USEPA?" As discussed above, the Guidance Manual published by the USEPA suggests that in addition to the "75th Percentile Reference Stream Approach" that the Department should have also applied the 25th Percentile Method and compared the results as part of a comprehensive and protective "frequency distribution" methodology. After comparing the results from the two methods, USEPA recommends selecting the lower result in order to ensure that a TMDL is protective. The 25th Percentile Method was conducted by the USEPA in its Ecoregion XII, described in a document published in December of 2000 by the USEPA's Office of Water as encompassing "the southeast corner of Georgia (excluding the immediate coastline) and a large segment of central and Gulf of Mexico coastal Florida." See Petitioners' Ex. 17, p. 7. This Ecoregion is primarily north of Ecoregion XIII, which is the Southern Florida Coastal Plain. Maps in the document show that Lake Okeechobee is in Ecoregion XIII, but the Nine Northern Tributaries are located in Ecoregion XII. Ecoregion XII contains a sub-ecoregion, sub-ecoregion 75. Testimony at hearing indicated that the Nine Northern Tributaries are at the southernmost end of Sub-ecoregion 75. Employing the 25th Percentile Method, the reference conditions for both "aggregate Ecoregion XII streams" and "level III ecoregion 75 streams" with regard to total phosphorus were 40 ppb or 0.040 mg/L. See Petitioners' Ex. 17, Table 2 and 3, at pp 13 and 14, respectively. Also see id. "Executive Summary," pp. vi and (tr. 92). The concentration level of 40 ppb (or 40 micrograms per liter) produced by USEPA for streams in the Nine Northern Tributaries ecoregion using the 25th Percentile Method was rejected by the Department for purposes of proposing a TMDL for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries. Despite the USEPA recommendation in the Guidance Document, the Department does not have faith in the 25th Percentile Method for establishing a level at which imbalance occurs. It views USEPA as having done a "huge disservice . . . to the states when they promulgated [the Guidance Document that recommends employment of the 25th Percentile Method]." (Tr. 286) At hearing, Mr. Frydenborg described the Department's view of the flaw in the 25th Percentile Method for establishing imbalance. In his words, the 25th Percentile Method takes, "sites of completely unknown quality - - they could all be excellent quality biologically, no imbalances whatsoever, and by arbitrarily selecting the lower 25th percentile, [it] automatically [makes] any site above that impaired with no evidence to support that there is actually imbalances of biological communities . . . ." (Tr. 286) While theoretically, the 25th Percentile Method could use streams with "excellent" biological quality, that is, streams that were impacted at most minimally, the description of the method in the Guidance Manual makes clear that the precise opposite is the case; the method will typically use streams that are degraded. The potential for degraded streams to be used by the 25th Percentile Method is precisely why the USEPA methodology that employs the 25th Percentile Method recommends that an even lower percentile, down to the fifth percentile, be considered for obtaining a nutrient value for setting a numeric criteria. The method in which one would expect only streams of excellent biological quality to be used is the 75th Percentile Method. This is why the 75th Percentile Method, in contrast to the 25th Percentile Method, is described by the USEPA as "the preferred method to establish a reference condition." Id. at A discussion of the comparison of the two indicates that while the 75th Percentile Method is preferred, the hope is that the two methods will produce similar values for a reference condition: EPA's Technical Guidance Manual for Developing Nutrient Criteria for Rivers and Streams describes two ways of establishing a reference condition. One method is to choose the upper 25th percentile (75th percentile [the 75th Percentile Method]) of a reference population of streams. This is the preferred method to establish a reference condition. The 75th percentile was chosen by EPA since it is likely associated with minimally impacted conditions, will be protective of designated uses, and provides management flexibility. When reference streams are not identified, the second method is to determine the lower 25th percentile of the population of all streams within a region [the 25th Percentile Method]. The 25th percentile of the entire population was chosen by EPA to represent a surrogate for an actual reference population. Data analyses to date indicate the lower 25th percentile from an entire population roughly approximates the 75th percentile of the population for a reference population [citations to case studies in Minnesota and Tennessee omitted]. New York State has also presented evidence that the 25th percentile [method] and the 75th percentile [method] compare well based on user perceptions of water resources [citation omitted]. Id. This discussion also shows that values with a variance from 40 ppb (as produced by USEPA for the Ecoregion in which the Nine Northern Tributaries are located employing the 25th Percentile Method) and 159 ppb (produced by the Department in collaboration with USEPA in employing the 75th Percentile Method) are unexpected. It also explains why the USEPA in the Reference Stream Approach urges that when the values produced by the 75th Percentile Method and the 25th Percentile Method are at a sufficient variance that the lower, more protective, value be chosen for purposes of deriving a TMDL for a nutrient. A Numeric Value at Great Variance When a frequency distribution analysis produces a value that is at great variance with another frequency distribution analysis, it causes the scientific investigator to pause in progress toward the goal. Instead of attempting to proceed toward the ultimate goal of arriving at a numeric criterion, the next step for the investigator is to determine the cause for the variance between the analyses. This is particularly true when the analysis with the higher value is at odds as well with other data, such as historical data. The step for determining the basis of the discrepancy between values produced by various analyses was described by Dr. Boyer at hearing when asked, "What would you do if you found one [a value] that was totally different from the others?" (Tr. 94) Dr. Boyer answered that it would require the scientific investigator to re-examine the result, "either the data are bad or [the] analysis is wrong," id., or the investigator did not account for some factor. While a result at great variance with other results would not necessarily mean that the result was inaccurate, it is a "red flag," id., that requires re-examination. The high value in the Proposed TMDL is indeed a "red flag." It calls into question the streams chosen by the Department as reference streams for the 75th Percentile Method. The legitimacy of the reference status of the streams chosen by the Department was cast into further doubt by the testimony of Petitioners' witness whose fields of expertise include water quality analysis relating to nutrient loading: Jean Marie Boyer, Ph.D. Dr. Boyer's Testimony As referenced above, Fish Slough, at the time of hearing, would not have qualified as a reference stream because of impacts. Whether it was one or not prior to 1996, the end date for Fish Slough data used by the Department for derivation of the Proposed TMDL, is less than clear from the record. The Department relied on statements from water management district personnel. None of those personnel testified at the hearing in this proceeding. There was no other evidence in the proceeding, documentary or otherwise, to support Fish Slough's reference stream status prior to 1996 aside from Mr. Frydenborg's reference to a LDI reading that exceeded the range into which a reference stream would have fallen. It is Dr. Boyer's opinion, moreover, that none of the Five Reference Stream supporting the Proposed TMDL are legitimate reference streams, in part, because of the scores received on the Old SCI and the New SCI. In her opinion, Cypress Slough, furthermore, is more than minimally-impacted so that it does not qualify as a reference stream. Located in the proximity of several dairy farms from which it receives direct drainage, Cypress Slough is "impacted and it is disturbed." (Tr. 102) When the initial SCI report was prepared it was not on the "preferenced stream list." Id. It is listed as "fair" on the New SCI with a modification score of 6. Fort Drum Creek is "less disturbed than Fish Slough or Cypress Slough" id., but still Dr. Boyer "wouldn't consider [Fort Drum Creek] minimally impacted . . . ." Among six RSCI scores, Fort Drum Creek received 5 "fairs" and 1 "good." It was explained at hearing, that a rating of "fair" on the New SCI does not necessarily mean that the stream is more than "minimally impacted." On the Land Development Index, however, Fort Drum Creek scores a 2.9, a number that is higher than "zero to two [which is] considered a good number for the Landscape Development Index." (Tr. 103) The LDI, therefore, indicates that Fort Drum Creek does not qualify as a reference stream. The Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee (the "Northwest Fork") appears to be in pretty good shape" to Dr. Boyer, except that "there is development upstream." Id. Under the New SCI, the Northwest Fork is shown to be "in very poor shape." (Tr. 104) This is because its "macroinvertebrate community isn't in very good shape." Id. The North Fork of the Loxahatchee (the "North Fork") is in a state park and does not have development upstream but under the New SCI "it hasn't done very well . . . ." Id. Dr. Boyer's opinion, at least so far as three of the streams (Fish Slough, Cypress Slough, and Fort Drum Creek) are concerned, is supported by evidence of record that pre-dated the Proposed Rule and this challenge. A report dated May 31, 1996, that relates the development of the SCI, described as "a primary indicator of ecosystem health and to identify impairment with respect to the reference (or natural) condition" (Petitioners' Ex. 29, Executive Summary, p. 2) was admitted into evidence as Petitioners' Ex. 29. The report in Chapter 3 entitled the "Selection and Geographic Distribution of Reference Sites," id., p. 5, states: Reference stream sites have been sampled by FDEP since summer 1992, using standardized biological methods and habitat evaluations at each site. Reference sites were chosen to represent the least impaired streams throughout Florida. * * * FDEP sample reference streams in all nine subecoregions from 1992 to 1994. * * * For inclusion in the reference stream database, sites had to be wadeable (first- to-third order), meet reference criteria of minimal disturbance, and have a drainage within the subecoregion. Id. at 5-7. (Emphasis added) Twelve reference sites are listed from Subecoregion 75d, the subecoregion in which the Nine Northern Tributaries and the Five Reference Streams are located. Of the twelve, only two are any of the Five Reference Streams: the NW Fork the North Fork of the Loxahatchee River. See id. at 7-9. Dr. Boyer's opinion is also supported, at least in part, by the updated SCI, re-calibrated in 2004 (the "New SCI") referred to in Petitioners' Ex. 46B as the "New SCI." (The 1996 SCI is referred to as the "Old SCI.") Cypress Slough, in a modified state hydrology-wise, rated only "Fair" under the New SCI whereas it had an excellent rating under the Old SCI. Fort Drum Creek, in contrast to its scores in the "excellent" range under the Old SCI, had five "fair" scores, ranging from 53.0 to 59.9 under the New RSCI and only one "good "score" under the New SCI. Under the Old SCI, the Northwest Fork of the Loxahatchee received 14 "excellent" scores and 3 "good" scores. Under the New SCI, it received 2 "very poor" scores, 8 "poor scores" and 7 "fair" scores. It received no "good" scores based on 17 ratings. See Petitioners' Ex. 46B. A similar result, although not as dramatic as in the case of the Northwest Fork, applied to the North Fork of the Loxahatchee. Whereas it had received 8 scores of "excellent," 5 scores of "good" and only one of "poor" under the Old SCI, under the New SCI, it had 7 scores of "poor," 6 scores of "fair" and only one of "good." See id. Mr. Frydenborg did not conduct stream habitat assessments on the two forks of the Loxahatchee that served as reference streams because "[w]e were running out of time that day," (tr. 266) and because he felt he had sufficient data otherwise. The assertion is odd when one considers that Mr. Frydenborg and Ms. Espy conducted habitat assessments of all of the Nine Northern Tributaries, declared impaired by the Department. Dispatched to conduct habitat assessments in the wake of the challenge to the Proposed Rule, it seems that Mr. Frydenborg would have chosen to spend time on the Five Reference Streams rather than the Nine Northern Tributaries if time were an issue. Elaboration on Frydenborg Opinion It is Mr. Frydenborg's opinion that the Proposed TMDL is a valid number from the perspective of protection of the resources for a number of reasons. In his view, there "might be a potential issue with phosphorus when it gets above . . . 250 micrograms per liter . . . ." (Tr. 269) Nonetheless, he has observed levels of above 250 micrograms where no imbalance of flora and fauna occurred because of flow characteristics and prevention of light penetration by shading associated with canopy or dark water caused by tannins leaching from leaf litter. One such example is Flat Creek next to Torreya State Park. It always receives an "excellent" on the SCI and its phosphorus levels average 244. Another reason Mr. Frydenborg believes the Proposed TMDL to be protective is that "nutrients are so complicated. We don't have a real clear cause-and-effect relationship between . . . nutrient concentration in a stream . . . [and] imbalance." (Tr. 269) Mr. Frydenborg summed up his thoughts on the contribution that reducing phosphorus in the Nine Northern Tributaries would make: Well, I guess the better way to think of it would be is, if you were somehow magically able to reduce phosphorus in those areas to make it an exceedingly low amount . . . it's my professional opinion, due to the other modifications in those sites, with the exception of Mosquito Creek, that you would not see any improvements in biological health because they're already significantly stressed for these other factors. I think that's the best way to look at it . . . I'm not saying we shouldn't try our best to reduce the phosphorus in those systems . . . but . . . if we're able to reduce that phosphorus, I wouldn't expect to see an actual beneficial environmental effect. (Tr. 281-282) Mr. Frydenborg stressed that the Proposed TMDL is adequate because "it's similar to the reference conditions in that particular area." (Tr. 282), (emphasis added). Mr. Frydenborg also responded on behalf of the Department to Dr. Boyer's assertion that the 75th Percentile Approach required the use of reference streams identified in the 96 Stream Condition Index located in Sub-ecoregion 75D: the eastern flatwoods region that is on the eastern side of the state. This sub-ecoregion was described as "up in Orlando all the way south of Jacksonville, south of Clay County anyway, ... but only on the eastern side of the state." (Tr. 291) The Nine Northern Tributaries are located in the "very southern extent" of Sub-ecoregion 75D. South of them is another sub-region associated with the Everglades where there is "a paucity of streams . . . maybe even no natural streams . . . south of Lake Okeechobee for the original Stream Condition Index." (Tr. 292) "Non-metric multidimensional scaling" (tr. 290), a statistical tool, was used to analyze how predictive the sub- regions were in showing the differences in populations of the aquatic communities. Because of the lack of differences among certain sub-ecoregions, the analysis led to an aggregation of them with the result that the State could be divided into three bio-regions: "the Panhandle, the peninsula, and the northeast." Id. This analysis shows that there is no basis for using a particular sub-ecoregion. With respect to the water basin in which the Nine Northern Tributaries are located, "leav[ing] that immediate geographic basin for TMDL purposes" (id.) would lead to an evaluation of peninsular sites, that is, an evaluation of one of the three bioregions into which the State divides rather than an evaluation of any one sub-ecoregion. An evaluation of peninsular sites, is similar what the Department did in developing the TMDL for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries. It took "the sites that are unimpaired in the new [re-calibrated] SCI and looked at the phosphorus levels there." Id. There are differences between the northern end of Sub-ecoregion 75 and the southern end climatologically. The main reason to reject limiting candidate streams for use in the Reference Stream Approach to those in Sub-ecoregion 75, however, is that it is more appropriate to use an aggregate of "the entire sub-region," that is, the Peninsula Bio-region. The bio- region includes the southern end of Sub-ecoregion 75 but does not include the northern end of Sub-ecoregion 75. The phosphorus levels of the peninsula, according to Mr. Frydenborg, have a 75th percentile of 243 ppb. Using Peninsular Florida streams to calculate a 75th percentile of TP contrasted dramatically with Dr. Boyer's approach. According to Dr. Boyer, the three approaches she recommended produced concentration levels of around 57 ppb ("historical" levels), 40 ppb (the 25th percentile of all reference streams in ecoregion XII) and 73.5 ppb (the 75th percentile of reference streams she chose in subecoregion 75d.12) Dr. Boyer would be comfortable with a "73.5 part" TMDL for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries because of "the data behind it." (Tr. 126) Between Mr. Frydenborg's defense of the Proposed TMDL and Dr. Boyer's defense of 73.5 ppb using reference streams, there is no question that Dr. Boyer's is superior. Her use of reference streams in the same ecoregion as the Nine Northern Tributaries makes sense because those reference streams were minimally impacted. Mr. Frydenborg's attack on Dr. Boyer's choice of reference streams for the 75th Percentile Method shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of reference streams. Mr. Frydenborg and the Department have chosen to use as reference streams, streams that are not minimally impacted but rather that are the least impacted in Peninsular Florida, an area heavily impacted when it comes to excess phosphorus. The Guidance Manual demonstrates that the Department either does not understand the type of streams to be used in the 75th Percentile Method and the 25th Percentile Methods or, for some reason, has confused them. The 75th Percentile Method uses reference streams, that is, streams that are minimally impacted or approximately ideal in natural biology. In contrast, in its employment of the 75th Percentile Method, the Department chose streams that were least impacted in a heavily impacted region. The 25th Percentile Method, on the other hand, uses streams that are both in reference and non-reference condition. Data from degraded streams may be used to calculate a proposed value under the latter method. The more degraded the streams and the greater the number of degraded streams used to produce data for the 25th Percentile Method, the lower that actual percentile used to propose a TMDL. If the data is from a sufficient number of degraded streams then the fifth percentile should be used to produce a TP value. In contrast, Mr. Frydenborg rejected the 25th Percentile Method because it might have used data from only excellent streams - streams the Department should have used in calculating the 75th percentile to propose a TMDL for TP in the Nine Northern Tributaries. In point of fact, the 25th Percentile Method, not designed to be limited to streams of excellent condition, would almost assuredly not use data confined to production from streams of excellent condition. The Lake Issue In enacting the Protection Statute, the Legislature directed that the Protection Program should be implemented through a variety of programs, that is, unlike the TMDL Act, the Protection Program should not be solely regulatory: This program shall be watershed-based, shall provide for consideration of all potential phosphorus sources, and shall include research and monitoring, development and implementation of best management practices, refinement of existing regulations, and structural and nonstructural projects, including public works. § 373.4595(1)(j), Fla. Stat. The intent of the Legislature that the approach of the Protection Program be a multi-faceted one is reiterated specifically with regard to phosphorus. Under the Protection Statute's subsection (3), entitled "LAKE OKEECHOBEE PROTECTION PROGRAM," which details the specifications for the implementation of the Protection Program, there is a specification with regard to phosphorus reduction: The Lake Okeechobee Watershed Phosphorus Control Program is designed to be a multifaceted approach to reducing phosphorus loads by improving the management of phosphorus sources within the Lake Okeechobee watershed through continued implementation of existing regulations and best management practices, development and implementation of improved best management practices, improvement and restoration of the hydrologic function of natural and managed systems, and utilization of alternative technologies fro nutrient reduction. The coordinating agencies shall facilitate the application of federal programs that offer opportunities for water quality treatment, including preservation, restoration, or creation of wetlands on agricultural lands. § 373.4595(3)(c), Fla. Stat. The Legislature made its intent clear that phosphorus reduction in the Lake is dependent on federal projects as well as the TMDL Program: It is the intent of the Legislature that the Lake Okeechobee Protection Program be developed and implemented in coordination with and, to the greatest extent practicable, through the implementation of the Restudy project components and other federal programs in order to maximize opportunities for the most efficient and timely expenditures of public funds. § 373.4595(1)(k), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added) These federal efforts include projects conducted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Department's understanding from its reading of the Protection Statute is that it rely as much as possible on projects conducted by the United States Army Corp of Engineers in its efforts to reduce the phosphorus load in and to Lake Okeechobee. The Department's plan to reduce phosphorus loads, therefore, calls for reductions in phosphorus loading through TMDLs placed on the Nine Northern Tributaries and other tributaries to the Lake as well as through federal projects. Lake Okeechobee TMDL As a result of the 1999 Consent Decree between USEPA and Earthjustice, the Department established a TMDL for Lake Okeechobee in August, 2001. The TMDL set an "in-lake" target restoration goal of 40 ppb total phosphorus for Lake Okeechobee based upon an examination of "pre-impact" phosphorus concentration data. The data was from studies that used "chlorophyll a" as an indicator of algal biomass which in turn acted as a surrogate for excessive nutrient concentration, and studies that examined the algal response to in-lake phosphorus concentrations. Upon comparing the results of these analyses, the Department determined that the total annual phosphorus load that would meet the 40 ppb restoration goal was 140 metric tons (the "Lake Okeechobee TMDL"). The Lake Okeechobee TMDL includes 35 metric tons from atmospheric deposition. Excluding the 35 metric tons of atmospheric deposition load of total phosphorus leaves 105 metric tons as the maximum load that is allowed from surface water inflows into the lake. The September 16, 2003, report of the Department admitted into evidence as Petitioners' Exhibit 2 recognizes that the Proposed TMDL cannot be inconsistent with the Lake Okeechobee TMDL. It also claims that the Proposed TMDL is consistent with the Lake Okeechobee TMDL because the Proposed TMDL will only allow 19.05 metric tons of TP to enter the Lake, well below the 105 metric tons allowed from surface water inflows under the Lake Okeechobee TMDL : This TMDL is specifically designed to protect the designated uses of the water bodies within the S-191 watershed [the watershed in which the Nine Northern Tributaries are located]. However, the load from these water bodies, as tributaries to Lake Okeechobee, must also be consistent with the TP TMDL for Lake Okeechobee in order to be adequately protective of the designated uses of the lake. Based on the Lake Okeechobee TMDL documentation, the total load for water discharged to the lake from all tributaries must not exceed 105 tonnes [metric tons] on an annual average basis. To determine whether the concentration-based TMDL for the tributaries is consistent with the lake TMDL, the Department calculated the load from the tributaries using a concentration of 0.159 mg/L and an average discharge of 97,154 acre feet (the average flow for 1995- 2000). Using these numbers, the allowable load is 19.05 tonnes, which well below the allowable load to the lake. Petitioners' Ex. 2, pp. 6-7 In keeping with the legislative intent and the observations of the Department, the Proposed Rule requires that the Proposed TMDL be consistent with the TMDL for TP for Lake Okeechobee: "As tributaries to Lake Okeechobee, the load from these other waterbodies in the Lake Okeechobee Basin must also be consistent with the TP TMDL for Lake Okeechobee, above." Proposed Rule, Section (2)(b). Under the TMDL Act, allocations of load may be between sources or basins so that the burden of reduction may fall on one source or basin more than on another: 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 . . . . § 403.067(6)(b), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). In an August 2001 report entitled "Total Maximum Daily Load for Total Phosphorus Lake Okeechobee, Florida," prepared by the Department and submitted to the USEPA, it was reported that a restoration target of 40 ppb TP for the lake was suggested by certain studies. After discussion of the "different analysis methods" that "all encompass the 40 ppb concentration target," the report states that "if 40 ppb is met at the eight pelagic13 stations (which represent the mid-lake) we can expect total phosphorus concentrations of below 40 ppb in the near-shore during certain years." Petitioners' Ex. 13, p. 32 of 53. Petitioners interpret this to be the setting by the Department of a restoration target of "40 ppb in-lake." Petitioners' Proposed Recommended Order, p. 50. The Department conceded during hearing that "you do, in fact, need to achieve an average of 40 ppb [inflow concentration into the lake]." (Testimony of Mr. Brooks, tr. 358). The Department argued vigorously, however, that the Proposed TMDL at 159 ppb does not necessarily violate a target restoration for the lake of 40 ppb or an average inflow concentration of 40 ppb. This is because future treatment works, in the words of Mr. Brooks, "are going to, in fact, affect both concentration and volume delivered to the lake. Id. And depending upon where those go, those are going to have a very significant effect in terms of how you balance to achieve that overall 40." The issue is directly addressed by the Protection Statute. It requires the water management district in cooperation with other coordinating agencies and the United States Army Corps of Engineers to develop an implementation plan for Phase II of the Lake Okeechobee Construction Plan by January 1, 2004. See §.373.4595(3)(b)2., Fla. Stat. The implementation plan is required to: dentify Lake Okeechobee Construction Project facilities to be constructed to achieve a design objective of 40 parts per billion (ppb) for phosphorus measured as a long-term flow weighted average concentration, unless an allocation has been established pursuant to s. 403.067 for the Lake Okeechobee total maximum daily load. § 373.4595(3)(b)2.a., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Petitioners present evidence that the actual loading from the Nine Northern Tributaries would be 33.44 metric tons of TP per year because the Department's calculation failed to account for discharges from tributaries in certain sub-basins. Whether the annual load from the Nine Northern Tributaries is the higher number posited by Petitioners or the lower number of approximately 19 metric tons claimed by the Department, the load is substantially below the 105 allowed by the Existing Rule. Petitioners also claim that the Proposed TMDL, 159 ppb, almost four times the 40 ppb limit for average lake inflows, is invalid because it could not lawfully become effective until the Department has met its legal obligation to offset the Nine Northern Tributaries load with reductions from other sources so that the average load expressed as a concentration level meets the target of 40 ppb.
