The Issue Whether proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, which describes how the Department of Environmental Protection will exercise its authority under Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, to identify and list those surface waters in the state that are impaired for purposes of the state's total maximum daily load (commonly referred to as "TMDL") program, is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority," within the meaning of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, for the reasons asserted by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made to supplement the factual stipulations contained in the parties' Prehearing Stipulation: State TMDL Legislation Over the last 30 years, surface water quality management in Florida, like in the rest of the United States, has focused on the control of point sources of pollution (primarily domestic and industrial wastewater) through the issuance, to point source dischargers, of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, which specify effluent-based standards with which the permit holders must comply. Although "enormously successful in dealing with . . . point sources" of pollution, the NPDES program has not eliminated water quality problems largely because discharges from other sources of pollution (nonpoint sources) have not been as successfully controlled. In the late 1990's, the Department recognized that, to meet Florida's water quality goals, it was going to have to implement a TMDL program for the state. Wanting to make absolutely sure that it had the statutory authority to do so, the Department sought legislation specifically granting it such authority. Jerry Brooks, the deputy director of the Department's Division of Water Resource Management, led the Department's efforts to obtain such legislation. He was assisted by Darryl Joyner, a Department program administrator responsible for overseeing the watershed assessment and groundwater protection sections within the Division of Water Resource Management. Participating in the drafting of the legislation proposed by the Department, along with Mr. Brooks and Mr. Joyner, were representatives of regulated interests. No representatives from the environmental community actively participated in the drafting of the proposed legislation. The Department obtained the TMDL legislation it wanted when the 1999 Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, the effective date of which was May 26, 1999. Section 1 of Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, added the following to the definitions set forth in Section 403.031, Florida Statutes, which define "words, phrases or terms" for purposes of "construing [Chapter 403, Florida Statutes], or rules or regulations adopted pursuant [t]hereto": (21) "Total maximum daily load" is defined as the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources[11] and the load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to determining individual wasteload allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards must first be calculated. Section 4 of Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, added language to Subsection (1) of Section 403.805, Florida Statutes, providing that the Secretary of the Department, not the Environmental Regulation Commission, "shall have responsibility for final agency action regarding total maximum daily load calculations and allocations developed pursuant to s. 403.067(6)," Florida Statutes. The centerpiece of Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, was Section 3 of the enactment, which created Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, dealing with the "[e]stablishment and implementation of total maximum daily loads." Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, was amended in 2000 (by Chapter 2000-130, Laws of Florida) and again in 2001 (by Chapter 2001-74, Laws of Florida). It now reads, in its entirety, as follows: LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT.-- In furtherance of public policy established in s. 403.021, the Legislature declares that the waters of the state are among its most basic resources and that the development of a total maximum daily load program for state waters as required by s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq. will promote improvements in water quality throughout the state through the coordinated control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution.[12] The Legislature finds that, while point and nonpoint sources of pollution have been managed through numerous programs, better coordination among these efforts and additional management measures may be needed in order to achieve the restoration of impaired water bodies. The scientifically based total maximum daily load program is necessary to fairly and equitably allocate pollution loads to both nonpoint and point sources. Implementation of the allocation shall include consideration of a cost- effective approach coordinated between contributing point and nonpoint sources of pollution for impaired water bodies or water body segments and may include the opportunity to implement the allocation through nonregulatory and incentive-based programs. The Legislature further declares that the Department of Environmental Protection shall be the lead agency in administering this program and shall coordinate with local governments, water management districts, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, local soil and water conservation districts, environmental groups, regulated interests, other appropriate state agencies, and affected pollution sources in developing and executing the total maximum daily load program. LIST OF SURFACE WATERS OR SEGMENTS.-- In accordance with s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq., the department must submit periodically to the United States Environmental Protection Agency a list of surface waters or segments for which total maximum daily load assessments will be conducted. The assessments shall evaluate the water quality conditions of the listed waters and, if such waters are determined not to meet water quality standards, total maximum daily loads shall be established, subject to the provisions of subsection (4). The department shall establish a priority ranking and schedule for analyzing such waters. The list, priority ranking, and schedule cannot be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory program. However, this paragraph does not prohibit any agency from employing the data or other information used to establish the list, priority ranking, or schedule in administering any program. The list, priority ranking, and schedule prepared under this subsection shall be made available for public comment, but shall not be subject to challenge under chapter 120. The provisions of this subsection are applicable to all lists prepared by the department and submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq., including those submitted prior to the effective date of this act, except as provided in subsection (4). If the department proposes to implement total maximum daily load calculations or allocations established prior to the effective date of this act, the department shall adopt those calculations and allocations by rule by the secretary pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 and paragraph (6)(d). ASSESSMENT.-- Based on the priority ranking and schedule for a particular listed water body or water body segment, the department shall conduct a total maximum daily load assessment of the basin in which the water body or water body segment is located using the methodology developed pursuant to paragraph (b). In conducting this assessment, the department shall coordinate with the local water management district, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, other appropriate state agencies, soil and water conservation districts, environmental groups, regulated interests, and other interested parties. The department shall adopt by rule a methodology for determining those waters which are impaired. The rule shall provide for consideration as to whether water quality standards codified in chapter 62- 302, Florida Administrative Code, are being exceeded, based on objective and credible data, studies and reports, including surface water improvement and management plans approved by water management districts under s. 373.456 and pollutant load reduction goals developed according to department rule. Such rule also shall set forth: Water quality sample collection and analysis requirements, accounting for ambient background conditions, seasonal and other natural variations; Approved methodologies; Quality assurance and quality control protocols; Data modeling; and Other appropriate water quality assessment measures. If the department has adopted a rule establishing a numerical criterion for a particular pollutant, a narrative or biological criterion may not be the basis for determining an impairment in connection with that pollutant unless the department identifies specific factors as to why the numerical criterion is not adequate to protect water quality. If water quality non-attainment is based on narrative or biological criteria, the specific factors concerning particular pollutants shall be identified prior to a total maximum daily load being developed for those criteria for that surface water or surface water segment. APPROVED LIST.-- If the department determines, based on the total maximum daily load assessment methodology described in subsection (3), that water quality standards are not being achieved and that technology- based effluent limitations[13] and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, including Everglades restoration activities pursuant to s. 373.4592 and the National Estuary Program, which are designed to restore such waters for the pollutant of concern are not sufficient to result in attainment of applicable surface water quality standards, it shall confirm that determination by issuing a subsequent, updated list of those water bodies or segments for which total maximum daily loads will be calculated. In association with this updated list, the department shall establish priority rankings and schedules by which water bodies or segments will be subjected to total maximum daily load calculations. If a surface water or water segment is to be listed under this subsection, the department must specify the particular pollutants causing the impairment and the concentration of those pollutants causing the impairment relative to the water quality standard. This updated list shall be approved and amended by order of the department subsequent to completion of an assessment of each water body or water body segment, and submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Each order shall be subject to challenge under ss. 120.569 and 120.57. REMOVAL FROM LIST.-- At any time throughout the total maximum daily load process, surface waters or segments evaluated or listed under this section shall be removed from the lists described in subsection (2) or subsection (4) upon demonstration that water quality criteria are being attained, based on data equivalent to that required by rule under subsection (3). CALCULATION AND ALLOCATION.-- Calculation of total maximum daily load. Prior to developing a total maximum daily load calculation for each water body or water body segment on the list specified in subsection (4), the department shall coordinate with applicable local governments, water management districts, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, other appropriate state agencies, local soil and water conservation districts, environmental groups, regulated interests, and affected pollution sources to determine the information required, accepted methods of data collection and analysis, and quality control/quality assurance requirements. The analysis may include mathematical water quality modeling using approved procedures and methods. The department shall develop total maximum daily load calculations for each water body or water body segment on the list described in subsection (4) according to the priority ranking and schedule unless the impairment of such waters is due solely to activities other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution. For waters determined to be impaired due solely to factors other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution, no total maximum daily load will be required. A total maximum daily load may be required for those waters that are impaired predominantly due to activities other than point and nonpoint sources. The total maximum daily load calculation shall establish the amount of a pollutant that a water body or water body segment may receive from all sources without exceeding water quality standards, and shall account for seasonal variations and include a margin of safety that takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. The total maximum daily load may be based on a pollutant load reduction goal developed by a water management district, provided that such pollutant load reduction goal is promulgated by the department in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of this subsection. Allocation of total maximum daily loads. The total maximum daily loads shall include establishment of reasonable and equitable allocations of the total maximum daily load among point and nonpoint sources that will alone, or in conjunction with other management and restoration activities, provide for the attainment of water quality standards and the restoration of impaired waters. The allocations may establish the maximum amount of the water pollutant from a given source or category of sources that may be discharged or released into the water body or water body segment in combination with other discharges or releases. Allocations may also be made to individual basins and sources or as a whole to all basins and sources or categories of sources of inflow to the water body or water body segments. Allocations shall be designed to attain water quality standards and shall be based on consideration of the following: Existing treatment levels and management practices; Differing impacts pollutant sources may have on water quality; The availability of treatment technologies, management practices, or other pollutant reduction measures; Environmental, economic, and technological feasibility of achieving the allocation; The cost benefit associated with achieving the allocation; Reasonable timeframes for implementation; Potential applicability of any moderating provisions such as variances, exemptions, and mixing zones; and The extent to which nonattainment of water quality standards is caused by pollution sources outside of Florida, discharges that have ceased, or alterations to water bodies prior to the date of this act. Not later than February 1, 2001, the department shall submit a report to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives containing recommendations, including draft legislation, for any modifications to the process for allocating total maximum daily loads, including the relationship between allocations and the watershed or basin management planning process. Such recommendations shall be developed by the department in cooperation with a technical advisory committee which includes representatives of affected parties, environmental organizations, water management districts, and other appropriate local, state, and federal government agencies. The technical advisory committee shall also include such members as may be designated by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The total maximum daily load calculations and allocations for each water body or water body segment shall be adopted by rule by the secretary pursuant to ss. 120.536(1), 120.54, and 403.805. The rules adopted pursuant to this paragraph shall not be subject to approval by the Environmental Regulation Commission. As part of the rule development process, the department shall hold at least one public workshop in the vicinity of the water body or water body segment for which the total maximum daily load is being developed. Notice of the public workshop shall be published not less than 5 days nor more than 15 days before the public workshop in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or counties containing the water bodies or water body segments for which the total maximum daily load calculation and allocation are being developed. IMPLEMENTATION OF TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS.-- The department shall be the lead agency in coordinating the implementation of the total maximum daily loads through water quality protection programs. Application of a total maximum daily load by a water management district shall be consistent with this section and shall not require the issuance of an order or a separate action pursuant to s. 120.536(1) or s. 120.54 for adoption of the calculation and allocation previously established by the department. Such programs may include, but are not limited to: Permitting and other existing regulatory programs; Nonregulatory and incentive-based programs, including best management practices, cost sharing, waste minimization, pollution prevention, and public education; Other water quality management and restoration activities, for example surface water improvement and management plans approved by water management districts under s. 373.456 or watershed or basin management plans developed pursuant to this subsection; Pollutant trading or other equitable economically based agreements; Public works including capital facilities; or Land acquisition. In developing and implementing the total maximum daily load for a water body, the department, or the department in conjunction with a water management district, may develop a watershed or basin management plan that addresses some or all of the watersheds and basins tributary to the water body. These plans will serve to fully integrate the management strategies available to the state for the purpose of implementing the total maximum daily loads and achieving water quality restoration. The watershed or basin management planning process is intended to involve the broadest possible range of interested parties, with the objective of encouraging the greatest amount of cooperation and consensus possible. The department or water management district shall hold at least one public meeting in the vicinity of the watershed or basin to discuss and receive comments during the planning process and shall otherwise encourage public participation to the greatest practical extent. Notice of the public meeting shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in each county in which the watershed or basin lies not less than 5 days nor more than 15 days before the public meeting. A watershed or basin management plan shall not supplant or otherwise alter any assessment made under s. 403.086(3) and (4), or any calculation or allocation made under s. 403.086(6). The department, in cooperation with the water management districts and other interested parties, as appropriate, may develop suitable interim measures, best management practices, or other measures necessary to achieve the level of pollution reduction established by the department for nonagricultural nonpoint pollutant sources in allocations developed pursuant to paragraph (6)(b). These practices and measures may be adopted by rule by the department and the water management districts pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54, and may be implemented by those parties responsible for nonagricultural nonpoint pollutant sources and the department and the water management districts shall assist with implementation. Where interim measures, best management practices, or other measures are adopted by rule, the effectiveness of such practices in achieving the levels of pollution reduction established in allocations developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (6)(b) shall be verified by the department. Implementation, in accordance with applicable rules, of practices that have been verified by the department to be effective at representative sites shall provide a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards and release from the provisions of s.376.307(5) for those pollutants addressed by the practices, and the department is not authorized to institute proceedings against the owner of the source of pollution to recover costs or damages associated with the contamination of surface or ground water caused by those pollutants. Such rules shall also incorporate provisions for a notice of intent to implement the practices and a system to assure the implementation of the practices, including recordkeeping requirements. Where water quality problems are detected despite the appropriate implementation, operation, and maintenance of best management practices and other measures according to rules adopted under this paragraph, the department or the water management districts shall institute a reevaluation of the best management practice or other measures. 1. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services may develop and adopt by rule pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 suitable interim measures, best management practices, or other measures necessary to achieve the level of pollution reduction established by the department for agricultural pollutant sources in allocations developed pursuant to paragraph (6)(b). These practices and measures may be implemented by those parties responsible for agricultural pollutant sources and the department, the water management districts, and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall assist with implementation. Where interim measures, best management practices, or other measures are adopted by rule, the effectiveness of such practices in achieving the levels of pollution reduction established in allocations developed by the department pursuant to paragraph (6)(b) shall be verified by the department. Implementation, in accordance with applicable rules, of practices that have been verified by the department to be effective at representative sites shall provide a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards and release from the provisions of s.376.307(5) for those pollutants addressed by the practices, and the department is not authorized to institute proceedings against the owner of the source of pollution to recover costs or damages associated with the contamination of surface or ground water caused by those pollutants. In the process of developing and adopting rules for interim measures, best management practices, or other measures, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall consult with the department, the Department of Health, the water management districts, representatives from affected farming groups, and environmental group representatives. Such rules shall also incorporate provisions for a notice of intent to implement the practices and a system to assure the implementation of the practices, including recordkeeping requirements. Where water quality problems are detected despite the appropriate implementation, operation, and maintenance of best management practices and other measures according to rules adopted under this paragraph, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall institute a reevaluation of the best management practice or other measure. 2. Individual agricultural records relating to processes or methods of production, or relating to costs of production, profits, or other financial information which are otherwise not public records, which are reported to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services pursuant to this paragraph or pursuant to any rule adopted pursuant to this paragraph shall be confidential and exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. Upon request of the department or any water management district, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services shall make such individual agricultural records available to that agency, provided that the confidentiality specified by this subparagraph for such records is maintained. This subparagraph is subject to the Open Government Sunset Review Act of 1995 in accordance with s. 119.15, and shall stand repealed on October 2, 2006, unless reviewed and saved from repeal through reenactment by the Legislature. The provisions of paragraphs (c) and (d) shall not preclude the department or water management district from requiring compliance with water quality standards or with current best management practice requirements set forth in any applicable regulatory program authorized by law for the purpose of protecting water quality. Additionally, paragraphs (c) and (d) are applicable only to the extent that they do not conflict with any rules promulgated by the department that are necessary to maintain a federally delegated or approved program. RULES.-- The department is authorized to adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 for: Delisting water bodies or water body segments from the list developed under subsection (4) pursuant to the guidance under subsection (5); Administration of funds to implement the total maximum daily load program; Procedures for pollutant trading among the pollutant sources to a water body or water body segment, including a mechanism for the issuance and tracking of pollutant credits. Such procedures may be implemented through permits or other authorizations and must be legally binding. No rule implementing a pollutant trading program shall become effective prior to review and ratification by the Legislature; and The total maximum daily load calculation in accordance with paragraph (6)(a) immediately upon the effective date of this act, for those eight water segments within Lake Okeechobee proper as submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to subsection (2). APPLICATION.-- The provisions of this section are intended to supplement existing law, and nothing in this section shall be construed as altering any applicable state water quality standards or as restricting the authority otherwise granted to the department or a water management district under this chapter or chapter 373. The exclusive means of state implementation of s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq. shall be in accordance with the identification, assessment, calculation and allocation, and implementation provisions of this section. CONSTRUCTION.-- Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the applicability or consideration of any mixing zone, variance, exemption, site specific alternative criteria, or other moderating provision. IMPLEMENTATION OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS.-- The department shall not implement, without prior legislative approval, any additional regulatory authority pursuant to s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act or 40 C.F.R. part 130, if such implementation would result in water quality discharge regulation of activities not currently subject to regulation. In order to provide adequate due process while ensuring timely development of total maximum daily loads, proposed rules and orders authorized by this act shall be ineffective pending resolution of a s. 120.54(3), s. 120.56, s. 120.569, or s. 120.57 administrative proceeding. However, the department may go forward prior to resolution of such administrative proceedings with subsequent agency actions authorized by subsections (2)-(6), provided that the department can support and substantiate those actions using the underlying bases for the rules or orders without the benefit of any legal presumption favoring, or in deference to, the challenged rules or orders. Key Provisions of Law Referenced in Section 403.067, Florida Statutes Section 403.021, Florida Statutes Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, which is referenced in Subsection (1) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The pollution of the air and waters of this state constitutes a menace to public health and welfare; creates public nuisances; is harmful to wildlife and fish and other aquatic life; and impairs domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses of air and water. It is declared to be the public policy of this state to conserve the waters of the state and to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife and fish and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses and to provide that no wastes be discharged into any waters of the state without first being given the degree of treatment necessary to protect the beneficial uses of such water. * * * It is hereby declared that the prevention, abatement, and control of the pollution of the air and waters of this state are affected with a public interest, and the provisions of this act are enacted in the exercise of the police powers of this state for the purpose of protecting the health, peace, safety, and general welfare of the people of this state. The Legislature finds and declares that control, regulation, and abatement of the activities which are causing or may cause pollution of the air or water resources in the state and which are or may be detrimental to human, animal, aquatic, or plant life, or to property, or unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property be increased to ensure conservation of natural resources; to ensure a continued safe environment; to ensure purity of air and water; to ensure domestic water supplies; to ensure protection and preservation of the public health, safety, welfare, and economic well-being; to ensure and provide for recreational and wildlife needs as the population increases and the economy expands; and to ensure a continuing growth of the economy and industrial development. The Legislature further finds and declares that: Compliance with this law will require capital outlays of hundreds of millions of dollars for the installation of machinery, equipment, and facilities for the treatment of industrial wastes which are not productive assets and increased operating expenses to owners without any financial return and should be separately classified for assessment purposes. Industry should be encouraged to install new machinery, equipment, and facilities as technology in environmental matters advances, thereby improving the quality of the air and waters of the state and benefiting the citizens of the state without pecuniary benefit to the owners of industries; and the Legislature should prescribe methods whereby just valuation may be secured to such owners and exemptions from certain excise taxes should be offered with respect to such installations. Facilities as herein defined should be classified separately from other real and personal property of any manufacturing or processing plant or installation, as such facilities contribute only to general welfare and health and are assets producing no profit return to owners. In existing manufacturing or processing plants it is more difficult to obtain satisfactory results in treating industrial wastes than in new plants being now planned or constructed and that with respect to existing plants in many instances it will be necessary to demolish and remove substantial portions thereof and replace the same with new and more modern equipment in order to more effectively treat, eliminate, or reduce the objectionable characteristics of any industrial wastes and that such replacements should be classified and assessed differently from replacements made in the ordinary course of business. * * * It is the policy of the state to ensure that the existing and potential drinking water resources of the state remain free from harmful quantities of contaminants. The department, as the state water quality protection agency, shall compile, correlate, and disseminate available information on any contaminant which endangers or may endanger existing or potential drinking water resources. It shall also coordinate its regulatory program with the regulatory programs of other agencies to assure adequate protection of the drinking water resources of the state. It is the intent of the Legislature that water quality standards be reasonably established and applied to take into account the variability occurring in nature. The department shall recognize the statistical variability inherent in sampling and testing procedures that are used to express water quality standards. The department shall also recognize that some deviations from water quality standards occur as the result of natural background conditions. The department shall not consider deviations from water quality standards to be violations when the discharger can demonstrate that the deviations would occur in the absence of any human-induced discharges or alterations to the water body. Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsection (3)(b) of Section 447.067, Florida Statutes, contains Florida's "[s]urface water quality standards." Rule 62-302.300, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Findings, Intent, and Antidegradation Policy for Surface Water Quality," and provides as follows: Article II, Section 7 of the Florida Constitution requires abatement of water pollution and conservation and protection of Florida's natural resources and scenic beauty. Congress, in Section 101(a)(2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,[14] declares that achievement by July 1, 1983, of water quality sufficient for the protection and propagation[15] of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, as well as for recreation in and on the water, is an interim goal to be sought whenever attainable. Congress further states, in Section 101(a)(3), that it is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited. The present and future most beneficial uses of all waters of the State have been designated by the Department by means of the Classification system set forth in this Chapter pursuant to Subsection 403.061(10), F.S.[16] Water quality standards[17] are established by the Department to protect these designated uses.[18] Because activities outside the State sometimes cause pollution[19] of Florida's waters, the Department will make every reasonable effort to have such pollution abated. Water quality standards apply equally to and shall be uniformly enforced in both the public and private sector. Public interest shall not be construed to mean only those activities conducted solely to provide facilities or benefits to the general public. Private activities conducted for private purposes may also be in the public interest. The Commission, recognizing the complexity of water quality management and the necessity to temper regulatory actions with the technological progress and the social and economic well-being of people, urges, however, that there be no compromise where discharges of pollutants constitute a valid hazard to human health. The Commission requests that the Secretary seek and use the best environmental information available when making decisions on the effects of chronically and acutely toxic substances and carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic substances. Additionally, the Secretary is requested to seek and encourage innovative research and developments in waste treatment alternatives that might better preserve environmental quality or at the same time reduce the energy and dollar costs of operation. The criteria set forth in this Chapter are minimum levels which are necessary to protect the designated uses of a water body. It is the intent of this Commission that permit applicants should not be penalized due to a low detection limit associated with any specific criteria. (10)(a) The Department's rules that were adopted on March 1, 1979 regarding water quality standards are designed to protect the public health or welfare and to enhance the quality of waters of the State. They have been established taking into consideration the use and value of waters of the State for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation. Under the approach taken in the formulation of the rules adopted in this proceeding: The Department's rules that were adopted on March 1, 1979 regarding water quality standards are based upon the best scientific knowledge related to the protection of the various designated uses of waters of the State; and The mixing zone,[20] zone of discharge, site specific alternative criteria, exemption, and equitable allocation provisions are designed to provide an opportunity for the future consideration of factors relating to localized situations which could not adequately be addressed in this proceeding, including economic and social consequences, attainability, irretrievable conditions, natural background,[21] and detectability. This is an even-handed and balanced approach to attainment of water quality objectives. The Commission has specifically recognized that the social, economic and environmental costs may, under certain special circumstances, outweigh the social, economic and environmental benefits if the numerical criteria are enforced statewide. It is for that reason that the Commission has provided for mixing zones, zones of discharge, site specific alternative criteria, exemptions and other provisions in Chapters 62-302, 62-4, and 62-6, F.A.C. Furthermore, the continued availability of the moderating provisions is a vital factor providing a basis for the Commission's determination that water quality standards applicable to water classes in the rule are attainable taking into consideration environmental, technological, social, economic and institutional factors. The companion provisions of Chapters 62-4 and 62-6, F.A.C., approved simultaneously with these Water Quality Standards are incorporated herein by reference as a substantive part of the State's comprehensive program for the control, abatement and prevention of water pollution. Without the moderating provisions described in (b)2. above, the Commission would not have adopted the revisions described in (b)1. above nor determined that they are attainable as generally applicable water quality standards. Section 403.021, Florida Statutes, declares that the public policy of the State is to conserve the waters of the State to protect, maintain, and improve the quality thereof for public water supplies, for the propagation of wildlife, fish and other aquatic life, and for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and other beneficial uses. It also prohibits the discharge of wastes into Florida waters without treatment necessary to protect those beneficial uses of the waters. The Department shall assure that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources, and all cost- effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control. For the purposes of this rule, highest statutory and regulatory requirements for new and existing point sources are those which can be achieved through imposition of effluent limits required under Sections 301(b) and 306 of the Federal Clean Water Act (as amended in 1987) and Chapter 403, F.S. For the purposes of this rule, cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control are those nonpoint source controls authorized under Chapters 373 and 403, F.S., and Department rules. The Department finds that excessive nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) constitute one of the most severe water quality problems facing the State. It shall be the Department's policy to limit the introduction of man-induced nutrients into waters of the State. Particular consideration shall be given to the protection from further nutrient enrichment of waters which are presently high in nutrient concentrations or sensitive to further nutrient concentrations and sensitive to further nutrient loadings. Also, particular consideration shall be given to the protection from nutrient enrichment of those waters presently containing very low nutrient concentrations: less than 0.3 milligrams per liter total nitrogen or less than 0.04 milligrams per liter total phosphorus. Existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be fully maintained and protected. Such uses may be different or more extensive than the designated use. Pollution which causes or contributes to new violations of water quality standards or to continuation of existing violations is harmful to the waters of this State and shall not be allowed. Waters having water quality below the criteria established for them shall be protected and enhanced. However, the Department shall not strive to abate natural conditions. If the Department finds that a new or existing discharge will reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them or violate any Department rule or standard, it shall refuse to permit the discharge. If the Department finds that a proposed new discharge or expansion of an existing discharge will not reduce the quality of the receiving waters below the classification established for them, it shall permit the discharge if such degradation is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest, and if all other Department requirements are met. Projects permitted under Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., shall be considered in compliance with this subsection if those projects comply with the requirements of subsection 373.414(1), F.S.; also projects permitted under the grandfather provisions of Sections 373.414(11) through (16), F.S., or permitted under Section 373.4145, F.S., shall be considered in compliance with this subsection if those projects comply with the requirements of Rule 62-312.080(2), F.A.C. (18)(a) Except as provided in subparagraphs (b) and (c) of this paragraph, an applicant for either a general permit or renewal of an existing permit for which no expansion of the discharge is proposed is not required to show that any degradation from the discharge is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. If the Department determines that the applicant has caused degradation of water quality over and above that allowed through previous permits issued to the applicant, then the applicant shall demonstrate that this lowering of water quality is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. These circumstances are limited to cases where it has been demonstrated that degradation of water quality is occurring due to the discharge. If the new or expanded discharge was initially permitted by the Department on or after October 4, 1989, and the Department determines that an antidegradation analysis was not conducted, then the applicant seeking renewal of the existing permit shall demonstrate that degradation from the discharge is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest. Rule 62-302.400, Florida Administrative Code, classifies all surface waters of the state "according to designated uses." The rule provides for five classifications: Class I ("Potable Water Supplies"); Class II ("Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting"); Class III ("Recreation, Propagation of a Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife": Fresh and Marine); Class IV ("Agricultural Water Supplies"); and Class V ("Navigation, Utility and Industrial Use").22 See Rule 62-302.400(1), Florida Administrative Code. These "[w]ater quality classifications are arranged in order of degree of protection required, with Class I water having generally the most stringent water quality criteria23 and Class V the least. However, Class I, II, and III surface waters share water quality criteria established to protect recreation and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy well-balanced population of fish and wildlife." Rule 62-302.400(4), Florida Administrative Code. Waters designated as "Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters" are given "special protection." See Rule 62-302.700(1) and (7), Florida Administrative Code ("It shall be the Department policy to afford the highest protection to Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters. No degradation of water quality, other than that allowed in Rule 62-4.242(2) and (3), F.A.C., is to be permitted in Outstanding Florida Waters and Outstanding National Resource Waters, respectively, notwithstanding any other Department rules that allow water quality lowering. . . . The policy of this section shall be implemented through the permitting process pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C.").24 According to Subsection (5) of Rule 62-302.400, Florida Administrative Code, Criteria applicable to a classification are designed to maintain the minimum conditions necessary to assure the suitability of water for the designated use of the classification. In addition, applicable criteria are generally adequate to maintain minimum conditions required for the designated uses of less stringently regulated classifications. Therefore, unless clearly inconsistent with the criteria applicable, the designated uses of less stringently regulated classifications shall be deemed to be included within the designated uses of more stringently regulated classifications. "The specific water quality criteria corresponding to each surface water classification are listed in Rules 62-302.500 and 62-302.530," Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62- 302.400(3), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection (1) of Rule 62-302.500, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth what are known as the "free froms." It provides as follows: Minimum Criteria. All surface waters of the State shall at all places and at all times be free from: Domestic, industrial, agricultural, or other man-induced non-thermal components of discharges which, alone or in combination with other substances or in combination with other components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Settle to form putrescent deposits or otherwise create a nuisance; or Float as debris, scum, oil, or other matter in such amounts as to form nuisances; or Produce color, odor, taste, turbidity, or other conditions in such degree as to create a nuisance; or Are acutely toxic; or Are present in concentrations which are carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic to human beings or to significant, locally occurring, wildlife or aquatic species, unless specific standards are established for such components in Rules 62-302.500(2) or 62-302.530; or Pose a serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare. Thermal components of discharges which, alone, or in combination with other discharges or components of discharges (whether thermal or non-thermal): Produce conditions so as to create a nuisance; or Do not comply with applicable provisions of Rule 62-302.500(3), F.A.C. Silver in concentrations above 2.3 micrograms/liter in predominantly marine waters. Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, has a table that contains both numeric and narrative surface water quality criteria to be applied except within zones of mixing. The left-hand column of the Table is a list of constituents [or parameters] for which a surface water criterion exists. The headings for the water quality classifications are found at the top of the Table. Applicable criteria lie within the Table. The individual criteria should be read in conjunction with other provisions in water quality standards, including Rules 62- 302.500 and 62-302.510, F.A.C. The criteria contained in Rules 62-302.500 or 62-302.510 also apply to all waters unless alternative or more stringent criteria are specified in Rule 62-302.530, F.A.C. Unless otherwise stated, all criteria express the maximum not to be exceeded at any time. In some cases, there are separate or additional limits, such as annual average criteria, which apply independently of the maximum not to be exceeded at any time. The following are the specific parameters listed in the table: Alkalinity; Aluminum; Ammonia (un-ionized); Antimony; Arsenic (total and trivalent); Bacteriological Quality (Fecal Coliform Bacteria); Bacteriological Quality (Total Coliform Bacteria); Barium; Benzene; Beryllium; Biological Integrity; BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand); Bromine (free molecular); Cadmium; Carbon Tetrachloride; Chlorides; Chlorine (total residual); Chromium (trivalent and hexavalent); Chronic Toxicity; Color; Conductance (specific); Copper; Cyanide; Detergents; 1,1- Dichloroethylene (1,1-di-chloroethene); Dichloromethane (methylene chloride); 2,4-Dinitrotoluene; Dissolved Oxygen; Dissolved Solids; Fluorides; Halomethanes; Hexachlorobutadiene; Iron; Lead; Manganese; Mercury; Nickel; Nitrate; Nuisance Species;25 Nutrients;26 Odor; Oils and Greases; Pesticides and Herbicides (2,4,5-TP; 2-4-D; Aldrin; Betahexachlorocyclohexane; Chlordane; DDT; Demeton; Dieldrin; Endosulfan; Endrin: Guthion; Heptachlor; Lindane; Malathion; Methoxychlor; Mirex; Parathion; Toxaphene); pH; Phenolic Compounds; Phosphorous (Elemental); Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons; Radioactive Substances; Selenium; Silver; 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane; Tetrachloroethylene; Thallium; Total Dissolved Gases; Transparency; Trichloroeylene (trichloroethene); Turbidity; and Zinc. Rule 62-302.800, Florida Administrative Code, provides for the establishment of "[s]ite [s]pecific [a]lternative [c]riteria" where a water body, or portion thereof, does "not meet a particular ambient water quality criterion specified for its classification, due to natural background conditions or man- induced conditions which cannot be controlled or abated."27 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1313(d)), which is referenced in Subsections (1), (2), (9), and (11) of Section 447.067, Florida Statutes, provides as follows: Identification of areas with insufficient controls; maximum daily load; certain effluent limitations revision (1)(A) Each State shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required by section 1311(b)(1)(A) and section 1311(b)(1)(B) of this title are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. The State shall establish a priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. Each State shall identify those waters or parts thereof within its boundaries for which controls on thermal discharges under section 1311 of this title are not stringent enough to assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. Each State shall establish for the waters identified in paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection, and in accordance with the priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 1314(a)(2) of this title as suitable for such calculation. Such load shall be established at a level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards with seasonal variations and a margin of safety which takes into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time to time, with the first such submission not later than one hundred and eighty days after the date of publication of the first identification of pollutants under section 1314(a)(2)(D) of this title, for his approval the waters identified and the loads established under paragraphs (1)(A), (1)(B), (1)(C), and (1)(D) of this subsection. The Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such identification and load not later than thirty days after the date of submission. If the Administrator approves such identification and load, such State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. If the Administrator disapproves such identification and load, he shall not later than thirty days after the date of such disapproval identify such waters in such State and establish such loads for such waters as he determines necessary to implement the water quality standards applicable to such waters and upon such identification and establishment the State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection (e) of this section. For the specific purpose of developing information, each State shall identify all waters within its boundaries which it has not identified under paragraph (1)(A) and (1)(B) of this subsection and estimate for such waters the total maximum daily load with seasonal variations and margins of safety, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 1314(a)(2) of this title as suitable for such calculation and for thermal discharges, at a level that would assure protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of fish, shellfish and wildlife. Limitations on revision of certain effluent limitations Standard not attained For waters identified under paragraph (1)(A) where the applicable water quality standard has not yet been attained, any effluent limitation based on a total maximum daily load or other waste load allocation established under this section may be revised only if (i) the cumulative effect of all such revised effluent limitations based on such total maximum daily load or waste load allocation will assure the attainment of such water quality standard, or (ii) the designated use which is not being attained is removed in accordance with regulations established under this section. Standard attained For waters identified under paragraph (1)(A) where the quality of such waters equals or exceeds levels necessary to protect the designated use for such waters or otherwise required by applicable water quality standards, any effluent limitation based on a total maximum daily load or other waste load allocation established under this section, or any water quality standard established under this section, or any other permitting standard may be revised only if such revision is subject to and consistent with the antidegradation policy established under this section. Development of Proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code The rule development process that culminated in the adoption of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, began shortly after the enactment of Chapter 99-223, Laws of Florida, when the Department decided, consistent with its routine practice in complex rulemaking cases, to form a technical advisory committee (TAC) to assist the Department in developing an "identification of impaired surface waters" rule by rendering advice to the Department concerning technical and scientific matters.28 The Department solicited nominations for TAC membership from stakeholder groups, but ultimately rejected the nominations it received and instead selected individuals it believed were best qualified to contribute based upon their expertise (in areas including water quality monitoring, water quality chemistry, water quality modeling, estuarine ecology, wetland ecology, analytical chemistry, statistics, bioassessment procedures, limnology, coastal ecology, fish biology, and hydrology). The first TAC meeting was held August 12, 1999. There were 12 subsequent TAC meetings, the last two of which were held on August 4, 2000, and August 28, 2000. The TAC meetings were held in various locations throughout the state (Pensacola, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Gainesville, Orlando, Tampa, St. Petersburg, and West Palm Beach) and were open to public, with members of the public able to make comments. All 13 TAC meetings were noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The TAC meetings were chaired by Mr. Joyner, who was the Department employee primarily responsible for drafting an "identification of impaired surface waters" rule. Mr. Joyner emphasized to the TAC members that their role was simply to give advice and make recommendations to the Department and that their advice and recommendations might not be followed. As it turned out, there were several instances where the Department rejected a TAC recommendation. In addition to seeking the advice of experts on technical and scientific matters, the Department wanted to hear from stakeholders regarding policy issues. Towards that end, it took steps to establish a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC). An organizational meeting of the PAC was held on March 24, 2000, in Tallahassee, the day after the seventh TAC meeting (which was also held in Tallahassee). After being told about the government in the sunshine and public records laws with which they would have to comply as PAC members, "no one wanted to be on the PAC." The consensus of those present was to "just have public meetings [to elicit stakeholder input] and not have a formal PAC." The Department acted accordingly. Following this March 24, 2000, meeting, the Department abandoned its efforts to form a PAC and instead held four public meetings to obtain input from the public regarding policy questions involved in crafting an "identification of impaired surface waters" rule. The last two of these public meetings were combined with the last two TAC meetings (held on August 4, 2000, and August 28, 2000). Each of the five "policy" public meetings held by the Department (including the March 24, 2000, PAC organizational meeting) were noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. The Department also held two rule development workshops (one on September 7, 2000, and the other on December 7, 2000), both of which were also noticed in the Florida Administrative Weekly. Between the time these two rule development workshops were held, Mr. Joyner met with representatives of regulated interests and the environmental community to discuss their thoughts regarding what should be included in an "identification of impaired surface waters" rule. Throughout the rule development process, the Department also received and considered written comments from interested persons. Information about the rule development process was posted on the Department's web site for the public to read. The Department e-mailed approximately 350 persons (whose names were on a list of interested persons compiled by the Department) to notify them in advance of any meetings and workshops on proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code. Proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, underwent numerous revisions during the rule development process. Whenever a revised version of the proposed rule chapter was prepared, the Department sent a copy of it, via e-mail, to the persons on the Department's 350 "interested persons" e-mail list. Changes to proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, were made not only in response to comments made by members of the TAC and stakeholders, but also in response to comments made by staff of the Region IV office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with whom Department staff had extensive discussions regarding the proposed rule chapter. The Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) "exercise[s] the standard-setting authority of the [D]epartment."29 In March of 2001, approximately 19 months after the first TAC meeting, the Department was ready to present its most recent version of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, to the ERC for adoption. Accordingly, it published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the March 23, 2001 (Volume 27, Number 12) edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly announcing that a hearing on the proposed rule chapter would be held before the ERC on April 26, 2001. The Notice contained the complete text of the proposed rule chapter, as well as the following statement of “[p]urpose, effect, and summary”: The purpose of the proposed new rule is to establish a methodology to identify impaired waters that will be included on the State's verified list of impaired waters, for which the Department will calculate Total Maximum Daily Loads, pursuant to subsection 403.067(4), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and which will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to subparagraphs 303(d)(1)(A) and 303(d)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act. As directed by 403.067, F.S., the development of the State's 303(d) list will be a two-step process; waters will first be identified as potentially impaired and then any impairment will be verified before listing the water. The rule implements this statutory direction by providing a methodology to identify surface waters of the state that will be included on a "planning list" of waters. Pursuant to subsection 403.067(2) and (3), F.S., the Department will evaluate the data used to place these waters on the planning list, verify that the data meet quality assurance and data sufficiency requirements of the "verified list," and collect additional data, as needed, to complete the assessment. The rule also provides information about the listing cycle, the format of the verified list, and delisting procedures. At the ERC's regularly scheduled March 29, 2001, meeting, Mr. Joyner formally briefed the ERC on the status of the rule development process (as he had previously done at ERC's regularly scheduled meetings on June 29, 2000, August 24, 2000, December 5, 2000, and January 25, 2001). At the March 29, 2001, meeting, Mr. Joyner went through the proposed rule chapter with the ERC "paragraph by paragraph." As noted above, prior to the scheduled April 26, 2001, ERC hearing, petitions challenging the proposed rule chapter (as published in the March 23, 2001, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly) were filed with the Division by Petitioner Lane (on April 10, 2001) and by all Joint Petitioners excluding Save Our Suwannee, Inc. (on April 13, 2001). On April 21, 2001, all Joint Petitioners excluding Save Our Suwannee, Inc., filed a Request with ERC asking: that rulemaking proceedings regarding proposed Rule 62-303 be conducted under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, as to all parties, or alternatively at least to the six petitioners; that the evidentiary processes involved under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, be combined with the already pending DOAH proceedings of all parties, or at least the six petitioners; and that rulemaking proceedings, as to proposed Rule 62-303, be suspended pending completion of the evidentiary processes before DOAH as well as the DOAH ruling on the pending petitions, as to all parties or at least the six petitioners. The Request was considered and denied by the ERC at the outset of its hearing on the proposed rule chapter, which was held as scheduled on April 26, 2001. That same day, the ERC issued a written order denying the Request, which read, in pertinent part as follows: But for their request to combine the requested evidentiary proceeding with the existing rule challenges pending before DOAH, Petitioners have requested conversion of the instant rulemaking proceeding to an evidentiary hearing or "draw out." A draw out is authorized under proper circumstances by Section 120.54(3)(c)2, Florida Statutes, which states: "Rulemaking proceedings shall be governed solely by the provisions of this section unless a person timely asserts that the person's substantial interests will be affected in the proceeding and affirmatively demonstrates to the agency that the proceeding does not provide adequate opportunity to protect those interests. If the agency determines that the rulemaking proceeding is not adequate to protect the person's interests, it shall suspend the rulemaking proceeding and convene a separate proceeding under the provisions of ss. 120.569 and 120.57. Similarly situated persons may be requested to join and participate in the separate proceeding. Upon conclusion of the separate proceeding, the rulemaking proceeding shall be resumed." A participant in the rulemaking proceeding who requests such relief is asking to "draw out" of the rulemaking proceeding and for the agency to afford the party an evidentiary hearing in lieu thereof.[30] A copy of each of the six petitions filed by the parties with DOAH was attached to the joint notice now before the Commission. But for minor variations in allegations to establish standing, each of the six petitions sets out seventeen (17) counts with each count asserting that a particular provision, or provisions, of proposed Rule 62-303 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority or otherwise a violation of Section 403.067, F.S., or the federal Clean Water Act. None of the individual petitions, or the joint notice, demonstrate that the pending rulemaking proceeding fails to protect the petitioners' substantial interests, nor have petitioners raised any factual issues that would require a separate evidentiary hearing beyond the scope of the DOAH proceedings already pending. Under these circumstances, Section 120.56(2)(b), F.S., specifically allows an agency to proceed with all other steps in the rulemaking process, except for final adoption, while a DOAH rule challenge is pending.[31] In view of the foregoing, and in exercising its discretion as afforded by Section 120.54(3)(c)2., F.S., the Commission has determined that the rulemaking proceeding adequately protects the interests asserted by each of the six petitioners who joined in the joint notice as filed April 20th, 2001. Accordingly, the petitioners' joint request for relief therein is denied. The version of the proposed rule chapter published in the March 23, 2001, edition of the Florida Administrative Weekly, with some modifications, was adopted by the ERC at its April 26, 2001, meeting (at which members of the public were given the opportunity to comment prior to ERC deliberation). The modifications were noticed in a Notice of Change published in the May 11, 2001, edition (Volume 27, Number 19) of the Florida Administrative Weekly. Contents of the ERC-Adopted Version of Proposed Rule Chapter 62- 303, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Identification of Impaired Surface Waters." It is divided into four parts. Part I: Overview Part I of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, contains the following "general" provisions: Proposed Rules 62-303.100, 62-303.150, and 62- 303.200, Florida Administrative Code. Part I: Proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Scope and Intent." It provides an overview of the proposed rule chapter and reads as follows: This chapter establishes a methodology to identify surface waters of the state that will be included on the state's planning list of waters that will be assessed pursuant to subsections 403.067(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (F.S.). It also establishes a methodology to identify impaired waters that will be included on the state's verified list of impaired waters, for which the Department will calculate Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), pursuant to subsection 403.067(4) F.S., and which will be submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to paragraph 303(d)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Subsection 303(d) of the CWA and section 403.067, F.S., describe impaired waters as those not meeting applicable water quality standards, which is a broad term that includes designated uses, water quality criteria, the Florida antidegradation policy, and moderating provisions. However, as recognized when the water quality standards were adopted, many water bodies naturally do not meet one or more established water quality criteria at all times, even though they meet their designated use.[32] Data on exceedances of water quality criteria will provide critical information about the status of assessed waters, but it is the intent of this chapter to only list waters on the verified list that are impaired due to point source or nonpoint source pollutant discharges. It is not the intent of this chapter to include waters that do not meet water quality criteria solely due to natural conditions or physical alterations of the water body not related to pollutants. Similarly, it is not the intent of this chapter to include waters where designated uses are being met and where water quality criteria exceedances are limited to those parameters for which permitted mixing zones or other moderating provisions (such as site-specific alternative criteria) are in effect. Waters that do not meet applicable water quality standards due to natural conditions or to pollution not related to pollutants shall be noted in the state's water quality assessment prepared under subsection 305(b) of the CWA. This chapter is intended to interpret existing water quality criteria and evaluate attainment of established designated uses as set forth in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., for the purposes of identifying water bodies or segments for which TMDLs will be established. It is not the intent of this chapter to establish new water quality criteria or standards, or to determine the applicability of existing criteria under other provisions of Florida law. In cases where this chapter relies on numeric indicators of ambient water quality as part of the methodology for determining whether existing narrative criteria are being met, these numeric values are intended to be used only in the context of developing a planning list and identifying an impaired water pursuant to this chapter. As such, exceedances of these numeric values shall not, by themselves, constitute violations of Department rules that would warrant enforcement action. Nothing in this rule is intended to limit any actions by federal, state, or local agencies, affected persons, or citizens pursuant to other rules or regulations. Pursuant to section 403.067, F.S., impaired waters shall not be listed on the verified list if reasonable assurance is provided that, as a result of existing or proposed technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, they will attain water quality standards in the future and reasonable progress towards attainment of water quality standards will be made by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.021(11). 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, refers to the narrowing and winnowing process (more fully described in subsequent portions of the proposed rule chapter) that will yield the Department's "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, which list will be submitted to the EPA in accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. (The Department last submitted such a list to the EPA in 1998. This list is referred to by the Department as its 1998 303(d) list.) The Department's intent not to include on its "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated those "[w]aters that do not meet applicable water quality standards due to natural conditions or to pollution not related to pollutants," as provided in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.100, Florida Administrative Code, is consistent with the view expressed in Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that TMDLs are appropriate only where there is man-induced pollution involving the discharge (from either a point or nonpoint source) of identifiable pollutants. See, e.g., Section 403.067(1), Florida Statutes ("[T]he development of a total maximum daily load program for state waters as required by s. 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1251 et seq. will promote improvements in water quality throughout the state through the coordinated control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution"); Section 403.067(4), Florida Statutes ("If a surface water or water segment is to be listed under this subsection, the department must specify the particular pollutants causing the impairment and the concentration of those pollutants causing the impairment relative to the water quality standard."); and Section 403.067(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes ("For waters determined to be impaired due solely to factors other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution, no total maximum daily load will be required."). While "[w]aters that do not meet applicable water quality standards due to natural conditions or to pollution not related to pollutants" will not appear on the Department's "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, they will be included in the "water quality assessment prepared under subsection 305(b) of the CWA" (305(b) Report), which provides as follows: Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by April 1, 1975, and shall bring up to date by April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include-- a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal, and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by the objective of this chapter (as identified by the Administrator pursuant to criteria published under section 1314(a) of this title) and the water quality described in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph; an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water; an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife and allows recreational activities in and on the water, have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this chapter, together with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary; an estimate of (i) the environmental impact, (ii) the economic and social costs necessary to achieve the objective of this chapter in such State, (iii) the economic and social benefits of such achievement, and (iv) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants, and recommendations as to the programs which must be undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an estimate of the costs of implementing such programs. The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before October 1, 1975, and October 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter. The declaration made in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, that "[t]his chapter is intended to interpret existing water quality criteria and evaluate attainment of established designated uses as set forth in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., for the purposes of identifying water bodies or segments for which TMDLs will be established" is similar to that made in Subsection (9) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that "[t]he provisions of this section are intended to supplement existing law, and nothing in this section shall be construed as altering any applicable state water quality standards." Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, together with proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code (which will be discussed later), are designed to give effect to and make more specific the language in Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that an impaired water may be listed on the Department's "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated only "if technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, including Everglades restoration activities pursuant to s. 373.4592 and the National Estuary Program, which are designed to restore such waters for the pollutant of concern are not sufficient to result in attainment of applicable surface water quality standards." Section 403.061, Florida Statutes, which is cited as the "[s]pecific [a]uthority" for proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Statutes (and every other proposed rule in the proposed rule chapter), authorizes the Department to, among other things, "[a]dopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of [Chapter 403, Florida Statutes]." See Section 403.061(7), Florida Statutes. Section 403.062, Florida Statutes, which is included among the statutory provisions cited in proposed Rule 62- 303.100, Florida Statutes (and every other proposed rule in the proposed rule chapter) as the "[l]aw [i]mplemented," reads as follows: Code Pollution control; underground, surface, and coastal waters.-- The department and its agents shall have general control and supervision over underground water, lakes, rivers, streams, canals, ditches, and coastal waters under the jurisdiction of the state insofar as their pollution may affect the public health or impair the interest of the public or persons lawfully using them. Part I: Proposed Rule 62-303.150, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.150, Florida Administrative Code, explains the "[r]elationship [b]etween [p]lanning and [v]erified [l]ists." It provides as follows: The Department shall follow the methodology in Section 62-303 300 to develop a planning list pursuant to subsection 403.067(2), F.S. As required by subsection 403.067(2), F.S., the planning list shall not be used in the administration or implementation of any regulatory program, and shall be submitted to EPA for informational purposes only. Waters on this planning list will be assessed pursuant to subsection 403.067(3) F.S., as part of the Department's watershed management approach. During this assessment, the Department shall determine whether the water body is impaired and whether the impairment is due to pollutant discharges using the methodology in Part III. The resultant verified list of impaired waters, which is the list of waters for which TMDLs will be developed by the Department pursuant to subsection 403.067(4), will be adopted by Secretarial Order and will be subject to challenge under subsection [sic] 120.569 and 120.57 F.S. Once adopted, the list will be submitted to the EPA pursuant to paragraph 303(d)(1) of the CWA. Consistent with state and federal requirements, opportunities for public participation, including workshops, meetings, and periods to submit comments on draft lists, will be provided as part of the development of planning and verified lists. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The initial drafts of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, provided for merely a single list of impaired waters needing TMDLs. It was only after the last TAC meeting (and before the first rule development workshop) that the concept of having two lists (a preliminary, "planning list" of potentially impaired waters requiring further assessment and a final, "verified list . . . of waters for which TMDLs will be developed by the Department") was incorporated into proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, by Department staff (although the idea of having a "potentially impaired subset" of impaired waters was discussed at TAC meetings). Such action was taken in response to concerns raised during the rule development process that the proposed rule chapter, as then drafted with its one-list methodology, "was too restrictive, that it would only get a small subset of waters on [the Departments 303(d)] list." To decrease, in a manner consistent with the provisions of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, the chance that an impaired water needing a TMDL would be erroneously excluded, Department staff revised the proposed rule chapter to provide for a two-step listing process where potentially impaired waters would first be placed on a "planning list" based upon criteria generally less "restrictive" than the listing criteria contained in the previous drafts of the proposed rule chapter and then further tested (if necessary) and assessed to verify if, based upon criteria generally more rigorous than the "planning list" criteria, they should be included on a "verified list" of waters needing TMDLs (to be submitted to the EPA as the state's "updated" 303(d) list). Weighing against Department staff making it any easier for a water to be placed on the "verified list" was the significant regulatory consequence of such action. Erroneously listing a water as needing a TMDL would result in the unnecessary expenditure of considerable time, money, and effort. The more rigorous the listing criteria, the less likely it would be that a water would be listed erroneously and such unnecessary expenditures made. Subsequent to the ERC's adoption of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, the National Research Council (NRC),33 through one of its committees,34 acting at the request of Congress to analyze the scientific basis of the nationwide TMDL program, issued a report entitled, "Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water Quality Management" (NRC Publication). In the NRC Publication, the committee endorses a "two-list process" like the one incorporated in proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, explaining as follows: Determining whether there should be some minimum threshold of data available when evaluating waterbodies for attainment of water quality standards is an issue of great concern to states. On the one hand, many call for using only the "best science" in making listing decisions, while others fear that many impaired waters will not be identified in the wait for additional data. The existence of a preliminary list addresses these concerns by focusing attention on waters suspected to be impaired without imposing on stakeholders and the agencies the consequences of TMDL development, until additional information is developed and evaluated. According to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62- 303.150, Florida Administrative Code, "[w]aters on th[e] planning list will be assessed pursuant to subsection 403.067(3) F.S., as part of the Department's watershed management approach." The following are the major concepts incorporated in the "Department's watershed management approach": The basin management unit is the geographic or spatial unit used to divide the state into smaller areas for assessment- -generally groups of Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs)[35] . . . . The basin management cycle is the five- year cycle within which watersheds are assessed and management plans developed and implemented. The Management Action Plan (MAP), a document developed over the five-year cycle and subsequently updated every five years, describes the watershed's problems and how participants plan to address them. Forums and communications networks allow participants to collect and evaluate as much information as possible on their individual basins and to reach a consensus on strategic monitoring, priority water bodies, and management strategies. The statewide basin management schedule establishes the proposed sequence for assessing individual watersheds. . . . Each individual basin cycle under the "Department's watershed management approach" takes five years to complete, and is "repeated every five years." It is, in other words, an iterative process. The five phases of the cycle are as follows: Phase I: Preliminary Basin Assessment; Phase II: Strategic Monitoring; Phase III: Data Analysis and TMDL Development; Phase IV: Management Action Plan; and Phase V: Implementation. The first two phases of the cycle are discussed in greater detail in proposed Rule 62-303.700, Florida Administrative Code. Part I: Proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, contains definitions of various terms and phrases used in proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code. It provides as follows: As used in this chapter: "BioRecon" shall mean a bioassessment conducted following the procedures outlined in "Protocols for Conducting a Biological Reconnaissance in Florida Streams," Florida Department of Environmental Protection, March 13. 1995, which is incorporated by reference. "Clean techniques" shall mean those applicable field sampling procedures and analytical methods referenced in "Method 1669: Sampling Ambient Water for Trace Metals at EPA Water Quality Criteria Levels, July 1996, USEPA. Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division. Washington, D.C.," which is incorporated by reference. "Department" or "DEP" shall mean the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. "Designated use" shall mean the present and future most beneficial use of a body of water as designated by the Environmental Regulation Commission by means of the classification system contained in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C. "Estuary" shall mean predominantly marine regions of interaction between rivers and nearshore ocean waters, where tidal action and river flow mix fresh and salt water. Such areas include bays, mouths of rivers, and lagoons. "Impaired water" shall mean a water body or water body segment that does not meet its applicable water quality standards as set forth in Chapters 62-302 and 62-4 F.A.C., as determined by the methodology in Part III of this chapter, due in whole or in part to discharges of pollutants from point or nonpoint sources. "Lake Condition Index" shall mean the benthic macroinvertebrate component of a bioassessment conducted following the procedures outlined in "Development of Lake Condition Indexes (LCI) for Florida," Florida Department of Environmental Protection, July, 2000, which is incorporated by reference. "Natural background" shall mean the condition of waters in the absence of man- induced alterations based on the best scientific information available to the Department. The establishment of natural background for an altered waterbody may be based upon a similar unaltered waterbody or on historical pre-alteration data. "Nuisance species" shall mean species of flora or fauna whose noxious characteristics or presence in sufficient number, biomass, or areal extent may reasonably be expected to prevent, or unreasonably interfere with, a designated use of those waters. "Physical alterations" shall mean human-induced changes to the physical structure of the water body. "Planning list" shall mean the list of surface waters or segments for which assessments will be conducted to evaluate whether the water is impaired and a TMDL is needed, as provided in subsection 403.067(2), F.S. "Pollutant" shall be as defined in subsection 502(6) of the CWA. Characteristics of a discharge, including dissolved oxygen, pH, or temperature, shall also be defined as pollutants if they result or may result in the potentially harmful alteration of downstream waters. "Pollution" shall be as defined in subsection 502(19) of the CWA and subsection 403.031(2), F.S. "Predominantly marine waters" shall mean surface waters in which the chloride concentration at the surface is greater than or equal to 1,500 milligrams per liter. "Secretary" shall mean the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. "Spill" shall mean a short-term, unpermitted discharge to surface waters, not to include sanitary sewer overflows or chronic discharges from leaking wastewater collection systems. "Stream" shall mean a free-flowing, predominantly fresh surface water in a defined channel, and includes rivers, creeks, branches, canals, freshwater sloughs, and other similar water bodies. "Stream Condition Index" shall mean a bioassessment conducted following the procedures outlined in "Development of the Stream Condition Index (SCI) for Florida," Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May, 1996, which is incorporated by reference. "Surface water" means those waters of the State upon the surface of the earth to their landward extent, whether contained in bounds created naturally or artificially or diffused. Water from natural springs shall be classified as surface water when it exits from the spring onto the earth's surface. "Total maximum daily load" (TMDL) for an impaired water body or water body segment shall mean the sum of the individual wasteload allocations for point sources and the load allocations for nonpoint sources and natural background. Prior to determining individual wasteload allocations and load allocations, the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards must first be calculated. A TMDL shall include either an implicit or explicit margin of safety and a consideration of seasonal variations. "Verified list" shall mean the list of impaired water bodies or segments for which TMDLs will be calculated, as provided in subsection 403.067(4), F.S., and which will be submitted to EPA pursuant to paragraph 303(d)(1) of the CWA. "Water quality criteria" shall mean elements of State water quality standards, expressed as constituent concentrations, levels, or narrative statements, representing a quality of water that supports the present and future most beneficial uses. "Water quality standards" shall mean standards composed of designated present and future most beneficial uses (classification of waters), the numerical and narrative criteria applied to the specific water uses or classification, the Florida antidegradation policy, and the moderating provisions (mixing zones, site-specific alternative criteria, and exemptions) contained in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., and in Chapter 62-4, F.A.C., adopted pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S. "Water segment" shall mean a portion of a water body that the Department will assess and evaluate for purposes of determining whether a TMDL will be required. Water segments previously evaluated as part of the Department's 1998 305(b) Report are depicted in the map titled "Water Segments of Florida," which is incorporated by reference. "Waters" shall be those surface waters described in Section 403.031(13) Florida Statutes. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New There are some high salinity waters of the state that, although they do not have riverine input, nonetheless meet the definition of "estuary" found in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, because they are "bays" or "lagoons," as those terms are used in the second sentence of Subsection (5). Rule Chapter 62-4, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsections (6) and (23) of proposed Rule 62- 303.200, Florida Administrative Code, addresses the subject of "[p]ermits." According to Subsection (1) of Rule 62-4.210, Florida Administrative Code, "[n]o person shall construct any installation or facility which will reasonably be expected to be a source of . . . water pollution without first applying for and receiving a construction permit from the Department unless exempted by statute or Department rule." Subsection (1) of Rule 62-4.240, Florida Administrative Code, requires that "[a]ny person intending to discharge wastes into the waters of the State shall make application to the Department for an operation permit." An "operation permit" must: Specify the manner, nature, volume and frequency of the discharge permitted; Require proper operation and maintenance of any pollution abatement facility by qualified personnel in accordance with standards established by the Department; and Contain such additional conditions, requirements and restrictions as the Department deems necessary to preserve and protect the quality of the receiving waters and to ensure proper operation of the pollution control facilities. Rule 62-4.240(3), Florida Administrative Code. "An operation permit [will] be issued only if all Department requirements are met, including the provisions of Rules 62-302.300 and 62-302.700 and Rule 62-4.242, F.A.C." Rule 62-4.240(2), Florida Administrative Code. Subsection (1) of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code, describes "[a]ntidegradation [p]ermitting [r]equirements." It provides as follows: Permits shall be issued when consistent with the antidegradation policy set forth in Rule 62-302.300 and, if applicable, Rule 62- 302.700. In determining whether a proposed discharge which results in water quality degradation is necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following factors: Whether the proposed project is important to and is beneficial to the public health, safety, or welfare (taking into account the policies set forth in Rules 62- 302.100, 62-302.300, and, if applicable, 62- 302.700); and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; and Whether the proposed discharge will adversely affect the fishing or water-based recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed discharge; and Whether the proposed discharge is consistent with any applicable Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan that has been adopted by a Water Management District and approved by the Department. In addition to subsection (b) above, in order for a proposed discharge (other than stormwater discharges meeting the requirements of Chapter 62-25, F.A.C.), to be necessary or desirable under federal standards and under circumstances which are clearly in the public interest, the permit applicant must demonstrate that neither of the following is economically and technologically reasonable: Reuse of domestic reclaimed water. Use of other discharge locations, the use of land application, or reuse that would minimize or eliminate the need to lower water quality. Subsections (2) and (3) of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code, prescribe "[s]tandards [a]pplying to Outstanding Florida Waters" and "[s]tandards [a]pplying to Outstanding National Resource Waters," respectively. Subsection (4) of Rule 62-4.242, Florida Administrative Code, "prescribe[s] the means by which the Department, upon the petition of a license applicant, will equitably allocate among such persons [directly discharging significant amounts of pollutants into waters which fail to meet one or more of the water quality criteria applicable to those waters] the relative levels of abatement responsibility of each for abatement of those pollutants." Subsection (1) of Rule 62-4.244, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department, upon application, may "allow the water quality adjacent to a point of discharge to be degraded to the extent that only the minimum conditions described in subsection 62-302.500(1), Florida Administrative Code, apply within a limited, defined region known as the mixing zone"; provided, that the "mixing zone" does not "significantly impair any of the designated uses of the receiving body of water." Subsection 502(6) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1362(6)), which is referenced in Subsection (12) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The term "pollutant" means dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water. This term does not mean (A) "sewage from vessels or a discharge incidental to the normal operation of a vessel of the Armed Forces" within the meaning of section 1322 of this title; or (B) water, gas, or other material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which the well is located, and if such State determines that such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of ground or surface water resources. Subsection 502(19) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1362(19)), which is referenced in Subsection (13) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The term "pollution" means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water. In Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, the definition of "pollution" is found, not in Subsection (2) of Section 403.031, Florida Statutes, as indicated in Subsection (13) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, but in Subsection (7) of the statute. The "water segments" referenced in the second sentence of Subsection (24) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, are, for the most part, either approximately five linear miles each (in the case of streams) or approximately five square miles each (in the case of waters not in a defined channel). Subsection (13) of Section 403.031, Florida Statutes, which is referenced in Subsection (25) of proposed Rule 62- 303.200, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "'[w]aters' include, but are not limited to, rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments, wetlands, and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface, or underground waters." The other terms and phrases defined in proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, will be discussed, where appropriate, later in this Final Order. Part II: Overview Part II of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, contains the following provisions, which describe the "planning list" of potentially impaired waters and how the list will be compiled: Proposed Rules 62-303.300, 62- 303.320, 62-303.330, 62-303.340, 62-303.350, 62-303.351, 62- 303.352, 62-303.353, 62-303.360, 62-303.370, and 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code. Code Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Methodology to Develop the Planning List." It provides as follows: This part establishes a methodology for developing a planning list of waters to be assessed pursuant to subsections 403.067(2) and (3), F.S. A waterbody shall be placed on the planning list if it fails to meet the minimum criteria for surface waters established in Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C.; any of its designated uses, as described in this part; or applicable water quality criteria, as described in this part. It should be noted that water quality criteria are designed to protect either aquatic life use support, which is addressed in sections 62- 303.310-353, or to protect human health, which is addressed in sections 62-303.360- 380. Waters on the list of water segments submitted to EPA in 1998 that do not meet the data sufficiency requirements for the planning list shall nevertheless be included in the state's initial planning list developed pursuant to this rule. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the concept of "independent applicability" by providing that only one of the listed requirements need be met for a water to be placed on the "planning list." At the April 26, 2001, rule adoption hearing, the ERC initially voted to delete from proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, the language in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code. The ERC, however, later in the hearing, reversed itself after learning of a letter, dated April 26, 2001, that was sent to the Department by Beverly H. Bannister, the Director of the EPA's Region 4 Water Management Division. Ms. Bannister's letter read, in pertinent part, as follows: EPA expressed significant concern that, under earlier versions of the IWR [Impaired Waters Rule], waters currently identified as impaired on the State's 1998 Section 303(d) list which were determined to have "insufficient data" would be removed from the State's Section 303(d) list and also not appear on the State's planning list with its associated requirement for additional data collection. As a result of EPA concerns, the latest version of the IWR provides that waters on the current 1998 Section 303(d) list that do not meet the data sufficiency requirement of the planning list will be placed on the IWR's planning list, and sufficient data will be collected to verify the water's impairment status. In further discussions with the State regarding the EPA's concern about the 2002 Section 303(d) list, the State has committed to review all waters on the 1998 303(d) list and include all waters that meet the verification requirements of the IWR on the State's 2002 list. In addition, the State will also review all available data from 1989 to 1998 for development of a statewide planning list and include on the 2002 list any additional waters that meet the verification requirements, based on data from 1994 to 1998. (The State is unable to do a complete assessment for data gathered in 1999, 2000, and 2001 because of a national problem in the upload of data into the new Federal STORET data system.) Those waters on the 1998 303(d) list that do not meet the verification requirements will be de-listed for "good cause" and placed on the State's planning list as insufficient to verify the water's use-support status according to the methodology in the IWR. The "good cause" justification for de- listing the waters is based on several factors: 1) the requirements of the State Rule that these waters be moved to a planning list for additional data collection and assessment that will occur within a reasonable period of time; 2) a determination will be made that the waters are either impaired (and placed on the 303(d) list) or attaining its uses; and 3) the State's commitment to EPA that waters on the planning list that appeared on the State's 1998 Section 303(d) list will be monitored and assessed during the first or second rotation through the State's Watershed Management Process consistent with the schedule for TMDL development in EPA's consent decree with Earthjustice. High priority water/pollutant combinations will be monitored and assessed during the first rotation of the watershed cycle (i.e., within 5 years of 2001), and low priority water/pollutant combinations will be monitored and assessed during the second rotation of the watershed cycle (i.e., within 10 years of 2001). After this additional data collection and assessment, the water will be added to the appropriate future 303(d) list if the water is verified to be impaired, or the water will be "de- listed" based on the "good cause" justification that the water is attaining its uses. Waters on the 1998 303(d) list where sufficient data exists to demonstrate the water is meeting the IWR's planning list criteria for use support will be de-listed in the 2002 303(d) list submittal. It is EPA's view that this process will achieve the intent of the CWA and will provide sufficient documentation of the waters still requiring TMDLs by FDEP. Together with the data collection requirements found in Part III of the proposed rule chapter, Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, ensures that all waters on the Department's 1998 303(d) list (which list is referenced in Subsection (2)(c) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes) will be assessed by the Department and that they will not be eliminated from consideration for TMDL development simply because there is not enough data to determine whether a TMDL is needed. Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Evaluation of Aquatic Life Use Support." It provides as follows: A Class I, II, or III water shall be placed on the planning list for assessment of aquatic life use support (propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife) if, based on sufficient quality and quantity of data, it: exceeds applicable aquatic life-based water quality criteria as outlined in section 62-303.320, does not meet biological assessment thresholds for its water body type as outlined in section 62-303.330, is acutely or chronically toxic as outlined in section 62-303.340, or exceeds nutrient thresholds as outlined in section 62-303.350. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New This proposed rule, like Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the concept of "independent applicability." A water need meet only one of the four listed benchmarks to be placed on the "planning list for assessment of aquatic life use support." Each of these benchmarks is discussed at greater length in one or more of the subsequent sections of Part II of the proposed rule chapter. Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, addresses the "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" benchmark described in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code. It cites Sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as its "[s]pecific [a]uthority" and Sections 403.062 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as the "[l]aw[s] [i]mplemented" by the proposed rule. Proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a statistical method (involving "data modeling," as that term is used in Subsection (3)(b)4. of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes) for use in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list." It is not feasible, due to limited resources, to examine a water body at every point to determine its true overall condition. Rather, samples must be taken over time and inferences drawn from the sampling results, taking into consideration the "variability [of water quality] occurring in nature" and "that some deviations from water quality standards occur as the result of natural background conditions" (as the Legislature observed in Subsection (11) of Section 403.021, Florida Statutes). The process is, necessarily, characterized by a lack of certainty and the possibility of error. As stated in the NRC Publication: Given the finite monitoring resources, it is obvious that the number of sampling stations included in the state program will ultimately limit the number of water quality measurements that can be made at each station. Thus, in addition to the problem of defining state waters and designing the monitoring network to assess those waters, fundamental statistical issues arise concerning how to interpret limited data from individual sampling stations. Statistical inference procedures must be used on the sample data to test hypotheses about whether the actual condition in the water body meets the criterion. Thus, water quality assessment is a hypothesis-testing procedure. A statistical analysis of sample data for determining whether a water body is meeting a criterion requires the definition of a null hypothesis; for listing a water body, the null hypothesis would be that the water is not impaired. The analysis is prone to the possibility of both Type I error (a false conclusion that an unimpaired water is impaired) and Type II error (a false conclusion that an impaired water is not impaired). . . . The TAC and Department staff had extensive discussions regarding the issue of what particular type of "statistical analysis" to incorporate in the proposed rule chapter before deciding on a binomial distribution analysis. The binomial model is a time-tested nonparametric statistical method that is used where there are two possible outcomes, such as, in the case of water quality sampling, whether a water quality criterion has been exceeded or not. A parametric statistical analysis, based upon an assumption of normal distribution, which, unlike the binomial model incorporated in the proposed rule chapter, takes into account the magnitude of exceedances,36 was considered, but reasonably rejected by the TAC and Department staff because it was anticipated that, in many instances, the number of samples available to the Department would not be adequate to make the underlying distributional assumption with the requisite degree of certainty. The binomial model, which takes sample size into consideration, offers greater certainty with a limited number of samples than does the parametric statistical analysis that the TAC and Department staff rejected. Nonetheless, even in the case of the binomial model, the more samples there are, the more precise the analysis will be. Both Type I errors (false positives) and Type II errors (false negatives) decrease as sample size increases. To ensure greater analytic precision, proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, and its counterpart in Part III of the proposed rule chapter (proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code) contain reasonable minimum sample size requirements (ten, with limited exceptions, for placement on the "planning list," and 20 for placement on the "verified list," which is ten more than the TAC recommended37). The NRC Publication contains the following discussion regarding the appropriateness of employing a binomial model to identify impaired waters needing TMDLs: The committee does not recommend any particular statistical method for analyzing monitoring data and for listing waters. However, one possibility is that the binomial hypothesis test could be required as a minimum and practical first step (Smith et al., 2001). The binomial method is not a significant departure from the current approach--called the raw score approach--in which the listing process treats all sample observations as binary values that either exceed the criterion or do not, and the binomial method has some important advantages. For example, one limitation of the raw score approach is that it does not account for the total number of measurements made. Clearly, 1 out of 6 measurements above the criterion is a weaker case for impairment than is 6 out of 36. The binomial hypothesis test allows one to take sample size into account. By using a statistical procedure, sample sizes can be selected and one can explicitly control and make trade-offs between error rates. (see Smith et al., 2001, and Gibbons, in press, for guidance in managing the risk of false positive and false negative errors). Several states, including Florida and Virginia, are considering or are already using the binomial hypothesis test to list impaired waters. Detailed examples of how to apply the test are beyond the scope of this document, but can be found in Smith et al. (2001) and the proposed Chapter 62-303 of the Florida Administrative Code. In a footnote, the committee added the following: The choice of Type I error rate is based on the assessor's willingness to falsely categorize a water body. It also is the case that, for any sample size, the Type II error rate decreases as the acceptable Type I error rate increases. The willingness to make either kind of mistake will depend on the consequences of the resulting action (more monitoring, costs to do a TMDL plan, costs to implement controls, possible health risk) and who bears the cost (public budget, private parties, etc.). The magnitude and burden of a Type I versus Type II error depend on the statement of the null hypothesis and on the sample size. When choosing a Type I error rate, the assessor may want to explicitly consider these determinants of error rates. The TAC recommended a Type I error rate of five percent (or, stated differently, a confidence level of 95 percent) be used in making listing decisions.38 Department staff responsible for drafting the proposed rule chapter, believing that, as a matter of policy, a 95 percent confidence level was too high and that a higher Type I error rate should be tolerated in order to reduce Type II error, reasonably settled on an 80 percent confidence level for placement on the "planning list" and a 90 percent confidence level for placement on the "verified list." Scientific studies generally do not employ a confidence level below 80 percent. A 50 percent confidence level is "comparable to flipping a coin." Use of the binomial model to determine impairment for purposes of TMDL development (based upon exceedances of water quality criteria) further requires the selection of a fixed "exceedance frequency" representing an acceptable rate of violation beneath which a water segment will not be considered impaired. A permissible "exceedance frequency" accounts for the natural variability of water quality and the uncertainty that the measurements taken are representative of the overall condition of the water segment sampled. The Department, pursuant to EPA guidance, has historically used a ten percent "exceedance frequency" for purposes of identifying, in its 305(b) Report, waters not meeting their designated uses. The TAC and Department staff agreed that a ten percent "exceedance frequency" should likewise be incorporated in the proposed rule chapter. The NRC Publication contains the following discussion regarding "exceedance frequencies" in general and a ten percent "exceedance frequency" in particular: Whether the binomial or the raw score approach is used, there must be a decision on an acceptable frequency of violation for the numeric criterion, which can range from 0 percent of the time to some positive number. Under the current EPA approach, 10 percent of the sample measurements of a given pollutant made at a station may exceed the applicable criterion without having to list the surrounding waterbody. The choice of 10 percent is meant to allow for uncertainty in the decision process. Unfortunately, simply setting an upper bound on the percentage of measurements at a station that may violate a standard provides insufficient information to properly deal with the uncertainty concerning impairment. The choice of acceptable frequency of violation is also supposed to be related to whether the designated use will be compromised, which is clearly dependent on the pollutant and on waterbody characteristics such as flow rate. A determination of 10 percent cannot be expected to apply to all water quality situations. In fact, it is inconsistent with federal water quality criteria for toxics that specify allowable violation frequencies of either one day in three years, four consecutive days in three years, or 30 consecutive days in three years (which are all less than 10 percent). Embedded in the EPA raw score approach is an implication that 10 percent is an acceptable violation rate, which it may not be in certain circumstances. Nonetheless, as the chairman of the committee that produced the NRC Publication, Dr. Kenneth Reckhow, testified at the final hearing in these consolidated cases when asked whether he "believe[d] that a determination of ten percent exceedance [frequency] cannot be expected to apply to all water quality situations": the "notion of one size fits all is . . . a pragmatic approach to the limits of what can be done in a regulatory environment." Dr. Reckhow, during his testimony, declined to "endorse[] as a scientist" the use of an "exceedance frequency" of ten percent (as opposed to some other "particular level"),39 but he stated his opinion (which the undersigned accepts) that "it is important to select a level, and from a science perspective it would be useful to see states employ a level like that or levels roughly around that point and see how effectively they have worked in terms of achieving the goal of meeting designated uses." Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, sets forth in tabular form, by sample size (from ten samples to 500 samples), the minimum number of exceedances needed for placement on the "planning list." It provides as follows: Water segments shall be placed on the planning list if, using objective and credible data, as defined by the requirements specified in this section, the number of exceedances of an applicable water quality criterion due to pollutant discharges is greater than or equal to the number listed in Table 1 for the given sample size. This table provides the number of exceedances that indicate a minimum of 10% exceedance frequency with a minimum of an 80% confidence level using a binomial distribution. Table 1: Planning List Minimum number of measured exceedances needed to put a water on the Planning list with at least 80% confidence that the actual exceedance rate is greater than or equal to ten percent. Sample Are listed if they Sizes have at least this # of exceedances From To 10 15 3 16 23 4 24 31 5 32 39 6 40 47 7 48 56 8 57 65 9 66 73 10 74 82 11 83 91 12 92 100 13 101 109 14 110 118 15 119 126 16 127 136 17 137 145 18 146 154 19 155 163 20 164 172 21 173 181 22 182 190 23 191 199 24 200 208 25 209 218 26 219 227 27 228 236 28 237 245 29 246 255 30 256 264 31 265 273 32 274 282 33 283 292 34 293 301 35 302 310 36 311 320 37 321 329 38 330 338 39 339 348 40 349 357 41 358 367 42 368 376 43 377 385 44 386 395 45 396 404 46 405 414 47 415 423 48 424 432 49 433 442 50 443 451 51 452 461 52 462 470 53 471 480 54 481 489 55 490 499 56 500 500 57 The "calculations [reflected in Table 1] are correct." Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Storage and Retrieval (STORET) database shall be the primary source of data used for determining water quality criteria exceedances. As required by rule 62- 40.540(3), F.A.C., the Department, other state agencies, the Water Management Districts, and local governments collecting surface water quality data in Florida shall enter the data into STORET within one year of collection. Other sampling entities that want to ensure their data will be considered for evaluation should ensure their data are entered into STORET. The Department shall consider data submitted to the Department from other sources and databases if the data meet the sufficiency and data quality requirements of this section. STORET is a "centralized data repository" maintained by the EPA. It contains publicly available water quality data, contributed by state agencies and others, on waters throughout the nation. Subsection (3) of Rule 62-40.540, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[t]he U.S. Environmental Protection Agency water quality data base (STORET) shall be the central repository of the state's water quality data" and that"[a]ll appropriate water quality data collected by the Department, Districts, local governments, and state agencies shall be placed in the STORET system within one year of collection." At the end of 1998, STORET underwent a major overhaul. It is "now more accommodating of meta data," which is auxiliary information about the underlying data. As Ms. Bannister indicated in her April 26, 2001, letter to the Department, there was a "problem in the upload of data into the new Federal STORET data system." This new version of STORET is still not "very user-friendly." Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, however, while it strongly encourages the entry of data into STORET, does not require that data be entered into STORET to be considered by the Department in determining whether there have been the requisite number of exceedances for placement on the "planning list," as the last sentence of Subsection (2) makes abundantly clear. Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, imposes reasonable age-related restrictions on what data can be used to determine whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria." It provides as follows: When determining water quality criteria exceedances, data older than ten years shall not be used to develop planning lists. Further, more recent data shall take precedence over older data if: the newer data indicate a change in water quality and this change is related to changes in pollutant loading to the watershed or improved pollution control mechanisms in the watershed contributing to the assessed area, or the Department determines that the older data do not meet the data quality requirements of this section or are no longer representative of the water quality of the segment. The Department shall note for the record that the older data were excluded and provide details about why the older data were excluded. These provisions are reasonably designed to increase the likelihood that the decision to place a water on the "planning list" will be based upon data representative of the water's current conditions. While the data that will be excluded from consideration by Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, may be objective and credible data, such data merely reflects what the conditions of the water in question were at the time the samples yielding the data were collected. Declining to rely on this data because it is too old to be a reliable indicator of current conditions is not unreasonable. The TAC recommended that listing decisions be based on data no older than five years.40 Department staff, however, believed that, for purposes of compiling a "planning list," a ten-year cut-off was more appropriate. The binomial model is predicated on independent sampling. Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, addresses "in a very straightforward, simple, but reasonable way, the notion of spatial independence and temporal independence." It provides as follows: To be assessed for water quality criteria exceedances using Table 1, a water segment shall have a minimum of ten, temporally independent samples for the ten year period. To be treated as an independent sample, samples from a given station shall be at least one week apart. Samples collected at the same location less than seven days apart shall be considered as one sample, with the median value used to represent the sampling period. However, if any of the individual values exceed acutely toxic levels, then the worst case value shall be used to represent the sampling period. The worst case value is the minimum value for dissolved oxygen, both the minimum and maximum for pH, or the maximum value for other parameters. However, when data are available from diel or depth profile studies, the lower tenth percentile value shall be used to represent worst case conditions. For the purposes of this chapter, samples collected within 200 meters of each other will be considered the same station or location, unless there is a tributary, an outfall, or significant change in the hydrography of the water. Data from different stations within a water segment shall be treated as separate samples even if collected at the same time. However, there shall be at least five independent sampling events during the ten year assessment period, with at least one sampling event conducted in three of the four seasons of the calendar year. For the purposes of this chapter, the four seasons shall be January 1 through March 31, April 1 through June 30, July 1 through September 30, and October 1 through December 31. States may set their "[a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" at either acutely toxic levels or chronically toxic levels. The EPA, based on data from toxicity tests, has determined what these acutely toxic levels and chronically toxic levels should be, and it has provided its recommendations to the states for their use in setting appropriate water quality criteria. With one exception (involving silver in predominantly marine waters), the Department, in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, has opted to establish "[a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" at chronically toxic levels, rather than at acutely toxic levels, because chronic-toxicity-based criteria are, in the Department's view, "more protective." Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, will require the Department, under certain circumstances, to determine whether acutely toxic levels of parameters listed in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code (other than silver in predominantly marine waters) have been exceeded. Neither the Department's existing rules, nor the proposed rule chapter, specifies what these levels are. In making this determination, the Department intends to use the acutely toxic levels recommended by the EPA. The last two sentences of Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, address "seasonal . . . variations," as required by Subsection (3)(b)1. of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and do so in a manner consistent with the TAC's recommendation on the matter. As Subsection (3)(b)1. of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, suggests, water quality may vary from season to season. Such variations tend to be more pronounced in the northern part of the state than in South Florida in the case of certain parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, which is usually "at its critical condition" during the warmer months. While certain types of exceedances may be more likely to occur during a particular season or seasons of the year, exceedances may occur at any time during the year. Department staff, as recommended by the TAC, included the last two sentences in Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, in a reasonable effort to avoid a situation where a listing decision would be based upon skewed data (provided by persons "with an agenda") reflecting only isolated instances of worst or best case conditions, as opposed to "data . . . spread throughout the year as much as possible." Data from each of the four seasons of the calendar year were not required "because then some data sets might be excluded just because they missed a quarterly sample," an outcome the TAC and Department staff considered to be undesirable because they "wanted to be all-inclusive and . . . capture all waters that in fact might even potentially be impaired" on the "planning list." Notwithstanding the "three out of four seasons" data sufficiency requirement of Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, because the proposed rule establishes an "exceedance frequency" threshold of ten percent, a water may qualify for placement on the "planning list" under the proposed rule even though all of the exceedances evidenced by the data in the Department's possession (covering at least three of the four seasons of the year) occurred in the one season when conditions are typically at their worst for the water. (If there were other exceedances, they would not be excluded from consideration under the proposed rule simply because they occurred during a time of year when exceedances are atypical.) The "three out of four seasons" requirement does not completely protect against persons "with an agenda" obtaining the result they want by providing the Department skewed data, but, as Dr. Reckhow testified at the final hearing, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Department to devise a rule which provides for Department consideration of data submitted by members of the public and, at the same time, completely "prevent[s] someone who is clever [enough] from contriving the analysis." As Dr. Reckhow pointed out, to counteract the data submissions of such a person, those who believe that the data is not truly representative of the overall condition of the water can "collect their own data and make the[ir] case" to the Department. Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, which reads as follows, provides two exceptions to the data sufficiency requirements of Subsection of the proposed rule: Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (4), water segments shall be included on the planning list if: there are less than ten samples for the segment, but there are three or more temporally independent exceedances of an applicable water quality criterion, or there are more than one exceedance of an acute toxicity-based water quality criterion in any three year period. The "three or more exceedances" exception (found in Subsection (5)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code) to the proposed rule's minimum sample size requirement of ten was not something that the "TAC ever voted on." It was included in the proposed rule by Department staff at the request of Petitioners. As noted above, the only "acute toxicity-based water quality criterion" in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, is the criterion for silver in predominantly marine waters. Accordingly, Subsection (5)(b) of proposed Rule 62-330.320, Florida Administrative Code, applies only where that criterion has been exceeded (more than once in a three year period). Subsection (6) of proposed Rule 62-330.320, Florida Administrative Code, provides that certain data (described therein) will be excluded from consideration by the Department in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" pursuant to the proposed rule. It reads as follows: Values that exceed possible physical or chemical measurement constraints (pH greater than 14, for example) or that represent data transcription errors shall be excluded from the assessment. Outliers identified through statistical procedures shall be evaluated to determine whether they represent valid measures of water quality. If the Department determines that they are not valid, they shall be excluded from the assessment. However, the Department shall note for the record that the data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. The exclusion of the data described in Subsection (6) of proposed Rule 62-330.320, Florida Administrative Code, is entirely appropriate. Indeed, it would be unreasonable for the Department to consider such data. Earlier versions of Subsection (6) of proposed Rule 62-330.320, Florida Administrative Code, automatically excluded outliers from consideration. The ERC-adopted version, however, provides that outliers will first be identified41 and then examined and, only if they are determined by the Department, using its "best professional judgment," not to be "valid measures of water quality," will they be excluded from consideration. (Values, although extreme, may nonetheless "represent valid measures of water quality."). Subsection (7) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, which provides as follows, addresses "[q]uality assurance and [q]uality control protocols," as those terms are used in Subsection (3)(b)3. of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes: The Department shall consider all readily available water quality data. However, to be used to determine water quality exceedances, data shall be collected and analyzed in accordance with Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., and for data collected after one year from the effective date of this rule, the sampling agency must provide to the Department, either directly or through entry into STORET, all of the data quality assessment elements listed in Table 2 of the Department's Guidance Document "Data Quality Assessment Elements for Identification of Impaired Surface Waters" (DEP EAS 01-01, April 2001), which is incorporated by reference. Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsection (7)(a) of proposed Rule 62- 303.320, Florida Administrative Code, contains "[q]uality assurance requirements" that, with certain limited exceptions, "apply to all programs, projects, studies, or other activities which are required by the Department, and which involve the measurement, use, or submission of environmental data or reports to the Department." Rule 62-160.110, Florida Administrative Code. Adherence to quality assurance requirements such as those in Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, is essential to obtaining data that is objective and credible. Compliance with these requirements makes it less likely that sampling results will be inaccurate. DEP EAS 01-01, April 2001, which is incorporated by reference in Subsection (7)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: The Department relies on environmental data from a variety of sources to carry out its mission. Those data must satisfy the needs for which they are collected, comply with applicable standards, specifications and statutory requirements, and reflect a consideration of cost and economics. Careful project planning and routine project and data reviews, are essential to ensure that the data collected are relevant to the decisions being made. Many aspects of a project affect data quality. Sampling design, selection of parameters, sampling technique, analytical methodologies and data management activities are a few such aspects, whether the data are being collected for a compliance program, or for research activities. The level of quality of each of those elements will affect the final management decisions that are based on a project's outcome. Data quality assessment is one activity that is instrumental in ensuring that data collected are relevant and appropriate for the decisions being made. Depending on the needs of the project, the intended use of the final data and the degree of confidence required in the quality of the results, data quality assessment can be conducted at many levels. For the purposes of identification of impaired surface waters, the level of data quality assessment to be conducted (Table 1) requires providing the appropriate data elements (Table 2). If the data and applicable data elements are in an electronic format, data quality assessments can be performed automatically on large volumes of data using software tools, without significant impact to staffing. Department programs can realize significant improvement in environmental protection without additional process using these types of review routinely. Table 1: Recommended Quality Assessment Checks Quality Test Review to determine if analyses were conducted within holding times Review for qualifiers indicative of problems Screen comments for keywords indicative of problems Review laboratory certification status for particular analyte at the time analysis was performed Review data to determine if parts are significantly greater than the whole (e.g., ortho-P>total phosphorous, NH3>TKN, dissolved metal>total metal) Screen data for realistic ranges (e.g., is pH<14?) Review detection limits and quantification limits against Department criteria and program action levels to ensure adequate sensitivity Review for blank contamination Table 2: Data Elements Related to Quality Assessment ID Element Description Sample ID Unique Field Sample Identifier Parameter Name Name of parameter measured Analytical Result Result for the analytical measurement 4. Result Units Units in which measurement is reported DEP Qualifiers Qualifier code describing specific QA conditions as reported by the data provider Result Comments Free-form text where data provider relates information they consider relevant to the result Date (Time) of Sample Collection Date (Time) of Sample Preparations Date (Time) of Sample Analysis Analytical Method Method number used for sample analysis Prep Method Method number used for sample preparation prior to analysis Sample Matrix Was the sample a surface water or groundwater sample, a fresh- water or saltwater sample DOH Certificate Certificate number Number/ issued by the Laboratory ID Department of Health's lab certification program Preservatives Description of Added preservatives added to the sample after collection MDL Method detection limit for a particular result PQL Practical quantification limit for a particular result Sample Type Field identifying sample nature (e.g., environmental sample, trip blank, field blank, matrix spike, etc. Batch ID Unambiguous reference linking samples prepped or analyzed together (e.g., trip preparation, analysis Ids) 19 Field, Lab Blank Results Results for field/laboratory blank analysis required by the methods 20 CAS Number CAS registry number of the parameter measured Having the auxiliary information listed in Table 2 of DEP EAS 01-01 will help the Department evaluate the data that it receives from outside sources to determine whether the data are usable (for purposes of implementing the provisions of the proposed rule chapter). Subsection (8) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, also addresses "[q]uality assurance and [q]uality control protocols." It reads as follows: To be used to determine exceedances of metals criteria, surface water data for mercury shall be collected and analyzed using clean sampling and analytical techniques, and the corresponding hardness value shall be required to determine exceedances of freshwater metals criteria that are hardness dependent, and if the ambient hardness value is less than 25 mg/L as CaCO3, then a hardness value of 25 will be used to calculate the criteria. If data are not used due to sampling or analytical techniques or because hardness data were not available, the Department shall note for the record that data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. The "clean sampling and analytical techniques" referenced in Subsection (8)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, are, as noted above, defined in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, as "those applicable field sampling procedures and analytical methods" permitted by the EPA's "Method 1669." "Method 1669" is a "performance-based," "guidance document" that, as its "Introduction" and introductory "Note," which read, in pertinent part, as follows, reveal, allows for the use of procedures other than those specifically described therein for "[s]ampling [a]mbient [w]ater for [t]race [m]etals at EPA [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria [l]evels": . . . . In developing these methods, EPA found that one of the greatest difficulties in measuring pollutants at these levels was precluding sample contamination during collection, transport, and analysis. The degree of difficulty, however, is dependent on the metal and site-specific conditions. This method, therefore, is designed to provide the level of protection necessary to preclude contamination in nearly all situations. It is also designed to provide the protection necessary to produce reliable results at the lowest possible water quality criteria published by EPA. In recognition of the variety of situations to which this method may be applied, and in recognition of continuing technological advances, the method is performance-based. Alternative procedures may be used, so long as those procedures are demonstrated to yield reliable results. . . . Note: This document is intended as guidance only. Use of the terms "must," "may," and "should" are included to mean that the EPA believes that these procedures must, may, or should be followed in order to produce the desired results when using this guidance. In addition, the guidance is intended to be performance-based, in that the use of less stringent procedures may be used as long as neither samples nor blanks are contaminated when following those modified procedures. Because the only way to measure the performance of the modified procedures is through the collection and analysis of uncontaminated blank samples in accordance with this guidance and the referenced methods, it is highly recommended that any modification be thoroughly evaluated and demonstrated to be effective before field samples are collected. Subsection (8)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, requires that "Method 1669"- permitted procedures be used only where a water is being tested to determine if it exceeds the criterion for mercury (.012 micrograms per liter in the case of Class I waters and Class III freshwaters, and .025 micrograms per liter in the case of Class II waters and Class III marine waters). Use of these procedures is necessary to avoid the sample contamination (from, among other things, standard lab bottles, hair, dandruff, atmospheric fallout, and pieces of cotton from clothing) which commonly occurs when standard, non- "Method 1669"-permitted techniques are used. Because "the criteria [for mercury are] so low" and may be exceeded due solely to such contamination, it is essential to employ "Method 1669"-permitted techniques in order to obtain results that are reliable and meaningful. The "Method 1669"-permitted techniques are approximately five times more costly to employ than standard techniques and the Department's laboratory is the only laboratory in the state (with the possible exception of a laboratory at Florida International University) able to provide "clean sampling and analytical techniques" to measure mercury levels in surface water. Nonetheless, as Timothy Fitzpatrick, the Department's chief chemist, testified at the final hearing in these consolidated cases: [I]f you want to measure methyl mercury or total mercury in surface water, you have to use clean techniques or you're measuring noise. And the whole purpose behind using clean techniques is to do sound science and to have confidence in the number. It's not to determine whether or not you're throwing out a body of data. It's to be able to get numbers that make sense. And there's no point in having a database full of information that's virtually worthless because it contains noise, analytical noise. As Subsection (8)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, suggests, there are certain "metals for which the actual water quality criterion itself changes as the hardness [of the water, measured in milligrams per liter calcium carbonate] changes." Criteria for these metals are set (in the table contained in Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code) at higher levels for high hardness waters than for low hardness waters. To know which criterion applies in a particular case, the Department needs to know the hardness of the water sampled. Subsection (9) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, guards against reliance on data that, due to the use of inappropriate methods, may fail to reveal exceedances that actually exist. It provides as follows: Surface water data with values below the applicable practical quantification limit (PQL) or method detection limit (MDL) shall be assessed in accordance with Rules 62- 4.246(6)(b)-(d) and (8), F.A.C. If sampling entities want to ensure that their data will be considered for evaluation, they should review the Department's list of approved MDLs and PQLs developed pursuant to Rule 62-4.246, F.A.C., and, if available, use approved analytical methods with MDLs below the applicable water quality criteria. If there are no approved methods with MDLs below a criterion, then the method with the lowest MDL should be used. Analytical results listed as below detection or below the MDL shall not be used for developing planning lists if the MDL was above the criteria and there were, at the time of sample collection, approved analytical methods with MDLs below the criteria on the Department's list of approved MDLs and PQLs. If appropriate analytical methods were used, then data with values below the applicable MDL will be deemed to meet the applicable water quality criterion and data with values between the MDL and PQL will be deemed to be equal to the MDL. Subsections (6)(b) through (d) and (8) of Rule 62- 4.246, Florida Administrative Code, provide as follows: All results submitted to the Department for permit applications and monitoring shall be reported as follows: The approved analytical method and corresponding Department-established MDL and PQL levels shall be reported for each pollutant. The MDLs and PQLs incorporated in the permit shall constitute the minimum reporting levels for each parameter for the life of the permit. The Department shall not accept results for which the laboratory's MDLs or PQLs are greater than those incorporated in the permit. All results with laboratory MDLs and PQLs lower than those established in the permit shall be reported to the Department. Unless otherwise specified, all subsequent references to MDL and PQL pertain to the MDLs and PQLs incorporated in the permit. Results greater than or equal to the PQL shall be reported as the measured quantity. Results less than the PQL and greater than or equal to the MDL shall be reported as less than the PQL and deemed to be equal to the MDL. Results less than the MDL shall be reported as less than the MDL. * * * (8) The presence of toxicity (as established through biomonitoring), data from analysis of plant or animal tissue, contamination of sediment in the vicinity of the installation, intermittent violations of effluent limits or water quality standards, or other similar kinds of evidence reasonably related to the installation may indicate that a pollutant in the effluent may cause or contribute to violations of water quality criteria. If there is such evidence of possible water quality violations, then (unless the permittee has complied with subsection (9) below) in reviewing reports and applications to establish permit conditions and determine compliance with permits and water quality criteria, the Department shall treat any result less than the MDL of the method required in the permit or the method as required under subsection (10) below or any lower MDL reported by the permittee's laboratory as being one half the MDL (if the criterion equals or exceeds the MDL) or one half of the criterion (if the criterion is less than the MDL), for any pollutant. Without the permission of the applicant, the Department shall not use any values determined under this subsection or subsection (9) below for results obtained under a MDL superseded later by a lower MDL. The final subsection of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, Subsection (10), provides as follows: It should be noted that the data requirements of this rule constitute the minimum data set needed to assess a water segment for impairment. Agencies or groups designing monitoring networks are encouraged to consult with the Department to determine the sample design appropriate for their specific monitoring goals. Proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a relatively "rigid" framework, based upon statistical analysis of data, with little room for the exercise of "best professional judgment," for determining whether a water qualifies for placement on the "planning list." There are advantages to taking such a "cookbook" approach. It promotes administrative efficiency and statewide uniformity in listing decisions. Furthermore, as Dr. Reckhow pointed out during his testimony, it lets the public know "how a [listing] decision is arrived at" and therefore "makes it easier for the public to get engaged and criticize the outcome." Such "rigidity," however, comes at a price, as Dr. Reckhow acknowledged, inasmuch as observations and conclusions (based upon those observations) made by the "experienced biologist who really understands the system . . . get[] lost." While proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, may rightfully be characterized as a "rigid statistical approach," it must be remembered that, in the subsequent portions of Part II of the proposed rule chapter, the Department provides other ways for a water to qualify for placement on the "planning list." A discussion of these alternatives follows. Code Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Biological Assessment." As noted in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code, it "outline[s]" the requirements that must be met for a water to qualify for placement on the "planning list" based upon a failure to "meet biological assessment thresholds for its water body type." It lists Sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as its "[s]pecific [a]uthority" and Sections 403.062 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as the "[l]aw [i]mplemented." A "[b]iological [a]ssessment" provides more information about the overall ability of a water to sustain aquatic life than does the "data used for determining water quality exceedances" referenced in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code. This is because "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]," as is noted in the NRC Publication, "integrate the effects of multiple stressors over time and space." As Mr. Joyner pointed out in his testimony, a "[b]iological [a]ssessment" is "more than just a snapshot like a water quality sample is of the current water quality [at the particular location sampled]." Unlike proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, deals with "biological criteria," not "numerical criteri[a]," as those terms are used in Subsection (3)(c) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, and the method it establishes for determining "planning list" eligibility does not involve statistical analysis. Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[b]iological data must meet the requirements of paragraphs (3) and (7) in section 62- 303.320," Florida Administrative Code, which, as noted above, impose age ("paragraph" (3)) and quality assurance/quality control and data submission ("paragraph" (7)) restrictions on the use of data. While the "biological component of STORET is not . . . usable" at this time and the biological database maintained by the Department "is not a database where members of the public can input data," pursuant to "paragraph" (7)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, data collected by someone outside the Department that is not entered into either STORET or the Department's own biological database may still be considered by the Department if it is provided "directly" to the Department. Inasmuch as "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" reflect the "effects of multiple stressors over time and space," failed assessments are no more likely during one particular time of the year than another. Consequently, there is no need to limit the time of year in which "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" may be conducted. The first sentence of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[b]ioassessments used to assess streams and lakes under this rule shall include BioRecons, Stream Condition Indices (SCIs), and the benthic macroinvertebrate component of the Lake Condition Index (LCI), which only applies to clear lakes with a color less than 40 platinum cobalt units." The BioRecon and SCI, as those terms are defined in Subsections (1) and (18), respectively, of proposed Rule 62- 303.200, Florida Administrative Code, are rapid bioassessment protocols for streams developed by the Department. They are "similar to the original rapid bioassessment protocols that were designed by the U.S. EPA in [19]89." Conducting a BioRecon or SCI requires the deployment of a Standard D frame dip net approximately one and a half meters in length (including its handle), which is used to obtain samples of the best available habitat that can be reached. The samples are obtained by taking "sweeps" with the one and a half meter long dip net. Both wadable and non-wadable streams can be, and have been, sampled using this method prescribed by the BioRecon and SCI, although sampling is "more challenging when the water body is deeper than waist deep." In these cases, a boat is used to navigate to the areas where sampling will occur. The sampling "methods are identical regardless of the depth of the water." The BioRecon and SCI both include an assessment of the health of the habitat sampled, including the extent of habitat smothering from sediments and bank instability. The purpose of such an assessment is "to ascertain alteration of the physical habitat structure critical to maintenance of a healthy biological condition." Like all bioassessment protocols, the BioRecon and SCI employ "reasonable thresholds" of community health (arrived at by sampling "reference sites," which are the least affected and impacted sites in the state) against which the health of the sampled habitat is measured. Impairment is determined by the sampled habitat's departure from these "reasonable thresholds" (which represent expected or "reference" conditions). The BioRecon is newer, quicker and less comprehensive than the SCI. Only four sweeps of habitat are taken for the BioRecon, compared to 20 sweeps for the SCI. Furthermore, the BioRecon takes into consideration only three measures of community health (taxa richness, Ephemeroptera/ Plecoptera/Tricoptera Index, and Florida Index), whereas the SCI takes into account four additional measures of community health. For these reasons, the BioRecon is considered a "screening version" of the SCI. Like the BioRecon and the SCI, the LCI is a "comparative index." Conditions at the sampled site are compared to those at "reference sites" to determine the health of the aquatic community at the sampled site. Samples for the LCI are taken from the sublittoral zone of the targeted lake,42 which is divided into twelve segments. Using a petite PONAR or Ekman sampler dredge, a sample is collected from each of the twelve segments. The twelve samples are composited into a single, larger sample, which is then examined to determine what organisms it contains. The results of such examination are considered in light of six measures of community health: Total taxa, EOT taxa, percent EOT, percent Diptera, the Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index, and the Hulbert Index. Lakes larger than 1,000 acres are divided into two subbasins or into quadrants (as appropriate), and each subbasin or quadrant is sampled separately, as if it were a separate site. It is essential that persons conducting BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs know the correct sampling techniques to use and have the requisite amount of taxonomic knowledge to identify the organisms that may be found in the samples collected. For this reason, a second sentence was included in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, which reads as follows: Because these bioassessment procedures require specific training and expertise, persons conducting the bioassessments must comply with the quality assurance requirements of Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., attend at least eight hours of Department sanctioned field training, and pass a Department sanctioned field audit that verifies the sampler follows the applicable SOPs in Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., before their bioassessment data will be considered valid for use under this rule. The Department has developed SOPs for BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs, which are followed by Department personnel who conduct these bioassessments. The Department is in the process of engaging in rulemaking to incorporate these SOPs in Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, but had not yet, as of the time of the final hearing in these consolidated cases, completed this task.43 Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, provides as follows: Water segments with at least one failed bioassessment or one failure of the biological integrity standard, Rule 62- 302.530(11), shall be included on the planning list for assessment of aquatic life use support. In streams, the bioassessment can be an SCI or a BioRecon. Failure of a bioassessment for streams consists of a "poor" or "very poor" rating on the Stream Condition Index, or not meeting the minimum thresholds established for all three metrics (taxa richness, Ephemeroptera/Plecoptera/Tricoptera Index, and Florida Index) on the BioRecon. Failure for lakes consists of a "poor" or "very poor" rating on the Lake Condition Index. Subsection (11) of Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the following "biological integrity standard[s]" for Class I, II and III waters: Class I The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and composited from a minimum of three Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samplers of 0.10 to 0.15m2 area each, incubated for a period of four weeks. Class II The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and composited from a minimum of three natural substrate samples, taken with Ponar type samplers with minimum sampling area of 2252. Class III: Fresh The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and composited from a minimum of three Hester-Dendy type artificial substrate samplers of 0.10 to 0.15m2 area each, incubated for a period of four weeks. Class III: Marine The Index for benthic macroinvertebrates shall not be reduced to less than 75% of established background levels as measured using organisms retained by a U.S. Standard No. 30 sieve and collected and composited from a minimum of three natural substrate samples, taken with Ponar type samplers with minimum sampling area of 2252. The "Index" referred to in these standards is the Shannon-Weaver Diversity Index. Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, which reads as follows, allows the Department to rely upon "information relevant to the biological integrity of the water," other than a failure of a BioRecon, SCI, or LCI or a failure of the "biological integrity standard" set forth in Subsection (11) of Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, to place a water on the "planning list" where the Department determines, exercising its "best professional judgment," that such "information" reveals that "aquatic life use support has [not] been maintained": Other information relevant to the biological integrity of the water segment, including information about alterations in the type, nature, or function of a water, shall also be considered when determining whether aquatic life use support has been maintained. The "other information" that would warrant placement on the "planning list" is not specified in Subsection (4) because, as Mr. Frydenborg testified at the final hearing, "[t]he possibilities are so vast." Proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, does not make mention of any rapid type of bioassessment for estuaries, the failure of which will lead to placement of a water on the "planning list," for the simple reason that the Department has yet to develop such a bioassessment.44 Estuaries, however, may qualify for "planning list" placement under proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, based upon "one failure of the biological integrity standard," pursuant to Subsection (3) of the proposed rule,45 or based upon "other information," pursuant to Subsection (4) of the proposed rule (which may include "information" regarding seagrasses, aquatic macrophytes, or algae communities). Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Toxicity," and, as noted in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code, "outline[s]" the requirements that must be met for a water to qualify for placement on the "planning list" based upon it being "acutely or chronically toxic." These requirements, like those found in proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, relating to "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]," are not statistically-based. They are as follows: All toxicity tests used to place a water segment on a planning list shall be based on surface water samples in the receiving water body and shall be conducted and evaluated in accordance with Chapter 62- 160, F.A.C., and subsections 62-302.200(1) and (4), F.A.C., respectively. Water segments with two samples indicating acute toxicity within a twelve month period shall be placed on the planning list. Samples must be collected at least two weeks apart over a twelve month period, some time during the ten years preceding the assessment. Water segments with two samples indicating chronic toxicity within a twelve month period shall be placed on the planning list. Samples must be collected at least two weeks apart, some time during the ten years preceding the assessment. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Subsection (1) of Rule 62-320.200, Florida Administrative Code, which is referenced in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, defines "acute toxicity." It provides as follows: "Acute Toxicity" shall mean the presence of one or more substances or characteristics or components of substances in amounts which: are greater than one-third (1/3) of the amount lethal to 50% of the test organisms in 96 hours (96 hr LC50) where the 96 hr LC50 is the lowest value which has been determined for a species significant to the indigenous aquatic community; or may reasonably be expected, based upon evaluation by generally accepted scientific methods, to produce effects equal to those of the concentration of the substance specified in (a) above. Subsection (4) of Rule 62-320.200, Florida Administrative Code, which is also referenced in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, defines "chronic toxicity." It provides as follows: "Chronic Toxicity" shall mean the presence of one or more substances or characteristics or components of substances in amounts which: are greater than one-twentieth (1/20) of the amount lethal to 50% of the test organisms in 96 hrs (96 hr LC50) where the 96 hr LC50 is the lowest value which has been determined for a species significant to the indigenous aquatic community; or may reasonably be expected, based upon evaluation by generally accepted scientific methods, to produce effects equal to those of the concentration of the substance specified in (a) above. Testing for "acute toxicity" or "chronic toxicity," within the meaning of Subsections (1) and (4) of Rule 62- 320.200, Florida Administrative Code (and therefore proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code) does not involve measuring the level of any particular parameter in the water sampled. Rather, the tests focus upon the effects the sampled water has on test organisms. Mortality is the end point that characterizes "acute toxicity." "Chronic toxicity" has more subtle effects, which may include reproductive and/or growth impairment. Historically, the Department has tested effluent for "acute toxicity" and "chronic toxicity," but it has not conducted "acute toxicity" or "chronic toxicity" testing in receiving waters. The requirement of Subsections (2) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, that test data be no older than ten years old is reasonably designed to make it less likely that a water will be placed on the "planning list" based upon toxicity data not representative of the water's current conditions. Requiring that toxicity be established by at least "two samples" taken "at least two weeks apart" during a "twelve month period," as do Subsections (2) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, is also a prudent measure intended to minimize inappropriate listing decisions. To properly determine whether toxicity (which can "change over time") is a continuing problem that may be remedied by TMDL implementation, it is desirable to have more than one sample indicating toxicity. "The judgment was made [by the TAC] that two [samples] would be acceptable to make that determination." The TAC "wanted to include as much data regarding . . . toxicity . . . , and therefore lowered the bar in terms of data sufficiency . . . to only two samples." As noted above, the "minimum criteria for surface waters established in Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C.," which, if not met, will result in a water being placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, include the requirement that surface waters not be "acutely toxic." Whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" because it fails to meet this "minimum criterion" (or "free from") will be determined in light of the provisions of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code. Except for "[s]ilver in concentrations above 2.3 micrograms/liter in predominantly marine waters," "acute toxicity" is the only "free from" addressed in any portion of Part II of the proposed rule chapter outside of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code. Part II: Proposed Rules 62-303.350 through 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rules 62-303.350 through 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, address "nutrients." Nutrients, which consist primarily of nitrogen and phosphorous, stimulate plant growth (and the production of organic materials). Waste water treatment facilities, certain industrial facilities that discharge waste water, phosphate mines, and agricultural and residential lands where fertilizers are used are among the sources of nutrients that affect water bodies in Florida. Nutrients are important to the health of a water body, but when they are present in excessive amounts, problems can arise. Excessive amounts of nutrients can lead to certain species, typically algaes, out-competing native species that are less able to use these nutrients, which, in turn, results in a change in the composition of the aquatic population and, subsequently, the animal population. Factors influencing how a water body responds to nutrient input include location, water body type, ecosystem characteristics, water flow, and the extent of light inhibition. As Mr. Frydenborg testified at the final hearing, nutrients are "probably the most widespread and pervasive cause of environmental disturbance in Florida" and they present "the biggest challenge [that needs to be] overcome in protecting aquatic systems." See also Rule 62-302.300(13), Florida Administrative Code ("The Department finds that excessive nutrients (total nitrogen and total phosphorus) constitute one of the most severe water quality problems facing the State."). As noted above, nutrients are among the parameters for which water quality criteria have been established by the Department in Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code. The criterion for nutrients set forth in Subsection (48)(b) of the rule (which applies to all "water quality classifications") is a "narrative . . . criterion," as that term is used in Subsection (3)(c) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. It is as follows: "In no case shall nutrient concentrations of a body of water be altered as to cause an imbalance of natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna." Proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Interpretation of Narrative Nutrient Criteria," and, as noted in Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62- 303.310, Florida Administrative Code, "outline[s]" the requirements that must be met for a water to qualify for placement on the "planning list" based upon excessive "nutrient enrichment." It lists Sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as its "[s]pecific [a]uthority" and Sections 403.062 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as the "[l]aw [i]mplemented." Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Trophic state indices (TSIs) and annual mean chlorophyll a values shall be the primary means for assessing whether a water should be assessed further for nutrient impairment. Other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, including, but not limited to, algal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, decrease in the distribution (either in density or areal coverage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation, changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings shall also be considered. Any type of water body (stream, estuary, or lake) may be placed on the "planning list" based upon the "other information" described in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code. Whether to do so in a particular case will involve the exercise of "best professional judgment" on the part of the Department. The items specifically mentioned in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, "[a]lgal blooms, excessive macrophyte growth, decrease in the distribution (either in density or areal coverage) of seagrasses or other submerged aquatic vegetation,46 changes in algal species richness, and excessive diel oxygen swings," are all indicators of excessive "nutrient enrichment." The "but not limited to" language in this sentence makes it abundantly clear that this is not an exhaustive listing of "other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment" that will be considered by the Department in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list." During the rule development process, there were a number of members of the public who expressed the view that the Department's possession of the "information" described in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, should be the sole basis for determining "nutrient impairment" and that TSIs and annual mean chlorophyll a values should not be used. Department staff rejected these suggestions and drafted the proposed rule chapter to provide for additional ways, using TSIs and annual mean chlorophyll a values, for a water to make the "planning list" based upon excessive "nutrient enrichment." Chlorophyll a is the photosynthetic pigment in algae. Measuring chlorophyll a concentrations in water is a reasonable surrogate for measuring the amount of algal biomass present (which is indicative of the extent of nutrient enrichment inasmuch as nutrients promote algal growth). Chlorophyll a values, expressed in micrograms per liter, reflect the concentration of suspended algae (phytoplankton) in the water.47 High amounts of chlorophyll a indicate that there have been algal blooms. Algal blooms represent significant increases in algal population (phytoplankton) over a short period of time. They have a deleterious effect on the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water. Algal blooms may occur in any season. There are no adequate means to predict when they will occur. An annual mean chlorophyll a value reflects the level of nutrient enrichment occurring in a water over the course of a year. Biologists look at these values when studying the productivity of aquatic systems. Using an annual mean is the "best way" of determining whether nutrient enrichment is a consistent enough problem to cause an imbalance in flora or fauna. The TSI was developed for the Department's use in preparing 305(b) Reports. It is a "tried and true method" of assessing lakes (and only lakes) for "nutrient impairment." No comparable special index exists for other types of water bodies in this state. TSI values are derived from annual mean chlorophyll a, as well as nitrogen and phosphorous, values (which are composited). The process of "[c]alculating the Trophic State Index for lakes" was described in the "State's 1996 305(b) report" (on page 86) as follows: The Trophic State Index effectively classifies lakes based on their chlorophyll levels and nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations. Based on a classification scheme developed in 1977 by R.E. Carlson, the index relies on three indicators-- Secchi depth, chlorophyll, and total phosphorous-- to describe a lake's trophic state. A ten unit change in the index represents a doubling or halving or algal biomass. The Florida Trophic State Index is based on the same rationale but also includes total nitrogen as a third indicator. Attempts in previous 305(b) reports to include Secchi depth have caused problems in dark-water lakes and estuaries, where dark waters rather than algae diminish transparency. For this reason, our report drops Secchi depth as a category. We developed Florida lake criteria from a regression analysis of data on 313 Florida lakes. The desirable upper limit for the index is 20 micrograms per liter of chlorophyll, which corresponds to an index of 60. Doubling the chlorophyll concentration to 40 micrograms per liter increases the index to 70, which is the cutoff for undesirable (or poor) lake quality. Index values from 60 to 69 represent fair water quality. . . . The Nutrient Trophic State Index is based on phosphorous and nitrogen concentrations and the limiting nutrient concept. The latter identifies a lake as phosphorous limited if the nitrogen-to-phosphorous concentration ratio is greater than 30, nitrogen limited if the ratio is less than 10, and balanced (depending on both nitrogen and phosphorous) if the ratio is 10 to 30. The nutrient ratio is thus based solely on phosphorous if the ratio is greater than 30, solely on nitrogen if less than 10, or on both nitrogen and phosphorous if between 10 and 30. We calculated an overall Trophic State Index based on the average of the chlorophyll and nutrient indices. Calculating an overall index value requires both nitrogen and phosphorous measurements. Subsections (2) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, which provide as follows, impose reasonable data sufficiency and quality requirements for calculating TSIs and annual mean chlorophyll a values and changes in those values from "historical levels": To be used to determine whether a water should be assessed further for nutrient enrichment, data must meet the requirements of paragraphs (2)-(4), (6), and (7) in rule 62- 303.320, at least one sample from each season shall be required in any given year to calculate a Trophic State Index (TSI) or an annual mean chlorophyll a value for that year, and there must be annual means from at least four years, when evaluating the change in TSI over time pursuant to paragraph 62- 303.352(3). When comparing changes in chlorophyll a or TSI values to historical levels, historical levels shall be based on the lowest five-year average for the period of record. To calculate a five-year average, there must be annual means from at least three years of the five-year period. These requirements do not apply to the "other information" referenced in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code. As was stated in the NRC Publication, and as Department staff recognized, "data are not the same as information." Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, being more specific, modifies Subsection (2)(a) of the proposed rule, to the extent that Subsection (2)(a) incorporates by reference the requirement of Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, that "at least one sampling event [be] conducted in [only] three of the four seasons of the calendar year." Requiring data from at least each season is appropriate because the data will be used to arrive at numbers that represent annual means. Furthermore, as noted above, there is no season in which bloom events never occur in this state. Four years of data, as required by Subsection (2)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a "genuine trend" in the TSI. The requirement, in Subsection (2)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, that the "lowest five-year average for the period of the record" be used to establish "historical levels" was intended to make it easier for a water to be placed on the "planning list" for "nutrient impairment." 190. Proposed Rules 62-303.351, 62-303.352, and 62- 303.353, Florida Administrative Code, establish reasonable statewide TSI and annual mean chlorophyll a values, which if exceeded, will result in a water being placed on the "planning list."48 In establishing these statewide threshold values, Department staff took into consideration that averaging values obtained from samples taken during bloom events with lower values obtained from other samples taken during the course of the year (to get an annual mean value for a water) would minimize the impact of the higher values and, accordingly, they set the thresholds at levels lower than they would have if the thresholds represented, not annual mean values, but rather values that single samples, evaluated individually, could not exceed. Department staff recognized that the statewide thresholds they set "may not be protective of very low nutrient waters." They therefore, in proposed Rules 62-303.351, 62- 303.352, and 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably provided that waters not exceeding these thresholds could nonetheless get on the "planning list" for "nutrient impairment" based upon TSI values (in the case of lakes) or annual mean chlorophyll a values (in the case of streams and estuaries) if these values represented increases, of sufficient magnitude, as specified in the proposed rules, over "historical levels." Proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Nutrients in Streams," and reads as follows: A stream or stream segment shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if the following biological imbalances are observed: algal mats are present in sufficient quantities to pose a nuisance or hinder reproduction of a threatened or endangered species, or annual mean chlorophyll a concentrations are greater than 20 ug/l or if data indicate annual mean chlorophyll a values have increased by more than 50% over historical values for at least two consecutive years. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The TAC and Department staff investigated the possibility of evaluating "nutrient impairment" in streams by looking at the amount of attached algae (measured in milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter) as opposed to suspended algae, but "weren't able to come up with" an appropriate "number." They were advised of a "paper" in which the author concluded that 150 milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter was "indicative of imbalances in more northern conditions rivers." Reviewing Florida data, the TAC and Department staff determined that this threshold would be "non-protective in our state" inasmuch as the "the highest chlorophylls" in the Florida data they reviewed were 50 to 60 milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter. Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, which describes, in narrative terms, another type of "information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment" (in addition to those types of information specified in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62- 303.350, Florida Administrative Code), was included in proposed Rule 62-303.351 in lieu of establishing a numerical "milligrams of chlorophyll a per square meter" threshold. The term "nuisance," as used in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, was intended to have the same meaning as it has in Rule 62-302.500, Florida Administrative Code. "Nuisance species," as used in Rule Chapter 62-500, Florida Administrative Code, are defined as "species of flora or fauna whose noxious characteristics or presence in sufficient number, biomass, or areal extent may reasonably be expected to prevent, or unreasonably interfere with, a designated use of those waters." Mr. Joyner knew that the Suwannee River "had problems with algal mats49 and that those algal mats might hinder reproduction of the sturgeon" in the river. The "hinder reproduction of a threatened or endangered species" language was inserted in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, "to address things like that" occurring in the Suwannee River. It was "very difficult" for the TAC and Department staff to come up with a "micrograms per liter" threshold for Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code. All available data on Florida streams were reviewed before the TAC and Department staff decided on a threshold. The threshold ultimately selected, 20 micrograms per liter, "represents approximately the 80th percentile value currently found in Florida streams," according to the data reviewed. The "20 micrograms per liter" threshold, combined with the other provisions of the proposed rule and the second sentence of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, was "thought to be something that would hold the line on future [nutrient] enrichment," particularly with respect to streams "like the lower St. Johns River which tends to act more like a lake." Anything over 20 micrograms per liter of chlorophyll a "is a clear indication that an imbalanced situation is occurring." There are some streams in Florida that have high nutrient concentrations but, because of flow conditions and water color, also have low levels of chlorophyll a in the water column (reflecting that the nutrients' presence in the water has not resulted in significant algal growth). That these streams would not qualify for placement on the "planning list" pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code, as drafted, did not concern the TAC and Department staff because they thought it appropriate "to focus on [the] realized impairment" caused by nutrients, not on their mere presence in the stream. If these nutrients travel downstream and adversely affect the downstream water to such an extent that the downstream water qualifies for a TMDL, "all the sources upstream would be addressed" in the TMDL developed for the downstream water. Pursuant to Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.351, Florida Administrative Code, streams with "very, very low chlorophylls," well under 20 micrograms per liter, can nonetheless qualify for placement on the planning list based upon two consecutive years of increased annual mean chlorophyll a values "over historical values." In the case of a stream with "historical values" of two micrograms per liter, for instance, the increase would need to be only more than one microgram per liter. Proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Nutrients in Lakes," and reads as follows: For the purposes of evaluating nutrient enrichment in lakes, TSIs shall be calculated based on the procedures outlined on pages 86 and 87 of the State's 1996 305(b) report, which are incorporated by reference. Lakes or lake segments shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if: For lakes with a mean color greater than 40 platinum cobalt units, the annual mean TSI for the lake exceeds 60, unless paleolimnological information indicates the lake was naturally greater than 60, or For lakes with a mean color less than or equal to 40 platinum cobalt units, the annual mean TSI for the lake exceeds 40, unless paleolimnological information indicates the lake was naturally greater than 40, or For any lake, data indicate that annual mean TSIs have increased over the assessment period, as indicated by a positive slope in the means plotted versus time, or the annual mean TSI has increased by more than 10 units over historical values. When evaluating the slope of mean TSIs over time, the Department shall use a Mann's one-sided, upper-tail test for trend, as described in Nonparametric Statistical Methods by M. Hollander and D. Wolfe 16 (1999 ed.), pages 376 and 724 (which are incorporated by reference), with a 95% confidence level. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New As noted above, a TSI value of 60, the threshold established in Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code, for darker-colored lakes, is the equivalent of a chlorophyll a value of 20 micrograms per liter, which is the "micrograms per liter" threshold for streams established in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.351, Florida Administrative Code. A TSI value 40, the threshold established in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code, for lighter-colored lakes, corresponds to a chlorophyll a value of five micrograms per liter, which "is an extremely low level." A TSI value of 40 is "very protective for that particular category of lake[s]." A lower threshold was established for these lighter- colored lakes (having a mean color less than or equal to 40 platinum cobalt units) because it was felt that these lakes needed "extra protection." Providing such "extra protection" is reasonably justified inasmuch as these lakes (due to their not experiencing the "infusion of leaf litter" that affects darker- colored lakes) tend to have a "lower nutrient content naturally" and therefore "very different aquatic communities" than their darker counterparts. Some lakes are naturally eutrophic or even hyper- eutrophic. Inasmuch as the TMDL program is not designed to address such natural occurrences, it makes sense to provide, as Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code, do, that the TSI thresholds established therein will not apply if "paleolimnological information" indicates that the TSI of the lake in question was "naturally greater" than the threshold established for that type of lake (60 in the case of a darker-colored lake and 40 in the case of a lighter-colored lake). Lakes with TSI values that do not exceed the appropriate threshold may nonetheless be included on the "planning list" based upon "increas[es] in TSIs" pursuant to Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code. Any statistically significant increase in TSI values "over the assessment period," as determined by "use [of] a Mann's one-sided, upper-tail test for trend" and a "95% confidence level" (which the TAC recommended inasmuch as it is "the more typical scientific confidence level"), or an increase in the annual mean TSI of more than ten units "over historical values," will result in a lake being listed pursuant to Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.352, Florida Administrative Code. The first of these two alternative ways of a lake getting on the "planning list" based upon "increas[es] in TSIs" is "more protective" than the second. Under this first alternative, a lake could be listed before there was more than a ten unit increase in the annual mean TSI "over historical values." A ten-unit increase in the annual mean TSI represents a doubling (or 100 percent increase) "over historical values." As noted above, pursuant to Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62- 303.351, Florida Administrative Code, only a 50 percent increase "over historical values" in annual mean chlorophyll a values is needed for a stream to make the "planning list" and, as will be seen, proposed Rule 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, contains a similar "50 percent increase" provision for estuaries; however, because "lakes are much more responsive to nutrients," Department staff reasonably believed that "the ten- unit change was a protective measure." Proposed Rule 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Nutrients in Estuaries," and reads as follows: Estuaries or estuary segments shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if their annual mean chlorophyll a for any year is greater than 11 ug/l or if data indicate annual mean chlorophyll a values have increased by more than 50% over historical values for at least two consecutive years. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Estuaries are at "the very bottom" of the watershed. The amount of nutrients in an estuary is dependent, not only on what is occurring in and around the immediate vicinity of the estuary,50 but also "what is coming down" any river flowing into it. Not all of the nutrients in the watershed reach the estuary inasmuch as "there is assimilation and uptake along the way." The "11 micrograms per liter" threshold ultimately selected as a "protective number in terms of placing estuaries on the 'planning list'" was recommended by the TAC following a review of data reflecting trends with respect to chlorophyll a levels in various Florida estuaries. In addition, the TAC heard a presentation concerning the "modeling work" done by the Tampa Bay National Estuary Program to establish "site-specific" chlorophyll a targets for segments of Tampa Bay, including the target of 13.2 micrograms per liter that was established for the Hillsborough Bay segment of Tampa Bay, which is "closer to the [nutrient] sources" than other parts of Tampa Bay. The TAC also considered information about "various bloom situations" in estuaries which led to the "general feeling" that an estuarine algal bloom involved chlorophyll a values "considerably higher" than 11 micrograms per liter. An alternative method for an estuary to make the "planning list" for "nutrient impairment" based upon a 50 percent increase in annual mean chlorophyll a values "over historical values" was included in proposed Rule 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, because the "11 micrograms per liter" threshold was not expected "to be adequately protect[ive]" of "the very clear sea grass communities" like those found in the Florida Keys. Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, establishes four separate ways for a water to be placed on the "planning list" for failing to provide "primary contact and recreation use support." It reads as follows: Primary Contact and Recreation Use Support A Class I, II, or III water shall be placed on the planning list for primary contact and recreation use support if: the water segment does not meet the applicable water quality criteria for bacteriological quality based on the methodology described in section 62-303.320, or the water segment includes a bathing area that was closed by a local health Department or county government for more than one week or more than once during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or the water segment includes a bathing area for which a local health Department or county government has issued closures, advisories, or warnings totaling 21 days or more during a calendar year based on bacteriological data, or the water segment includes a bathing area that was closed or had advisories or warnings for more than 12 weeks during a calendar year based on previous bacteriological data or on derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or flow. For data collected after August 1, 2000, the Florida Department of Health (DoH) database shall be the primary source of data used for determining bathing area closures. Advisories, warnings, and closures based on red tides, rip tides, sewage spills, sharks, medical wastes, hurricanes, or other factors not related to chronic discharges of pollutants shall not be included when assessing recreation use support. However, the Department shall note for the record that data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The "water quality criteria for bacteriological quality" referenced in Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62- 303.360, Florida Administrative Code, are set forth in Subsections (6) and (7) of Rule 62-303.530, Florida Administrative Code, which provide as follows: Parameter: Bacteriological Quality (Fecal Coliform Bacteria) Units: Number per 100 ml (Most Probable Number (MPN) or Membrane Filter (MF)) Class I: MPN or MF counts shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum of 5 samples taken over a 30 day period. Class II: MPN shall not exceed a median value of 14 with not more than 10% of the samples exceeding 43, nor exceed 800 on any one day. Class III: Fresh: MPN or MF counts shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum of 10 samples taken over a 30 day period. Class III: Marine: MPN or MF counts shall not exceed a monthly average of 200, nor exceed 400 in 10% of the samples, nor exceed 800 on any one day. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum of 10 samples taken over a 30 day period. Parameter: Bacteriological Quality (Total Coliform Bacteria) Units: Number per 100 ml (Most Probable Number (MPN) or Membrane Filter (MF)) Class I: < = 1,000 as a monthly avg., nor exceed 1,000 in more than 20% of samples examined during any month, nor exceed 2,400 at any time using either MPN or MF counts. Class II: Median MPN shall not exceed 70 and not more than 10% of the samples shall exceed an MPN of 230. Class III: Fresh: < = 1,000 as a monthly average, nor exceed 1,000 in more than 20% of samples examined during any month, < = 2,400 at any time. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum or 10 samples taken over a 30 day period, using either the MPN or MF counts. Class III: Marine: < = 1,000 as a monthly average, nor exceed 1,000 in more than 20% of samples examined during any month, < = 2,400 at any time. Monthly averages shall be expressed as geometric means based on a minimum or 10 samples taken over a 30 day period, using either the MPN or MF counts. Fecal coliform bacteria are found in the feces of animals and humans. They can be identified in the laboratory "fairly easily, usually within 24 to 48 hours" and "are used worldwide as indicators of fecal contamination and potential public health risks." Enterococci are another "distinct group of bacteria." They too are found in animal and human feces. The recommendation has been made that enterococci be used as bacteriological "indicators" for assessing "public health risk and swimmability," particularly in marine waters. The Department, however, is not convinced that there is "sufficient science at this time" to warrant adoption of this recommendation in states, like Florida, with "warmer climates," and it has not amended Rule 62-303.530, Florida Administrative Code, to provide for the assessment of bacteriological quality using enterococci counts.51 The statistical "methodology described in [proposed Rule] 62-303.320," Florida Administrative Code (which is incorporated by reference in Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code) is as appropriate for determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" based upon exceedances of bacteriological water quality criteria as it is for determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" for "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [c]riteria." Unlike Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d) of the proposed rule, at least indirectly, allow for waters to be placed on the "planning list" based upon enterococci counts. The closures, advisories, and warnings referenced in Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62- 303.360, Florida Administrative Code, are issued, not by the Department, but by local health departments or county governments, and may be based upon enterococci sampling done by those governmental entities. Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, provides for listing based exclusively upon bathing area closures. It was included in the proposed rule upon the recommendation of the EPA "to track their 305(b) guidance." Both freshwater and marine bathing areas in Florida may be closed if circumstances warrant. The Department of Health (which operates the various county health departments) does not close marine beaches, but county governments may. Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, provides for listing based upon any combination of closures, advisories, or warnings "totaling 21 days or more during a calendar year," provided the closures, advisories, and warnings were based upon up-to-date "bacteriological data." Department staff included this provision in the proposed rule in lieu of a provision recommended by the TAC (about which Petitioner Young had expressed concerns) that would have made it more difficult for a water to be placed on the "planning list" as a result of bacteriological data-based closures, advisories, or warnings. In doing so, Department staff exercised sound professional judgment. The 21 days or more of closures, advisories, or warnings needed for listing under the proposed rule do not have to be consecutive, although they all must occur in the same calendar year. Subsection (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, like Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed rule, provides for listing based upon a combination of closures, advisories, or warnings, but it does not require that it be shown that the closures, advisories, or warnings were based upon up-to-date "bacteriological data." Under Subsection (1)(d) of the proposed rule, the closures, advisories, or warnings need only have been based upon "previous [or, in other words, historical] bacteriological data" or "derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or flow." Because assessments of current bacteriological quality based upon "previous bacteriological data" or on "derived relationships between bacteria levels and rainfall or flow" are less reliable than those based upon up-to-date "bacteriological data," Department staff were reasonably justified in requiring a greater total number of days of closures, advisories, or warnings in this subsection of the proposed rule (more than 84) than they did in Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed rule (more than 21). (Like under Subsection (1)(c) of the proposed rule, the days of closures, advisories, or warnings required for listing under Subsection (1)(d) of the proposed rule do not have to be consecutive days.) Subsection (1)(d) was included in the proposed rule in response to comments made at a TAC meeting by Mike Flannery of the Pinellas County Health Department concerning Pinellas County beaches that were "left closed for long periods of time" without follow-up bacteriological testing. Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably limits the closures, advisories, and warnings upon which the Department will be able to rely in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of the proposed rule to those closures, advisories, and warnings based upon "factors . . . related to chronic discharges of pollutants." The TMDL program is designed to deal neither with short-term water quality problems caused by extraordinary events that result in atypical conditions,52 nor with water quality problems unrelated to pollutant discharges in this state. It is therefore sensible to not count, for purposes of determining "planning list" eligibility pursuant to Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, closures, advisories, and warnings that were issued because of the occurrence of such problems. A "spill," by definition (set out in Subsection (16) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, which is recited above), is a "short term" event that does not include "sanitary sewer overflows or chronic discharges from leaking wastewater collection systems." While a one-time, unpermitted discharge of sewage (not attributable to "sanitary sewer overflow") is a "short- term" event constituting a "sewage spill," as that term is used in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, repeated unpermitted discharges occurring over an extended period of time (with or without interruption) do not qualify as "sewage spills" and therefore Subsection (3) of the proposed rule will not prevent the Department from considering closures, advisories, and warnings based upon such discharges in deciding whether the requirements for listing set forth in Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of the proposed rule have been met. Like "sewage spills," "red tides" are among the events specifically mentioned in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code. "Red tide" is a "very loose term" that can describe a variety of occurrences. It is apparent from a reading of the language in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, in its entirety, that "red tide," as used therein, was intended to describe an event "not related to chronic discharges of pollutants." Department staff's understanding of "red tides" was shaped by comments made at a TAC meeting by one of the TAC members, George Henderson of the Florida Marine Research Institute. Mr. Henderson told those present at the meeting that "red tides are an offshore phenomenon that move on shore" and are fueled by nutrients from "unknown sources" likely located, for the most part, outside of Florida, in and around the Mississippi River. No "contrary scientific information" was offered during the rule development process.53 Lacking "scientific information" clearly establishing that "red tides," as they understood the term, were the product of "pollutant sources in Florida," Department staff reasonably concluded that closures, advisories, and warnings based upon such "red tides" should not be taken into consideration in deciding whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62- 303.360, Florida Administrative Code, and they included language in Subsection (3) of the proposed rule to so provide. The "red tides" to which Mr. Henderson referred are harmful algae blooms that form off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico and are brought into Florida coastal waters by the wind and currents. There appears to be an association between these blooms of toxin-producing algae and nutrient enrichment, but the precise cause of these bloom events is "not completely understood." Scientists have not eliminated the possibility that, at least in some instances, these "red tides" are natural phenomena not the result of any pollutant loading either in or outside of Florida. The uncertainty surrounding the exact role, if any, that Florida-discharged pollutants play in the occurrence of the "red tides" referenced in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably justifies the Department's declining, for purposes of determining whether the listing requirements of Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of the proposed rule have been met, to take into consideration closures, advisories, and warnings based upon such "red tides." The exclusions contained in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, will have no effect on the "information" or "data" that the Department will be able to consider under any provision in Part II of the proposed rule chapter other than Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), and (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62-303.360. This includes the provisions of proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, which, as noted above, provides, among other things, that "planning list" eligibility may be based upon "information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment, including . . . algal blooms." Accordingly, notwithstanding the "red tides" exclusion in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, the presence of algal blooms of any type "indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna due to nutrient enrichment" will result in the affected water making the "planning list" pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.350, Florida Administrative Code, to be "assessed further for nutrient impairment." Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, provides three separate ways for a water to "be placed on the planning list for fish and shellfish consumption." It reads as follows: Fish and Shellfish Consumption Use Support A Class I, II, or III water shall be placed on the planning list for fish and shellfish consumption if: the water segment does not meet the applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality based on the methodology described in section 62-303.320, or there is either a limited or no consumption fish consumption advisory. issued by the DoH, or other authorized governmental entity, in effect for the water segment, or for Class II waters, the water segment includes an area that has been approved for shellfish harvesting by the Shellfish Evaluation and Assessment Program, but which has been downgraded from its initial harvesting classification to a more restrictive classification. Changes in harvesting classification from prohibited to unclassified do not constitute a downgrade in classification. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, which effectively duplicates the provisions of Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, to the extent that those provisions apply to Class II waters, establishes an appropriate means of determining whether a water should "be placed on the planning list for fish and shellfish consumption." Waters that do not qualify for listing pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, may make the "planning list" based upon "fish consumption advisories" under Subsection (2) of the proposed rule. The Department of Health, which issues these advisories, does so after conducting a statistical evaluation of fish tissue data collected from at least 12 fish. A large number of fish consumption advisories have been issued to date for a number of parameters, including, most significantly, mercury. The first fish consumption advisory was issued in 1989 after "high levels of mercury" were found in the sampled fish tissue. Many fish consumption advisories were issued ten or more years ago and are still in effect. Fish consumption advisories are continued until it is shown that they are not needed. Most of the fish tissue data for the fish consumption advisories now in effect were collected between 1989 and 1992. There is no reason to reject this data as not "being representative of the conditions under which those samples were collected." There has been data collected since 1992, but 1992 was "the last peak year" of sampling. Over the last ten years, the "focus has been on the Everglades" with respect to sampling for mercury, although sampling has occurred in "a broadly representative suite of water bodies statewide." The TAC recommended against using fish consumption advisories for listing coastal and marine waters because of the possibility that these advisories might be based upon tissue samples taken from fish who ingested mercury, or other substances being sampled, outside of the state. Department staff, however, rejected this recommendation and did not include a "coastal and marine waters" exclusion in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code. The Shellfish Evaluation and Assessment Program, which is referenced in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62- 303.370, Florida Administrative Code, is administered by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services' Division of Aquaculture's Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section. The Shellfish Environmental Assessment Section (SEAS) is responsible for classifying and managing Florida shellfish harvesting areas in a manner that maximizes utilization of the state's shellfish resources and reduces the risk of shellfish- borne illness. In carrying out its responsibilities, the SEAS applies the "[s]hellfish [h]arvesting [a]rea [s]tandards" set forth in Rule 5L-1.003, Florida Administrative Code, which provides as follows: The Department shall describe and/or illustrate harvesting areas and provide harvesting area classifications as approved, conditionally approved, restricted, conditionally restricted, prohibited, or unclassified as defined herein, including criteria for opening and closing shellfish harvesting areas in accordance with Chapters II and IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance. Copies of the document Shellfish Harvesting Area Classification Maps, revised October 14, 2001, and the document Shellfish Harvesting Area Classification Boundaries and Management Plans, revised October 14, 2001, containing shellfish harvesting area descriptions, references to shellfish harvesting area map numbers, and operating criteria herein incorporated by reference may be obtained by writing to the Department at 1203 Governors Square Boulevard, 5th Floor, Tallahassee, Florida 32301. Approved areas -- Growing areas shall be classified as approved when a sanitary survey, conducted in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, indicates that pathogenic microorganisms, radionuclides, and/or harmful industrial wastes do not reach the area in dangerous concentrations and this is verified by laboratory findings whenever the sanitary survey indicates the need. Shellfish may be harvested from such areas for direct marketing. This classification is based on the following criteria: The area is not so contaminated with fecal material or poisonous or deleterious substances that consumption of the shellfish might be hazardous; and The bacteriological quality of every sampling station in those portions of the area most probably exposed to fecal contamination shall meet one of the following standards during the most unfavorable meteorological, hydrographic, seasonal, and point source pollution conditions: 1) The median or geometric mean fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) of water shall not exceed 14 per 100 ml., and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed a fecal coliform MPN of 43 per 100 ml. (per 5-tube, 3-dilution test) or 2) The median or geometric mean fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) of water shall not exceed 14 per 100 ml., and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed a fecal coliform MPN of 33 per 100 ml. (per 12-tube, single-dilution test). Harvest from temporarily closed approved areas shall be unlawful. Conditionally approved areas -- A growing area shall be classified as conditionally approved when a sanitary survey, conducted in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, indicates that the area is subjected to intermittent microbiological pollution. The suitability of such an area for harvesting shellfish for direct marketing may be dependent upon attainment of established performance standards by wastewater treatment facilities discharging effluent directly or indirectly into the area. In other instances, the sanitary quality of the area may be affected by seasonal populations, climatic and/or hydrographic conditions, non-point source pollution, or sporadic use of a dock, marina, or harbor facility. Such areas shall be managed by an operating procedure that will assure that shellfish from the area are not harvested from waters not meeting approved area criteria. In order to develop effective operating procedures, these intermittent pollution events shall be predictable. Harvest from temporarily closed conditionally approved areas shall be unlawful. Restricted areas -- A growing area shall be classified as restricted when a sanitary survey, conducted in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, indicates that fecal material, pathogenic microorganisms, radionuclides, harmful chemicals, and marine biotoxins are not present in dangerous concentrations after shellfish from such an area are subjected to a suitable and effective purification process. The bacteriological quality of every sampling station in those portions of the area most probably exposed to fecal contamination shall meet the following standard: The median or geometric mean fecal coliform Most Probable Number (MPN) of water shall not exceed 88 per 100 ml. and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed a fecal coliform MPN of 260 per 100 ml. (per 5-tube, 3-dilution test) in those portions of the area most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most unfavorable meteorological, hydrographic, seasonal, and point source pollution conditions. Harvest is permitted according to permit conditions specified in Rule 5L-1.009, F.A.C. Harvest from temporarily closed restricted areas shall be unlawful. Conditionally restricted area -- A growing area shall be classified as conditionally restricted when a sanitary survey or other monitoring program data, conducted in accordance with Chapter IV of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Model Ordinance, indicates that the area is subjected to intermittent microbiological pollution. The suitability of such an area for harvest of shellfish for relaying or depuration activities is dependent upon the attainment of established performance standards by wastewater treatment facilities discharging effluent, directly or indirectly, into the area. In other instances, the sanitary quality of such an area may be affected by seasonal population, non-point sources of pollution, or sporadic use of a dock, marina, or harbor facility, and these intermittent pollution events are predictable. Such areas shall be managed by an operating procedure that will assure that shellfish from the area are not harvested from waters not meeting restricted area criteria. Harvest is permitted according to permit conditions specified in Rule 5L- 1.009, F.A.C. Harvest from temporarily closed conditionally restricted areas shall be unlawful. Prohibited area -- A growing area shall be classified as prohibited if a sanitary survey indicates that the area does not meet the approved, conditionally approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted classifications. Harvest of shellfish from such areas shall be unlawful. The waters of all man-made canals and marinas are classified prohibited regardless of their location. Unclassified area -- A growing area for which no recent sanitary survey exists, and it has not been classified as any area described in subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), or (6) above. Harvest of shellfish from such areas shall be unlawful. Approved or conditionally approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted waters shall be temporarily closed to the harvesting of shellfish when counts of the red tide organism Gymnodinium breve[54] exceed 5000 cells per liter in bays, estuaries, passes or inlets adjacent to shellfish harvesting areas. Areas closed to harvesting because of presence of the red tide organism shall not be reopened until counts are less than or equal to 5000 cells per liter inshore and offshore of the affected shellfish harvesting area, and shellfish meats have been shown to be free of toxin by laboratory analysis. The Department is authorized to open and temporarily close approved, conditionally approved, restricted, or conditionally restricted waters for harvesting of shellfish in emergencies as defined herein, in accordance with specific criteria established in operating procedures for predictively closing individual growing areas, or when growing areas do not meet the standards and guidelines established by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program . Operating procedures for predictively closing each growing area shall be developed by the Department; local agencies, including those responsible for operation of sewerage systems, and the local shellfish industry may be consulted for technical information during operating procedure development. The predictive procedure shall be based on evaluation of potential sources of pollution which may affect the area and should establish performance standards, specify necessary safety devices and measures, and define inspection and check procedures. Under Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, only the "downgrading" of an area initially approved for shellfish harvesting to a more restrictive classification will cause a Class II water to be "placed on the planning list for fish and shellfish consumption." The temporary closure of an approved harvesting area will not have the same result. Temporary closures of harvesting areas are not uncommon. These closures typically occur when there is heavy local rainfall or flooding events upstream, which result in high fecal coliform counts in the harvesting areas. While these areas are not being harvested during these temporary closures, "[p]ropagation is probably maximized in closure conditions." This is because, during these periods, there are "more nutrients for [the shellfish] to consume" inasmuch as the same natural events that cause fecal coliform counts to increase also bring the nutrients (in the form detritus) into the area. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) does not reclassify an area simply because there have been short-term events, like sewage spills or extraordinary rain events, that have resulted in the area's temporary closure. Where there are frequent, extended periods of closures due to high fecal coliform counts in an area that exceed Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, however, one would reasonably expect that reclassification action would be taken. Even if the DACS does not take such action, the water may nonetheless qualify for placement on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, based upon the fecal coliform data relied upon by the DACS in closing the area, provided the data meets the requirements set forth in proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code. The DACS has never reclassified an area from "prohibited" to "unclassified." David Heil, the head of the SEAS, made a presentation at the April 20, 2000, TAC meeting, during which he enumerated various ways that the Department could determine "impairment as it relates to shellfish harvesting waters" and recommended, over the others, one of those options: combination of the average number and duration of closures over time. None of the options listed by Mr. Heil, including his top recommendation, were incorporated in proposed Rule 62- 303.370, Florida Administrative Code. The TAC and Department staff looked into the possibility of using the option touted by Mr. Heil, but determined that it would not be practical to do so. Relying on the DACS' reclassification of harvesting areas was deemed to be a more practical approach that was "consistent with the way the Department classifies waters as Class II and therefore it was included in the proposed rule."55 Code Part II: Proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, provides three separate ways for a water to "be placed on the planning list for drinking water use support" and, in addition, addresses "human-health based criteria" not covered elsewhere in Part II of the proposed rule chapter. It reads as follows: Drinking Water Use Support and Protection of Human Health. A Class I water shall be placed on the planning list for drinking water use support if: the water segment does not meet the applicable Class I water quality criteria based on the methodology described in section 62-303.320, or a public water system demonstrates to the Department that either: Treatment costs to meet applicable drinking water criteria have increased by at least 25% to treat contaminants that exceed Class I criteria or to treat blue-green algae or other nuisance algae in the source water, or the system has changed to an alternative supply because of additional costs that would be required to treat their surface water source. When determining increased treatment costs described in paragraph (b), costs due solely to new, more stringent drinking water requirements, inflation, or increases in costs of materials shall not be included. A water shall be placed on the planning list for assessment of the threat to human health if: for human health-based criteria expressed as maximums, the water segment does not meet the applicable criteria based on the methodology described in section 62- 303.320, or for human health-based criteria expressed as annual averages, the annual average concentration for any year of the assessment period exceeds the criteria. To be used to determine whether a water should be assessed further for human-health impacts, data must meet the requirements of paragraphs (2), (3), (6), and (7) in rule 62-303.320. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Use of the statistical "methodology described in [proposed Rule] 62-303.320," Florida Administrative Code, is not only appropriate (as discussed above) for making "planning list" determinations based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife- [b]ased [c]riteria" and "water quality criteria for bacteriological quality," it is also a reasonable way to determine whether a water should "be placed on the planning list for drinking water use support" based upon exceedances of "applicable Class I water quality criteria" (as Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, provides) and to determine whether a water should "be placed on the planning list for assessment of the threat to human health" based upon exceedances of other "human-health based criteria expressed as maximums" (as Subsection (2)(a) of the proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, provides). Subsection (1)(b) was included in proposed Rule 62- 303.380, Florida Administrative Code, because the TAC and Department staff wanted "some other way," besides having the minimum number of exceedances of "applicable Class I water quality criteria" required by Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed rule, for a Class I water to qualify for "place[ment] on the planning list for drinking water use support." Looking at the costs necessary for public water systems to treat surface water,56 as Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, allows, is a reasonable alternative means of determining whether a Class I water should be "placed on the planning list for drinking water use support." Under Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, the cost analysis showing that the requirements for listing have been met must be provided by the public water system. This burden was placed on the public water system because the Department "does not have the resources to do that assessment on [its] own." The Department cannot be fairly criticized for not including in Subsection (1)(b)1. of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, references to the other contaminants (in addition to blue-green algae) that have "been put on a list by the EPA to be . . . evaluated for future regulations" inasmuch as there are no existing criteria in Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, specifically relating to these contaminants. Particularly when read together with the third sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.300 (which provides that "[i]t should be noted water quality criteria are designed to protect either aquatic life use support, which is addressed in sections 62-303.310-353, or to protect human health, which is addressed in sections 62-303.360-380"), it is clear that the "human health-based criteria" referenced in Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, are those numerical criteria in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, designed to protect human health. While laypersons not familiar with how water quality criteria are established may not be able to determine (by themselves) which of the numerical water quality criteria in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, are "human health-based," as that term is used Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, Department staff charged with the responsibility of making listing decisions will be able to so. "[H]uman health-based criteria" for non-carcinogens are "expressed as maximums" in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. "[H]uman health-based criteria" for carcinogens are "expressed as annual averages" in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code. "Annual average," as that term is used in Rule Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, is defined therein as "the maximum concentration at average annual flow conditions. (see Section 62-4.020(1), F.A.C.)." Subsection (1) of Rule 62- 4.020, Florida Administrative Code, provides that "[a]verage [a]nnual [f]low "is the long-term harmonic mean flow of the receiving water, or an equivalent flow based on generally accepted scientific procedures in waters for which such a mean cannot be calculated." The "annual mean concentration" is not exactly the same as, but it does "generally approximate" and is "roughly equivalent to," the "maximum concentration at average annual flow conditions." Using "annual mean concentrations" to determine whether there have been exceedances of a "human health-based criteria expressed as annual averages" is a practical approach that makes Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, more easily "implementable" inasmuch as it obviates the need to calculate the "average annual flow," which is a "fairly complicated" exercise requiring "site-specific flow data" not needed to determine the "annual mean concentration."57 Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, does not impose any minimum sample size requirements, and it requires only one exceedance of any "human health-based criteri[on] expressed as [an] annual average[]" for a water to be listed. The limitations it places on the data that can be considered (by incorporating by reference the provisions of Subsections (2), (3), (6), and (7) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, which have been discussed above) are reasonable. Part III: Overview Part III of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, contains the following provisions, which describe the "verified list" of impaired waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, how the list will be compiled, and the manner in which waters on the list will be "prioritized" for TMDL development: Proposed Rules 62-303.400, 62-303.420, 62- 303.430, 62-303.440, 62-303.450, 62-303.460, 62-303.470, 62- 303.480, 62-303.500, 62-303.600, 62-303.700, and 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Methodology to Develop the Verified List," and reads as follows: Waters shall be verified as being impaired if they meet the requirements for the planning list in Part II and the additional requirements of sections 62- 303.420-.480. A water body that fails to meet the minimum criteria for surface waters established in Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C.; any of its designated uses, as described in this part; or applicable water quality criteria, as described in this part, shall be determined to be impaired. Additional data and information collected after the development of the planning list will be considered when assessing waters on the planning list, provided it meets the requirements of this chapter. In cases where additional data are needed for waters on the planning list to meet the data sufficiency requirements for the verified list, it is the Department's goal to collect this additional data[58] as part of its watershed management approach, with the data collected during either the same cycle that the water is initially listed on the planning list (within 1 year) or during the subsequent cycle (six years). Except for data used to evaluate historical trends in chlorophyll a or TSIs, the Department shall not use data that are more than 7.5 years old at the time the water segment is proposed for listing on the verified list. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Pursuant to the first sentence of proposed Rule 62- 303.400, Florida Administrative Code, if a water qualifies for placement on the "planning list" under a provision in Part II of the proposed rule chapter that does not have a counterpart in proposed Rules 62-303.420 through 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, that water will automatically be "verified as being impaired." Examples of provisions in Part II of the proposed rule chapter that do not have counterparts in proposed Rules 62-303.420 through 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, are: the provision in Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62- 303.330, Florida Administrative Code, that "water segments with at least . . . one failure of the biological integrity standard, Rule 62-302.530(11), shall be included on the planning list for assessment of aquatic life use support"; Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a water will be placed on the "planning list" if it "does not meet applicable Class II water quality criteria for bacteriological quality based upon the methodology described in section 62-303.320," Florida Administrative Code; Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a Class II water will be placed on the "planning list" if it "includes an area that has been approved for shellfish harvesting by the Shellfish Evaluation and Assessment Program, but which has been downgraded from its initial harvesting classification to a more restrictive classification"; and Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to which a water may qualify for "planning list" placement based upon water treatment costs under the circumstances described therein. Waters that are "verified as being impaired," it should be noted, will not automatically qualify for placement on the "verified list." They will still have to be evaluated in light of the provisions (which will be discussed later in greater detail) of proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code (relating to "pollution control mechanisms") and those of proposed Rules 62-303.700 and 62- 303.710, Florida Administrative Code (which require that the Department identify the "pollutant(s)" and "concentration(s)" that are "causing the impairment" before placing a water on the "verified list"). Of the "minimum criteria for surface waters established in Rule 62-302.500, F.A.C.," the only ones addressed anywhere in proposed Rules 62-303.310 through 62-303.380 and 62- 303.410 through 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, are the requirement that surface water not be "acutely toxic" and the requirement that predominantly marine waters not have silver in concentrations above 2.3 micrograms per liter. In determining whether there has been a failure to meet the remaining "minimum criteria," the Department will exercise its "best professional judgment." Like the second sentence of Proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, the second sentence of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the concept of "independent applicability" by providing that only one of the listed requirements need be met for a water to be deemed "impaired." Neither Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, nor any other provision in the proposed rule chapter, requires that a water be on the "planning list" as a prerequisite for inclusion on the "verified list." Indeed, a reading of Subsection (3)(c) of proposed Rule 62- 303.500, Florida Administration, the "prioritization" rule, which will be discussed later, leaves no reasonable doubt that, under the proposed rule chapter, a water can be placed on the "verified list" without having first been on the "planning list." The second sentence of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, indicates when the Department hopes to be able to collect the "additional data needed for waters on the planning list to meet the [more rigorous] data sufficiency requirements for the verified list," which data the Department pledges, in subsequent provisions of Part III of the proposed rule chapter, will be collected (at some, unspecified time). The Department did not want to create a mandatory timetable for its collection of the "additional data" because it, understandably, wanted to avoid making a commitment that, due to funding shortfalls that might occur in the future, it would not be able to keep.59 If it has the funds to do so, the Department intends to collect the "additional data" within the time frame indicated in the second sentence of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code. The Department will not need to collect this "additional data" if the data is collected and presented to the Department by an "interested party" outside the Department. (The proposed rule chapter allows data collected by outside parties to be considered by the Department in making listing decisions, provided the data meets the prescribed quality requirements.) Requiring (as the third and final sentence of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, does) that all data relied upon by the Department for placing waters on the "verified list," except for data establishing "historical trends in chlorophyll a or TSIs," under no circumstances be older than "7.5 years old at the time the water segment is proposed for listing on the verified list" is a reasonable requirement designed to avoid final listing decisions based upon outdated data not representative of the water's current conditions. As noted above, the TAC recommended that listing decisions be based upon data no older than five years old. Wanting to "capture as much data for the assessment process" as reasonably possible, Department staff determined that the appropriate maximum age of data should be two and half years older than that recommended by the TAC (the two and a half years representing the amount of time it could take to "do additional data collection" following the creation of the "planning list"). Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.410, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.410, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Determination of Aquatic Life Use Support," and provides as follows: Failure to meet any of the metrics used to determine aquatic life use support listed in sections 62-303.420-.450 shall constitute verification that there is an impairment of the designated use for propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Like proposed Rule 62-303.310, Florida Administrative Code, its analogue in Part II of the proposed rule chapter, proposed Rule 62-303.410, Florida Administrative Code, incorporates the concept of "independent applicability." A failure of any of the "metrics" referenced in the proposed rule will result in "verification" of impairment. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable statistical method, involving binomial distribution analysis, to verify impairment based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" due to pollutant discharges. It reads as follows: Exceedances of Aquatic Life-Based Water Quality Criteria The Department shall reexamine the data used in rule 62-303.320 to determine exceedances of water quality criteria. If the exceedances are not due to pollutant discharges and reflect either physical alterations of the water body that cannot be abated or natural background conditions, the water shall not be listed on the verified list. In such cases, the Department shall note for the record why the water was not listed and provide the basis for its determination that the exceedances were not due to pollutant discharges. If the Department cannot clearly establish that the exceedances are due to natural background or physical alterations of the water body but the Department believes the exceedances are not due to pollutant discharges, it is the Department's intent to determine whether aquatic life use support is impaired through the use of bioassessment procedures referenced in section 62-303.330. The water body or segment shall not be included on the verified list for the parameter of concern if two or more independent bioassessments are conducted and no failures are reported. To be treated as independent bioassessments, they must be conducted at least two months apart. If the water was listed on the planning list and there were insufficient data from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment to meet the data distribution requirements of section 303.320(4) and to meet a minimum sample size for verification of twenty samples, additional data will be collected as needed to provide a minimum sample size of twenty. Once these additional data are collected, the Department shall re-evaluate the data using the approach outlined in rule 62- 303.320(1), but using Table 2, which provides the number of exceedances that indicate a minimum of a 10% exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90% confidence level using a binomial distribution. The Department shall limit the analysis to data collected during the five years preceding the planning list assessment and the additional data collected pursuant to this paragraph. Table 2: Verified List Minimum number of measured exceedances needed to put a water on the Planning list with at least 90% confidence that the actual exceedance rate is greater than or equal to ten percent. Sample Are listed if they Sizes have at least this From To # of exceedances 20 25 5 26 32 6 33 40 7 41 47 8 48 55 9 56 63 10 64 71 11 72 79 12 80 88 13 89 96 14 97 104 15 105 113 16 114 121 17 122 130 18 131 138 19 139 147 20 148 156 21 157 164 22 165 173 23 174 182 24 183 191 25 192 199 26 200 208 27 209 217 28 218 226 29 227 235 30 236 244 31 245 253 32 254 262 33 263 270 34 271 279 35 280 288 36 289 297 37 298 306 38 307 315 39 316 324 40 325 333 41 334 343 42 344 352 43 353 361 44 362 370 45 371 379 46 380 388 47 389 397 48 398 406 49 407 415 50 416 424 51 425 434 52 435 443 53 444 452 54 453 461 55 462 470 56 471 479 57 480 489 58 490 498 59 499 500 60 (3) If the water was placed on the planning list based on worst case values used to represent multiple samples taken during a seven day period, the Department shall evaluate whether the worst case value should be excluded from the analysis pursuant to subsections (4) and (5). If the worst case value should not be used, the Department shall then re-evaluate the data following the methodology in rule 62-303.420(2), using the more representative worst case value or, if all valid values are below acutely toxic levels, the median value. If the water was listed on the planning list based on exceedances of water quality criteria for metals, the metals data shall be validated to determine whether the quality assurance requirements of rule 62- 303.320(7) are met and whether the sample was both collected and analyzed using clean techniques, if the use of clean techniques is appropriate. If any data cannot be validated, the Department shall re-evaluate the remaining valid data using the methodology in rule 62-303.420(2), excluding any data that cannot be validated. Values that exceed possible physical or chemical measurement constraints (pH greater than 14, for example) or that represent data transcription errors, outliers the Department determines are not valid measures of water quality, water quality criteria exceedances due solely to violations of specific effluent limitations contained in state permits authorizing discharges to surface waters, water quality criteria exceedances within permitted mixing zones for those parameters for which the mixing zones are in effect, and water quality data collected following contaminant spills, discharges due to upsets or bypasses from permitted facilities, or rainfall in excess of the 25-year, 24-hour storm, shall be excluded from the assessment. However, the Department shall note for the record that the data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. Once the additional data review is completed pursuant to paragraphs (1) through (5), the Department shall re-evaluate the data and shall include waters on the verified list that meet the criteria in rules 62-303.420(2) or 62-303.320(5)(b). Specific Authority: 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented: 403.021(11), 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The TMDL program is intended to address only water quality impairment resulting from pollutant discharges (from point or non-point sources), as is made clear by a reading of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, particularly Subsection 6(a)2. thereof (which, as noted above, provides that, "[f]or waters determined to be impaired due solely to factors other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution, no maximum daily load will be required"). Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62- 303.420(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, is in keeping with this intent. Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, should be read together with Subsection (1)(a) of the proposed rule. The "physical alterations of the water body" referred to in Subsection (1)(b) are the same type of "physical alterations" referred to in Subsection (1)(a), to wit: "physical alterations of the water body that cannot be abated." "Best professional judgment" will be used by the Department in determining, as it must under Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, whether or not exceedances are due to pollutant discharges. If the Department, exercising its "best professional judgment," finds that there is not proof "clearly establish[ing] that the exceedances are due to natural background or physical alterations of the water body but the Department believes the exceedances are not due to pollutant discharges," the Department, pursuant to Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62- 303.420, Florida Administrative Code, will determine whether the water in question should be "verified as impaired" for aquatic life use support by relying on "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code (which, among other things, prohibit reliance on "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" based on "data older than ten years"). The results of these "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" will not make the Department any better able to "answer the question of whether natural background or physical alterations were responsible for [the] exceedances," but, as noted above, it will enable the Department to make a more informed decision about the overall ability of the water to sustain aquatic life. Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably provides that the water will not be "verified as impaired" for aquatic life use support if there have been two or more "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" conducted at least two months apart over the last ten years and "no failures [have been] reported." That a water has "passe[d]" these "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" establishes "that aquatic life use support is being maintained" and, under such circumstances, it would be inappropriate to include that water on the "verified list." Looking at just the data "from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment," as the first sentence of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, requires the Department to do, rather than all of the data supporting the placement of the water in question on the "planning list," regardless of when the data was collected, makes sense because, to properly discharge its responsibilities under Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, the Department must ascertain what the current overall condition of the water in question is. As noted above, Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.420, Florida Administrative Code, requires a "minimum sample size for verification [of impairment based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria]" of twenty samples," with no exceptions. While this is more than the number of samples required for "planning list" compilation purposes under proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, it "is a very small number of samples relative to the [number of] samples that [the Department] would need to take to do a TMDL." Furthermore, unlike any provision in proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, provides that, if a water (on the "planning list") lacks the required minimum number of samples, the "additional data" needed to meet the minimum sample requirement "will be collected" (at some unspecified time in the future). Because these additional samples "will be collected," the requirement of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, that there be a minimum of 20 samples should not prevent deserving waters from ultimately being "verified as impaired" under the proposed rule (although it may serve to delay such "verification"). Such delay would occur if a water on the "planning list" had five or more exceedances within the "last five years preceding the planning list assessment" (five being the minimum number of exceedances required for "verification" under proposed Rule 62- 303.420, Florida Administrative Code), but these exceedances were based on fewer than 20 samples. The additional samples that would need to be collected to meet the minimum sample size requirement of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, would have no effect on the Department's "verification" determination, even if these samples yielded no exceedances, given that proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, does not contain any provision comparable to Subsection (3) of Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, providing that, under certain circumstances, "more recent data" may render "older data" unusable.60 The water would qualify for "verification" regardless of what the additional samples revealed. That is not to say, however, that taking these additional samples would serve no useful purpose. Data derived from these additional collection efforts (shedding light on the severity of the water quality problem) could be used by the Department to help it "establish priority rankings and schedules by which water bodies or segments will be subjected to total maximum daily load calculations," as the Department is required to do pursuant to Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. The "calculations [reflected in the table, Table 2, which is a part of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code] are correct." They are based on "a minimum of a 10% exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90% confidence level using a binomial distribution." As noted above, the Department did not act unreasonably in selecting this "exceedance frequency" and "confidence level" for use in determining which waters should be "verified as impaired" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria." Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, imposes reasonable quality assurance requirements that must be met in order for "metals data" to be considered "valid" for purposes of determining whether a water has the minimum number of exceedances needed to be "verified as impaired" under the proposed rule. It requires that "Method 1669"-permitted procedures be used only where these procedures are "appropriate." Determining the appropriateness of these procedures in a particular case will require the Department to exercise its "best professional judgment," taking into consideration the amount of the metal in question needed to violate the applicable water quality criterion, in relation to the amount of contamination that could be expected to occur during sample collection and analysis if conventional techniques were used. Doing so should result in "Method 1669"-permitted procedures being deemed "appropriate" in only a few circumstances: when a water is being tested to determine if it exceeds the applicable criterion for mercury, and when testing low hardness waters61 for exceedances of the applicable criterion for cadmium and lead. It is necessary to use "Method 1669"-permitted procedures in these instances to prevent test results that are tainted by contamination occurring during sample collection and analysis. Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably excludes other data from the "verification" process. It contains the same exclusions that pursuant to Subsection (6) of proposed Rule 62-303.320, Florida Administrative Code, apply in determining whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria" ("[v]alues that exceed possible physical or chemical measurement constraints (pH greater than 14, for example) or that represent data transcription errors, [and] outliers the Department determines are not valid measures of water quality"), plus additional exclusions. Among the additional types of data that will be excluded from consideration under Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, are "exceedances due solely to violations of specific effluent limitations contained in state permits authorizing discharges to surface waters." Permit violations, by themselves, can cause water quality impairment; however, as the Department has reasonably determined, the quickest and most efficient way to deal with such impairment is to take enforcement action against the offending permittee. To take the time and to expend the funds to develop and implement a TMDL62 to address the problem, instead of taking enforcement action, would not only be unwise and an imprudent use of the not unlimited resources available to combat poor surface water quality in this state, but would also be inconsistent with the expression of legislative intent in Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that the TMDL program not be utilized to bring a water into compliance with water quality standards where "technology-based effluent limitations [or] other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority" are sufficient to achieve this result. It is true that the Department has not stopped, through enforcement, all permit violations and that, as Mr. Joyner acknowledged during his testimony at the final hearing, "there are certain cases out there where there are chronic violations of permits." The appropriate response to this situation, however, is for the Department to step up its enforcement efforts, not for it to develop and implement TMDLs for those waters that, but for these violations, would not be impaired. (Citizens dissatisfied with the Department's enforcement efforts can themselves take action, pursuant to Section 403.412(2), Florida Statutes, to seek to enjoin permit violations.) It will be "extremely difficult" to know whether exceedances are due solely to permit violations. Because of this, it does not appear likely that the Department "will be using [the permit violation exclusion contained in] proposed [R]ule [62-303.420(5), Florida Administrative Code] very often." Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, will not exclude from consideration all water quality criteria exceedances in mixing zones . Only those exceedances relating to the parameters "for which the mixing zones are in effect" will be excluded. The exclusion of these exceedances is appropriate inasmuch as, pursuant to the Department's existing rules establishing the state's water quality standards (which the Legislature made clear, in Subsections (9) and (10) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, it did not, by enacting Section 403.067, intend to alter or limit), these exceedances are permitted and not considered to be violations of water quality standards. To the extent that there may exist "administratively- continued" permits (that is, permits that remain in effect while a renewal application is pending, regardless of their expiration date) which provide for outdated "mixing zones," this problem should be addressed through the permitting process, not the TMDL program. A "contaminant spill," as that term is used in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, is a short-term, unpermitted discharge [of contaminants63] to surface waters." (See Subsection (16) of proposed Rule 62-303.200, Florida Administrative Code, recited above, which defines "spill," as it is used in the proposed rule chapter). It is well within the bounds of reason to exclude from consideration (as Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62- 303.420, Florida Statutes, indicates the Department will do in deciding whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" under the proposed rule) data collected in such proximity in time to a "contaminant spill" that it reflects only the temporary effects of that "short-term" event (which are best addressed by the Department taking immediate action), rather than reflecting a chronic water quality problem of the type the TMDL program is designed to help remedy. In deciding whether this exclusion applies in a particular case, the Department will need to exercise its "best professional judgment" to determine whether the post-"contaminant spill" data reflects a "short- term" water quality problem attributable to the "spill" (in which case the exclusion will apply) or whether, instead, it reflects a chronic problem (in which case the exclusion will not apply). "Bypass" is defined in Subsection (4) of Rule 62- 620.200, Florida Administrative Code, as "the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment works." "Upset" is defined in Subsection (50) of Rule 62- 620.200, Florida Administrative Code, as follows: "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, careless or improper operation. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of upset provisions of Rule 62-620.610, F.A.C., are met. The "upset provisions of Rule 62-620.610, F.A.C." are as follows: (23) Upset Provisions. A permittee who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset; The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required in condition (20) of this permit; and The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under condition (5) of this permit. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of proof. Before an enforcement proceeding is instituted, no representation made during the Department review of a claim that noncompliance was caused by an upset is final agency action subject to judicial review. Rule 62-620.610, Florida Administrative Code, also contains "[b]ypass [p]rovisions," which provide as follows: (22) Bypass Provisions. Bypass is prohibited, and the Department may take enforcement action against a permittee for bypass, unless the permittee affirmatively demonstrates that: Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; and There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated waste, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and The permittee submitted notices as required under condition (22)(b) of this permit. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the Department, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass within 24 hours of learning about the bypass as required in condition (20) of this permit. A notice shall include a description of the bypass and its cause; the period of the bypass, including exact dates and times; if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and the steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the bypass. The Department shall approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effect, if the permittee demonstrates that it will meet the three conditions listed in condition (22)(a)1. through 3. of this permit. A permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause reclaimed water or effluent limitations to be exceeded if it is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provision of condition (22)(a) through (c) of this permit. The "bypasses" to which the Department refers in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, are those that are not prohibited (as Mr. Joyner testified and is evidenced by the grouping of "bypasses" in the same provision with "upsets" and by the fact that there is another provision in Subsection (5) of the proposed rule that deals with permit violations). Since these types of bypasses, as well as upsets, are exceptional events that, under the Department's existing rules, are allowed to occur without the permittee being guilty of a permit violation, it is reasonable, in verifying impairment under proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, to discount data tainted by their occurrence, which reflect atypical conditions resulting from legally permissible discharges. The "25-year, 24-hour storm" exclusion was included in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, in response to the TAC's recommendation that the proposed rule "exclude data from extreme storm events." The "25-year, 24-hour storm" is "commonly used in the regulatory context as a dividing line between extremely large rainfall events and less extreme events." It is a rainfall event (or as one witness, the chief of the Department's Bureau of Watershed Management, Eric Livingston, put it, a "gully washer") that produces an amount of rainfall within 24 hours that is likely to be exceeded on the average only once in 25 years. In Florida, that amount is anywhere from about eight to 11 inches, depending on location. Because a "25-year, 24-hour storm" is an extraordinary rainfall event that creates abnormal conditions in affected waters, there is reasonable justification for the Department's not considering, in the "verification" process under proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, "25-year, 24-hour storm"-impacted data. This should result in the exclusion of very little data. Data collected following less severe rainfall events (of which there are many in Florida)64 will be unaffected by the "25- year, 24-hour storm" exclusion in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.330, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable non-statistical approach, involving "[b]iological [a]ssessment," to be used as an alternative to the statistical method described in proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, in verifying aquatic life use support impairment. Proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, reads as follows: Biological Impairment All bioassessments used to list a water on the verified list shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter 62-160, F.A.C., including Department-approved Standard Operating Procedures. To be used for placing waters on the verified list, any bioassessments conducted before the adoption of applicable SOPs for such bioassessments as part of Chapter 62-160 shall substantially comply with the subsequent SOPs. If the water was listed on the planning list based on bioassessment results, the water shall be determined to be biologically impaired if there were two or more failed bioassessments within the five years preceding the planning list assessment. If there were less than two failed bioassessments during the last five years preceding the planning list assessment the Department will conduct an additional bioassessment. If the previous failed bioassessment was a BioRecon, then an SCI will be conducted. Failure of this additional bioassessment shall constitute verification that the water is biologically impaired. If the water was listed on the planning list based on other information specified in rule 62-303.330(4) indicating biological impairment, the Department will conduct a bioassessment in the water segment, conducted in accordance with the methodology in rule 62-303.330, to verify whether the water is impaired. For streams, the bioassessment shall be an SCI. Failure of this bioassessment shall constitute verification that the water is biologically impaired. Following verification that a water is biologically impaired, a water shall be included on the verified list for biological impairment if: There are water quality data reasonably demonstrating the particular pollutant(s) causing the impairment and the concentration of the pollutant(s); and One of the following demonstrations is made: if there is a numeric criterion for the specified pollutant(s) in Chapter 62-302, F.A.C., but the criterion is met, an identification of the specific factors that reasonably demonstrate why the numeric criterion is not adequate to protect water quality and how the specific pollutant is causing the impairment, or if there is not a numeric criterion for the specified pollutant(s) in Chapter 62- 302, F.A.C., an identification of the specific factors that reasonably demonstrate how the particular pollutants are associated with the observed biological effect. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, was written in anticipation of the "adoption of applicable SOPs" for BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs "as part of [Rule] Chapter 62-160," Florida Administrative Code, subsequent to the adoption of the proposed rule chapter. As noted above, at the time of the final hearing in these cases, the Department was in the process of engaging in rulemaking to incorporate in Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, the SOPs for BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs that Department personnel currently use to conduct these "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]." Until the rulemaking process is completed and any amendments to Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code, become effective,65 to be "used to list a water on the verified list" pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, "[b]iological [a]assessment[s]" need meet only the quality assurance requirements of the pre-amendment version of Rule Chapter 62-160 (which does not include SOPs for BioRecons, SCIs and LCIs). Once the amendments become effective, however, "[b]iological [a]assessment[s]," both pre- and post-amendment, will have to have been conducted in substantial compliance with the applicable SOPs included in the new version of Rule Chapter 62-160. No "[b]iological [a]assessment" will be rejected under Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, because it fails to comply with an SOP that, at the time of the "verification" determination, has not been made a part of the Department's rules. The TAC-approved requirement of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, that there be at least "two failed bioassessments during the last five years preceding the planning list assessment" (as opposed to a longer period of time) in order for a water to be "verified as being [biologically] impaired," without the need to conduct another "[b]iological [a]assessment," is reasonably designed to avoid listing decisions that are based upon test results not representative of the existing overall biological condition of the water in question. Two such failed "[b]iological [a]assessment[s]" will provide the Department with a greater degree of assurance that the water truly suffers from "biological impairment" than it would have if only one failed "[b]iological [a]assessment" was required. If there are fewer than "two failed bioassessments during the last five years preceding the planning list assessment," Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, provides that the Department will conduct another "[b]iological [a]ssessment" to determine whether the water should be "verified as being [biologically] impaired," and failure of this additional "[b]iological [a]assessment" will constitute "verification that the water is biologically impaired." The requirement that there be another failed "[b]iological [a]assessment" to confirm "biological impairment" before a water is "verified as being [biologically] impaired" under Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, is scientifically prudent, particularly in those cases where the water was placed on the "planning list" based upon a "[b]iological [a]ssessment" conducted more than five years earlier. The failure of this additional "[b]iological [a]ssessment" is enough to get the water "verified as being [biologically] impaired" even if there were no failed "[b]iological [a]ssessment[s]" in the "last five years preceding the planning list assessment." Inasmuch as the SCI, compared to the BioRecon, is a more comprehensive and rigorous test, it is reasonable to require (as Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, does) that, in the case of a stream placed on the "planning list" as a result of a failed BioRecon, the additional "[b]iological [a]ssessment" be an SCI, not a BioRecon, and to also require (as Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, does) that an SCI, rather than a BioRecon, be conducted where a stream has been placed on the "planning list" based upon "other information specified in rule 62-303.330(4) indicating biological impairment." Until such time as the Department develops a rapid bioassessment protocol for estuaries, where the Department is required in Part II of the proposed rule chapter to conduct an additional "[b]iological [a]ssessment, the Department intends to meet this obligation by engaging in "biological integrity standard" testing. TMDLs are pollutant-specific. If a water is "verified as [biologically] impaired," but the Department is not able to identify a particular pollutant as the cause of the impairment, a TMDL cannot be developed. See Section 403.031(21), Florida Statutes (to establish TMDL it is necessary to calculate the "maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body or water segment can assimilate from all sources without exceeding water quality standards"); and Section 403.067(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes ("The total maximum daily load calculation shall establish the amount of a pollutant that a water body or water body segment may receive from all sources without exceeding water quality standards"). Accordingly, as noted above, in Subsection (3)(c) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, the Legislature has imposed the following perquisites to the Department listing, on its "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, those waters deemed to be impaired based upon "non-attainment [of] biological criteria": If the department has adopted a rule establishing a numerical criterion for a particular pollutant, a narrative or biological criterion may not be the basis for determining an impairment in connection with that pollutant unless the department identifies specific factors as to why the numerical criterion is not adequate to protect water quality. If water quality non-attainment is based on narrative or biological criteria, the specific factors concerning particular pollutants shall be identified prior to a total maximum daily load being developed for those criteria for that surface water or surface water segment. Furthermore, Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, provides that, if a water is to placed on the "updated list" on any grounds, the Department "must specify the particular pollutants causing the impairment and the concentration of those pollutants causing the impairment relative to the water quality standard." The requirements of Subsection (4) of proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with these statutory mandates. Proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Statutes, does not address waters placed on the "planning list" based upon a failure of the "biological integrity standard" set forth in Subsection (11) of Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code. Therefore, by operation of proposed Rule 62-303.400, Florida Administrative Code, waters meeting the minimum requirements for "planning list" placement based upon failure of the "biological integrity standard" (a single failure within the ten-year period preceding the "planning list" assessment) will automatically be "verified as being impaired." This is a less stringent "verification" requirement than the Department adopted in proposed Rule 62-303.430, Florida Administrative Code, for "verification" of waters placed on the "planning list" based upon a failed BioRecon, SCI, or LCI. While the results of BioRecons, SCIs, and LCIs are more accurate indicators of "biological impairment" than are the results of "biological integrity standard" testing, the Department's decision to make it more difficult for a water to be "verified as being impaired" if it was placed on the "planning list" based upon a failed BioRecon, SCI, or LCI (as opposed to a failure of the "biological integrity standard") is reasonably justified inasmuch as the "biological integrity standard" is one of the water quality criteria that have been established by the Department in Rule 62-302.530, Florida Administrative Code, whereas, in contrast, neither the BioRecon, SCI, nor LCI are a part of the state's water quality standards. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.340, Florida Administrative Code, prescribes another reasonable method, that is not statistically-based, to verify aquatic life use support impairment. It reads as follows: : Toxicity A water segment shall be verified as impaired due to surface water toxicity in the receiving water body if: the water segment was listed on the planning list based on acute toxicity data, or the water segment was listed on the planning list based on chronic toxicity data and the impairment is confirmed with a failed bioassessment that was conducted within six months of a failed chronic toxicity test. For streams, the bioassessment shall be an SCI. Following verification that a water is impaired due to toxicity, a water shall be included on the verified list if the requirements of paragraph 62-303 430(4) are met. Toxicity data collected following contaminant spills, discharges due to upsets or bypasses from permitted facilities, or rainfall in excess of the 25-year, 24-hour storm, shall be excluded from the assessment. However, the Department shall note for the record that the data were excluded and explain why they were excluded. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403. 062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Pursuant to Subsections (1)(a) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, a water will automatically be "verified as impaired" for aquatic life use support if it was placed on the "planning list" on the basis of being "acutely toxic," provided that the data supporting such placement was "not collected following contaminant spills, discharges due to upsets or bypasses from permitted facilities, or rainfall in excess of the 25-year, 24-hour storm." The TAC and Department staff determined that additional testing was not necessary for "verification" under such circumstances because the end point that characterizes "acute toxicity" is so "dramatic" in terms of demonstrating impairment that it would be best to "just go ahead and put [the water] on the list with the two acute [toxicity] failures and start figuring out any potential sources of that impairment." The TAC and Department staff, however, reasonably believed that, because "chronic toxicity tests, in contrast, are measuring fairly subtle changes in a lab test organism" and there is "a very long history within the NPDES program of people questioning the results of the chronic toxicity test," before a water is "verified as being impaired" due to "chronic toxicity," the impairment should be "confirmed with a bioassessment that was conducted within six months of a failed chronic toxicity test"66 (as Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, provides). It is reasonable to require that the bioassessment, in the case of a stream, be an SCI, rather than a BioRecon, because, as noted above, of the two, the former is the more comprehensive and rigorous test. The requirements of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, are consistent with the provisions of the Subsections (3)(c) and (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. It may be difficult to identify the pollutant causing the impairment inasmuch as toxicity tests are not designed to yield such information. The rationale for excluding, in the assessment process described in proposed Rule 62-303.440, Florida Administrative Code, "data collected following contaminant spills, discharges due to upsets or bypasses from permitted facilities, or rainfall in excess of the 25-year, 24-hour storm" (as Subsection (3) of the proposed rule does) is the same, justifiable rationale (discussed above) supporting the exclusion of such data in the assessment of impairment under proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rules 62-303.350 through 62- 303.353, Florida Administrative Code, provides other reasonable ways, not based upon statistics, for waters to be "verified as [being] impaired" for aquatic life use support. It reads as follows: Interpretation of Narrative Nutrient Criteria. A water shall be placed on the verified list for impairment due to nutrients if there are sufficient data from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment combined with historical data (if needed to establish historical chlorophyll a levels or historical TSIs), to meet the data sufficiency requirements of rule 62- 303.350(2). If there are insufficient data, additional data shall be collected as needed to meet the requirements. Once these additional data are collected, the Department shall re-evaluate the data using the thresholds provided in rule 62-303.351- .353, for streams, lakes, and estuaries, respectively, or alternative, site-specific thresholds that more accurately reflect conditions beyond which an imbalance in flora or fauna occurs in the water segment. In any case, the Department shall limit its analysis to the use of data collected during the five years preceding the planning list assessment and the additional data collected in the second phase. If alternative thresholds are used for the analysis, the Department shall provide the thresholds for the record and document how the alternative threshold better represents conditions beyond which an imbalance in flora or fauna is expected to occur. If the water was listed on the planning list for nutrient enrichment based on other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna as provided in Rule 62-303 350(1), the Department shall verify the imbalance before placing the water on the verified list for impairment due to nutrients and shall provide documentation supporting the imbalance in flora or fauna. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The requirement of the first sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Code, that there be sufficient (non-historical) data (as measured against the requirements of Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.350, Florida Administrative Code67) "from [just] the last five years preceding the planning list assessment" in order for a "nutrient impair[ed]" water to go directly from the "planning list" to the "verified list" (subject to the provisions of proposed Rules 62-303.600, 62-303.700, and 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code) is reasonably designed to avoid listing decisions based upon outdated data not representative of the water's current conditions. According to the second and third sentences of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Code, if there is not enough data from this five- year time period, the additional data needed to meet the data sufficiency requirements "will be collected" by the Department, and such additional data, along with the data "from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment," will be evaluated to determine whether one of the applicable thresholds set out in proposed Rules 62-303.351 through 62-303.353, Florida Administrative Code, or an "alternative" threshold established specifically for that water, has been met or exceeded. Deciding whether "alternative, site-specific thresholds" should be used and, if so, what they should be, will involve the exercise of the Department's "best professional judgment," as will the determination as to how, in each case the Department is presented with a water placed on the "planning list for nutrient enrichment based on other information indicating an imbalance in flora or fauna," it should go about "verify[ing] the imbalance," as the Department will be required to do by Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.450, Florida Administrative Code. In some instances, the Department will only need to thoroughly review the "other information" to "verify the imbalance." In other cases, where the "other information" is not sufficiently detailed, new "information" will need to be obtained. How the Department will proceed in a particular case will depend upon the specific circumstances of that case. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable means to determine whether waters should be "verified as [being] impaired" for primary contact and recreation use support. It reads as follows: Primary Contact and Recreation Use Support The Department shall review the data used by the DoH as the basis for bathing area closures, advisories or warnings and verify that the values exceeded the applicable DoH thresholds and the data meet the requirements of Chapter 62-160. If the segment is listed on the planning list based on bathing area closures, advisories, or warnings issued by a local health department or county government, closures, advisories, or warnings based on red tides, rip tides, sewer line breaks, sharks, medical wastes, hurricanes, or other factors not related to chronic discharges of pollutants shall not be included when verifying primary contact and recreation use support. The Department shall then re-evaluate the remaining data using the methodology in rule 62- 303.360(1)(c). Water segments that meet the criteria in rule 62-303.360(1)(c) shall be included on the verified list. If the water segment was listed on the planning list due to exceedances of water quality criteria for bacteriological quality, the Department shall, to the extent practical, evaluate the source of bacteriological contamination and shall verify that the impairment is due to chronic discharges of human-induced bacteriological pollutants before listing the water segment on the verified list. The Department shall take into account the proximity of municipal stormwater outfalls, septic tanks, and domestic wastewater facilities when evaluating potential sources of bacteriological pollutants. For water segments that contain municipal stormwater outfalls, the impairment documented for the segment shall be presumed to be due, at least in part, to chronic discharges of bacteriological pollutants. The Department shall then re-evaluate the data using the methodology in rule 62-303.320(1), excluding any values that are elevated solely due to wildlife. Water segments shall be included on the verified list if they meet the requirements in rule 62-303.420(6). Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The first sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, was included in the proposed rule in response to comments made by stakeholders during the rule development process that the Department would be "abdicating [its] authority" if, in determining whether a water was impaired for purposes of TMDL development, it relied solely on action taken by other governmental entities. Department staff agreed that the Department, "as the agency responsible for preparing this list," should at least "review the data used by the DoH as the basis for bathing area closures, advisories or warnings and verify that the values exceeded the applicable DoH thresholds and the data meet the requirements of Chapter 62- 160," Florida Administrative Code. The rationale for the Department not considering bathing area "closures, advisories, or warnings based on red tides, rip tides, sewer line breaks, sharks, medical wastes, hurricanes, or other factors not related to chronic discharges of pollutants . . . when verifying [impairment of] primary contact and recreation use support" (per the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code) is the same, justifiable rationale (discussed above) supporting the exclusions of these closures, advisories, and warnings from consideration in the determination of whether a water should be placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsections (1)(b), (1)(c), or (1)(d) of the proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code. The exclusions set forth in the second sentence of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, will have no effect on the "information" or "data" that the Department will be able to consider under any provision in Part III of the proposed rule chapter other than Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460. Pursuant to the third and fourth sentences of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, after the Department determines, in accordance with the first and second sentences of this subsection of the proposed rule, what bacteriological data-based bathing area closures, advisories, and warnings should be counted, it will determine whether there were a total of at least 21 days of such closures, advisories, and warnings during a calendar year (the number required by Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code, for placement on the "planning list") and, if there were, it will verify the water in question as being impaired for primary contact and recreation use support. This is the only way for a water to be "verified as being impaired" based upon bathing area closures, advisories, or warnings under the proposed rule chapter. The "criteria" set forth in Subsections (1)(b) and (1)(d) of proposed Rule 62-303.360, Florida Administrative Code (unlike the criteria set forth in Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.360) are not carried forward in proposed Rule 62- 303.460, Florida Administrative Code. Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, provides another way, based upon a statistical analysis of "exceedances of water quality criteria for bacteriological quality," for a water to be "verified as being impaired" for primary contact and recreation use support. It reasonably requires the Department, in determining whether such impairment exists, to use the same valid statistical methodology (discussed above) that it will use, pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, to determine whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [c]riteria." Under Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.460, Florida Administrative Code, the Department, to the extent practical, will evaluate the source of an exceedance to make sure that it is "due to chronic discharges of human-induced bacteriological pollutants," and, if such evaluation reveals that the exceedance was "solely due to wildlife," the exceedance will be excluded from the calculation. While it is true that "microbial pollutants from [wildlife] do constitute a public health risk in recreational waters," the purpose of the TMDL program is to control human-induced impairment and, consequently, the Department is not required to develop TMDLs "[f]or waters determined to be impaired due solely to factors other than point and nonpoint sources of pollution." See Section 403.067(6)(a)2., Florida Statutes. Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable means to determine whether waters should be "verified as being impaired" for fish and shellfish consumption use support. It provides as follows: Fish and Shellfish Consumption Use Support In order to be used under this part, the Department shall review the data used by the DoH as the basis for fish consumption advisories and determine whether it meets the following requirements: the advisory is based on the statistical evaluation of fish tissue data from at least twelve fish collected from the specific water segment or water body to be listed, starting one year from the effective date of this rule the data are collected in accordance with DEP SOP FS6000 (General Biological Tissue Sampling) and FS 6200 (Finfish Tissue Sampling), which are incorporated by reference, the sampling entity has established Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) for the sampling, and the data meet the DQOs. Data collected before one year from the effective date of this rule shall substantially comply with the listed SOPs and any subsequently developed DQOs. there are sufficient data from within the last 7.5 years to support the continuation of the advisory. If the segment is listed on the planning list based on fish consumption advisories, waters with fish consumption advisories for pollutants that are no longer legally allowed to be used or discharged shall not be placed on the verified list because the TMDL will be zero for the pollutant. Waters determined to meet the requirements of this section shall be listed on the verified list. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, imposes additional requirements only for those waters placed on the "planning list" based upon fish consumption advisories pursuant to Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.370, Florida Administrative Code. Waters placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsections (1) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code, are not addressed in the proposed rule (or anywhere else in Part III of the proposed rule chapter). Accordingly, as noted above, these waters will go directly from the "planning list" to the "verified list" (subject to the provisions of proposed Rules 62- 303.600, 62-303.700, and 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code). The mere fact that a fish consumption advisory is in effect for a water will be enough for that water to qualify for placement on the "planning list" under Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.370, Florida Administrative Code. The Department will not look beyond the four corners of the advisory at this stage of the "identification of impaired surface waters" process. Proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, however, will require the Department, before including the water on the "verified list" based upon the advisory, to conduct such an inquiry and determine the adequacy of the fish tissue data supporting the initial issuance of the advisory and its continuation. Mandating that the Department engage in such an exercise as a prerequisite to verifying impairment based upon a fish consumption advisory is a provident measure in keeping with the Legislature's directive that the TMDL program be "scientifically based." Department staff's intent, in requiring (in Subsection (1)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code) that there be fish tissue data from at least 12 fish, "was to maintain the status quo" and not require any more fish tissue samples than the Department of Health presently uses to determine whether an advisory should be issued. The SOPs incorporated by reference in Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, contain quality assurance requirements that are essentially the same as those that have been used "for many years" to collect the fish tissue samples upon which fish consumption advisories are based. These SOPs have yet to be incorporated in Rule Chapter 62-160, Florida Administrative Code. Data Quality Objectives are needed for sampling to be scientifically valid. There are presently no Data Quality Objectives in place for the sampling that is done in connection with the Department of Health's fish consumption advisory program. Pursuant to Subsection (1)(b) of proposed Rule 62- 303.470, Florida Administrative Code, after one year from the effective date of the proposed rule, in order for data to be considered in determining data sufficiency questions under the proposed rule, the sampling entity will have to have established Data Quality Objectives for the collection of such data and the data will have to meet, or (in the case of "data collected before one year from the effective date of this rule") substantially comply with, these Data Quality Objectives. As noted above, the majority of fish consumption advisories now in effect were issued based upon fish tissue data collected more than 7.5 years ago that has not been supplemented with updated data. It "will be a huge effort to collect additional data that's less than seven-and-a-half years old" for the waters under these advisories (and on the "planning list" as a result thereof) to determine, in accordance with Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, whether the continuation of these advisories is warranted. Undertaking this "huge effort," instead of relying on data more than 7.5 years old to make these determinations, is reasonably justified because this 7.5-plus-year-old data that has already been collected may no longer be representative of the current conditions of the waters in question and it therefore is prudent to rely on more recent data. Subsection (1)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.470, Florida Administrative Code, does not specify the amount of fish tissue data that will be needed in order for the Department to determine that there is sufficient data to "support the continuation of the advisory." The Department will need to exercise its "best professional judgment" on a case-by-case basis in making such sufficiency determinations. Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, the counterpart of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a reasonable means to determine whether waters should be "verified as being impaired" for the protection of human health. It provides as follows: Drinking Water Use Support and Protection of Human Health If the water segment was listed on the planning list due to exceedances of a human health-based water quality criterion and there were insufficient data from the last five years preceding the planning list assessment to meet the data sufficiency requirements of section 303.320(4), additional data will be collected as needed to meet the requirements. Once these additional data are collected, the Department shall re-evaluate the data using the methodology in rule 62-303.380(2) and limit the analysis to data collected during the five years preceding the planning list assessment and the additional data collected pursuant to this paragraph (not to include data older than 7.5 years). For this analysis, the Department shall exclude any data meeting the requirements of paragraph 303.420(5). The following water segments shall be listed on the verified list: for human health-based criteria expressed as maximums, water segments that meet the requirements in rule 62-303.420(6), or for human health-based criteria expressed as annual averages, water segments that have an annual average that exceeds the applicable criterion. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, imposes additional requirements only for those waters placed on the "planning list" for "assessment of the threat to human health" pursuant to Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62- 303.380, Florida Administrative Code. Notwithstanding that proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Drinking Water Use Support and Protection of Human Health," waters placed on the "planning list" for drinking water use support pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62- 303.380, Florida Administrative Code, are not addressed in the proposed rule (or anywhere else in Part III of the proposed rule chapter). Accordingly, as noted above, these waters will go directly from the "planning list" to the "verified list" (subject to the provisions of proposed Rules 62-303.600, 62- 303.700, and 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code). Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably requires the Department, in determining whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" for the protection of human health based upon exceedances of "human health-based criteria expressed as maximums," to use the same valid statistical methodology (discussed above) that it will use, pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, to determine whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" based upon "[e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife-[b]ased [c]riteria." Proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, also sets forth an appropriate method for use in determining whether a water should be "verified as being impaired" based upon exceedances of "human health-based criteria expressed as annual averages." Only one exceedance of any "human health-based criteria expressed as an annual average" will be needed for a water to be listed under the proposed rule, the same number needed under Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, for a water to make the "planning list." Under proposed Rule 62-303.480, Florida Administrative Code, however, unlike under Subsection (2)(b) of proposed Rule 62-303.380, Florida Administrative Code, the data relied upon by the Department will have to meet the "data sufficiency requirements of section [62]-303.320(4)," Florida Administrative Code, and, in addition, data of the type described in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, as well as data collected more than "five years preceding the planning list assessment," will be excluded from the Department's consideration. Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative As noted above, Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, directs the Department, "[i]n association with [its preparation of an] updated list [of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated, to] establish priority rankings and schedules by which water bodies or segments will be subjected to total maximum daily load calculations." Proposed Rule 62- 303.500, Florida Administrative Code, explains how the Department will go about carrying out this statutory directive. It reads as follows: When establishing the TMDL development schedule for water segments on the verified list of impaired waters, the Department shall prioritize impaired water segments according to the severity of the impairment and the designated uses of the segment taking into account the most serious water quality problems; most valuable and threatened resources; and risk to human health and aquatic life. Impaired waters shall be prioritized as high, medium, or low priority. The following waters shall be designated high priority: Water segments where the impairment poses a threat to potable water supplies or to human health. Water segments where the impairment is due to a pollutant regulated by the CWA and the pollutant has contributed to the decline or extirpation of a federally listed threatened or endangered species, as indicated in the Federal Register listing the species. The following waters shall be designated low priority: [W]ater segments that are listed before 2010 due to fish consumption advisories for mercury (due to the current insufficient understanding of mercury cycling in the environment). Man-made canals, urban drainage ditches, and other artificial water segments that are listed only due to exceedances of the dissolved oxygen criteria. Water segments that were not on a planning list of impaired waters, but which were identified as impaired during the second phase of the watershed management approach and were included in the verified list, unless the segment meets the criteria in paragraph (2) for high priority. All segments not designated high or low priority shall be medium priority and shall be prioritized based on the following factors: the presence of Outstanding Florida Waters. the presence of water segments that fail to meet more than one designated use. the presence of water segments that exceed an applicable water quality criterion or alternative threshold with a greater than twenty-five percent exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90 percent confidence level. the presence of water segments that exceed more than one applicable water quality criteria. administrative needs of the TMDL program, including meeting a TMDL development schedule agreed to with EPA, basin priorities related to following the Department's watershed management approach, and the number of administratively continued permits in the basin. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New It is anticipated that most waters on the Department's "updated list" will fall within the "medium priority" category. Subsections (4)(a) through (4)(e) of proposed Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code, describe those factors (including, among others, the "presence of Outstanding Florida Waters" and "the number of administratively continued permits in the basin," the latter being added "based on input from the Petitioners") that will be taken into account by the Department in prioritizing waters within this "medium priority" category; but nowhere in the proposed rule does the Department specify how much weight each factor will be given relative to the other factors. This is a matter that, in accordance with the TAC's recommendation, will be left to the "best professional judgment" of the Department. "[T]here is a lot known about mercury" and its harmful effects; however, as the Department correctly suggests in Subsection (3)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code, there is not yet a complete understanding of "mercury cycling in the environment" and how mercury works its way up the food chain. "[T]here are a series of projects that are either on the drawing board or in progress now" that, hopefully, upon their conclusion, will give the Department a better and more complete understanding of what the sources of mercury in Florida surface waters are and how mercury "cycles" in the environment and ends up in fish tissue. Until the Department has such an understanding, though, it is reasonable for waters "verified as being impaired" due to fish consumption advisories for mercury to be given a "low priority" designation for purposes of TMDL development (as the Department, in Subsection (3)(a) of proposed Rule 62-303.500, Florida Administrative Code, indicates it will). Code Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative As noted above, proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, like Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62- 303.100, Florida Administrative Code, is designed to give effect to and make more specific the language in Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that an impaired water may be listed on the Department's "updated list" of waters for which TMDLs will be calculated only "if technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority, including Everglades restoration activities pursuant to s. 373.4592 and the National Estuary Program, which are designed to restore such waters for the pollutant of concern are not sufficient to result in attainment of applicable surface water quality standards." It reads as follows: Evaluation of Pollution Control Mechanisms Upon determining that a water body is impaired, the Department shall evaluate whether existing or proposed technology- based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs under local, state, or federal authority are sufficient to result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards. If, as a result of the factors set forth in (1), the water segment is expected to attain water quality standards in the future and is expected to make reasonable progress towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA,[68] the segment shall not be listed on the verified list. The Department shall document the basis for its decision, noting any proposed pollution control mechanisms and expected improvements in water quality that provide reasonable assurance that the water segment will attain applicable water quality standards. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New It is beyond reasonable debate that, pursuant to Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, before the Department may include impaired waters on the "updated list" of waters for TMDLs will be calculated, it must evaluate whether "technology-based effluent limitations and other pollution control programs" are sufficient for water quality standards in these waters to be attained in the future. (To construe the statute as requiring the Department to simply look back, and not forward into the future, in conducting its mandated evaluation of "pollution control programs" would render meaningless the language in the statute directing the Department to conduct such an evaluation after having determined that these waters are impaired.69 As Mr. Joyner testified at the final hearing in explaining what led Department staff "to conclude that [the Department] should be considering future achievement of water quality standards or future implementation of such [pollution control] programs": [I]t [Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes] basically requires two findings. It's impaired and these things won't fix the problem. If the "won't fix the problem" required it to be fixed right now in the present tense [to avoid listing], then it couldn't be impaired. So it would just be an illogical construction of having two requirements in the statute.) Proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, does not specify when "in the future" water quality attainment resulting from an existing or proposed "pollution control program" must be expected to occur in order for a presently impaired water to not be listed; but neither does Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, provide such specificity. Indeed, the statute's silence on the matter was the very reason that Department staff did "not set a time frame for [expected] compliance with water quality standards." Rather than "set[ting] such a time frame," Department staff took other measures "to address the open nature of the statute" and limit the discretion the Legislature granted the Department to exclude presently impaired waters from the "updated list" based upon there being pollution control programs sufficient to result in these waters attaining water quality standards in the future "for the pollutant of concern." They included language in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, and in proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, requiring that the Department, before exercising such discretion to exclude a presently impaired water from the "updated list," have "reasonable assurance" that water quality standards will be attained and that "reasonable progress" will be made in attaining these standards within a specified time frame, to wit: "by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA." "Reasonable assurance" is a term that has a "long history" of use by the Department in various programs,70 including its wastewater permitting program.71 Neither sheer speculation that a pollution control program will result in future water quality attainment, nor mere promises to that effect, will be sufficient, under Subsection of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, and proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, to exclude an impaired water from the "updated list." The Department will need to examine and analyze the specific characteristics of each impaired water, as well as the particular pollution control program in question, including its record of success and/or failure, if any, before determining (through the use of its "best professional judgment") whether there is the "reasonable assurance" required by these proposed rule provisions. How much time it will take for an impaired water to attain water quality standards will depend on various water- specific factors, including the size of the water body, the size of the watershed, and whether there are pollutants stored in the sediment. The particular circumstances of each case, therefore, will dictate what constitutes "reasonable progress72 towards attainment of water quality standards by the time the next 303(d) list is scheduled to be submitted to EPA," within the meaning of Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, and proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code. Because of the case-specific factors involved in determining "reasonable assurance" and "reasonable progress," it was not practicable for Department staff to specify in Subsection (5) of proposed Rule 62-303.100, Florida Administrative Code, and in proposed Rule 62-303.600, Florida Administrative Code, exactly what would be needed to be shown in each case to establish "reasonable assurance" and "reasonable progress." At the April 26, 2001, rule adoption hearing, Department staff proposed an amendment to proposed Rule 62- 303.600, Florida Administrative, to make the proposed rule more specific by adding "a list of elements that needed to be addressed to provide reasonable assurance" and defining "reasonable progress." The amendment, which was opposed by the DACS and regulated interests, was withdrawn before being considered by the ERC because Department staff felt that is was not "quite well thought out enough," particularly insofar as it addressed the concept of "reasonable progress." Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.700, Florida Administrative Code As noted above, proposed Rule 62-303.700, Florida Administrative Code, describes the first two phases of the "basin management cycle" and the TMDL-related events that will occur during these phases. It reads as follows: Listing Cycle The Department shall, to the extent practical, develop basin-specific verified lists of impaired waters as part of its watershed management approach, which rotates through the State's surface water basins on a five year cycle. At the end of the first phase of the cycle, which is designed to develop a preliminary assessment of the basin, the Department shall update the planning list for the basin and shall include the planning list in the status report for the basin, which will be noticed to interested parties in the basin. If the specific pollutant causing the impairment in a particular water segment is not known at the time the planning list is prepared, the list shall provide the basis for including the water segment on the planning list. In these cases, the pollutant and concentration causing the impairment shall be identified before the water segment is included on the verified list to be adopted by Secretarial Order. During the second phase of the cycle, which is designed to collect additional data on waters in the basin, interested parties shall be provided the opportunity to work with the Department to collect additional water quality data. Alternatively, interested parties may develop proposed water pollution control mechanisms that may affect the final verified list adopted by the Secretary at the end of the second phase. To ensure that data or information will be considered in the preliminary basin assessment, it must be submitted to the Department or entered into STORET or, if applicable, the DoH database no later than September 30 during the year of the assessment. Within a year of the effective date of this rule, the Department shall also prepare a planning list for the entire state. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The preference expressed in proposed Rule 62-300.700, Florida Administrative Code, for verified lists to be developed on a "basin-specific" basis "as part of the Department's watershed management approach" is consistent with the directive in the first sentence of Subsection (3)(a) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that the Department conduct its TMDL assessment for the “basin in which the water body . . . is located.” Proposed Rule 62-300.700, Florida Administrative Code, carries out the mandate in the second sentence of Subsection (3)(a) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes, that, in conducting its TMDL assessment, the Department "coordinate" with "interested parties." Furthermore, the proposed rule makes clear that parties outside the Department will have the opportunity "work with the Department to collect additional water quality data" needed to meet data sufficiency requirements. Identifying the "pollutant and concentration causing the impairment" before including a water on the "verified list," as proposed Rule 62-303.700, Florida Administrative Code, requires be done, is something the Department will need to do to comply with the directive contained in the third sentence of Subsection (4) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. Part III: Proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code, addresses the "[f]ormat of [v]erified [l]ist and [v]erified [l]ist [a]pproval." It reads as follows: The Department shall follow the methodology established in this chapter to develop basin-specific verified lists of impaired water segments. The verified list shall specify the pollutant or pollutants causing the impairment and the concentration of the pollutant(s) causing the impairment. If the water segment is listed based on water quality criteria exceedances, then the verified list shall provide the applicable criteria. However, if the listing is based on narrative or biological criteria, or impairment of other designated uses, and the water quality criteria are met, the list shall specify the concentration of the pollutant relative to the water quality criteria and explain why the numerical criterion is not adequate. For waters with exceedances of the dissolved oxygen criteria, the Department shall identify the pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedances and list both the pollutant and dissolved oxygen on the verified list. For waters impaired by nutrients, the Department shall identify whether nitrogen or phosphorus, or both, are the limiting nutrients, and specify the limiting nutrient(s) in the verified list. The verified list shall also include the priority and the schedule for TMDL development established for the water segment, as required by federal regulations. The verified list shall also note any waters that are being removed from the current planning list and any previous verified list for the basin. The verified basin-specific 303(d) list shall be approved by order of the Secretary. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New The second and fourth sentences of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code, track the requirements of the third sentence of Subsection (4) and the first and second sentences of Subsection (3)(c), respectively, of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, as a practical matter, a TMDL cannot be developed if the culprit pollutant is not able to be identified. Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code, was included in the proposed rule because, in most instances, the Department does not consider dissolved oxygen to be a pollutant. The pollutants most frequently associated with exceedances of the dissolved oxygen criteria are nutrients (nitrogen and/or phosphorous). It is essential to identify the "limiting nutrient," as Subsection (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.710, Florida Administrative Code, requires the Department to do, inasmuch as the "limiting nutrient" is the particular pollutant for which a TMDL will be developed. Part IV: Overview Part IV of proposed Rule Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Miscellaneous Provisions." It includes two proposed rules, proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, and proposed Rule 62-303.810, Florida Administrative Code. Part IV: Proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code Proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, describes how waters may be removed from the "planning list" and the "verified list." The proposed rule, which is entitled, "Delisting Procedures," cites Sections 403.061 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as its "[s]pecific [a]uthority" and Sections 403.062 and 403.067, Florida Statutes, as the "[l]aw [i]mplemented" by the proposed rule. Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, addresses the removal of waters from the "planning list." It reads as follows: Waters on planning lists developed under this Chapter that are verified to not be impaired during development of the verified list shall be removed from the State's planning list. Once a water segment is verified to not be impaired pursuant to Part III of this chapter, the data used to place the water on the planning list shall not be the sole basis for listing that water segment on future planning lists. The "removal" provisions of Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, will apply to all waters on the planning list "that are verified to not be impaired during development of the verified list," including those waters that had been placed on the "planning list" pursuant to Subsection (2) of proposed Rule 62-303.300, Florida Administrative Code, by virtue of their having been on the state's 1998 303(d) list. Waters removed from the "planning list" pursuant to Subsection (1) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, will be eligible to reappear on "future planning lists," but not based exclusively on "the data used to [initially] place the water on the planning list." Additional data will be needed. Subsections (2) and (3) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, address the removal of waters from the "verified list." They read as follows: Water segments shall be removed from the State's verified list only after completion of a TMDL for all pollutants causing impairment of the segment or upon demonstration that the water meets the water quality standard that was previously established as not being met. For waters listed due to failure to meet aquatic life use support based on water quality criteria exceedances or due to threats to human health based on exceedances of single sample water quality criteria, the water shall be delisted when: the number of exceedances of an applicable water quality criterion due to pollutant discharges is less than or equal to the number listed in Table 3 for the given sample size, with a minimum sample size of 30. This table provides the number of exceedances that indicate a maximum of a 10% exceedance frequency with a minimum of a 90% confidence level using a binomial distribution, or following implementation of pollution control activities that are expected to be sufficient to result in attainment of applicable water quality standards, evaluation of new data indicates the water no longer meets the criteria for listing established in section 62-303.420, or following demonstration that the water was inappropriately listed due to flaws in the original analysis, evaluation of available data indicates the water does not meet the criteria for listing established in section 62-303.420. New data evaluated under rule 62- 303.720(2)(a)1. must meet the following requirements: they must include samples collected during similar conditions (same seasons and general flow conditions) that the data previously used to determine impairment were collected with no more than 50% of the samples collected in any one quarter, the sample size must be a minimum of 30 samples, and the data must meet the requirements of paragraphs 62-303.320(4), (6) and (7). For waters listed due to failure to meet aquatic life use support based on biology data, the water shall be delisted when the segment passes two independent follow-up bioassessments and there have been no failed bioassessments for at least one year. The follow-up tests must meet the following requirements: For streams, the new data may be two BioRecons or any combination of BioRecons and SCIs. The bioassessments must be conducted during similar conditions (same seasons and general flow conditions) under which the previous bioassessments used to determine impairment were collected. The data must meet the requirements of Section 62-303.330(1) and (2), F.A.C. For waters listed due to failure to meet aquatic life use support based on toxicity data, the water shall be delisted when the segment passes two independent follow-up toxicity tests and there have been no failed toxicity tests for at least one year. The follow-up tests must meet the following requirements: The tests must be conducted using the same test protocols and during similar conditions (same seasons and general flow conditions) under which the previous test used to determine impairment were collected. The data must meet the requirements of rules 62-303.340(1), and the time requirements of rules 62-303.340(2) or (3). For waters listed due to fish consumption advisories, the water shall be delisted following the lifting of the advisory or when data complying with rule 62-303.470(1)(a) and (b) demonstrate that the continuation of the advisory is no longer appropriate. For waters listed due to changes in shellfish bed management classification, the water shall be delisted upon reclassification of the shellfish harvesting area to its original or higher harvesting classification. Reclassification of a water from prohibited to unclassified does not constitute a higher classification. For waters listed due to bathing area closure or advisory data, the water shall be delisted if the bathing area does not meet the listing thresholds in rule 62-303.360(1) for five consecutive years. For waters listed based on impacts to potable water supplies, the water shall be delisted when applicable water quality criteria are met as defined in rule 62- 303.380(1)(a) and when the causes resulting in higher treatment costs have been ameliorated. For waters listed based on exceedance of a human health-based annual average criterion, the water shall be delisted when the annual average concentration is less than the criterion for three consecutive years. For waters listed based on nutrient impairment, the water shall be delisted if it does not meet the listing thresholds in rule 62-303.450 for three consecutive years. For any listed water, the water shall be delisted if following a change in approved analytical procedures, criteria, or water quality standards, evaluation of available data indicates the water no longer meets the applicable criteria for listing. Table 2: Delisting Maximum number of measured exceedances allowable to DELIST with at least 90% confidence that the actual exceedance rate is less than or equal to ten percent. Sample Sizes From To Maximum # of exceedances allowable for delisting 30 37 0 38 51 1 52 64 2 65 77 3 78 90 4 91 103 5 104 115 6 116 127 7 128 139 8 140 151 9 152 163 10 164 174 11 175 186 12 187 198 13 199 209 14 210 221 15 222 232 16 233 244 17 245 255 18 256 266 19 267 278 20 279 289 21 290 300 22 301 311 23 312 323 24 324 334 25 335 345 26 346 356 27 357 367 28 368 378 29 379 389 30 390 401 31 402 412 32 413 423 33 424 434 34 435 445 35 446 456 36 457 467 37 468 478 38 479 489 39 490 500 40 Any delisting of waters from the verified list shall be approved by order of the Secretary at such time as the requirements of this section are met. Subsection (2)(a)1. of proposed rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, establishes a statistical methodology appropriate for "delisting" waters that have been listed as impaired based upon {e]xceedances of [a]quatic [l]ife- [b]ased [w]ater [q]uality [c]riteria." This "delisting" methodology" is the "equivalent" (as that term is used in Subsection (5) of Section 403.067, Florida Statutes) of the statistical methodology that will be used, pursuant to proposed Rule 62-303.420, Florida Administrative Code, to verify impairment based upon such exceedances. Both methodologies are based on the binomial model and use an "exceedance frequency" threshold of ten percent with a minimum confidence level of 90 percent. A greater minimum sample size is required under Subsection (2)(a)1. of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, because the Department will need, thereunder, "to have at least 90 percent confidence that the actual exceedance rate is less than ten percent" "as opposed to greater than ten percent, which is a bigger range." The "calculations [reflected in the table, Table 3, which is a part of Subsection (2)(a)1. of proposed Rule 62- 303.720, Florida Administrative Code] are correct." There is nothing unreasonable about the "delisting" criteria set forth in Subsections (2)(c) and (2)(j) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code. Subsection (2)(c) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably requires the Department, where waters have been "listed due to failure to meet aquatic life use support based on toxicity data" (in the form of two failed toxicity tests conducted "two weeks apart over a twelve month period"), to "delist" these waters if the Department has more recent "equivalent [toxicity] data" (in the form of two passed "follow-up toxicity tests," with no failed tests for at least twelve months) showing that the waters are not toxic. Subsection (2)(j) of proposed Rule 62-303.720, Florida Administrative Code, reasonably requires the Department to "delist" a water "following a change in approved analytical procedures" only where the change calls into question the validity and accuracy of the data that was relied upon to make the original listing determination and there is other data demonstrating that the water meets water quality standards. Code Part IV: Proposed Rule 62-303.810, Florida Administrative Proposed Rule 62-303.810, Florida Administrative Code, is entitled, "Impairment of Interstate and Tribal Waters." It reads as follows: The Department shall work with Alabama, Georgia, and federally recognized Indian Tribes in Florida to share information about their assessment methodology and share water quality data for waters that form state boundaries or flow into Florida. In cases where assessments are different for the same water body, the Department shall, to the extent practical, work with the appropriate state, Indian Tribe and EPA to determine why the assessments were different. Specific Authority 403.061, 403.067, FS. Law Implemented 403.062, 403.067, FS. History -- New
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and what, reasonable mitigative conditions are necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment, prior to issuing Petitioner's default permit.
Findings Of Fact Application and Default Petitioner's application is to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing 650 foot-long man-made canal of the same width and depth, normal (perpendicular) to old Central and South Florida Flood Control (now SFWMD) Rim Canal (the L-48 Borrow Canal), which is along the northwest shore of Lake Okeechobee. Petitioner's initial, incomplete application filed in DEP's Port St. Lucie office on August 31, 2000, included: the proposed project's location by County, section, township, and range; its legal description; a sketch of its general location and surrounding landmarks; a SFWMD letter verifying conformity with the requirements of a "No Notice General Permit for Activities in Uplands" of a drawing for a proposed pond expansion (to a size less than half an acre), "which will provide borrow material necessary for a house pad and access drive"; a description of water control Structure 127, together with its purpose, operation, and flood discharge characteristics, which were said to describe water levels in Buckhead Ridge, the name of the subdivision where the project was proposed; two virtually identical copies of a boundary survey for Petitioner's property (one with legal description circled) showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, at a scale of one inch equals 200 feet; two more virtually identical copies of the boundary survey at the same scale showing the existing canal, with boat basin off the canal on Petitioner's property near the L-48 Rim Canal, and the proposed canal extension and house locations; and a copy of a 1996 aerial photograph of Petitioner's property and existing canal, and vicinity. The application did not describe a proposed method or any other details of construction, include any water quality information, or include a water quality monitoring plan. On September 15, 2000, Petitioner filed an additional page of the application form with DEP's Punta Gorda office. The page added the information: "Digging to be done with trac-hoe." No other specifics of the proposed construction method were included. What happened after the filing of the application is described in Tuten I and Tuten II, which are the law of the case. However, those opinions do not explain the delay between Tuten I and the issuance of DEP's proposed ERP with conditions approximately two years later. The evidence presented at the final hearing explained only that counsel of record for DEP promptly asked district staff to draft a proposed default ERP with conditions that "would probably track the RAI that had been sent out prior to the default." DEP's district staff promptly complied and forwarded the draft to DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee, which did not provide any legal advice as to the draft ERP for almost two years. There was no further explanation for the delay. As reflected in Tuten II and in the Preliminary Statement, it was DEP's position that the proper procedure to follow after its default was to issue a proposed ERP with conditions and that it would be Petitioner's burden to request an administrative hearing to contest any conditions and to prove Petitioner's entitlement to a default ERP with conditions other than those in DEP's proposed ERP. DEP's Proposed General Conditions The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit include general conditions taken from SFWMD's Rule 40E-4.381, which are appropriate, as indicated in the Preliminary Statement and Conclusions of Law, and as conceded by Petitioner's expert. While the Rule 40E-4.381 general conditions are appropriate, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that some of the general permit conditions contained in Rule 62-4.160, as well as Rule 62-4.070(7) (providing that "issuance of a permit does not relieve any person from complying with the requirements of Chapter 403, F.S., or Department rules"), are more appropriate general conditions to attach to Petitioner's default ERP, even if technically inapplicable, because the Chapter 62 Rules govern the operation of a permitted project (whereas the former govern the construction of a permitted project) and are "more protective of the environment." Actually, all of the rules contain general conditions that govern both construction and operation phases of an ERP, and all are "protective of the environment." There is no reason to add general conditions taken from Rules 62-4.160 and 62-4.070(7) to the applicable general conditions contained in Rule 40E-4.381. DEP's Proposed Specific Conditions (i) In General The conditions DEP wants attached to Petitioner's default permit also include specific conditions which essentially require that Petitioner provide the information in the RAI sent in December 2000, together with additional specific conditions thought necessary to protect the environment in light of the lack of detail in the application without the answers to the RAI. Some DEP's proposed specific conditions are designed to ascertain whether the application would provide reasonable assurance that permitting criteria would be met. (They make the requested information subject to DEP "approval" based on whether reasonable assurance is provided.) In general, those specific conditions no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. (Looked at another way, inclusion of those specific conditions effectively would un-do the default, in direct contradiction of the court's opinion Tuten I and Tuten II.) See Conclusion of Law 52, infra. On the other hand, some of the RAI information was designed to ascertain the proposed method and other details of construction. Pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," DEP also wants broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed broad specific conditions. He takes the position that it was incumbent on DEP in this proceeding to use discovery procedures to ascertain Petitioner's intended method of construction and tailor specific conditions to the method of construction revealed through discovery. At the same time, Petitioner opposes DEP's proposed specific conditions requiring RAI-type information, including the details of his proposed construction method. Notwithstanding the positions Petitioner has taken in this case, his expert testified that Petitioner intends to use a steel wall inserted between the water and upland at the end of the existing canal, phased excavation from the upland side, and removal of the steel wall in the final phase of construction. Assuming that method of construction, Petitioner takes the position (and his expert testified) that the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner, and which generally prohibit pollution of the environment, are adequate. Even if the statutes, rules, and permit conditions acceptable to Petitioner would be adequate for the method of construction Petitioner now says he will use, Petitioner's application does not in fact commit to a method of construction. All Petitioner's application says is that he intends to dig with a trac-hoe. Without a binding commitment to a method of construction, it was appropriate for DEP to take the position that specific conditions were necessary to ascertain the method of construction Petitioner would use and, pending the "answers" to those "RAI conditions," and to impose broad specific conditions, including a baseline water quality investigation and a water quality monitoring plan, designed to be adequate for a "worst case scenario" that could result from the project. In his PRO, Petitioner committed to use the construction method described by his expert during the hearing, as follows: Excavation of any spoil shall be done by means of a mechanical trac-hoe; Prior to the excavation of any soil, Petitioner shall first install an isolating wall, such as interlocking sheet pile, between the existing man-made canal, and the proposed canal extension; The mechanical excavation shall be done in such a manner such that the excavated soil is not deposited in wetlands or in areas where it might be reasonably contemplated to re-enter the waters of the State of Florida; After the proposed canal extension is excavated to its project limits in the foregoing manner, the side slopes of the canal extension shall be allowed to revegetate prior to removal of the isolating wall. With a condition imposing this method of construction, fewer and narrower specific conditions will be necessary. ii. Seriatim Discussion DEP's proposed Specific Condition 1 requires a perpetual conservation easement prohibiting docking and mooring of water craft on all portions of Petitioner's property within the canal extension in order to "address cumulative impacts." But DEP did not prove that the proposed conservation easement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, DEP did not prove that there would be any cumulative impacts, much less unacceptable cumulative impacts, from Petitioner's project. See § 373.414(8), Fla. Stat.; Rule 40E-4.302(1)(b); and BOR § 4.2.8. Second, even if unacceptable cumulative impacts were proven, those could be addressed in other permit cases (assuming no DEP default in those proceedings), since the concept of cumulative impacts essentially requires an applicant to share acceptable cumulative impacts with other similar permittees, applicants, and foreseeable future applicants. See Broward County v. Weiss, et al., DOAH Case No. 01-3373, 2002 Fla. ENV LEXIS 298, at ¶¶54-58 (DOAH Aug. 27, 2002). As Petitioner points out, the easement further described in Specific Condition 1 appears to be overly broad for its stated purpose in that it would cover "the legal description of the entire property affected by this permit and shown on the attached project drawings," which could be interpreted to include not just the canal extension but the entire extended canal, or even the entirety of Petitioner's 6.6 acres of property. Indeed, the latter might have been the actual intention, since DEP's witness testified that Specific Condition 1 also was intended to address impacts from fertilizer runoff and septic tank leaching from new homes built along the canal. Although some of those impacts (as well as future construction of additional homes and docks) actually are secondary impacts, not cumulative impacts, it is possible that they can be addressed in DEP or SFWMD proceedings on future applications, as well as in Department of Health proceedings on septic tank installations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 2 requires that: spoil material from the dredging to be "used for the sole purpose of constructing a single-family fill pad" on Petitioner's property under a pending permit; spoil "be placed in a manner so as not to affect wetlands or other surface waters"; and the "spoil disposal location shall be shown in the drawings required by Specific Condition #4 below." DEP did not prove that the first requirement was reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. First, it is unreasonable since Petitioner already has built the referenced single-family fill pad and a home on top of it. Second, the reason DEP's witness gave for this requirement was that, under an operating agreement with SFWMD (which was officially recognized), DEP only has jurisdiction to take action on single-family uses (which he defined to include duplexes, triplexes, and quadriplexes) but not on larger multi-family and certain other projects. However, the operating agreement on jurisdiction is not a reason to place Specific Condition 1 on the use of spoil material on Petitioner's default permit. SFWMD can regulate, in permitting proceedings under its jurisdiction, the placement of fill material for multi- family construction or other projects not under DEP jurisdiction. In addition, under the operating agreement, jurisdiction can be "swapped" by written agreement in cases where deviation from the operating agreement would result in more efficient and effective regulation. The second two requirements under Specific Condition 2 are reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 3 requires disclosure of all pending and issued permits for the property from SFWMD, Glades County, or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). DEP did not prove that this is reasonable or reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP probably has all such permits and can easily obtain any it does not have. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 4 requires fully dimensional plan view and cross-sectional drawings of the property and area to be dredged, before and after dredging, including a north arrow and the water depths in and adjacent to the dredge area. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this part of the condition is to provide hydrographic information normally provided in an application (or required in an RAI) so that DEP's hydrographic engineer can ascertain flushing characteristics, which are pertinent primarily to the dissolved oxygen water quality parameter and to heavy metals from boat use. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate since DEP is required to issue a default permit. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding flushing characteristics, combined with other specific conditions, is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. See Finding 27, infra. In addition, the plan view and cross-sectional drawings required by Specific Condition 4 are to include the location of navigational obstructions in the immediate area, any roads, ditches, or utility lines that abut the property; any encumbrances, and any associated structures. DEP's witness stated that the primary purpose of this information is to determine whether Petitioner has provided reasonable assurance that the "public interest" test under Rule 40E-4.302 is met, and make sure that management, placement, and disposal of spoil material do not infringe on property rights or block culverts and cause flooding. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. However, information regarding the location of culverts to assure that management of spoil does not cause flooding is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. In addition to objecting to having to provide RAI information as a "default permittee," Petitioner's expert asserted that the information requested in Specific Condition 4 would be provided as part of the "as-built" drawings required by General Condition 6. But General Condition 6 does not require "as-built" drawings. Rather, it requires an "as-built" certification that can be based on "as-built" drawings or on-site observation. Besides, the purpose of the "as-built" certification is to determine "if the work was completed in compliance with permitted plans and specifications." Without the information requested in Specific Condition 4, there would only be vague and general permitted plans and specifications and hydrographic information. Finally as to Specific Condition 4, Petitioner objects to the requirement that the drawings be sealed by a registered professional engineer. However, Petitioner cites to General Condition 6, which requires that the "as-built" certification be given by a "registered professional" and cites Rule Form 62- 343.900(5), which makes it clear that "registered professional" in that context means a registered professional engineer. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 5 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that the canal extension will not violate water quality standards due to depth or configuration; that it will not cause a violation of water quality standards in receiving water bodies; and that it will be configured to prevent creation of debris traps or stagnant areas that could result in water quality violations. The reasonable assurance is to include hydrographic information or studies to document flushing time and an evaluation of the maximum desirable flushing time, taking several pertinent factors into consideration. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. In addition, Petitioner's expert testified without dispute that the information requested could take more than 180 days and cost approximately $20,000. However, it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be configured so as have the best practicable flushing characteristics. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 6 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, reasonable assurance that construction of the canal extension will meet all permit criteria set out in Rules 40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302 and in BOR § 4.1.1. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate. See Finding 9, supra. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 7 requires Petitioner to submit existing water quality information for DEP approval within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction. In this instance, DEP's approval would not be a determination on the provision of reasonable assurance but a determination as to the reliability of the water quality information, which is necessary to establish a baseline for assessing and monitoring the impact of the project. For that reason, the information is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. Petitioner's expert testified that the information could cost $2,000-$3,000 to produce (and more, if DEP rejects the information submitted, and more information is required). He also testified that water quality information already is available, including over 25 years worth of at least monthly information on all pertinent parameters except biological oxygen demand and fecal coliform, at a SFWMD monitoring station in the Rim Canal at Structure 127 (a lock and pump station at the Hoover Levee on Lake Okeechobee) approximately 8,000 feet away from Petitioner's canal. DEP did not prove that the SFWMD information would not serve the purpose of establishing baseline water quality for Petitioner's canal for all but the missing parameters. For that reason, only water quality information for the missing parameters is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment in this case. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 8 requires that, if the water quality information required by Specific Condition 7 shows any violations of state ambient water quality standards, Petitioner must submit for DEP approval, within 180 days of permit issuance and before any construction, a plan to achieve net improvement for any parameters shown to be in violation, as required by Section 373.414, Florida Statutes. See also BOR § and 4.2.4.2. Normally, if applicable, this information would be expected in an application or RAI response. Petitioner's expert testified that this condition would require Petitioner to help "fix Buckhead Ridge" (unfairly) and that it would cost lots of money. But Petitioner did not dispute that the law requires a plan for a "net improvement," which does not necessarily require a complete "fix" of water quality violations, if any. As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of a net improvement plan. See Finding 9, supra. But a specific condition that Petitioner implement a plan to achieve net water quality improvement in the event of any water quality violations would be reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 9 requires Petitioner to submit for DEP's approval, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information on how Petitioner intends to prevent sediments and contaminants from being released into jurisdictional waters. DEP asserts that this specific condition asks for a detailed description of how the applicant will comply with various subsections of BOR § 4.2.4.1 that address short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition that Petitioner's canal extension be constructed using adequate turbidity barriers; stabilize newly created slopes or surfaces in or adjacent to wetlands and other surface waters to prevent erosion and turbidity; avoid propeller dredging and rutting from vehicular traffic; maintain construction equipment to ensure that oils, greases, gasoline, or other pollutants are not released into wetlands and other surface waters; and prevent any other discharges during construction that will cause water quality violations. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 10 requires Petitioner to submit, at least 60 days before construction, detailed information regarding Petitioner's plans for handling spoil from dredging, including "discharge details, locations retention plans, volumes, and data used to size the disposal cell(s)." It allows this information to be combined with the Specific Condition 2 submittal. It also requires spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP asserts that this specific condition (like Specific Condition 9) is necessary to comply with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). As previously indicated, requests for information relating to reasonable assurance and the public interest test generally no longer are appropriate, and Petitioner's ability to construct the canal extension should not be dependent on DEP's approval of information submitted. See Finding 9, supra. But it is reasonable and necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment to include a specific condition requiring spoil to be properly contained to prevent return of spoil to waters of the State and to be deposited in a self-contained upland site that prevents return of any water or material into waters of the State. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 11 requires Petitioner to submit "as-built" drawings to DEP's Punta Gorda office with 30 days after completion of construction, "as required by General Condition #6." Petitioner's expert testified that this condition was unreasonable only because it duplicates General Condition 6 and two statutes. But General Condition 6 actually does not require "as-built" drawings, see Finding 9, supra, and it is not clear what statutes Petitioner's expert was referring to. For these reasons, and because it provides a filing location, Specific Condition 11 is reasonable and reasonably necessary to protect the interest of the public and the environment. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 12 requires Petitioner to "maintain the permitted canal free of all rafted debris by removal and property upland disposal." DEP asserts that this specific condition is necessary to comply with BOR § by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). Rafted debris, which may be of an organic or inorganic nature, can accumulate at the end of canals due to wind, waves, boats, or other forces. Such organic rafted debris may rot and, by creating a high biological oxygen demand, rob the water of dissolved oxygen. Petitioner's only expressed opposition to this condition is that the conservation easement in Specific Condition 3 might prevent compliance. While it is unclear how the easement would prevent compliance, the issue is eliminated if no conservation easement is required. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 13 requires Petitioner to use turbidity screens during construction for compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The turbidity screen requirements detailed in this specific condition are typical best management practices that contractors use and are a standard condition placed in permits of this nature by DEP. Petitioner contends that turbidity screens are unnecessary given his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient to cover DEP's concerns. However, as indicated, the application does not commit to a method of construction. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 13 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 14 requires Petitioner to "ensure that any discharge or release of pollutants during construction or alteration are not released into wetlands or other surface waters that will cause water quality standards to be violated." Again, this condition is intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.1 by addressing short-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). While this specific condition seems general and perhaps duplicates other conditions (which was Petitioner's only point of contention), DEP added it in an attempt to make sure the possible and not uncommon release of pollutants from construction equipment was addressed. As such, the condition is appropriate. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 15 provides details on the use of turbidity screens. Petitioner's primary points of contention are that turbidity screens are not needed for his intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 15 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that turbidity screens are not needed for the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 16 requires Petitioner to used staked filter cloth to contain any turbid run- off and erosion from created slopes of the canal extension. This is the most common best management practice and is a standard condition for ERP permits dealing with side slopes that may affect water quality. Unstable slopes can result in chronic turbidity, which is detrimental to wildlife. Unstable slopes also can lead to upland runoff being deposited into the water along with debris and sediment. Such runoff can bring deleterious substances such as heavy metals and nutrient-loaded substances that might impact dissolved oxygen levels in the water. Petitioner's primary points of contention on Specific Condition 16 are that, like turbidity screens, staked filter cloth is not needed for Petitioner's intended construction method and that other conditions are sufficient without this condition. (Petitioner also questions why the condition gives Petitioner up to 72 hours from "attaining final grade" to stabilize side slopes, but the condition also requires side slope stabilization "as soon as possible," and the 72-hour outside limit seems reasonable.) As such, the relevant issues already have been addressed in connection with Specific Condition 13 and 15. With the application in its current state, Specific Condition 16 is appropriate subject to a demonstration by Petitioner that staked filter cloth is not needed if he uses the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 17, 18, 19, and 20: details required long-term water quality monitoring and reporting [#17]; establishes sampling intervals and requires Petitioner to submit a "plan to remediate" if monitoring shows water quality violations or "a trend toward future violations of water quality standards directly related to the permitted canal" [#18]; allows "additional water quality treatment methods" to be required if water quality monitoring shows it to be necessary [#19]; and allows water quality monitoring requirements to be modified (which "may include reduction in frequency and parameters . . . or the release of the monitoring process"), "based on long term trends indicate that the permitted canal is not a source to create water quality violations [#20]." These conditions are intended to ensure compliance with BOR § 4.2.4.2 by addressing long-term water quality to aid in providing reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated, as required by Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes, and Rule 40E-4.301(1)(e). The evidence was that these specific conditions are standard for ERP permits where a constructed system may lead to water quality violations in the long term. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, conditions of this kind are not dependent on a post-construction finding of water quality standard violations (even though DEP defaulted on Petitioner's application). Besides contending that monitoring requirements in Specific Conditions 17 and 18 are unnecessary, Petitioner also contends that they are too extensive and not tailored to Petitioner's intended construction, but DEP proved their necessity, even assuming the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO. Petitioner complains that Specific Condition 19 is vague and that Petitioner's ERP does not provide for "water quality treatment." But the present absence of post-construction water quality treatment should not preclude the possible future imposition of some kind of water quality treatment if monitoring shows it to be necessary. For this kind of condition, the absence of detail regarding the kind of treatment to be imposed is natural since it would depend on future events. DEP's proposed Specific Condition 21 merely requires that Petitioner's project comply with State water quality standards in Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530. Petitioner contends that this is duplicative and unnecessary. But it certainly is not unreasonable to be specific in this regard. No Improper Purpose As part of his request for attorney's fees under Section 120.595, Florida Statutes, Petitioner necessarily contends that DEP participated in this proceeding "for an improper purpose"--i.e., "primarily to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or for frivolous purpose or to needlessly increase the cost of litigation, licensing, or securing the approval of an activity." Even assuming that DEP should be considered a "nonprevailing adverse party," Petitioner's evidence did not prove that DEP's participation was for an "improper purpose." To the contrary, DEP "participated" initially because Petitioner filed an application. DEP's denial of Petitioner's application was not proven to be "for an improper purpose" but rather for the purpose of attempting to protect the environment. The propriety of the denial was litigated in Tuten I, which made no finding that the denial was "for an improper purpose" and which ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." The two-year delay between Tuten I and Tuten II was not fully explained, but Tuten II also made no finding that the denial, or the delay, or DEP's proposed ERP with conditions were "for an improper purpose" and again ordered DEP to participate in a hearing for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions." While DEP's views on the nature of the hearing to be conducted for purposes of determining "reasonable mitigative conditions" was rejected, it was not proven that DEP argued its views "for an improper purpose" or that its participation, once its views were rejected, was "for an improper purpose," as defined by statute. To the contrary, the evidence was that DEP participated in this proceeding in an attempt to place conditions on Petitioner's permit which DEP thought were necessary to protect the environment, many (although not all) of which are accepted in this Recommended Order. As Petitioner accepts and points out, it remains necessary for Petitioner to construct and operate his project in a manner that does not violate environmental statutes and rules. But without any water quality information or monitoring, DEP's enforcement of those laws and rules will be hamstrung.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that DEP enter a final order issuing Petitioner a default ERP, to expire five years from issuance, to dredge an extension, 50 feet wide by 300 feet long by 5 feet deep, to an existing man-made canal, as applied for, subject to: DEP's proposed General Conditions 1-19; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 4 and 11-21; DEP's proposed Specific Conditions 2, 5, and 7-10, as modified by the Findings of Fact; and the construction method committed to in Petitioner's PRO (see Finding 14, supra. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner has met the requirements of Sections 403.918 and 403.919, Florida Statutes, for the issuance of a dredge and fill permit within the waters of the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's statement in Finding of Fact No. 5 that the fill "over time will become inhabited by the types of life which live at the edge of the water and land." The Department argues that the record contains no competent, substantial evidence to support such a finding of fact. The law prohibits me, as agency head, from rejecting any finding of fact in a recommended order that is supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence, but I can and should reject findings of fact which are not supported in the record by competent, substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Florida Statutes. In this case I must agree with the exception. A review of the entire record reveals no competent, substantial evidence to support the finding of fact. The only record evidence remotely bearing on the matter is that portion of the testimony of Dr. Peebles where he stated that "there probably are some small animals and little salamanders and whatever that live in that area, but I don't believe that they would all die. I think they migrate out into the other natural area that I'm leaving." (Tr. at 21) 2/ This testimony does not support the finding of fact, and the record contains no other evidence even remotely bearing on the matter. Therefore, I reject this finding of fact and accept the exception of the Department. The Department next takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 11 in which the Hearing Officer states that "However, this effect [on the life cycle of fish] will be minimal and would not itself cause significant damage to fishing or the lake." Once again, the Department contends that there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. Dr. Peebles testified: I can't honestly believe that me filling 14.3 percent, of my frontage is going to effect the health, safety, welfare and property of other people. The same goes for . . . whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Now, this is a case where to argue that on a factual basis would require expert witnesses that would say yes and others that would say no. I think we would find conflicts on all of these subjects. (Tr. at 19) Dr. Peebles also testified that "14.3 percent of the shoreline for the use of the owner is not a serious thing. So I don't think any far reaching serious impacts will occur by granting [the permit]." (Tr. at 75) The only other statement in the record which arguably supports the finding of fact is a statement made by Dr. Peebles while questioning the Department's witness. There Dr. Peebles stated that "I know for a fact -- I'm a fisherman. I fish in the lake. It's a good fishing lake, and with all the construction that's already taken place you've still got good water quality." (Tr. at 70-71) Whether the proposed project and the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future similar projects will have a minimal or significant impact on fishing and the lake is an area requiring specialized knowledge, skill, experience or training. Although the lay opinion of Dr. Peebles may be helpful in supporting expert testimony, lay opinion standing alone may not under law establish what the impacts would be. Dr. Peebles acknowledges that he is not an expert in ecology or the environment, and admits that expert testimony is needed to determine whether granting the permit will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. (Tr. at 19) Therefore, Dr. Peebles' opinion that there will be no adverse effect on conservation of fish and wildlife (Tr. at 19) and that the filling of "14.3 percent" of the shoreline for the use of the owners will not have "any far reaching serious impacts" (Tr. at 75) is not supported by expert testimony and is not sufficient evidence to support the finding of fact. Section 90.701(2), Florida Statutes; Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence 387 (2d ed. 1984); Husky Industries v. Black, 434 So. 2d 988, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ("Expert testimony is not admissible at all unless the witness has expertise in the area in which his opinion is sought.") Furthermore, the statement that Dr. Peebles made while questioning the Department's witness is not evidence. To the extent that it might be liberally construed as evidence in view of the fact that he was not represented by counsel, the existing fishing quality of the lake is not relevant to the impact of future filling of wetlands around the lake. On the other hand, Mr. Jeremy Tyler, accepted as an expert in the areas of the environment and water quality, (Tr. at 52) testified that the cumulative impact of granting Dr. Peebles' permit and similar permits reasonably expected would result in an adverse impact on conservation of fish and wildlife, (Tr. 35-41, 49-51, 54-55) and ultimately would result in a violation of water quality standards. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) Therefore, not only is there no competent, substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of fact, but there is uncontroverted expert testimony to the contrary Therefore, I accept this exception. The Department also takes exception to any implication in Finding of Fact No. 11 that the Department's only concern is with cumulative impacts. I do not read the Recommended Order as making any such implied finding. The record shows that the Department concluded that reasonable assurance had been provided that the instant project, standing alone, would not result in water quality violations, (Tyler, Tr. at 51, 60, 64) but that water quality violations will occur and the project is contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications are taken into consideration. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-55, 60, 64 and 69) This does not suggest that the Department's only concern in such permitting decisions is cumulative impacts. It only means that under the facts of this application, the only remaining concern is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future permit applications. The exception is rejected. The Department takes exception to Finding of Fact No. 12 to the extent that the statement "Mitigation of the impacts to fishing is not practical" implies that the only negative impact of the proposed project is to fishing. As noted in my discussion of Point 3 above, the record contains competent, substantial evidence that when the cumulative impacts of reasonably expected future projects are considered, water quality violations will result and the proposed project will be contrary to the public interest. I have reviewed the entire record and find no competent, substantial evidence to support a finding that the impact of the proposed project and cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects would be limited to fishing quality. To the extent that the Recommended Order implies such a limited impact I reject the implication and accept the exception. The Department's final exception to findings of fact argues that Finding of Fact No. 14 improperly implies that the proposed project would not impair water quality. Finding of Fact No. 14 states, "The amount of fill proposed in this application would not place the lake at risk or impair fishing; however, if additional such permits are approved it may at some point impair the waters and fishing." Although some semantic difficulties arise out of the Hearing Officer's use of the terms "place the waters at risk" and "impair the waters," the finding of fact is consistent with - testimony of Mr. Tyler that reasonable assurance had been provided that this proposed project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards. (Tr. at 51) The finding is also consistent with the testimony that when the cumulative impact of this project and similar reasonably expected projects are considered, reasonable assurance had not been provided that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest. (Tr. at 60, 64 and 69) However, the impact of the project on the water quality of the lake is a matter that requires expert testimony. As in the case with the impact on conservation of fish and wildlife discussed above, Dr. Peebles introduced no expert testimony regarding the impact of the project on water quality. On the other hand, the Department's expert witness testified that although reasonable assurance had been provided that the project, standing alone, would not violate water quality standards, (Tyler, Tr. at 51) he also testified that the project by itself would have some adverse impact on water quality. (Tyler, Tr. at 51) Therefore, any implication that the project by itself would not impair the water quality of the lake lacks support in competent, substantial evidence and is contrary to unrebuted expert testimony. To the extent the Hearing Officer's finding implies that the project will not impair water quality, such a finding can not affect the outcome of this case because impairment of water quality is not a proper legal criterion for deciding whether to grant or deny the permit. The proper criterion is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not violate water quality standards. Cf. Houle v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 10 FALR 3671 (DER Final Order, June 13, 1988), per curiam aff'd, 538 So.2d 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1875 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987), per curiam aff'd, 531 So.2d 173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Since the implied statement of the Hearing Officer does not affect the outcome of this case, any error is harmless and I reject the exception. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Burden of Proof The Department contends that the Hearing Officer erred in not placing the burden of proof on Mr. Peebles to show that the project is not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected similar future projects are taken into consideration. An applicant for a permit has the burden of proof or persuasion to show entitlement to the permit. Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In order to show entitlement to a dredge and fill permit, an applicant must show that he has provided reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated and that the project is not contrary to the public interest, and both of those tests must take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Sections 403.918(1), (2) and 403.919, Florida Statutes; Caloosa Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 - (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). 3/ The applicant's burden of proof includes the burden of giving reasonable assurance that cumulative impacts do not cause a project to be contrary to the public interest or to violate water quality standards. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc., v. IMC Fertilizer, Inc., et al., 11 FALR 4237, 4244 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989); Brown v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR at 1877. At the hearing, the Department introduced expert testimony that reasonable assurance had not been provided that the project would not cause violations of water quality standards and was not contrary to the public interest when the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects were considered. (Tyler, Tr. at 35-41, 49-51, 54-58, 60, 64 and 69) Dr. Peebles, who bore the burden of persuasion, introduced no competent, substantial evidence to show that when cumulative impacts had been considered the necessary reasonable assurances had been provided. 4/ Dr. Peebles argues that his project will only fill in 14.3 percent of his shoreline, and only increase the percentage of the lake's wetlands that have been filled to 31.6 percent from the already existing 30 percent. However, it is not the incremental increase that causes the project to be not permittable, it is the cumulative impact of reasonably expected future projects, and Dr. Peebles failed to carry his burden of persuasion as to the cumulative impacts. Since Dr. Peebles did not carry his burden of persuasion he was not entitled to the permit as a matter of law, and the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the permit should issue. Therefore, the Department's exception is accepted. Cumulative Impacts The Department takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law that: Application of the cumulative effect principle denies the applicant a permit because of the destruction of wetlands by other landowners. The lack of emphasis on enforcement creates a disincentive to comply with the state's regulation of the waters. If those landowners who illegally filled the waters of the state were required to restore the wetlands they destroyed, then new applicants also could fill small portions of wetlands to enhance their use of their property without worrying about cumulative effects. (Recommended Order at 6) At this point it may be helpful to explain the role of cumulative impact analysis. The Department is required to take into consideration the cumulative impacts of similar projects which are existing, under construction, or reasonably expected in the future. Section 403.919, Florida Statutes; Brown v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 FALR 1871, 1876 (DER Final Order, March 27, 1987) (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Cumulative impact is not a third test, but rather a factor to be considered in determining whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not be contrary to the public interest. Concerned Citizens League of America, Inc. v. IMC Fertilizer Inc., 11 FALR 4237 (DER Final Order, March 29, 1989). As my predecessor Secretary Tschinkel observed: Without the ability to consider long-term impacts of a project (in combination with similar projects in the area considered "reasonably likely"), DER would be helpless to prevent gradual worsening of water quality and piece-meal elimination of biological resources inflicted by a proliferation of small projects. Morales v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 7 FALR 4786 (DER Final Order, September 18, 1985). The cumulative impact doctrine was originally developed as policy by the Department. It was subsequently codified by the Legislature in 1984 as Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Chipola Basin Protective Group, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 11 FALR 467, 476 (DER Final Order, December 29, 1988). - The doctrine was approved by the courts in Caloosa Property Owners Association v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 462 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The cumulative impact statute, Section 403.919, is entitled "Equitable distribution." As the title suggests, the purpose of cumulative impact analysis is to distribute equitably that amount of dredging and filling activity which may be done without resulting in violations of water quality standards and without being contrary to the public interest. In order to determine whether the allocation to a particular applicant is equitable, the determination of the cumulative impacts is based in part on the assumption that reasonably expected similar future applications will also be granted. It does not necessarily follow, however, that all similar future applications must be granted if the current application is granted. Although the Department must be consistent in its permitting decisions to the extent possible and consistent with the public interest, (Rule 17-103.160, Fla. Admin. Code) each future application must stand on its own merit and must provide anew the necessary reasonable assurances subject to cumulative impact analysis. Manasota- 88, Inc, v. Agrico Chemical Co., et al., 90 ER FALR 043 (DER Final Order 1 February 19, 1990). In this case Dr. Peebles argued and the Hearing Officer concluded that the application of cumulative impact analysis is inequitable because previous unpermitted and allegedly illegal filling of wetlands around the lake now results in permits being denied which would have been granted but for the previous filling. There was testimony that about 30 percent of the original wetlands around the lake had been filled in the past, (Tyler, Tr. at 67) that all of the past filling was unpermitted, and that some of it may have been illegal. (Tyler, Tr. at 46, 61-62, 66-67, 72) However, the record contains no competent, substantial evidence showing how much, if any, previous filling was illegal. Furthermore, Section 403.919(2) requires the Department to consider the impacts of "projects which are existing", and does not draw a distinction between legal or illegal projects. As to the Hearing Officer's recommendation that cumulative impacts not be considered in this application, I note that Section 403.919, Florida Statutes mandates that such an analysis be conducted for every dredge and fill permit. Section 403.919 states that "The department in deciding whether to grant or deny a [dredge and fill] permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider [cumulative impacts]." See also Brown, supra, 9 FALR at 1876 (cumulative impact analysis is mandatory). Therefore, to the extent that the Hearing Officer is recommending cumulative impact analysis not be applied to Dr. Peebles' application, the recommendation is contrary to the law and must be rejected. The issue then remains of how past fill, whether legal or illegal, should be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Hearing Officer's recommendation in effect would require the Department to conduct a cumulative impact analysis under the assumption that previously filled wetlands should be treated as functioning wetlands. If I were to accept this view it would require the Department to take enforcement action in every case or abandon the protection of water quality of certain waters of the state. Such an interpretation would strip from the Department's hands the ability to exercise its discretion in allocating its limited enforcement resources, and result in the Department's enforcement priorities being set by permit applicants rather than by the Department. I note that the record contains competent, substantial evidence that the Department lacks sufficient resources to enforce every violation, (Tyler, Tr. at 45) although such a fact scarcely needs proof. Acceptance of the Hearing Qfficer's recommendation would place the Department in the dilemma of having to choose to withdraw enforcement resources from more environmentally significant projects or to abandon altogether the protection of less significant projects. Acceptance of the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law would also result in requiring the Department in all cases to determine whether violations had occurred and to take enforcement action for prior violations before it could consider cumulative impacts. Aside from the lack of sufficient enforcement resources, such enforcement' proceedings seldom, if ever, could be commenced and completed within the 90 days within which the Department must act on an application. Section 403.0876, Florida Statutes. The result would in effect limit the scope of Section 403.919 to pristine water bodies, and render the statute largely meaningless. I cannot accept that the Legislature intended such interpretations of Section 403.919, Florida Statutes. Although the result of the application of cumulative impact analysis to the facts of this case may seem harsh, the record indicates that Dr. Peebles may still obtain access the waters of the lake by means of a private dock that would not even require a permit if it had 1000 square feet or less of surface area and met the other provisions of Rule 17-312.050(1)(d), Fla. Admin. Code. Dr. Peebles' existing planned dock is 452 square feet. Therefore, Dr. Peebles could extend that portion of the dock that bridges the wetlands to the uplands by an additional 548 square feet of surface area. For example, the four foot wide bridge to the dock could be extended an additional 137 feet, which is more than enough to reach the upland portion of the lot. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) For the reasons state above, I reject the Hearing Officer's conclusion of law and accept the exception. Public Interest Test The Department also takes exception to the Hearing Officer's conclusion that the project is not contrary to the public interest. In conducting the public interest test the Department must balance the criteria as specified by the Legislature. Section 403.918(2)(a) states: In determining whether a project is not contrary to the public interest, or is clearly in the public interest, the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of 5.267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Department introduced evidence that criteria 1, 3 and 6 were neutral, (Tyler, Tr. at 54-56) that criteria 2, 4, 5 and 7 were negative, (Tyler, Tr. at 35-36, 54, 56, 57) and that when all the criteria were balanced there was a negative value to the project. (Tyler, Tr. at 57-58) Dr. Peebles argued at the hearing and in his response to exceptions that the Department's methodology in weighing each criteria in the public interest balancing test is incorrect. I disagree, and note that Dr. Peebles bore the burden of proof on the public interest test, and was free to introduce competent, substantial evidence on each criteria. As discussed in Part II above, Dr. Peebles did not introduce any competent, substantial evidence as to any of the above. The Hearing Officer's conclusion of law lacks competent, substantial evidence to support it, and is contrary to unrebuted competent, substantial evidence. Therefore, I reject this conclusion of law.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the application of Petitioner to place fill in the waters of the state be approved in accordance with the drawings submitted with the application. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida1 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-3725 The Agency filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The Agency's findings were adopted or rejected for the reasons indicated as follows: Paragraphs 1-10 Adopted Paragraph 11 Adopted that it will damage fishing; however, this damage will be insignificant and will not truly affect tee fishing on the lake. Paragraph 12 Adopted The Applicant's letter was read and considered as oral argument on the issues presented at hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, Esq. Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Dr. Peyton Z. Pebbles, Jr. 6527 Northwest 42nd Place Gainesville, FL 32606 William H. Congdon, Esq. Office of General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to a maintenance dredging exemption from environmental resource permitting. The issue in DOAH Case No. 98-5409 is whether Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., is entitled to an environmental resource permit for the construction of a surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd. (Applicant), owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-3901, Petitioner and Intervenor challenge Applicant's claim of an exemption to maintenance dredge three canals serving the marina. In DOAH Case No. 98-5409, Petitioner challenges Applicant's request for an environmental resource permit to construct and operate a surface water management system on the uplands on which the marina is located. By stipulation, Petitioner has standing. Intervenor is a nonprofit organization of natural persons, hundreds of whom reside in Lee County. The primary purpose of Intervenor is to protect manatees and their habitat. Many of the members of Intervenor use and enjoy the waters of the State of Florida, in and about Deep Lagoon Marina, and would be substantially affected by an adverse impact to these waters or associated natural resources, including manatees and their habitat. Deep Lagoon Marina is within the jurisdiction of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). By agreement with SFWMD, Respondent Department of Environmental Protection (collectively, with the predecessor agency, DEP) is the agency with permitting jurisdiction in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. The Marina Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove-lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. Deep Lagoon Marina is on Deep Lagoon, less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. Deep Lagoon Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns the uplands and either owns the submerged bottoms of the canals or has a legitimate claim to such ownership. The attorney who examined the title at the time of the 1997 conveyance testified that the canals are entirely landward of the original mean high water line, so that the then-owner excavated the canals out of privately owned upland. Thus, the attorney opined that the canal bottom is privately owned. Some question may exist as to the delineation of the historic mean high water line, especially regarding its location relative to the waterward edge of the red mangrove fringe, which DEP would consider part of the historic natural waterbody. There may be some question specifically concerning title to the bottom of the northernmost canal where it joins Deep Lagoon. However, the proof required of Applicant for present purposes is considerably short of the proof required to prove title, and the attorney's testimony, absent proof to the contrary, is sufficient to demonstrate the requisite ownership interest to seek the exemption and permit that are the subject of these cases. From north to south, Deep Lagoon Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Manatees and Boating The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. Water Quality The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one-day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. Original Permit There are three types of permits relevant to these cases. The first is a dredge and fill permit (sometimes referred to in the record as a wetland resource permit or water resource permit)(DAF permit). The second is a surface water management (sometimes referred to in the record as a management and storage of surface water (MSSW) permit or stormwater management permit)(SWM permit). The third is an environmental resource permit (ERP). Several years ago, responding to a mandate from the Legislature, DEP and the water management districts consolidated DAF permits, which historically were issued by DEP, and SWM permits, which historically were issued by the water management districts, into ERPs. At the time of this change, DEP adopted, within the jurisdictional areas of each water management district, certain of the rules of each district. In 1988, DEP issued a DAF permit to Applicant's predecessor in title for additional wet slips (as modified, the Original Permit). Due partly to the likelihood of the replacement of some older, smaller slips with larger slips, there is some uncertainty as to the precise number of wet slips that Applicant would be able to construct under the Original Permit. However, Applicant would be able to construct approximately 89-113 new wet slips, with an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking, so as to raise its marina capacity to 150-174 wet slips. Applicant also plans to construct 227 dry slips, so as to raise its marina capacity to 427 dry slips, and add 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant. In general, the Original Permit authorizes Applicant to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The record contains various references to "MLW" or "mean low water," "MHW" or "mean high water," and "NGVD" or "National Geodetic Vertical Datum." The drawings attached to the Original Permit state that MHW equals 0.96 feet NGVD and MLW equals about 0.40 feet NGVD. The Original Permit authorizes activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposes several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among these requirements is that Applicant must obtain the ERP that is the subject of DOAH Case No. 98-5409 (New Permit). Specific Condition 5 states: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. [As cited, this subparagraph contains modifications stated in a letter dated March 26, 1997, from DEP to Applicant's predecessor in interest.] Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addresses the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provides: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. * * * Specific Condition 11 adds: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 requires the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibits liveaboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 adds various manatee-protection provisions. Plan Views C and D, which are part of the Original Permit, depict submerged bottom elevations for the north and central canals, as well as from the south canal at its intersection with the central canal. Dated August 30, 1995, these "existing" bottom elevations across the mouth of the north canal are about -7, -8, and -4 feet (presumably MLW; see second note to Plan View B). The western two-thirds of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -6 feet MLW. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens to -7 to -9 feet MLW before it tapers up to -7, -6, and finally -3 feet MLW at the head; and the eastern third of the north canal passes over bottoms of about -7 feet MLW that tapers up to -6 feet and -3 feet MLW. The submerged bottom at the mouth of the central canal is about -8 to -9 feet MLW. The bottom drops to -6 to -10 feet MLW at the intersection with the south canal. Proceeding east, the bottom deepens slightly as it reaches the head, where it is -8 feet MLW. The submerged bottom of the south canal runs from -9 feet MLW at the intersection with the central canal and runs about 0.5 feet deeper at the head. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the Original Permit in 1988. The permit challengers appealed a final order granting the Original Permit and certifying, under the federal Clean Water Act, that state water quality standards were met. DEP premised its certification on the concept that water quality standards encompassed a net improvement in water quality of the poorly flushed canals. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the above-described 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the Original Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DEP's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following remand, DEP issued a final order issuing the Original Permit. On the certification issue, the final order revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341 as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Maintenance Dredging: DOAH Case No. 98-3901 Background The contentions of Petitioner and Intervenor as to maintenance dredging are: the proposed dredging exceeded what was necessary to restore the canals to original design specifications or original configurations; the proposed dredging exceeded the maximum depth allowable for maintenance dredging of canals; the work was not conducted in compliance with Section 370.12(2)(d), Florida Statutes; the spoil was not deposited on a self-contained upland site to prevent the escape of the spoil into waters of the state; and the dredge contractor did not use control devices and best management practices for erosion and sediment control to prevent turbidity, dredged material, and toxic or deleterious substances from discharging into adjacent waters during maintenance dredging. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter describes the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assures that Applicant's contractor will use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advises that the contractor will unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter states that the dredging "will be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the Original Permit, and will be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [Original Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divide the dredging into two areas. For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals (for the south canal, a portion running from the head along the northeast half of the canal) and then replace these materials with clean backfill material. This information is for background only, as the Original Permit authorized this contaminant dredging. For 4.84 acres, which run through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. The cross-sections for the north canal reveal relatively extensive dredging beyond the vegetation lines on both sides of the canal bottom. The dredging would extend up to, but not beyond, the edges of the prop roots of the mangroves on both sides of the canal bottom. The contours reveal variable, proposed slope profiles for the submerged sides of the canals, but the dredging would substantially steepen the submerged slopes of the north canal. It is difficult to estimate from the cross-sections the average depth and width to be dredged from the north canal, but it appears that the cross-sections proposed the removal of substantial spoil (an average of 4-6 feet) from areas from 20-40 feet from each side of the deepest point in the north canal. The dredging would alter the two most affected cross-sections, which are just inside the mouth of the north canal, by widening the deepest part of the canal bottom by 85 feet--from about 15 feet to about 100 feet. The drawings proposed much smaller alterations to the bottoms of the central and south canals: typically, spoil about 2 feet deep and 20 feet wide. All but one of the cross-sections revealed that spoil would be dredged only from one side of the deepest point. Additionally, the dredging in these canals would not involve any submerged vegetation; all but one of the canal sides was lined by existing seawalls. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated that it had determined that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement that the Applicant obtain an ERP. The letter warns that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter adds that DEP may revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provides a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Following receipt of DEP's letter acknowledging the exemption, Applicant's contractor proceeded to maintenance dredge the three canals. The dredging of the north canal took eight weeks. Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the Original Permit. As indicated in the March 3 letter and permitted in the Original Permit, the contaminant dredging took place at the dead-end heads of the north and central canals and along the northeast half of a slightly longer section of the south canal, starting from its dead-end head. In maintenance dredging the canals, Applicant's contractor did not exceed the specifications regarding depth and width stated in its March 3 letter. To the contrary, the contractor sometimes dredged slightly narrower or slightly shallower profiles than stated in the March 3 letter. For example, the contractor dredged the north canal to -6 feet NGVD (or -5.6 feet MLW), rather than -7 feet NGVD, as shown in the March 3 letter. The Depths, Widths, and Lengths of Dredging The March 3 letter asserts that -7 feet NGVD is the permitted elevation of the canal bottoms, pursuant to the Original Permit. This is incorrect in two respects. First, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect for all but the relatively small part of each canal that DEP has determined is contaminated. The Original Permit specifies design elevations for canal bottoms only in the contaminated area within each canal. Nothing in the Original Permit permits bottom elevations for any portion of the bottoms of the three canals outside of these three contaminated areas. Second, the assertion in the March 3 letter of a -7 foot permitted bottom elevation is incorrect, even for the contaminated areas. The March 3 letter states -7 feet NGVD, but the Original Permit specifies bottom elevations, for contaminated areas only, of -7 feet MLW in the south and central canals and -6 feet MLW in the north canal. Thus, due to the differences between NGVD and MLW, the March 3 letter proposes dredging that would deepen the south and central canals by about five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit and the north canal by one foot five inches deeper than the depth permitted in the Original Permit. Moreover, nothing in the record clearly establishes all aspects of the original design specifications of the three canals, whether permitted or not, or even all aspects of their original dredged configurations, if not permitted. There is no dispute concerning one aspect of the dredged configuration of the three canals: their lengths. Although there may be some dispute as to the original mean high water line near the mouths of the north and central canals, the original length of the canals is evident from the uplands that presently define them. As to the depth of the canals, although direct evidence is slight, Applicant has sufficiently proved indirectly the depths of the mouths of the canals pursuant to original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. The proved bottom elevations are -7 feet NGVD for each canal. Applicant proved these depths based on the prevailing elevations in Deep Lagoon in the vicinity of the mouths of the north and central canal and bottom elevations in areas of Deep Lagoon that are not prone to sedimentation. Additional proof of the bottom elevation of -7 feet NGVD at the mouths of the canals is present in the slightly higher permitted bottom elevations at the dead- ends of the north and central canals and landward portion of the south canal. There is some problem, though, with the proof of the depth of the canal bottoms between their mouths and heads (or, for the south canal, its landward portion of known contamination). Although the problem of the depth of the canals between their heads and mouths might be resolved by inferring a constant bottom elevation change from the deeper mouth to the shallower head, an unresolveable issue remains: the width of this maximum depth. As already noted, without deepening the deepest part of either cross-section, the contractor widened the deepest points along two cross-sections by 85 feet each. In terms of navigability and environmental impact, the width of the maximum depth of a canal is as important as its maximum depth. As to the width of the lowest bottom elevations of the canals, Applicant has produced no proof of original design specifications or, if not designed, original configurations. Nor has Applicant produced indirect proof of historic widths. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor in interest originally dredged the canal bottoms as wide as Applicant "maintenance" dredged them under the claimed exemption. Nothing in the record supports an inference that Applicant's predecessor geometrically dredged the canals so that their sides were perpendicular to their bottoms. Nothing in the record describes a sedimentation problem that might have narrowed the canals by such an extent that the dredging of the present widths, especially in the north canal, would be restorative. Nothing in the record even suggests that the original motive in dredging was navigability, which might have yielded relatively wide canal bottoms, versus upland fill, which would yield canal bottoms as wide as needed, not for navigability, but for uplands- creation. After consideration of all the evidence, no evidence supports a finding that the proposed dredging profiles, in terms of the widening of the areas of lowest elevation in each canal bottom, bear any resemblance whatsoever to the original canal profiles, as originally (or at any later point) designed or, if not designed, as originally (or at any later point) configured. It is at least as likely as not that this is the first time that these canal bottoms, especially the north canal bottom, have ever been so wide at any bottom elevation approaching -7 feet NGVD. There is simply no notion of restoration or maintenance in the dredging that produced these new bottom profiles for these three canals. Transforming MLW to NGVD, -5 feet MLW is -4.6 feet NGVD. All proposed and actual maintenance dredging in the three canals dredged the canal bottoms to elevations lower than -5 feet MLW (or -4.6 feet NGVD), despite the absence of any previous permit for construction or maintenance of the canal from the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund or the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Impact of Dredging on Manatees and Spoil Containment Prior to dredging, Applicant deployed turbidity curtains around the mouths of the two canals that discharge directly into Deep Lagoon. In this case, the turbidity curtains performed two functions. They contained turbidity and resuspended bottom contaminants within the mixing zone behind (or landward of) the curtains, and they excluded manatees from the dangerous area behind the curtains where the dredging was taking place. Petitioner and Intervenor object to the use of the turbidity curtains on two general grounds. First, they claim that the curtains failed to contain turbidity and resuspended contaminants from escaping the mixing zone. Second, they claim that the curtains adversely affected manatees. As executed, the maintenance dredging did not result in the release of turbidity or resuspended contaminants outside of the mixing zone due to the use of turbidity curtains. Applicant's contractor ensured that the curtains extended from the water surface to the canal bottom and sufficiently on the sides to prevent the escape of turbidity or resuspended contaminants. Although the March 3 letter did not indicate where the contractor would deploy the turbidity curtains, the important point, in retrospect, is that the contractor properly deployed the curtains. There is some question whether turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed across the mangrove fringe and into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Applicant's witness testified that water flows across the fringe only during the highest three or four tides per month. Petitioner and Intervenor's witness testified that water flows across the fringe as often as twice per day. The actual frequency is likely somewhere between these two extremes, but, regardless of the frequency, there is insufficient evidence to find that any turbidity or resuspended contaminants flowed from the north canal into the Iona Drainage District ditch. Nor did the deployment of the turbidity curtains injure, harm, possess, annoy, molest, harass, or disturb any manatees. Applicant and its contractor carefully checked each canal for manatees before raising the turbidity curtains at the mouth of each canal, so as not to trap any manatees in the area behind the curtains. By ensuring that the curtains extended to the canal bottom and extended fully from side to side, they ensured that the curtains excluded manatees during the dredging. There is no evidence that a manatee could have entered the north canal from the Iona Drainage District ditch by crossing the red mangrove fringe; any breaks in the fringe were obstructed by prop roots that prevented even a kayaker from crossing the fringe without portaging. Applicant and its contractor checked for manatees during dredging operations. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that the mere presence of the turbidity curtains in an area frequented by manatees adversely affected the animals. However, this argument elevates a speculative concern with a manatee's response to encountering an obstruction in its normal path over the practical purpose of curtains in physically obstructing the animal so as to prevent it from entering the dangerous area in which the dredge is operating, as well as the unhealthy area of turbidity and resuspended contaminants in the mixing zone. Under the circumstances, the use of the turbidity curtains to obstruct the manatees from visiting the dredging site or mixing zone did not adversely affect the manatees. In general, there is no evidence of any actual injury or harm to any manatees in the course of the dredging or the preparation for the dredging, including the deployment of the turbidity curtains. Petitioner and Intervenor offered evidence that maintenance dredging would result in more and larger boats and deterioration of water quality, which would both injure the manatees. However, as noted in the conclusions of law, the Administrative Law Judge excluded from DOAH Case No. 98-3901 such evidence concerning long-term impacts upon the manatees following the dredging. As for spoil containment, Applicant's contractor segregated the contaminated spoil from noncontaminated spoil by placing the contaminated spoil in a lined pit in the uplands. The contractor also brought onto the uplands clean fill mined from a sand quarry for backfilling into the dredged contaminated areas. There is evidence of the clean fill subsiding from its upland storage site and entering the canal waters in the mixing zone. Partly, this occurred during the loading of the barge, which transported the clean fill to the dead-end heads of the canals where the fill was placed over the newly dredged bottoms. The fill escaped into the water at a location about 100 feet long along the north seawall of the central canal, but the evidence does not establish whether this location was within the contaminated area at the head of the canal or whether the maintenance or contaminant dredging had already taken place. If the fill subsided into the water inside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water inside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the contaminant dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor intended to add the fill at this location. If the fill subsided into the water outside of the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred prior to maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because the contractor would remove the fill during the dredging. If the fill subsided into the water outside the contaminated head of the south canal and the subsidence occurred after the maintenance dredging, the subsidence was harmless because it restored the canal bottom to a higher elevation following the dredging to an excessively low elevation. The subsidence of the clean fill into the water along the north side of the central canal is the only material that entered the water from the uplands during the dredging. Specifically, there is no evidence of dredged spoil entering the water from the uplands during or after the dredging. There is also no evidence that the maintenance dredging significantly impacted previously undisturbed natural areas. There is no evidence of such areas within the vicinity of Deep Lagoon Marina. New Permit: DOAH Case No. 98-5409 New Permit Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Original Permit Specific Condition 5, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an ERP and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. Prior to its reformulation as an ERP, the New Permit sought by Applicant would have been a SWM permit. The application notes that the general upland elevation is 5 feet NGVD and that stormwater runoff presently sheetflows directly to adjacent waterways without any treatment. During the application process, Applicant's engineer Christopher Wright, submitted a letter dated February 27, 1998, to Jack Myers, who is a Professional Engineer II for DEP. In response to a request from DEP for a "written procedure . . . to assure the proper functioning of the proposed . . . system," the letter states: Since the system is not designed as a retention system and does not rely upon infiltration to operate properly[,] operation and maintenance is minimal. Items that will need regular maintenance are limited to removal of silt and debris from the bottom of the drainage structures and the bleed down orifice of the control structure. A maintenance and inspection schedule has been included in this re-submittal as part of Exhibit 14. In relevant part, Exhibit 14 consists of a document provided Mr. Wright from the manufacturer of the components of the surface water management system. The document states that the manufacturer "recommends that the landowner use this schedule for periodic system maintenance . . .." The document lists 16 sediment-control items, but it is unclear whether all of them are incorporated into the proposed system. Four items, including sediment basins, require inspections quarterly or after "large storm events" and maintenance consisting of the removal of sediment; the "water quality inlet" requires inspections quarterly and maintenance consisting of "pump[ing] or vacuum[ing]"; the "maximizer settling chamber" requires inspection biannually and maintenance consisting of "vacuum[ing] or inject[ing] water, suspend silt and pump chamber"; and the "chamber" requires inspection annually and the same maintenance as the maximizer settling chamber. The proposed system includes the water quality inlet and one of the two types of chambers. By Notice of Intent to Issue dated November 5, 1998, DEP provided notice of its intent to issue the New Permit and certification of compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code Section 1341. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the Original Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification. This waiver is consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. The notices of intent (collectively, NOI) recite the recent permitting history of the marina. This history includes the Original Permit, a since-expired MSSW permit issued in 1988 by SFWMD, and then-pending requests--apparently all since granted--to revise the Original Permit by replacing the flushing canal with culverts, relocating a travel lift from the main canal to the north canal, and adding liveaboards to the marina. (Although mentioned below, these revisions, in and of themselves, do not determine the outcome of DOAH Case No. 98-5409.) Reviewing the proposed development for the site, the NOI states that the northerly part of the project would contain an indoor dry boat storage barn, a marina service operation consisting of a ship store and miscellaneous buildings, a harbor master building, an upgraded fueling facility, a parts and service center, a restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, and paved parking areas. The southerly part of the project would contain a new indoor dry boat storage barn, a boat dealership building, and paved parking areas in place of the existing buildings. The NOI states that the proposed water quality treatment system would comprise dry detention systems of several underground vaults with an overall capacity based on the total impervious area, including roofs, receiving 2.5 inches of rain times the percentage of imperviousness. Given the relatively high imperviousness of the finished development, this recommended order considers the percentage of imperviousness to be 100, but ignores the extent to which the post-development pervious surfaces would absorb any rainfall. For storms producing up to 2.5 inches of runoff, the proposed surface water management system, of which the underground vaults are a part, would trap the runoff and provide treatment, as sufficiently sized contaminants settled into the bottom of the vaults. Because the vaults have unenclosed bottoms, the proposed system would provide incidental additional treatment by allowing stormwater to percolate through the ground and into the water table. However, the system is essentially a dry detention system, and volumetric calculations of system capacity properly ignored the incidental treatment available through percolation into the water table. The New Permit notes that the wet season water table is 1.2 feet NGVD, and the bottom of the dry detention system is 2.5 feet NGVD. This relatively thin layer of soil probably explains why DEP's volumetric calculations ignored the treatment potential offered by percolation. The relatively high water table raises the possibility, especially if Applicant does not frequently remove the settled contaminants, that the proposed system could cause groundwater contamination after the thin layer of soil is saturated with contaminants. In any event, the system is not designed for the elimination of the settled contaminants through percolation. The treatment system for the boat wash areas would be self-contained, loop-recycle systems that would permit the separation of oil and free-settling solids prior to reuse. However, the NOI warns that, "during heavy storm events"-- probably again referring to more than 2.5 inches of runoff--the loop-recycle systems would release untreated water to one of the underground vaults, which would, in turn, release the untreated water into the canals. Due to the location of the boat wash areas, the receiving waters would probably be the north canal. As reflected in the drawings and the testimony of Mr. Wright, the surface water management system would discharge at three points: two in the north canal and one in the south canal. (Vol. I, p. 206; future references to the Transcript shall cite only the volume and page as, for example, Vol. I, p. 206). 67. The NOI concludes that Applicant has provided affirmative reasonable assurance that the construction and operation of the activity, considering the direct, secondary and cumulative impacts, will comply with the provisions of Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., and the rules adopted thereunder, including the Conditions for Issuance or Additional Conditions for Issuance of an environmental resource permit, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S., Chapter 62-330, and Sections SFWMD--40E-4.301 and 40E-4.302, F.A.C. The construction and operation of the activity will not result in violations of water quality standards and will not degrade ambient water quality in Outstanding Florida Waters pursuant to Section 62-4.242, F.A.C. The Applicant has also demonstrated that the construction of the activity, including a consideration of the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts, is clearly in the public interest, pursuant to Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S. However, the design capacity of the proposed surface water management system raises serious questions concerning the water quality of the discharges into the canals. Mr. Wright initially testified that the surface water management system would be over-taxed by "an extreme storm event, probably a 25- year storm event . . .." (Vol. I, pp. 208-09). The record contains no evidence of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of runoff for the relatively impervious post- development uplands; the record contains no evidence even of the frequency of the storm event that produces 2.5 inches of rainfall. According to Mr. Wright, the 25-year storm would typically produce 8-10 inches of rain. (Vol. I, pp. 223 and 233). As already noted, the relatively large area of imperviousness following upland development and the relative imperviousness of the upland soils present at the site suggest that the runoff will be a relatively large percentage of the rainfall produced by any given storm event. It thus appears that the design capacity of the system is for a storm substantially smaller and substantially more frequent than the 25-year storm. Attached to the NOI is a draft of the New Permit, which contains numerous specific conditions and conforms in all respects with the NOI. Omitting any mention of SFWMD's Basis of Review, the New Permit addresses, among other things, the operation, inspection, and maintenance of the components of the proposed system. As set forth in the testimony of Michael Bateman, who is a Professional Engineer III and statewide stormwater coordinator for DEP, the surface water management system's operation depends on periodic pumping of the "thick, fine sediment," which appears to be a "cross between mud and sand" and will be laden with oil, grease, metals, and other contaminants. (Vol. II, p. 66). However, contrary to Mr. Bateman's assurance that the New Permit requires the periodic pumping or removal of contaminants that have precipitated out of the runoff in the dry detention system and dropped to the bottom sediment (Vol. II, p. 20), neither the NOI nor the New Permit requires, in clear and enforceable language, the periodic removal of settled solids from the underground vaults or their manner of disposal. New Permit Specific Condition 8 requires that Applicant maintain the boat wash area in "functioning condition," although specific inspection and maintenance requirements are omitted from the New Permit. New Permit Specific Condition 7 requires that Applicant "inspect and clean" all stormwater inlets "as necessary, at least once a month and after all large storm events," although the New Permit fails to specify that cleaning shall be by either pumping or vacuuming. By contrast to the marginally adequate inspection and maintenance provisions applicable to the boat wash area (inspections are required in Specific Condition 6, cited below) and stormwater inlets, the New Permit completely fails to specify enforceable inspection and maintenance requirements for the underground vaults. New Permit Specific Condition 6 addresses the operation of the vault as follows: Upon completion of the construction of the stormwater collection and underground vault (Infiltrator) systems and on an annual basis thereafter by September 30 of each year, the Permittee shall submit reports to the Department as to the storage/treatment volume adequacy of the permitted system. The reports shall also include, but not be limited to, the condition of stormwater inlets and control structures as to silt and debris removal and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens to function properly. The boat wash down areas shall be inspected for proper operation, i.e., no signs of wash water overflows from the containment area, condition of the containment area curbing, etc. Such reports shall include proposal of technique and schedule for the maintenance and/or repair of any deficiencies noted and shall be signed and sealed by a Florida registered Professional Engineer. A report of compliance with the aforementioned proposal shall be submitted by the Professional Engineer to the Department upon completion of the proposed work which shall be accomplished within three months of the initial report for each year. New Permit Specific Condition 6 requires annual reports concerning the sufficiency of the capacity of the underground vaults (first sentence), annual reports of the status of silt- and debris-removal from the inlets and control structures and the condition of the inlet wire mesh screens (second sentence), inspection at no stated intervals of the boat wash area (third sentence), and annual reports with suggestions of maintenance schedules and repairs for the items mentioned in the first two sentences (fourth sentence). New Permit Specific Condition 6 promises only the preparation of a maintenance schedule at some point in the future. Failing to supply an enforceable inspection and maintenance program, Specific Condition 6 indicates that Applicant shall consider in the future techniques and scheduling of maintenance, presumably based on the report concerning system capacity. Such a requirement may or may not impose upon Applicant an enforceable obligation to adopt an enforceable inspection and maintenance program in the future, but it does not do so now. There is no reason why the New Permit should not impose upon Applicant an initial, enforceable inspection and maintenance program incorporating, for example, the clear and enforceable requirements that Applicant inspect all of the underground vaults no less frequently that once (or twice, if this is the applicable recommendation of the manufacturer) annually and, at clearly specified intervals, remove the sediments by resuspending the sediments in the water, pumping out the water, and disposing of the effluent and sediments so they do not reenter waters of the state. Although the record does not disclose such requirements, Applicant could possibly find manufacturer's recommendations for the boat wash components and incorporate them into an enforceable inspection and maintenance program more detailed than that contained in Specific Condition 8. However, for the reasons noted below, water quality considerations require a substantial strengthening of such a program beyond what is set forth in this paragraph as otherwise acceptable. At present, the bottom line on inspection and maintenance is simple: the New Permit does not even incorporate by reference the manufacturer's recommended inspection and maintenance schedule, which Mr. Wright provided to Mr. Myers. Nor was this shortcoming of the New Permit in its treatment of inspection and maintenance necessarily missed by Mr. Wright. He testified that he submitted to DEP the manufacturer's maintenance program (Vol. I, p. 205), but when asked, on direct, if the "permit in any way incorporate[s] the commitment in your application to this maintenance?" Mr. Wright candidly replied, "That I don't know." (Vol. I, p. 206). Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 5 Basis of Review Section 5--specifically Section 5.2.1(a)--imposes the "volumetric" requirement of 2.5 inches times the percentage of imperviousness, as discussed above and in the conclusions of law. Petitioner does not dispute Applicant's compliance with this volumetric requirement, and the record amply demonstrates such compliance. Applicability of Basis of Review Section 4 The main issues in this case are whether the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 apply to the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed activity. Because the record lacks any indication of other relevant pending or vested permits, without which, as noted in the conclusions of law, one cannot assess cumulative impacts, the remainder of the findings of fact will not discuss cumulative impacts, although, to some extent, increased boating pressure constitutes a secondary impact and a cumulative impact. Without regard to the differences between direct and secondary impacts, DEP has taken the position in this case that it could lawfully issue the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5 and without consideration of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In large part, DEP's witnesses justify this position by reliance on the historic differences between DAF permits and SWM permits and the fact that the New Permit is a former-SWM ERP. As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, the Basis of Review imposes different requirements upon former-DAF and former-SWM ERPs, although the Basis of Review does not refer to DAF or SWM permits by their former names. The identifying language used in the Basis of Review for former-DAF ERPs is "regulated activity" "located in, on, or over surface waters or wetlands." References to "regulated activity" without the qualifying clause indicate that the following requirement applies to former-DAF ERPs and former-SWM ERPs. Several witnesses for DEP and Applicant testified that Applicant was entitled to the New Permit upon satisfaction of the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5. For example, Mr. Wright testified that the water quality requirements for the New Permit required only a "cookbook calculation" to determine volume. (Vol. I, p. 204). Agreeing with a question that analysis of the water quality portion of the system requires "simply a straightforward mathematical calculation," Mr. Wright testified that the quality of discharged water, following treatment, will comply with state water quality standards in storms producing no more than 2.5 inches of runoff. (Vol. I, pp. 210-11). When asked to explain his answer, Mr. Wright testified, "It's kind of an implied situation, in that if you follow the guidelines that you are required to follow with respect to the calculations of water quality, that the end product is going to be in compliance with state standards." (Vol. I, p. 211). DEP witnesses agreed with Mr. Wright's analysis. For instance, Mr. Bateman testified, "The stormwater portion of the Basis of Review gets at that question [meeting water quality standards] by stating, 'if you follow the design criteria in the basis, you are presumed to meet water quality standards.'" (Vol. II, p. 40). Mr. John Iglehart, the program administrator for DEP's South District Office in Fort Myers, testified on the same point: "if . . . you meet the criteria, the engineering criteria, than you have met the presumption that you meet the rule." (Vol. III, p. 52). Mr. Myers also agreed, testifying, "with the stormwater management system, it's for the most part, let's say, fairly cut and dried as far as meeting criteria that is established within these rules and Basis of Review." (Vol. III, p. 144). He added: "Since the criteria for reviewing stormwater management systems and the discharge is based upon a presumed compliance with stormwater criteria and with state water quality, it is presumed it [the proposed system] does meet it." (Vol. III, p. 148). Mr. Bateman explained the historic basis for the water quality presumption given surface water management systems that meet the volumetric requirements: the ERP is a combination of the surface water management rules and the environmental . . ., the dredge-and-fill, and they didn't merge, they didn't marry very well in certain areas. In stormwater we look at--it's a technology- based criteria. We say, "If you build it this way, treat 80 percent of the average annual pollutant load, we're going to give you the permit on the presumption that you're doing the best you can. You're going to meet standards. Once you get into the wetlands, we take--we put on whole new sets of glasses. ALJ: Are you saying that the old dredge-and- fill is more performance-based, and the old MSSW is more technology-based, in that if you've put in the required technology, you've done your job? WITNESS: That is--yes. Dredge-and-fill is a more case by case. We look at the water quality. We look at ambient conditions. We look at hydrographics [here, largely tidal flushing]. It's more like a waste load allocation in that we're very specific. In stormwater, we can't afford to be. MS. HOLMES: So what you're saying is you can't point to the specific rule provision or regulation that excludes these criteria from surface water management systems? WITNESS: Well, you have to read [Basis of Review] Section 4 as a whole. 4.1 is specific to wetlands and other surface waters. 4.2 is environmental review. I mean, if you look at the thing in total, and the--and I realize it's confusing. But these rules are exactly the same in all the water management districts. They were developed together as the wetland criteria, the new dredge-and-fill criteria. They're exactly the same. The stormwater rules of all the [water management districts] is all different. That is for another day, making those all consistent. So these environmental wetland- type dredge-and-fill criteria are all the same, and they refer to in-water impact. [All references in the transcript to "end water" should have been "in-water."] ALJ: What do you mean by that term, "in- water impact?" WITNESS: In other words, dredge-and-fill impact. Construct and--I can't-- MS. HOLMES: May I continue, then? ALJ: Let him answer. What were you going to say? WITNESS: I think it takes a little knowledge of how these [rules] developed to know how they're applied, unfortunately. In other water management districts, it's clearer that these are in-water impacts. (Vol. II, pp. 57-59). In testifying to the exclusivity of the volumetric requirements in Basis of Review Section 5, with respect to former-SWM ERPs, these witnesses likewise opined that the secondary-impact analysis required in Basis of Review Section 4 also was inapplicable to the New Permit. For example, after testifying both ways on the necessity of considering secondary impacts in issuing former-SWM ERPs, Mr. Bateman concluded, "I'm not sure that [the requirement of considering secondary impacts] applies in this case. Certainty the rules apply, I mean, the rules apply. But certain rules are not applicable in this particular instance. I mean, I'm trying to think of a secondary impact associated with stormwater system, and it's difficult for me to do so." (Vol. II, p. 45). Mr. Bateman then testified that DEP did not consider such secondary impacts, as additional boat traffic, and probably did not consider cumulative impacts, such as other marinas. (Vol. II, pp. 51-52). In response to a question asking to what extent DEP considered post-development inputs of contaminants, such as heavy metals, when issuing a former-SWM ERP, Mr. Bateman testified: I have to tell you, very little. I mean, we--stormwater is pretty black and white. The link to secondary and cumulative impact is generally associated with in-water impact. And I realize the line is a little grey here. When we build a Wal-Mart, we don't think about how many cars it's going to put on [U.S. Route] 41 and what the impact might be to an adjacent lake. We just don't. It would be a little burdensome. In this case, I mean, it's a little greyer. (Vol. II, p. 47). Mr. Bateman was then asked to compare the relative impacts from a vacant, but developed, upland without a surface water management system with a proposed activity that would add a surface water management system to facilitate an intensification of land uses on the site so as to add new contaminants to the runoff. Mr. Bateman testified that DEP would apply only the volumetric requirement and not address the complex issue of weighing the potential environmental benefit of a new surface water system against the potential environmental detriment of contaminant loading (at least in storm events greater than the design storm event). Mr. Bateman explained: "The way it works, it is not a water quality-based standard. In other words, we don't go in and say it's so many pounds [of contaminants] per acre per year now. We're going to make it this many pounds per acre per year, and look at it in a detailed fashion. We do the [Best Management Practices], retain an inch and you're there." (Vol. II, p. 49). Agreeing with Mr. Bateman that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts resulting from the regulated activity, Mr. Iglehart testified: "It's our thought that we don't really look at secondary and cumulative impacts for the stormwater permit. . . . If it [the former-SWM ERP application] meets the criteria, it gets the permit. That--in the ERP, the previous dredge-and-fill side looks at the secondary and cumulative. The stormwater just--like Mr. Bateman testified." (Vol. III, p. 52). After some ambivalence, Mr. Myers also testified that DEP was not required to consider secondary impacts for the New Permit: WITNESS: . . . I did not or I do not consider secondary impacts for the stormwater management system. MS. HOLMES: So, what about cumulative impacts? WITNESS: No. MS. HOLMES: So it's your testimony that you did not review secondary and cumulative impacts-- WITNESS: That's correct. MS. HOLMES: --of this system? WITNESS: What I can say is that the existing system out there, from what I can tell, does not have any stormwater treatment. Basically, it's running off into the canals. The proposed project will provide stormwater treatment for, not only the new construction, which is proposed mainly on the northern peninsula, but it is also provided for that area which is now existing, it will provide stormwater treatment for that area also. And I consider that--I don't consider that to be a secondary impact. I see it as an offsetting improvement to potential as far as the water quality. (Vol. III, pp. 144-45). As discussed in detail in the conclusions of law, these witnesses have misread the provisions of the Basis of Review applicable to the New Permit. As noted in the conclusions of law, the requirements in the Basis of Review of analysis of secondary and cumulative impacts upon water quality and manatees are not limited to in-water or former-DAF activities. Satisfaction of Basis of Review Section 4 Direct vs. Secondary Impacts In terms of construction, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible. Nothing in the record suggests that the construction of the proposed system will violate any of the requirements of Basis of Review Section 4. In terms of maintenance, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are negligible, except for the omission from the New Permit of any provision for the safe disposition of the contaminant removed from the underground vaults. However, the maintenance issues are better treated with the operation issues. In terms of operation, the direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system are substantial. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the analysis of the direct impacts of the operation of the proposed system is limited to the current level of uplands and marine activity at the marina. These direct impacts involve two aspects of the operation of the proposed system: the design capacity and the inspection and maintenance (including disposal of sediment) of the system components. As discussed in the conclusions of law, the secondary impacts involve the intended and reasonably expected uses of the proposed system. These impacts consist of the increased uplands and marine uses associated with the addition of 100 new wet slips, 227 new dry slips, and 115,000 square feet of building space with a restaurant. Apart from their contention that Applicant is required only to satisfy the volumetric requirements of Basis of Review Section 5, Applicant and DEP have contended that Petitioner is estopped from raising direct and secondary impacts because DEP considered these impacts when issuing the Original Permit four years ago. Perhaps the most obvious factual problem with this contention is that it ignores that the New Permit authorizes, for the first time, the construction of the 227 new dry slips and 115,000 square feet of buildings. As counsel for DEP pointed out during the hearing, the Original Permit was a DAF permit and did not extend to these upland uses. The contention that DEP considered these developments as secondary impacts because they were shown on drawings attached to the Original Permit gives too much significance to nonjurisdictional background items shown in drawings without corresponding textual analysis. More generally, the efforts of DEP and Applicant to restrict the scope of this case rely on a misreading of Original Permit Specific Condition 5. The purpose of Original Permit Specific Condition 5 is to "ensure a net improvement to water quality." The purpose of each of the requirements under Specific Condition 5 is to achieve an actual, not presumptive, improvement in water quality. Prohibiting the issuing agency from fully analyzing the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system reduces the likelihood that the ensuing New Permit will perform its role, as envisioned in the Original Permit, of helping to achieve an actual, net improvement in water quality. The concept of a "net" improvement is exactly what DEP's witnesses disclaim having done in this case--balancing the potential environmental benefits to the water resources from the proposed surface water management system against the potential environmental detriments to the water resources from the development and land uses that are intended or reasonably expected to result from the construction of the proposed system. The failure to analyze the net gain or loss inherent in this important provision of Specific Condition 5.B undermines the likelihood that the effect of Specific Condition 5.B--a net improvement in water quality--will be achieved. It is therefore illogical to rely on Specific Condition 5.B, as DEP does, as authority for an artificially constrained analysis of the eligibility of the proposed system for a former-SWM ERP. The estoppel argument also ignores that Original Permit Specific Condition 5.B anticipated that the issuing agency would be SFWMD. It is unclear how the parties to the Original Permit, including DEP, would bind what appeared at the time to have to be SFWMD in the exercise of its lawful authority in issuing SWMs or former-SWM ERPs. The attempt of Applicant and DEP trying to limit the scope of this case also overlooks numerous changed circumstances since the issuance of the Original Permit. Changed circumstances militating in favor of the comprehensive analysis mandated for former-SWM ERPs include: increased trends in manatee mortality; increased boating pressure; persistent water quality violations in terms of dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria; a dramatic deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels; the initial presentation for environmental permitting of the previously unpermitted 227 additional dry slips and the 115,000 square feet of buildings; the current canal bottom profiles resulting from excessively deep maintenance dredging; the absence of an updated flushing study; and the failure to dredge the flushing canal required by the Original Permit. Disregarding the environmental and water quality requirements of Basis of Review Section 4 in this case would thus repudiate Specific Condition 5.B, especially when, among other things, the water quality of the canals has deteriorated dramatically with respect to dissolved oxygen, the canals continue to suffer from serious copper violations, the canals were recently maintenance dredged to excessive depths, no flushing study has examined these subsequent developments, and the intended uses to be facilitated by the New Permit more than double the capacity of the existing marina. 2. Water Quality The direct impacts of the proposed surface water management system, based on current levels of uplands and marine use at the marina, would adversely affect the quality of the receiving waters, in violation of Basis of Review Section 4.1.1(c). The excessively increased depths of the canals, especially with respect to the substantially widened depths of the north canal, raise the potential of water quality violations, especially given the history of this site. Potential sources of contaminants exist today in the canal bottoms, uplands, and marine activity associated with the marina. The potential for water quality violations, especially with respect to dissolved oxygen, increases in the absence of an updated flushing study. The potential also increases with the introduction of liveaboards and failure to dredge the flushing canal (or its replacement with culverts). In the face of these current threats to water quality, the New Permit fails to require a system with adequate capacity to accommodate fairly frequent storm events and fails to impose clear and enforceable inspection, maintenance, and disposal requirements for the underground vaults. Although better, the inspection and maintenance requirements for the stormwater inlets and boat wash area unnecessarily present enforcement problems. The effect of these failures in design capacity and inspection and maintenance is synergistic. Deficiencies in vault capacity mean that storms will more frequently resuspend the settled contaminants in the vaults and flush them out into the canal waters. Excessively long maintenance intervals and poor maintenance procedures will increase the volume of contaminants available to be flushed out into the canal waters. Improper disposition of removed contaminants endangers other water resources. The introduction of untreated or inadequately treated water into the canals means the introduction of two substances that will contribute to the current water quality violations. Organics, such as from the boat wash operations and other uplands uses, will raise biochemical oxygen demand, which will accelerate the deterioration in dissolved oxygen levels. Copper removed during boat wash operations, leaching from painted hulls, or remaining in the uplands from past marina operations will also enter the canals in this fashion. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the operation of the proposed surface water management system will not result, in the long-term, in water quality violations. Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the operation of the proposed system, even as limited to existing levels of use of the uplands and marine waters, will not contribute to existing violations of dissolved oxygen and copper levels. Obviously, the situation is exacerbated by consideration of the uses intended and reasonably expected to follow the construction of the proposed system. With the growing popularity of boating in Lee County over the past 20 years, it is reasonably likely that an expanded marina operation, located close to downtown Fort Myers, will successfully market itself. Thus, many more boats will use the marina because it will offer more wet and dry slips and new buildings, including a restaurant, and the pressure on water quality will intensify with the intensification of these uses. The added intensity of upland and marine uses will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for dissolved oxygen and copper, probably will contribute to the above-described violations of water quality standards for total coliform bacteria and lead, and may contribute to the recurrence of water quality violations for other parameters for which the canals were previously in violation. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely affect the water quality of the canals. 3. Manatees and Manatee Habitat By letter dated June 26, 1998, from a DEP Environmental Specialist to a DEP permitting employee, the Environmental Specialist provided an initial opinion concerning the revisions that Applicant sought to the Original Permit so as to allow liveaboards, replace the flushing canal with culverts, and relocate the travel lift to the north canal. The letter accompanies a Manatee Impact Review Report, also dated June 26, 1998. The Manatee Impact Review Report notes the pending application for the New Permit. The report considers at length the extent of manatee use of Deep Lagoon and the nearby portions of the Caloosahatchee River. The Manatee Impact Review Report states: This project [i.e., the relocation of the boat lift to the north canal, addition of liveaboards, and conversion of the flushing canal to flushing culverts] is expected to add a significant number of boats to this system, significantly increase the level of boat traffic, and change boat traffic patterns in the study area. The vessels from this project are expected to produce significant adverse impacts to manatees that use the Deep Lagoon in the immediate vicinity of the project, as well as in the boater's sphere of influence of the project. Secondary adverse impacts include lethal and sublethal watercraft-related injuries, disturbance contributing to stress, and alteration of natural behaviors. The secondary impacts expected with this project are compounded by the cumulative secondary effects from other facilities in this system. Just south of this project site, another marina was recently constructed (Sun City Corporation aka Gulf Harbor Marina aka River's Edge), which has approximately 190 wet slips. Since October 1995, there have been seven watercraft-related deaths within five miles of this project location. The Gulf Harbor Marina was constructed in late 1995, and was almost fully occupied during 1996. Watercraft-related manatee deaths increased significantly during this time, with one in December 1995, two in 1996 and four in 1997. Additional on-water enforcement by the City of Cape Coral was considered part of the offsetting measures to address the expected impacts to manatees from increases in boat density. This offsetting measure, however, appears to be ineffectual at this time. The Manatee Impact Review Report concludes that the north canal and its mouth are "particularly important" for manatee because of the availability of freshwater from the adjoining Iona Drainage District ditch immediately north of the north canal and "historical use indicates that this area appears to be the most frequently used area in the Deep Lagoon system." The report cautions that the relocated travel lift may significantly increase the number of boats in the little-used north canal, whose narrowness, coupled with moored, large boats on the one side, "would produce significant, adverse impacts to the endangered manatee." The Manatee Impact Review Report finds that Applicant failed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the conservation of fish and wildlife, unless several new conditions were added. These conditions include prohibitions against boat launching along the shoreline of the north canal and the addition of manatee-exclusion grating to any culverts that may be approved. As defined in this recommended order, the direct impacts upon manatees from the proposed surface water management system would be moderate. As defined in this recommended order, direct impacts would not involve any increase in boating pressure. The greater impacts would be in the deterioration of two measures of water quality that are crucial to manatees: dissolved oxygen and copper. However, the secondary impacts are dramatic, not de minimis, and arise from the intended and reasonably expected uses to follow from the construction of the proposed surface water management system. The increased boat traffic intended and reasonably expected from more than doubling the marina capacity, through the addition of 100 wet slips and 227 dry slips, and the addition of 115,000 square feet of buildings, including a restaurant, would adversely impact the value of functions provided to manatees by the affected surface waters. Manatee mortality has increased as boat traffic has increased. Substantial numbers of boaters have ignored speed limits. Quality manatee habitat in this critical area along the Caloosahatchee River is not plentiful. On these facts, Applicant has failed to provide reasonable assurance that the secondary impacts of the proposed system will not adversely impact the abundance and diversity of wildlife and listed species, of which manatees are one, and the habitat of wildlife and listed species. 4. Minimization and Mitigation Due to their contention that Basis of Review Section 4 does not apply to this case, DEP and Applicant did not demonstrate compliance with the minimization and mitigation sections of Basis of Review Section 4. However, the record supports the possibility of design alternatives for water quality impacts, if not manatee impacts, that DEP and Applicant must consider before reanalyzing the direct, secondary, and cumulative impacts of the proposed system on the water resources and, if appropriate, potential mitigation options. Mr. Bateman testified that SFWMD is the only district that permits surface water management systems relying on the settling out of sediments in the bottom of a storage-type detention system. (Vol. II, p. 18). He explained that other districts rely on systems that, taking advantage of the three to four feet typically minimally available between ground surface and the top of the water table, retain the runoff and allow it to percolate into the ground. (Vol. II, p. 19). One relatively straightforward design alternative, which would address water quality issues, would be to perform a flushing study; analyze applicable drainage level of service standards imposed by state, regional, and local authorities; and increase the capacity of the surface water management system to accommodate the runoff from storms of sufficient size and frequency that would be accommodated by the proposed system. Another feature of this design alternative would be to impose for each component of the system a detailed, enforceable program of inspection, maintenance, and contaminant-disposal. This program would incorporate the manufacturer's recommendations for the manner and minimum frequency of inspection and maintenance, but would require more frequent removal of contaminated sediments during periods when larger storms are more numerous (e.g., a specified wet season) or more intense (e.g., a specified hurricane season), as well as any periods of the year when the marine and upland uses are greatest (e.g., during the winter season, if this is the period of greatest use). As testified by Mr. Bateman, the proximity of the water table to the surface, as well as South Florida land costs, discourage reliance upon a conventional percolation-treatment system, even though the site's uplands are 5 feet NGVD and the water table is 1.2 feet NGVD. The bottom of the proposed system is 2.5 feet NGVD, which leaves little soil for absorption. If the nature of the contaminants, such as copper, does not preclude reliance upon a percolation-treatment system, DEP and Applicant could explore design alternatives that incorporate more, shallower vaults, which would increase the soil layer between the bottom of the vaults and the top of the water table. If the technology or contaminants preclude reliance upon such an alternative, the parties could consider the relatively costly alternative, described by Mr. Bateman, of pool-like filters with an "actual filtration device." (Vol. II, pp. 19-20). The preceding design alternatives would address water quality concerns, including as they apply to manatees, but would not address the impact of increased boating upon manatees. The record is not well developed in this regard, but DEP and Intervenor have considerable experience in this area, and it is premature to find no suitable means of eliminating or at least adequately reducing the secondary impacts of the proposed system in this crucial regard as well. In any event, Applicant has failed to consider any design alternatives to eliminate or adequately reduce the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system. Having failed to consider minimization, DEP and Applicant have failed to identify the residual direct and secondary impacts that might be offset by mitigation. Applicant has thus failed to mitigate the direct and secondary impacts of the proposed surface water management system.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking its determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the application for an environmental resource permit in DOAH Case No. 98-5409. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 24th day of November, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Office of the General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 T. Elaine Holmes, Attorney 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) should modify the conditions of permits held by the Deep Lagoon Boat Club, Ltd., d/b/a Deep Lagoon Marina (Applicant), to allow Applicant to construct and operate a boat travel lift in a new location at the marina and to substitute a 60-foot wide flushing channel required by the prior permits with two-48 inches box culverts.
Findings Of Fact Applicant owns and operates Deep Lagoon Marina (the Marina). The Marina comprises uplands and three canals adjoining MacGregor Boulevard south of downtown Fort Myers. The Marina presently consists of 61 wet slips, 200 dry slips, and other marina-related buildings. The Marina is on Deep Lagoon, a Class III surface water body less than one-half mile from the Caloosahatchee River. Deep Lagoon is a short, largely mangrove- lined waterway that runs north into the Caloosahatchee River. The Caloosahatchee River runs west from Lake Okeechobee past Fort Myers to the Gulf of Mexico. One of Applicant's predecessors in interest dredged the three canals in the 1950s or 1960s, and a marina has existed at this location since that time. As a result of a purchase in 1997, Applicant owns at least the uplands and claims ownership of the submerged bottoms of the canals. The parties have stipulated that ownership of the submerged bottoms of the canals is not being litigated or decided in this proceeding and that, subject to the issue's being decided adverse to the Applicant in other proceedings, sufficient ownership is presumed for purposes of this proceeding. From north to south, the Marina comprises the north canal, which is about 1200 feet long and bounded on the north by a red mangrove fringe 10-20 feet wide; a peninsula; the central canal, which is also known as the central or main basin and is roughly the same length as the north canal; a shorter peninsula; and the south canal, which is about half the length of the central canal and turns to the southeast at a 45-degree angle from the midway point of the central canal. The three canals are dead-end canals, terminating at their eastern ends a short distance from MacGregor Boulevard. Petitioner, Brenda Sheridan, resides at 842 Cal Cove Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, which is on the shores of the Caloosahatchee River at Deep Lagoon, just across the south canal from the Marina. Intervenor, Save the Manatee Club (STMC), is a non- profit Florida corporation with approximately 40,000 members. The organization's stated purpose includes protecting the manatee and its habitat through public awareness efforts, research support and advocacy, which activities benefit manatees, STMC, and its members. The Florida Legislature has recognized STMC's substantial interest in manatee protection by designating it a member of the manatee protection committee provided by the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act at paragraph 370.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, and by requiring the state to solicit recommendations from STMC regarding the use of Save the Manatee Trust Fund monies, at Section 370.12(5)(a), Florida Statutes. Numerous members of STMC reside within Lee County, where they observe, study, photograph, and actively attempt to protect manatees from collisions with watercraft. These efforts benefit manatees and provide STMC's members with educational and recreational benefits in the waters of Lee County that would be affected by the proposed activity. STMC has expended substantial resources in advocating increased legal protection of manatees in Lee County, including additional boat speed regulations on the Caloosahatchee River. STMC has also constributed funds for the rescue and rehabilitation of manatees exposed to red tide in Lee County waters. Injury, mortality, and loss of important habitat would produce significant, adverse impacts to the manatee, thereby diminishing the ability of STMC's members to observe, study, and enjoy manatees in waters that would be affected by the proposed activity and frustrating STMC's efforts to preserve and protect manatees in Lee County. Permit History On December 9, 1986,, Applicant's predecessor in title applied to DEP's predecessor agency, the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), for a dredge and fill permit to rehabilitate the 61 existing wet slips at the Marina and add 113 new wet slips. Because Deep Lagoon violated Class III water quality standards, and there was concern for the West Indian manatee, a listed endangered species which uses the waters in and around Deep Lagoon, DER placed conditions on the permit and gave notice of intent to grant the permit, with conditions, on July 26, 1988. Petitioner and others challenged the issuance of the permit, and formal administrative proceedings were conducted, culminating in a final order on August 24, 1989, approving the permit, with additional conditions, and certifying under the federal Clean Water Act that state water quality standards were met because there would be a net improvement in water quality of the poorly-flushed canals. Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina and Dept. of Environmental Reg., 11 F.A.L.R. 4710 (DER 1989). Wetland Resource Permit 361279929, incorporating all of the conditions, was issued on September 22, 1989, for construction and operation of the project for five years (the 1989 Permit). Petitioner and the others appealed the final order. In Sheridan v. Deep Lagoon Marina, 576 So. 2d 771, 772 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), the court, relying on the 1987 water quality data, noted the "very poor water quality" of Deep Lagoon, as reflected in part by the presence of oil and grease 20 times the Class III standard, copper 13 times the standard, lead 20 times the standard, mercury 1000 times the standard, and coliform bacteria "too numerous to count." However, the court affirmed the issuance of the 1989 Permit under the statutory authorization of a permit where ambient water quality does not meet applicable standards, but the activity will provide a net improvement to the waters. On the certification issue, though, the court reversed and remanded. The court held that the hearing officer erroneously excluded evidence on DER's certification of the activity as in compliance the federal Clean Water Act. Following proceedings on remand, DER entered Final Order on Remand on April 10, 1992, which revoked the earlier certification of compliance and, citing 33 United States Code Section 1341, as authority, waived certification as a precondition to federal permitting. Sheridan, et al. v. Deep Lagoon Marina and Dept. of Environmental Reg., 14 F.A.L.R. 2187 (DER 1992). The 1989 Permit expired on September 22, 1994, but Environmental Resource Permit 362504599 was issued on October 9, 1995, essentially extending the 1989 Permit conditions for ten years, to October 9, 2005. Minor modifications were approved on November 17, 1995, March 26, 1997, and April 15, 1997. Environmental Resource Permit 362504599, with all conditions and subsequent modifications, is referred to as the 1995 Permit. Permit Conditions In general, the 1995 Permit authorizes the owner of the Marina: to renovate and expand an existing marina from 61 wet slips to 174 wet slips by: excavating 0.358 ac of uplands to create a flushing canal, installing 375 linear feet of seawall along the sides of the flushing canal, excavating 2.43 ac of submerged bottom to remove contaminated sediments, backfilling 2.41 acres of the dredged area (the main basin and south canal to -7 ft. MLW and the north canal to -6 ft. MLW) with clean sand, renovating the existing 61 slips, and constructing an additional 14,440 square feet of overwater decking for 113 new slips, providing after-the-fact authorization for construction of 2 finger piers, creating a 400 sq. ft. mangrove fringe, constructing 180 linear feet of seawall in the vicinity of the mangrove fringe, and relocating and upgrading fueling facilities. The 1995 Permit authorized activities to proceed in three phases: First, the majority of the water quality improvement measures will be implemented as required in Specific Condition 5. Second, the over water docking structures will be constructed and the fueling facilities will be upgraded and relocated as required in Specific Conditions 6 and 7. Third, the new slips will be occupied in accordance with the phasing plan in Specific Condition 9. Specific Condition 5 imposed several requirements designed "to ensure a net improvement in water quality." Among them, Specific Condition 5 stated in pertinent part: In order to ensure a net improvement to water quality within the basin, the construction of any new docking structures or installation of any new pilings shall not occur until the below-listed conditions (A-K) have been met. . . . A baseline water quality study . . .. A stormwater treatment system providing treatment meeting the specifications of Florida Administrative Code 40E-4 for all discharges into the basins from the project site shall be constructed. . . . The boat wash area shall be re-designed and constructed as shown on Sheets 23 and 23A. All water in the washdown area shall drain into the catch basin of the wastewater treatment system shown on Sheet 23. The water passing through the wastewater treatment system shall drain to the stormwater management system which was previously approved by the South Florida Water Management District. The filters of the wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in functional condition. Material cleaned from the filter shall be disposed of in receptacles maintained specifically for that purpose and taken to a sanitary landfill. This system shall be maintained in functional condition for the life of the facility. Contaminated sediments shall be dredged from the areas shown on Sheets 5 and 7 of 23. A closed-bucket clam shell dredge shall be used. The north canal shall be dredged to at least -9.9 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -6 feet MLW. The [main] basin shall be dredged to at least -7.3 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to -7 feet MLW. The south canal shall be dredged to at least -10.5 feet MLW and backfilled with clean sand to at least -7.0 feet MLW. Backfilling shall be completed within 120 days of completion of dredging. . . . The sediments shall be placed directly in sealed trucks, and removed to a self-contained upland disposal site which does not have a point of discharge to waters of the state. A channel, 260 ft. long, 60 ft. wide, with a bottom elevation of -4.5 ft. MLW shall be excavated between the north canal and the main basin to improve flushing. * * * K. Upon completion [of] conditions A-J above, renovation of the existing 61 wet slips and construction of the 113 additional wet slips may proceed with the understanding that construction of all 113 additional slips is at the risk of the permittee and that if the success criteria in the monitoring and occupancy program are not met, removal of all or part of the additional slips may be required by the Department. Specific Condition 8 addressed the phasing of occupancy of the wet slips. Specific Condition 8 provided in pertinent part: Occupancy of the additional 113 wet slips shall occur in two phases, described below. Permanent occupancy of the slips shall require [DEP] approval, contingent upon the water quality monitoring program demonstrating a statistically significant (Specific Condition 9) net improvement for those parameters which did not meet State Water Quality Standards in the baseline study. The permittee agrees that if [DEP] determines that net improvement has not occurred, or if violations of other standards occur, and if the corrective measures described in Specific Condition 10 are not successful, all of the additional slips occupied at that time shall be removed. . . . Phase I--Upon completion of the baseline water quality study and the work specified in Specific Condition No. 5, the existing 61 slips and an additional 56 slips, totalling 117 slips, may be occupied. . . . If at the end of one year of monitoring, the data generated from the water quality monitoring program shows a statistically significant improvement over baseline conditions, for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards, and no violations of additional parameters, . . . the new 56 slips which were occupied shall be considered permanent. Phase II--Upon written notification from [DEP] that Phase I was successful, the remaining 57 additional slips may be occupied. Water and sediment quality monitoring shall continue for two years after the occupancy of 140 of the 174 slips. If a statistically significant net improvement to water quality over baseline conditions for those parameters in violation of State Water Quality Standards [sic] and no violation of additional parameters is shown by the monitoring data, and confirmed by [DEP] in writing, the additional slips shall be considered permanent. Specific Condition 11 added: Implementation of the slip phasing plan described in Specific Condition 8 shall be contingent on compliance of boaters with existing speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and trends in manatee and [sic] mortality. . . . Approval of additional slips will depend upon manatee mortality trends and boater compliance with speed zones in the Caloosahatchee River and additional slips may not be recommended. . . . Based on the results of the evaluations of Phases I and II, [DEP] may require that slips be removed to adequately protect manatees. Specific Condition 12 required the construction of a 400 square-foot intertidal area for the planting of mangroves to replace the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. Specific Condition 14 prohibited live-aboards at the marina. Specific Condition 15 added various manatee-protection provisions. Applicant's DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 Seeking to satisfy certain of the requirements of Specific Condition 5 of the 1995 Permit, Applicant filed with DEP, on December 10, 1997, an application for an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) and water quality certification to construct a surface water management system to serve 15.4 acres of its 24-acre marina. On March 3, 1998, Applicant's engineering consultant submitted drawings to DEP with notification that Applicant intended to "maintenance dredge the internal canals of Deep Lagoon Marina," in conformity with Rule 62-312.050(e), Florida Administrative Code. The letter described the proposed dredging as mechanical "with no discharge back into Waters of the State." The letter assured that Applicant's contractor would use turbidity curtains "around the dredging and spoil unloading operation" and advised that the contractor would unload the spoil "to the north peninsula upland area." The letter stated that the dredging would "be to the design depth/existing canal center line depth of -7 NGVD," which was established by the 1995 Permit, and would be "done in conjunction with the required dredging under [1995 Permit] Condition 5(D)." The consultant attached to the March 3 letter several drawings showing the dredging of all three canals. For each canal, the drawings divided the dredging into two areas. (For 1.82 acres, the contractor would dredge contaminated materials from the dead-ends of the three canals and then replace these materials with clean backfill material, as already authorized in the 1995 Permit.) For 4.84 acres, which ran through the remainder of the three canals, the contractor would maintenance dredge in accordance with the cross-sections provided with the letter. By letter dated March 13, 1998, DEP stated its determination that, pursuant to Rule 40E-4.051(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, the proposed activity was exempt from the requirement to obtain an ERP. The letter warned that, pursuant to Chapter 62-302, Florida Administrative Code, the construction and operation of the project must not cause water quality violations. The letter added that DEP could revoke its determination of exemption if the "basis for the exemption is determined to be materially incorrect, or if the installation results in water quality violations." The letter provided a point of entry for persons whose substantial interests are affected by DEP's determination. Petitioner challenged the exempt status of the maintenance dredging, and STMC intervened in support of the challenge, which was referred to DOAH and given DOAH Case No. 98-3901. But Applicant's contractor proceeded during the pendency of the challenges and completed the maintenance dredging in the three canals. (Applicant's contractor also performed the contaminant dredging and clean backfilling authorized by the 1995 Permit.) On November 5, 1998, DEP gave notice of intent to issue the ERP for the surface water management system and certify compliance with state water quality standards, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 United States Code, Section 1341. Petitioner filed a challenge on December 8, 1998, and the matter was referred to DOAH, where it was given DOAH Case No. 98-5409. On February 6, 1999, DEP revised the notice of intent by withdrawing its certification of state water quality compliance. As it did with the 1989 Permit, DEP again waived state water quality certification, consistent with a letter dated February 2, 1998, in which then-DEP Secretary Virginia Wetherell announced that DEP would waive state water quality certification for all activities in which the agency issues an ERP based on the "net improvement" provisions of Section 373.414(1)(b), Florida Statutes. DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 were pending when Applicant sought the modifications to the conditions of the 1995 Permit which are the subject of this case (DOAH Case No. 99- 2234). DOAH Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 were consolidated and heard by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Robert E. Meale on February 11 and May 3-4, 1999. On November 24, 1999, ALJ Meale entered a Recommended Order recommending a final order revoking DEP's determination of an exemption for maintenance dredging in DOAH Case No. 98-3901 and denying the ERP in DOAH Case No. 98- 5409. The recommendation to deny the ERP in DOAH Case No. 98- 5409 was based on findings and conclusions: (1) that Applicant had not provided reasonable assurances that the construction and operation of the proposed surface water management system would result in a "net improvement" in water quality; and (2) that the direct and secondary impacts of the construction and operation of the system would adversely affect the West Indian manatee. Water Quality As indicated in relating the permitting history of this site, water quality in the waters of the Marina has been poor. See Findings 10 and 12, supra. ALJ Meale recently found in his Recommended Order on Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 as follows: The Caloosahatchee River is laden with sediments, partly due to intermittent discharges from Lake Okeechobee. Seagrass in the riverbottom cannot grow in water much deeper than four feet. Some seagrass grows at the mouth of Deep Lagoon, but little seagrass extends into the lagoon itself. The water quality in the canals is very poor for dissolved oxygen and copper. Applicant stipulated that the water quality in Deep Lagoon violates state standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and coliform bacteria. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for dissolved oxygen nearly each time sampled during the wet season and one-third of the times sampled during the dry season. The dissolved oxygen levels violated even the lower standards for Class IV agricultural waters two-thirds of the times sampled during the wet season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for copper in the water column each time sampled during the wet season and two-thirds of the times sampled during the dry season. During three of the dry season samplings, copper levels were 20 to 30 times lawful limits. The three lowest wet season copper levels were double lawful limits. Copper is a heavy metal that is toxic to a wide range of marine organisms. Copper is applied to boat hulls to prevent marine life from attaching to the hulls. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for total coliform bacteria (for any single reading) three of the 60 times sampled during the dry season and one of the 56 times sampled during the wet season. The canals violated the more relaxed, 20-percent standard (which is violated only if 20 percent of the readings exceed it) during the wet season, but not during the dry season. In 1997, the canals violated water quality standards for lead in the water column in one sample (by 25 percent) out of 36, but did not violate water quality standards for oil and grease or fecal coliform bacteria. Results of testing for mercury in the water column (as opposed to sediments) are not contained in the record. As compared to 1987, the water quality in the canals has improved in all but one important respect. In 1987, the water column readings for copper were five to six times higher than the highest 1997 reading. In 1987, the total coliform bacteria were too numerous to count because the colonies had grown together in the sample. However, comparing the April 1987 data with the May 1997 data for the same approximate times of day and the same locations, the dissolved oxygen levels in the three canals have declined dramatically in the last 10 years. Ten years ago, in a one- day sampling period, there were no reported violations; ten years later, in a one-day sampling period, there were four violations. Even worse, the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water during daylight hours has been halved in the last 10 years with a smaller decrease during nighttime hours. In this case, the parties stipulated that the waters of Deep Lagoon and the Marina are Class III marine waters that do not meet Florida water quality standards for dissolved oxygen, copper, and total coliform bacteria. They also stipulated that there were violations in 1987 for oil and greases (20 times standard), fecal coliform (too numerous to count), lead (20 times standard), cadmium (ten times standard), mercury (1,000 times standard), biological diversity, and tributytin (150 times standard) (although DEP and Applicant do not think the 1987 data are relevant). Data collected in 1987 showed average flushing time in the north canal to be 183 hours (tidal prism method), 90.5 hours (current velocity), and 50 hours (dye concentration reduction method). Data collected in 1987 showed average flushing time in the main basin to be 208 hours (tidal prism method), 48 hours (current velocity), and 154 hours (dye concentration reduction method). Manatees The parties stipulated that Lee County is a heavy use area for the West Indian Manatee and that manatees use the water south of Deep Lagoon and the Caloosahatchee River on a year-round basis. ALJ Meale recently found in his Recommended Order on Case Nos. 98-3901 and 98-5409 as follows: The Caloosahatchee River is critical habitat for the endangered West Indian manatee. Up to 500 manatees use the river during the winter. When, during the winter, the water cools, the animals congregate in waters warmed by the thermal discharge from a power plant about 13 miles upstream of Deep Lagoon. When, during the winter, the water warms, the manatees swim downstream, past and into Deep Lagoon searching for food. Manatees frequently visit Deep Lagoon. It is one of the few places between the power plant and the Gulf where manatees can find a quiet place, relatively free of human disturbance, to rest and feed. Within Deep Lagoon, the Iona Drainage District ditch runs parallel to the north canal, separated from the canal by the previously described mangrove fringe. The Iona Drainage District ditch empties into Deep Lagoon just north of the mouth of the north canal. Manatees frequently visit the ditch because it is a seasonal source of freshwater, which the manatees drink. Manatees visit the north canal due to its moderate depths and proximity to the freshwater outfalls of the Iona Drainage District ditch. Manatee mortality from watercraft is extremely high in the immediate vicinity of Deep Lagoon, and the mortality rate has increased in recent years. The rate of manatee deaths from collisions with watercraft has increased with the popularity of motorboating. Boat registrations in Lee County rose from 13,000 in 1974 to 36,000 in 1997. The potential for mitigation offered by the enactment of speed zones has been undermined by the fact that nearly half of the boaters fail to comply with the speed limits. It is clear that manatees frequent Deep Lagoon near the mouth of the north canal. There are seagrass beds there to serve as a food source, and freshwater from the Iona Drainage District ditch discharges in that area. The evidence in this case includes testimony and numerous photographs of manatees not only in that vicinity but up to 200 feet into the north canal. While there are no seagrass beds in the north canal itself, freshwater from the Iona Drainage District ditch discharges into the north canal all along the length of mangrove fringe on the north shore of the canal. It is not clear how much further up the north canal manatees go, but they probably frequently continue further into the north canal since one primary attraction of the north canal for manatees at this time is its relative quiet and peacefulness. Manatees also make some use of the central and south canals of the Marina, but they seem to prefer the north canal for its peacefulness and for the fresh water supply from the Iona Drainage District ditch. The Florida Department of Transportation recently has constructed a retention pond for MacGregor Boulevard in the vicinity of the Marina which will discharge fresh water into the main basin of the central canal. This may make the central canal more attractive to manatees than it is at this time, notwithstanding the relatively high level of boating-related activity there. New Boat Travel Lift The Marina's existing boat travel lift is located in the main basin of the central canal. There also are the remnants of an older travel lift operation at the western end of the central peninsula extending into Deep Lagoon. Applicant proposes to construct and use a new boat travel lift at the eastern terminus of the north canal. The proposed location of the new travel lift will be closer to the approved location of a new service center building. A travel lift essentially consists of a heavy-duty, U-shaped frame which is built on wheels and motorized for mobility. Heavy-duty straps are suspended from the frame using pulley systems. The travel lift is driven out over water on specially-built tracks so the straps can be placed underneath large vessels (over 40 feet) and tightened using the pulleys to secure the vessels; the travel lift is then driven off the tracks, and the vessels are transported to a dry storage or repair location, where the vessels are lowered, and the straps are removed. The process essentially is reversed to return vessels to the water. The direct impact of construction of the new boat travel lift involves removal of some mangroves existing at the terminus of the north canal and sinking pilings to support the tracks extending into the water on which the travel lift operates. Applicant proposes to mitigate the mangrove impacts by filling areas on either side of the proposed travel lift to just above the mean-high waterline and planting the areas with mangroves. Not only will this be a net increase the amount of mangrove fringe, the decrease in water depth at the east end of the north canal also will improve flushing of the canal to some extent. Applicant also proposes to remove exotic plants all along the shoreline of the Marina's canals for the life of the Marina. It is the Marina's intent to use the travel lift only for vessels too large to be lifted by forklifts operated at the main basin of the central canal. The Marina is purchasing new, larger (37,000 pound) forklifts (compared to the 10,000 pound forklifts currently in use), which can lift vessels up to approximately 42 feet long. Use of the larger forklifts will reduce the use of the travel lift. At this time, there is no proposed specific condition to limit use to the travel lift to vessels too large to be lifted by the new forklifts. New Specific Condition 33 in the proposed permit modifications provides: "Launching of vessels from the dry storage facilities shall be prohibited in the north canal at the site." New Specific Condition 34 in the proposed permit modifications provides in part: "Launching and retrieval of vessels in the north canal shall be restricted to vessels stored/moored at the marina facility that require boat repair." New Specific Condition 34 also would require Applicant to maintain logs for the travel lift and boat repairs to allow DEP to verify compliance by comparing the two logs. There was some disagreement as to the intent of the quoted proposed new specific conditions. A DEP witness thought it meant that the Marina only could use the travel lift for repair of vessels permanently moored at the Marina, but the Marina's representative did not think the language would prohibit the repair of other vessels as well. Assuming that vessels not permanently moored at the Marina will be accepted for repairs, and that only vessels too large for the new forklifts will use the new travel lift, it can be anticipated that an average of 6-10 vessels a week will use the travel lift for retrieval from the water and discharge back to the water. To some extent, use of the travel lift is limited by the average time it takes to use the lift. But considering only those limitations, it is possible use the lift as many as 19 times in a day in an emergency--e.g., when a hurricane is approaching, and the Marina is trying to get as many boats out of the water as possible. On average, use of the travel lift also will be limited by market conditions and the capacity of the new service center to store and repair large vessels. More than half of the average use of 6-10 vessels a week probably will occur on Fridays (for repairs before peak weekend boating) and Mondays (for repairs after the weekend peak). At this time, there is no proposed specific condition to limit use of the new travel lift. But at final hearing, the Marina expressed its willingness to accept a limit of an average of ten vessels a week. (Counting retrieval from the water and discharge back to the water for each vessel, the agreed limit would be an average of 20 uses of the travel lift a week). The Marina was not willing to accept a daily limit. Secondary impacts from such a limited use of the proposed new travel lift on water quality and manatees are difficult to assess precisely. The travel lift itself uses some form of lubrication, but only the straps enter the water during operation. Historically, vessels have been pressure-washed and had their bilges and engines flushed while on the existing travel lift in the main basin of the central canal at the Marina, and wash-water from these operations has entered the main basin at that location. Wash-water from such operations at the proposed new travel lift location would enter the north canal, subject to the construction and operation of an adequate surface water management system, as required by Specific Condition 5.C. of the 1995 Permit. Cf. DOAH Case No. 98-5409, supra. It is possible that vessels in need of repair entering the north canal and proceeding to the proposed new travel lift location (whether under power or being towed) could leak oil or gasoline. Both contaminants would rise to the surface. Leaked gasoline and the more volatile components of oil could be expected to evaporate relatively quickly; the residue of oil contamination would be persistent. Such spills would affect water quality and could affect manatees drinking fresher water from the surface of the north canal. There was no evidence from which to predict or quantify such impacts. It would be possible for manatees to be injured by vessels using the proposed new travel lift. Although such vessels would be traveling at low speed (1-2 mile per hour), maneuvering such large vessels in close quarters like the north canal sometimes is accomplished by intermittent bursts of high engine and propeller speeds, both in forward and reverse gears. Such operations could cause a vessel to lurch in the direction of a manatee; if done in reverse gear, a manatee could be sucked into the speeding propellers. It also is possible for a manatee to be crushed against the bottom or against a structure of the Marina facility during such operations. Despite the possibility of injury to manatees from use of the new proposed travel lift, it is clear that most manatee injuries and deaths from boat collisions occur as a result of propeller injuries from boats being operated at high-speed. Manatees are known to frequent and safely use marinas where large vessels operate at low speed. The risk of danger to manatees from use of the proposed new travel lift can be characterized as being minimal if not speculative, especially in view of the manatee protections in Specific Condition 15 of the 1995 Permit. Initially, DEP misunderstood the nature of the proposed new travel lift, thinking it would greatly increase boat traffic in the north canal. When the minor impact of the project was explained, DEP's concerns were allayed. Greater risk of danger to manatees would occur from the addition of wet slips in the north canal, but those impacts are not secondary to the travel lift proposal; they are completely separate impacts that are governed by the pre-existing 1995 Permit. Petitioner and Intervenor were critical of the absence of a specific condition for the daily logs to be presented to DEP for inspection on a regular basis. See Finding 42, supra. They contended that absence of such a requirement would compromise compliance enforcement. But DEP inspection of the logs at times of its own choosing could be just as effective. The key to enforcement is having an enforceable specific condition limiting use of the travel lift. Petitioner and Intervenor also were critical of using a simple weekly average to limit use of the new travel lift. They correctly argue that the time over which the weekly average would be computed must be designated for such a use limitation to be enforceable. They also contend that there should be a daily limit. Assuming a weekly average limitation of ten, a daily limit of ten would not be unreasonable if it allowed leeway to exceed the daily limit in cases of emergencies such as approaching hurricanes. Replacing Flushing Channel with Culverts Applicant's proposal to replace the 60 foot by 4.5 foot-deep flushing channel with two 48-inch culverts is motivated by practical considerations. Applicant essentially wishes to avoid the expense of constructing the channel required under the 1995 Permit and having to bridge the channel to make use of the peninsula between the central and north canals. Part of the Marina's initial motivation for the channel was to expand operations and allow access to the north canal from the main basin. Part of the channel was to have been used by the Marina as a new forklift area with access to boat storage areas on both sides of the channel. In the 1989 Permit, it was stated that the channel was "to act as a sediment sump." It was not until the 1995 Permit that the channel was said to serve to "improve flushing." Most of the "net improvement" of water quality at the Marina was to come from proposed contamination dredging of the canals (and backfilling with clean sand), removal of contaminated soil from Marina uplands, installation of a redesigned boat-wash area, and installation of an adequate surface water management system. Most flushing benefits were anticipated to come from making the canals shallower by back-filling after dredging. Flushing from the channel was presented as "frosting" on the "net improvement cake." The hydrographic evidence was that the channel, in conjunction with back-filling the Marina's canals, would indeed increase flushing of the Marina's canals to some extent. Looking at the main basin only, the channel would improve flushing by up to 27 percent. But looking at the Marina's canals overall, the channel would only increase flushing by up to 0.6 percent. By comparison, the hydrographic evidence was that the proposed flushing culverts also would contribute to increased flushing but by a smaller amount. Looking at the main basin only, the proposed flushing culverts would improve flushing by up to 4 percent. Looking at the Marina's canals overall, the proposed flushing canal would only increase flushing by up to 0.2 percent. Petitioner and Intervenor question the reliability of Applicant's calculations of flushing times without more up-to- date data on the depths of the canals after contamination and maintenance dredging. But the evidence was that differences in the starting depths would not have a significant effect on the relative changes in flushing times from the channel versus the culverts; the differences would be approximately proportional regardless of the starting depths. In addition, the depths assumed in Applicant's calculations are based on the 1987 data and the requirements of the 1995 Permit. Compliance with the requirements of maintenance dredging and the 1995 Permit can be enforced, if necessary, in other proceedings. See, e.g., DOAH Case No. 98-3901, as to maintenance dredging. Applicant's calculations on flushing times do not account for the possibility of an additional benefit from the proposed flushing culverts. Applicant proposes to locate the culvert inverts at a depth of 6 feet. If a greater salinity gradient exists at that depth, the culverts would have a relative advantage over a 4.5 foot-deep channel in terms of flushing and the exchange of more oxygenated water between the north canal and the main basin. The existence of such a salinity gradient is suggested by data collected in 1997. But salinity gradients are not constant, and water samples were collected only during one 24- hour period in May 1997 and another 24-hour period in September 1997. In addition, no data has been collected after the maintenance and contamination dredging. The sampling in this case was too limited to give reasonable assurance that the proposed flushing culverts would have advantages over the required channel in promoting of flushing. Petitioner and Intervenor contend that changing the open channel to closed culverts would decrease the benefit of oxygen exchange in an open-channel system. It is true that, generally, more oxygen would be introduced in an open system. But the evidence was that none of the "net improvement" to water quality from the specific conditions to the 1995 Permit was anticipated to derive from increases in dissolved oxygen from oxygen exchange in the channel. Conversely, Applicant contended that the proposed culverts would decrease the chances of contamination from the uplands, as compared to an open channel. But there was no specific evidence to support or quantify this speculative benefit. In addition, required improvements in surface water management at the Marina would reduce any such benefits from the culverts. See, Specific Condition 5.B. and DOAH Case No. 98-5409. Approximately 60 feet of mangrove fringe would have to be removed from the north canal to accommodate a flushing channel. In contrast, only approximately 8 feet of mangrove fringe would have to be removed to accommodate the proposed culverts. But there was no evidence as to how removing less of the mangrove fringe would improve flushing or water quality. In addition, Specific Condition 12 of the 1995 Permit required replacement of the mangroves lost in the construction of the flushing channel. There was no evidence that installation of flushing culverts instead of the flushing channel required under the 1995 Permit would have any impact on manatees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order: granting Applicant's proposed modifications to the 1995 Permit, with the following additional modifications: No use of the new travel lift for boats less than 40 foot in length except in emergencies, e.g., approaching hurricane. Limitation on use of travel lift to a 28- day rolling average of ten vessels a week, except in emergencies, e.g., approaching hurricane. Prohibition against pressure-washing and flushing bilges and engines of vessels on the new travel lift except in the boat wash area to be constructed and operated in accordance with Specific Condition 15 of the 1995 Permit. A requirement to report and promptly clean-up any spills of oil or gasoline in the north canal related to operation of the new travel lift. waiving certification as a precondition to federal permitting under 33 United States Code, Section 1341. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 21st day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: T. Elaine Holmes, Esquire 14502 North Dale Mabry, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33618 David Gluckman, Esquire Gluckman and Gluckman 541 Old Magnolia Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Matthew D. Uhle, Esquire Humphrey & Knott, P.A. 1625 Hendry Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Francine M. Ffolkes Senior Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether certain development orders issued by Monroe County to Homeowners, Ocean Reef Club and Key Largo Foundation (Applicants) for a project that would ultimately result in the construction of a flushing canal in the Ocean Reef Club development on north Key Largo are consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Community Affairs (Department), is the state land planning agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 380, Florida Statutes, and all rules promulgated thereunder. Section 380.031(18) and 380.032(1), Florida Statues. Respondent, Monroe County, is a local government within the Florida Keys area of Critical State Concern designated by Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes, and is responsible for the implementation of, and the issuance of development orders that are consistent with, the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, as approved and adopted in Chapters 9J-14 and 28-20, Florida Administrative Code. Respondents, Homeowners, Ocean Reef Club and Key Largo Foundation (Applicants), are the owners of real property in the Ocean Reef and Harbour Course subdivisions, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida; properties that are located within that part of Monroe County designated as an area of Critical State Concern. The Applicants have sought the development orders (permits) at issue in this proceeding incident to their 8-year quest to achieve regulatory approval to initiate a project that would restore the water quality of Dispatch Creek to Class III water standards. Background The site of the proposed project, the present terminus of Dispatch Creek, is located within the Ocean Reef Club development on north Key Largo. That development is bordered on the east by the Atlantic Ocean and John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, on the north by Biscayne National Park, and on the west by the Biscayne Bay/Card Sound Aquatic Preserve. Currently, the development at the Ocean Reef Club includes a number of canals and boat basins, an airstrip; three 18-hole golf courses, a 174-slip marina capable of docking vessels in excess of 100 feet, and extensive residential and-commercial uses. In the mid-1970's, Dispatch Creek was a natural, albeit shallow, waterbody that was able to maintain, through natural tidal actions, water quality standards. However, in 1977 Ocean Reef Club, under permits issued by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in the mid-1970's excavated the creek to new depths to create a navigable channel and extended its length beyond its natural contours. When completed, the creek was converted from a natural waterbody, that could maintain water quality standards through natural tidal action, into a dead-end system, that could not maintain such standards through natural processes along the course of its extended terminus. 1/ Over time, the water quality of Dispatch Creek from its approximate midpoint to its dead-end terminus has steadily declined. The cause of this decline is reasonably attributable to the biochemical oxygen demand placed on the creek by the continuous input of detritus from mangroves, which boarder the creek on the east and to a lesser extent on the west, and the length of the channel, coupled with the dead-end basin surrounding an island, which has assured the continued decline of water quality due to poor water circulation. As a consequence, the creek, as a habitat, has been altered from an oxygen rich system supportive of aerobic life to an oxygen poor system supportive of anaerobic life. This has evidenced itself through algae blooms, the intermittent emission of hydrogen sulfide gas, and a change in water clarity to that of a "coffee au lait" color. Currently, a significant portion of Dispatch Creek is devoid of aerobic life, and unless its condition is reversed it could not support aerobic marine organisms in the future. /2 Today, conditions in portions of Dispatch Creek fail to meet DER standards. DER regulations establish the dissolved oxygen (DO) standard to be not less than five milligrams per liter in a 24-hour period, and never less that four milligrams per liter. The DO Standard is currently violated in Dispatch Creek beginning at the mid point of the creek to its terminus. At its terminus, DO levels are chronically below one milligram per liter. Additionally, DER nutrient standards prohibit the alteration of nutrient concentrations of a body of water so as to cause an imbalance in natural populations of aquatic flora or fauna. Here, the high nutrient levels of Dispatch Creek resulting from the mangrove detritus and lack of circulation has, as heretofore noted, caused the natural aquatic flora and fauna to be replaced by anaerobic life. As a consequence of the changes in water quality that had occurred in Dispatch Creeks the Applicants have, over the course of the past eight years, sought approval from various regulatory authorities, including DER and Monroe County, of a plan to improve the water quality in Dispatch Creek. Such approval has been garnered from DER, and Monroe County's approval is at issue in this proceeding. The DER permit On February 7, 1986, the Applicants received approval from DER for a permit to construct a flushing canal from the terminus of Dispatch Creek to the Atlantic Ocean. That permit authorized the Applicants: To construct a "flushing canal" between the dead end of Dispatch Creek Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean by: excavating approximately 13,000 cubic yards to create a canal approximately 3000 ft. long by 20 ft. wide with a bottom elevation of 6 ft. Mean Low Water; placing three 6 ft. by 6 ft. by 380 ft. box culverts in the canal alignment at the basin end; placing tidal actuated flap gates on the basin end of the culverts in a manner which will allow the basin to intake water from the flushing canal on incoming tides while preventing discharge into the flushing canal on outgoing tides; placing 5 pilings across the canal at it's juncture with the Atlantic Ocean to prevent navigation in the canal; and creating a 12,900 sq. ft. mangrove mitigation area by excavating approximately 1,450 cu. yds. from a spoil area to create an area with an elevation of +1.4 Ft. NGVD which will be planted with red mangroves. DER was, in evaluating the application pending before it, charged with the duty to apply, enter alia, the criteria of the 1984 Warren Henderson Wetlands Act, Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. Based on DER's decision to issue its permit, it is reasonable to conclude that DER, within its permitting jurisdiction, concluded that construction of the proposed circulation channel would not lower ambient water quality, and would not significantly degrade Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW), including those of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park. As heretofore noted, the Department does not contend that the subject project will violate any specific criteria within DER's Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, permitting jurisdiction. The Monroe County permits On July 19, 1989, Monroe County issued to the Applicants the building permit, excavation permit, and land clearing permit (development orders), each numbered 8930001680, at issue in these proceedings. As permitted, the project proposed by the Applicants is designed to improve the water quality of Dispatch Creek, particularly in the vicinity of its dead-end terminus, and consists of two phases. Phase I contemplates the installation and operation of an aeration system for at least one year, which will extend from the dead-end terminus of Dispatch Creek toward its midpoint, as well as a water quality monitoring program, until such time as the water quality of the entire creek comports with that of adjacent Class III waters. Should the Applicants be successful in Phase I, they would then be authorized to proceed with Phase II, which would allow the construction of the flushing canal contemplated by the DER permit. As approved by Monroe County, Phase I would consist of the installation of an aeration system around the island, located at the terminus of Dispatch Creek, and in the canal, as well as the suction dredging of loose sediments in the upper reaches of Dispatch Creek. The system would consist of fifteen microporus diffuser/aerators producing approximately 5 CFM per unit, and would be anchored near the bottom to maximize the introduction of dissolved oxygen into the anaerobic water and to optimize water movement. Operation of such system, coupled with the introduction of aerobic bacteria, will shortly reduce the concentration of hydrogen sulfide dissolved in the water, reduce the concentration of ionized sulfides in solution, retard the growth and propagation of anaerobics in the benthic layer, and activate the growth and propagation of aerobics in all strata. As a consequence, over time, water clarity will improve, which will allow the penetration of sunlight into the benthos. This illumination will spawn the growth of photosynthetic bacteria, as well as phytoplankton, which will aid in the continued aerobic cleansing of the water and bottom sediments. In all, installation and operation of the aeration system, which has proven successful at other locations, should, over time, restore the waters of Dispatch Creek to Class III standards, without any adverse impacts to adjacent waters or the park. While operation of the aeration system will, over time, restore the waters of Dispatch Creek to Class III standards, the perpetual maintenance of such system would be energy intensive and expensive. for this reason, the Applicants have proposed the Phase II canal, which would maintain, through natural tidal processes, water quality standards within the creek. The canal permitted by Monroe County under Phase II is consistent in all respects with the DER permit except the Monroe County permits require that the canal be sited 20 feet landward of the alignment permitted-by DER into previously scarified uplands. So aligned, the canal would begin at the landward terminus of Dispatch Creeks run easterly within the rear lot lines of at least 15 lots within Harbour Course South subdivision, a platted subdivision, pass through a fringe of red and black mangroves fronting the ocean, and terminate approximately 100 feet seaward of the mean high water line (MHWL) within the boundaries of John Pennekamp State Park. At the point where the canal would join with Dispatch Creek, three 6 foot by 6 foot by 380 foot box culverts would!! be installed with one-way tidal activated flap gates, which would permit waters from the Atlantic to enter Dispatch Creek on a rising tide, but would preclude an exchange of waters from Dispatch Creek on a falling tide. Through such design, sufficient mix and force will be exerted within the waters of Dispatch Creek to maintain Class III water quality standards by natural circulation, and to return the habitat offered by the creek to an oxygen rich system capable of supporting aerobic life. While construction of the canal would be beneficial, by restoring the waters: of Dispatch Creek to Class III standards, it is not without cost to the environment. As aligned, the canal, although predominately within previously cleared or scarified uplands, will require excavation through several types of habitat that are either undisturbed or reestablished, including undisturbed buttonwood association, salt marsh, hardwood hammock, transitional habitat, mangroves and submerged lands, and will require the removal of approximately one-tenth of an acre of red and black mangroves, a species of special concern, as well as a number of mahogany trees, twisted air plants, prickly pear cactus and barpar cactus, which are threatened species. Its construction would likewise sever the uplands from the adjacent transitional and wetland areas that traditionally buffer, insulate and protect nearshore waters from runoff from upland areas. Construction of the canal should not, however, adversely impact any threatened or endangered animal species since the proposed alignment is currently a poor habitat for threatened or endangered species, such as the Key Largo woodrat, that may reside in the area, and there is currently no threatened or endangered animal species inhabiting the site. This is not, however, to suggest that the site would not support such species in the future, provided that existing habitat is permitted to continue its progress towards reestablishment. To mitigate the loss of habitat types, the Monroe County permit provides: The agreed mitigation for the loss of all rare and/or endangered habitat types located within the area impacted by the dredging shall be carried out prior to initiation of the dredge project. This shall be based on existing vegetation surveys and an assessment of species currently located within the confines of the project area. Prior to initiation of any dredge activity, a formal inventory of the project site shall be made and a one-to-one replacement program (baked on species rarity or level of endangerment) shall be established and agreed upon. Such an agreement will include defining an appropriate site and the number and type of trees, as well as a maintenance plan for the agreed upon area. Additionally, the DER permit addresses the loss of mangroves, by requiring the establishment of a 12,900 square foot mangrove mitigation area. Under the facts of this case, the mitigation proposed would, assuming the propriety of such development under the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations, address the loss of habitat types occasioned by development of the proposed canal. To assure that water quality within Dispatch Creek comports with Class III standards before the canal is dug, and that the creek maintains such standards following construction, the Monroe County permits establish a water quality monitoring program. During the first year, samples will be taken and tests performed on a weekly basis for pH, DO, turbidity, Secchi Disc, temperature, and sulfite; on a biweekly basis for total bacterial count and composition; on a monthly basis for total nitrogen and phosphate; on a quarterly basis for: macro-invertebrates and macrophytes; and on a semiannual basis for heavy metals and pesticides. During the second yearn biweekly testing will be done for DO, temperature, hydrogen sulfide, turbidity and Secchi Disc; quarterly testing for total nitrogen and phosphate, macro- invertebrates, and macrophytes; and, annual testing for heavy metals and pesticides. After the second year, monthly tests will be done for DO, temperature, hydrogen sulfide, turbidity, and Secci Disc; quarterly tests for total nitrogen and phosphate, as well as macro- invertebrates; and annual tests for heavy metals and pesticides. Should the water quality of the creek fail to maintain Class III standards following construction of the canal, the Monroe County permit contains the following special condition: The water quality monitoring program shall be maintained to assess the quality of water in Dispatch Creek subsequent to the dredge project completion. If at any time the water quality fails to meet the standards established by this permit, the one way flushing valve shall be closed by the applicant, and in applicant's failure to do so, by the County. The applicant assumes all costs of closing said valve, whether closed by applicant or the County. Aeration, aid/or other means at the discretion of the applicant, shall be utilized to reestablish quality. The valve shall not be reopened until the water quality standard is met. The purpose of the foregoing condition, as well as the requirement that the waters of Dispatch Creek meet Class III standards before the canal can be dug, is to assure that operation of the canal will not lower ambient water quality within the Outstanding Florida Waters of John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, and thereby protect the park from any adverse impacts associated with the improved circulation of the creek. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park is a unique and world-renowned resource, attracting millions of visitors each year. At least fifty percent of the activities engaged in by visitors to the park are water-related, including fishing, observational diving and boating. Any degradation of the ambient quality of those waters would be contrary to DER's rules promulgated under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and could adversely impact the natural biota of the park, with a corresponding reduction in the number of visitors to the park and revenues contributed by those visitors to the local economy. Here, the proof demonstrates, consistent with DER's prior permitting, that the subject project, built as proposed, would not lower the ambient water quality of adjacent waters through the discharge of pollutants, and therefore would not adversely affect the park. If anything, the Monroe County permits, with one exception to be discussed infra, offer stronger assurances than the DER permit that adverse impacts will not occur. Notably, under such permits the Applicants must first bring the water quality of the Creek up to Class III standards before the canal can be dug. If the Applicants are ssuccessful at that phase of the project, there will not be excessive nutrient loading within the creek, and the detritus that may thereafter be removed from the creek by improved circulation would not adversely affect water quality or the park. Currently, there are no heavy metals in the sediments or water column of the creek which are at levels above those found naturally, and no pesticides or toxic organics. In sum, there is no basis to conclude, based on the record, that-there is any substance within the waters or sediments of Dispatch Creek that would, upon the waters achieving Class III standards, lower the amient quality of adjacent waters or adversely impact the park. /4 Ostensibly, as an added measure of protection to adjacent waters, the Monroe County permits contain a condition, with which the Applicants concur, that should the waters of Dispatch Creek fail to maintain Class III standards following construction of the canal, the one-way tidal actuated flap gates will be closed. That condition, a noted supra, provides: If at any time the water quality [of the creek] fails to meet the standards established by this permit, the one way flushing valve shall be closed by the applicant, and in the applicant's failure to do so, by the County. The applicant assumes all costs of closing by applicant or the County. Aeration, and/or other means at the discretion of the applicant, shall be utilized to reestablish quality. The valve shall not be reopened until the water quality standards is met. The foregoing condition presumes to address the possibility that should the proposed project fail to function as expected by the experts, as did the current Dispatch Creek fail to function as expected, that such failure will no result in an adverse impact to adjacent waters or the park. In this regard, it is worthy of note that DER's approval of the extension of Dispatch Creek to create a 7,200 foot dead-end canal in the mid-flush the pollutants from the canal into the park. The Applicants presented persuasive testimony, however, through their 1970's was, based on current knowledge, an error, and that today no dead-end system would be approved in excess of soon feet. Monroe County's condition, while preventing the discharge of degraded waters from Dispatch Creek to the park upon closure of the one way flushing valves, fails to address, however, the adverse impacts that could result from its closure. By closure of the valves, the flushing canal would be instantly converted into a 3,000-foot dead-end canal, and would suffer the same water quality problems as similar systems, with probable adverse effects to adjacent waters and the park. Accordingly, so as not to compound the existing error occasion by the extension of Dispatch Creek in the mid-1970's, prudence would dictate a proviso that, if the valves are shut, appropriate monitoring will occur within the waters of the flushing canal to detect any significant degradation of water quality, and that should such degradation pose a threat to adjacent waters or the park, that the Applicants be required, at their expense, to restore promptly the water quality within the flushing canal to Class III standards or restore the area to its present condition. Consistency of the proposed project with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations Lack of plat approval As heretofore noted, the proposed canal would begin at the landward terminus of Dispatch Creek and run easterly within the rear lot lines of at least 15 lots in Harbour Course South subdivision, a platted subdivision, before it passed through fringing mangroves and terminated in the Atlantic Ocean. Currently, the final recorded plats of Harbour Course South subdivision do not reflect the proposed canal, as mandated by Section 177.091(15), Florida Statutes, and the Applicants have not sought to amend the plat to include the proposed canal. Pertinent to this case, the Monroe County Code (MCC), the land development regulations, /5 provides: Sec. 9.5-1. Purpose. It is the purpose of this chapter, the Land Development Regulations, to establish the standards, regulations, and procedures for review and approval of all proposed development of property in unincorporated Monroe County, and to provide a development review process what will be comprehensive, consistent and efficient in the implementation of the goals, policies and standards of the comprehensive plan . . . Sec. 9.5-2. Applicability. General Applicability: The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all land in unincorporated Monroe County. All development of whatever type and character, whether permitted as of right or as a conditional use, shall comply with the development standards and the environmental design criteria set forth in article VII hereof. No development shall be undertaken without prior approval and issuance of a development permit under the provisions of this chapter and other applicable laws and regulations. Sec. 9.5-81. Plat approval and recording required. * * * No building permit, 6/ except for single family detached dwellings and accessory uses thereto, shall be issued for the construction of any building, structure or improvement unless a final plat has been approved in accordance with the provisions of this division and recorded for the lot on which the construction is proposed. * * * (e) If a plat has been previously approved and recorded, technical or minor changes to the plat may be approved by the director of planning. All other changes shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of this Division. Sec. 9.5-94. Amendment of a recorded final plat. An amendment of a recorded final plat or portion thereof shall be accomplished in the same manner as for approval of the plat. Here, the subject permits were issued contrary to the foregoing provisions of the MCC because there was no final plat of record approving the canal as to each affected lot. While the Applicants offered proof, if credited, that the existing plat could be amended to include the canal as a "minor change" upon approval of the Director of Planning, it is noteworthy that no such approval has been obtained. More importantly, it is found that a change in the existing plat to include the canal would not constitute a "technical or minor change," and that formal amendment of the plat would be required. 7/ The provision of the MCC dealing with plat approval, provide a comprehensive scheme to assure, among other things, than the proposed plat is consistent with the purposes, goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan, the development regulations, and state laws, as well as affording an opportunity for public input. Of import here, the MCCs provide: Sec. 9.5-82. General Standards for Plat Approval. No preliminary or final plat shall be approved unless the plat is consistant with the purposes, goals and objectives of this plan, this chapter, applicable provisions of state law, the provisions governing the development of land set forth in article VII, and the procedures set forth in this article. Sec. 9.5-83. Preliminary Plat Approval. Generally. All applicants for approval of a plat involving five (5) or more lots shall submit a preliminary plat for approval in accordance with the provisions of this section. Application. An application for preliminary approval shall be submitted to the development review coordinator in accordance with the provisions of this section, accompanied by a nonrefundable fee as established from time to time by the board of county commissioners. The application shall contain the information required on a form provided by the director of planning. Staff Review. After a determination that the application for preliminary plat approval is complete under the provisions of section 9.5-44, the development review coordinator shall submit the application to the development review committee, which shall prepare a recommendation and report for the commission. Public Hearing and Action by the Planning Commission. The planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on an application for preliminary plat approval of a subdivision involving five (5) or more lots, in accordance with the requirements of sections 9.5-46 and 9.5-47. The commission shall review such applications, the recommendation of the development review committee, and the testimony at the public hearing, and shall recommend granting preliminary plat approval, granting approval subject to specified conditions, or denying the application at its next meeting following submittal of the report and recommendation of the development review committee. Effect of Approval of Preliminary Plat. Approval of a preliminary plat shall not constitute approval of a final plat or permission to proceed with development. Such approval shall constitute only authorization to proceed with the preparation of such documents as are required by the director of planning for a final plat. Sec. 9.5-84. Final Plat Approval. Generally. All applicants for approval of a plat shall submit a final plat for approval in accordance With the provisions of this section. Application. It shall be the responsibility of the developer to complete, have in final form, and submit to the development review coordinator for final processing the final plat, along with all final construction plans, required documents, exhibits, legal instruments to guarantee performance, certificates properly executed by all required agencies and parties as required in this article, and the recording fee, and any other documents or information as are required by the director of planning. After receipt of a complete application for final plat approval, as determined in accordance with section 9.5-44, development review coordinator shall submit the application and accompanying documents to the development review committee. Review and action by Development Review Committee. The development review committee shall review all applications for final plat approval. b. For a final plat for subdivision involving five (5) or more lots, if the plat conforms to the approved preliminary plate and the substantive and procedural requirements of this chapter, at its next regular meeting or as soon as practical after receipt of a complete application, the development reviews committee shall recommend to the planning commission approval of the final plat or approval with conditions. If the committee finds that the plant does not substantially conform to the approved preliminary plat or the substantive and procedural requirements of these regulations, the committee shall recommend denial, specifying the area(s) of nonconformity. Review and Action by the Planning Commission. The planning commission shall review all applications far final plat approval involving five (5) or more lots and the recommendation of the development review committee. If the commission finds that the final plat conforms to the approved preliminary plat and the substantive and procedural requirements of this chapter, the commission shall recommend to the board of county commissioners approval of the final plat, or approval with specified conditions, and shall submit a report and written findings in accordance with section 9.5-47. Public Hearing by the Board of Country Commissioners. The board off county commissioners shall conduct a public hearing on all applications for final plat approval involving five (5) or more lots in accordance with the procedures of section 9.5-46C. Action by the Board of County Commissioners. For proposed subdivisions involving five (5) or more lots the board of county commissioners shall review the application, the recommendations of the development review committee and the planning commission, and the testimony at the public hearing, and shall grant final plat approval, grant approval subject to specified conditions, or deny the application, in accordance with the provisions of section 9.5-47. Sec. 9.5-90.Maintenance of Private Improvements. If any plat of subdivision contains streets, easements, or other improvements to be retained for private use, the final plat for recordation shall indicate to the satisfaction of the director of planning and the county attorney the method or entity by which maintenance of the private improvements shall be performed. As a consequence of Monroe County's failure to comply with the provisions of its regulations which require final plat approval before a building permit may be issued, there has been no review by the Development Review Committee, no public hearing conducted by the Planning Commission, no recommendation of the Planning Commission, and no public hearing before the County Commissioners on the propriety of amending the subject plat to permit the proposed construction, or a resolution, through the plat approval process, as to whether the proposed canal is consistent with, inter alia, the purposes, goals, and objectives of the Monroe County comprehensive plan, as mandated by section 9.5-82(a), MCC. As importantly, where, as here, the proposed canal is to be retained for private use, there is no indication on the recorded plat, 4s required by MCC 9.5-90, of the method or entity by which maintenance of the canal shall be performed. Notably, the property through which the canal will be constructed is not owned by any of the Applicants but, rather, by Driscoll Properties , with whom the Applicants state they have an agreement to permit construction. 8/ Open space requirements and environmental design criteria Pertinent to this case, the MCC further provides: Sec. 9.5-3. Rules of construction. In the construction of the language of this chapter, the rules set out in this section shall be observed unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the board of commissioners as expressed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan or an element or portion thereof, adopted pursuant to chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes (1985). The rules of construction and definitions set out herein shall not be applied to any section of these regulations which shall contain any express provisions excluding such construction, or where the subject matter or context of such section is repugnant thereto. (a) Generally: All provisions, term , phrases and expressions contained in this chapter shall be liberally construed in order that the true intent and meaning of the board of county commissioners may be fully carried out. Terms used in this chapter, unless otherwise specially provided, shall have the meanings prescribed by the statutes of this state for the same terms. In the interpretation and application of any provision of this chapter, it shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. Where any provision of this chapter imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than a general provision imposed by the Monroe County Code or another provision of this chapter, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling . . (Emphasis added) Sec. 9-804 (MCLDR) Open space requirements. No land shall be developed, used or occupied such that the amount of open space on the parcel proposed for development is less than the following ratios, nor shall open space be cleared or otherwise disturbed including ground cover, understory, mid-story, and canopy vegetation. All such required areas shall be maintained in their natural condition. The amount of open space required on any parcel for development shall be determined according to each land type and no development activity within any individual land type shall exceed the open space ratio for that land type. Land Type on Existing Open Space Conditions Map Ratio Open Waters 1.00 Mangrove and Freshwater 1.00 Wetlands Salt Marsh and Buttonwood .80 Associations .85 High Hammock (High Quality) .80 High Hammock (Moderate Quality) .60 High Hammock (Low Quality) . 4 Low Hammock (High Quality) .80 Low Hammock (Moderate Quality) .60 Low Hammock (Low Quality) . 4 Palm Hammock .90 Cactus Hammock .90 Pinelands (High Quality) .80 Pinelands (Low Quality) .60 Beach Berm .90 Disturbed . 2 Disturbed with Hammock . 2 Disturbed with Salt Marsh and Buttonwood . 2 Disturbed Beach/Berm . 2 Disturbed with Exotics . 2 Disturbed with Slash Pines . 2 Offshore Islands . 9 (Emphasis added) Sec. 9.5-345. Environmental design criteria. No land, as designated on the existing conditions map and analyzed in accordance with the standards in sections 9.5-339 and 9.5-340, shall be developed, used ~re occupied except in accordance with the following criteria unless the county biologist recommends an authorized deviation from the following criteria in order to better serve the purpose and objectives of the plan and the director of planning or planning commission approves the recommendation as a minor or major conditional use. No recommendation for an authorized deviation from these environmental design criteria shall be made unless the county biologist makes written findings of fact and conclusions of biological opinion which substantiate the need and/or benefits to be derived from the authorized deviation. (m) Mangroves and Submerged Lands: Except as provided in subsection (3), only piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways shall be permitted on submerged lands and mangroves; All structures on any submerged lands and mangroves shall be designed, located and constructed such that: All structures shall be constructed on pilings or other supports; Bulkheads and seawall shall be permitted only to stabilize disturbed shorelines or to replace deteriorated existing bulkheads and seawalls; No structure shall be located on submerged land which is vegetated with sea grasses except as is necessary to reach waters at least four (4) feet below mean low level for docking facilities. (Emphasis added) From the foregoing regulations it is apparent that Monroe County has accorded mangroves the highest of protections. The regulations mandate a 100 percent open space ratio in such areas, and preclude any clearing or other disturbance of such areas. The only exception provided by the regulators, absent approval of an application for a minor or major conditional use, is for the construction of piers, docks, utility pilings and walkways, and then only when such structures are constructed on pilings or other supports to minimize their impact. Here, the proposed development, "permitted as of right" and not as a minor or major conditional use, fails to comply with the Monroe County land development regulations because it will result in the elimination of an existing mangrove community. In addition to the environmental design criteria established for mangroves by section 9.5-345, discussed supra, that section likewise establishes-specific performance standards for the development of any parcel (lot) depending on the habitat type, and where mixed habitat is encountered, requires that development occur on the least sensitive portions of the parcel. Here, while the Applicants did address the habitat types encountered along the canal alignment, the record fails to address the habitat types encountered on each of the platted lots through which the canal will run. Consequently, the Applicants failed to demonstrate that development of those lots, by construction of a canal within their rear boundary, would be consistent with the open space ratios mandated by section 9-804, MCLDR, or the environmental design criteria mandated by section 9.5-345, MCC. C. The Monroe County land development regulations further and implement the Monroe County comprehensive plan. The foregoing land development regulations were adopted by Monroe County, as well as approved by the Department and adopted by the Administrations Commission, to further and implement the standards, objectives and policies of the Monroe County comprehensive plan. That plan evidences a strong commitment to the protection, maintenance, and improvement of the Florida Keys environment. In this regard, the comprehensive plan provides: Sec. 2-104. Nearshore Waters The Florida Keys are dependent nearshore water quality for their environmental and economic integrity. The heart of the Florida Keys economy, the means by which Monroe County exists as a civil and social institution, is based on its unique, oceanic character. If nearshore water quality is not maintained, then the quality of life and the economy of Monroe County will be directly and immediately impacted. OBJECTIVES 1. To protect, maintain and, where appropriate, improve the quality of nearshore waters in Monroe County. POLICIES 1. To prohibit land uses that directly or indirectly degrade nearshore water quality. To prohibit the development of water dependent facilities, including marinas, at locations that would involve significant of the biological character of submerged lands. To limit the location of water- dependent facilities at locations that will not have a significant adverse impact on offshore resources of particular importance. For the purposes of this policy, offshore resources of particular importance shall mean hard coral bottoms, habitats of state or federal threatened and endangered species, shallow water areas with natural marine communities with depths at mean low tide of legs than four (4) feet, and all designated Aquatic Preserves under Ch. 258.39 et seq. the Florida Statutes. To limit the location of docking facilities to areas which have adequate circulation and tidal flushing. To protect wetland and transitional areas that serve to buffer, insulate and protect nearshore waters from run- off from upland areas. To prohibit the discharge of any pollutant directly or indirectly into nearshore waters. For the purposes of this policy, indirect discharge into nearshore waters shall include surface runoff, surface spreading or well injection of any effluent that does not meet state or federal standards for point and non-point discharges. To monitor nearshore water quality to ensure that growth and envelopment is not degrading nearshore water quality. To encourage the rehabilitation of canals and other water bodies where water quality has deteriorated. Sec. 2-105. Wetlands and Associated Systems Wetlands are an essential element of the Florida Keys and they play several vital roles. Wetlands serve as principal habitats for a wide variety of plants and animals, including juvenile forms of several commercially-exploited species of seafood. In addition, wetland plants play an important role in pollution control through nutrient uptake, and in primary production control through nutrient uptake, and in primary production for food webs. Wetland plants also serve as important natural buffers to the onslaught of storm-driven winds and water. OBJECTIVE To protect and maintain the functional integrity of wetlands and associated transitional areas within the Florida Keys. POLICIES To prohibit the destruction, disturbance or modification of any wetland or associated transition area, except where it can be demonstrated that the functional integrity of a wetland or associated transitional area will not be significantly adversely affected by such disturbance or modification. Marine Resources The great value attributed to Monroe County's marine resources is due to their crucial role in the local economy, and in providing a wide range of natural amenities and services. Health and integrity of the marine system is a fundamental prerequisite if these resources are to continue to provide social, economic, and environmental benefits that we have at times taken for granted. Mangroves, seagrasses, and coral reefs, all of which are susceptible to pollution and dredging, are extremely important in providing food and shelter for myriad forms of marine life, providing storm protection, and maintaining water quality. If uses and activities such as dredge and fill, destruction of natural vegetation, use of pesticides and fertilizers, improper sewage and solid waste disposal continue indiscriminately and uncontrolled; the ability of the marine system to function effectively will deteriorate, thereby resulting in the loss of many natural services and socioeconomic benefits to society. Therefore, it is imperative that such uses and activities be carefully regulated so as to insure conservation and protection of resources and long-term maintenance of their productivity. Marine Resources Management Policies Recognizing the crucial role that the marine environment plays in the economy, the protection, conservation, and management of marine resources will be viewed as an issue requiring the County's utmost attention. In an effort to protect and conserve marine resources, emphasis will be placed on protecting the entire marine ecosystem. To this end, maintenance of water quality; protection of marine flora and fauna, including shoreline vegetation; and preservation of coral reefs will be regarded as being absolutely essential to maintaining the integrity of the marine system. * * * Land and water activities which are incompatible with the preservation of marine resources because of their potential adverse effects will be prohibited, restricted, or carefully regulated depending upon the nature of activity and the extent of potential impact. * * * 3.2. Dredging and/or filling associated with maintenance or necessary water- dependent public projects shall be minimized and carefully managed to prevent unnecessary adverse environmental impact. The County will develop and enforce stringent development regulations to minimize water pollution from point and non-point sources in an effort to: improve and maintain quality of coastal waters. . Marine grass beds, mangrove communities, and associated shoreline vegetation will be preserved to the fullest extent possible. Removal of vegetation or modification of natural patters of tidal flow and nutrient input, cycling and export should be considered only in the case of overriding public interest. The County will encourage creation and restoration of marine grass beds, and mangrove communities in areas which could support such growth and could potentially enhance the environmental quality. As far as possible, natural patterns of gradual and dispersed runoff will be maintained. Land and water activity in the vicinity of stress areas (coral, grass bed, and inshore water quality) as identified and illustrated in the Florida Keys Coastal Zone Management Study and as may be discovered during any future study will be carefully controlled and regulated in an effort to arrest further deterioration. Research and study directed toward alleviating the stresses and restoring their condition to natural healthy state will be encouraged arid supported. Marine Resources Areas of Particular Concern Site-specific Designations Lignumvitae Key Aquatic Preserve. * * * Management Policies: B. Development activity on Upper and Lower Matecumbe Keys, including dredging and filling will be prohibited so as not to degrade the waters of the Preserve. * * * 3. John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary. Management Policies: * * * B. Development activity on Key Largo, including dredging and filling, urban runoff water, and the use of septic tanks will be controlled and regulated in order to minimize stresses which result in cater quality deterioration. Generic Designations All marine grass beds in waters off the Florida Keys. All patch reef coral and other reef formations found in the surrounding waters off the Keys. All shore-fringing mangrove and associated vegetation extending up to 50 feet laterally upland from the landward limit of the shoreline mangrove. Management Policies A. These biotic communities will be preserved to the fullest extent possible. Natural Vegetative Resources The diverse and often unique plant associations of the Florida Keys are a vital element of Monroe County's natural system and economic structure. The natural functions performed by these plant communities with1 regard to marine resources, unique and endangered wildlife, shoreline stabilization, filtering of urban runoff and scenic value make them vital elements in maintainance of the urban structure and attractions for the tourist base of Monroe County's economy. Natural Vegetation Management Policies In recognizing the need to preserve as much natural vegetation as possible, the County will direct its land use and development regulations; to minimize destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape. Guidelines and performance standards designed to protect natural vegetation from development will be developed and enforced. Clearing of native vegetation for development will be controlled. 3. Regulations controlling development in areas characterized primarily by wetland vegetative species such as mangrove and associated vegetation will emphasize preservation of natural vegetation to the maximum degree possible. 8. The existing County ordinances designed to protect and conserve natural vegetation will be strictly interpreted, rigidly enforced, and/or amended when necessary. Consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan, the Monroe County land development regulations further the standards, policies and objectives of the plan to protect, maintain and improve the Florida Keys environment. In this regard, the provisions of the regulations requiring final plat approval before a development order may issued provide assurance that the proposed activity will be -consistent with the comprehensive plan, the land development regulations, and applicable provisions of state law. Likewise, pertinent to this case, the provisions of section 9-864, MCLDR, regarding open space requirements, and section 9.5-345, regarding environmental design criteria, further the plan's policy to minimize the destruction of natural vegetation and modification of landscape, and to preserve to the maximum degree possible areas characterized primarily by wetland vegetation, such as mangroves and associated vegetation, and to permit such removal only in cases of overriding public interest. Here, while it cannot be concluded, as advocated by the Department, that the Monroe County comprehensive plan and land development regulations prohibit, under any circumstances, construction of the subject canal, it must be concluded, at this stage, that construction of the canal has not been demonstrated to be consistent with the plan and regulations. To be consistent, the Applicants would have to secure final plat approval for the canal, through the plat amendment process; a minor or major conditional use approval, as appropriate, as mandated by, inter alia, section 9 .5-345, MCC, for destruction of the mangrove community; and demonstrate that excavation of the canal on each of the platted lots would be consistent with the open space ratios of section 9- 804, MCLDR, and the environmental design criteria of section 9.5-34, MCC, or secure a conditional use as required by section 9.5-34-5, MCC. Amendment to the application post hearing In their proposed recommended order, submitted post hearing, the Applicants propose that the hearing officer recommend that, as a condition, the proposed canal terminate at the line of mean high water instead of extending approximately 100 feet into the boundaries of John Pennekamp State Park. The ostensible reason for the Applicants' request is their desire to eliminate the need for seeking approval from the Department of Natural Resources for intrusion into the boundaries of the park, and thereby shorten the time needed to secure all governmental approvals. While the Applicants did elicit testimony at hearing, albeit on rebuttal, that termination of the canal at the mean high water line would not significantly affect its performance as a flushing canal due to the extreme porosity of the caprock, the proof is not persuasive that the subject permits should be so limited or conditioned. Notably, the opinion that was offered in this regard was that of an expert hydrographic engineer who directed his remarks solely from a hydrographic viewpoint. The Applicants offered no testimony or other proof that would address the potential impacts, in any, that might occur to, inter alia, water quality or the biota, should the canal be terminated or closed in such a fashion. Under the circumstances, the Applicants failed to persuasively demonstrate that such amendment or condition is appropriate. This finding is not, however, preclusive of their applying for such modification to Monroe County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order sustaining Monroe County's issuance of the subject permits in so far as they relate to Phase I of the proposed project, and reversing Monroe County's decision to issue the subject permits in so far as they relate to Phase II of the proposed project. It is further recommended that such final order specify those items set forth in paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law, as the changes necessary that would make the Applicants' proposal eligible to receive the requested permits for Phase II of their proposal. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of October 1990. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October 1990.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether the Respondent, W. B. Persico, should be issued a permit to construct a commercial marina as described in the Department's Intent to Issue, in Class III waters of the state in Charlotte County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc., was an association of property owners whose property is located in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision located in Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant, W. B. Persico, is the owner of a piece of property located adjacent to the subdivision and applicant for a permit to construct a marina on his property. The Department of Environmental Regulation is the state agency responsible for the regulation and permitting of dredge and fill activities in the waters of the state. Mr. Persico's property is located on a dead end basin canal in Charlotte County, Florida. The canal is a Class III water but is not classified as an Outstanding Florida Water. On July 31, 1989, Mr. Persico applied to the Department for a permit to construct a 75 slip, 5660 square foot commercial marina on his property within this artificial, dead end basin. Because of objections by the Department to several aspects of the proposed project, on February 27, 1990, Mr. Persico submitted a modification proposal in which he eliminated the use of pressure treated lumber for pilings, substituting concrete pilings; incorporated boat lifts in each slip; reduced the number of slips from 75 to 65; committed himself to installing a sewage pump-out facility at the site; committed to creating an inter-tidal littoral shelf planted with mangroves; agreed to face the existing vertical bulkhead seawall in the basin with rip-rap; and incorporated a commitment to include, as a part of his rental contract, long term agreements prohibiting vessel maintenance and liveaboards on boats at the site, and insuring the perpetual use of boat lifts and pump out facilities provided. He now proposes to market the marina as a condominium ownership operation. The basin in which the Persico project is proposed is 136 feet across at the entrance, (the narrowest point), and 326 feet across at the widest point. The length of the basin is more than 900 feet. The docking structure to be created will have fingers extending no more than 39 feet into the water from the existing vertical seawall. It will have a 4 foot wide walkway parallel to and 10 feet from the existing seawall from which the arms will extend 25 feet into the basin. The basin which is the proposed location for the marina is at the end of the easternmost canal in the Burnt Store Isles subdivision. It is located just west of and parallel to US Route 41, and at the entrance point, joins a perimeter waterway which meanders approximately 1 mile seaward toward a lock which joins that waterway to Alligator Creek which is an Outstanding Florida Water. The waterway from the basin through the lock into Alligator Creek and thereafter to the Gulf provides the only navigable access for most vessels moored in the Burnt Store canals and which would be moored in the proposed marina between Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf of Mexico. The lock which joints the Burnt Store canals to Alligator Creek consists of two hydraulically operated swinging gates which are operated by a boater entering or exiting the canal system. This lock was constructed as a part of a 1973 agreement between Punta Gorda Isles, Inc., a developer, and the state to prevent the construction and runoff polluted waters of the canal from freely mingling with the Outstanding Florida Water in Alligator Creek. The lock is now maintained in an open position from November 15 to May 15 because boaters complained of the inconvenience of having to operate the lock system. Available evidence indicates that a complete passage through the lock, one way when closed, takes 15 minutes. No more than 24 boats can complete a round trip in a 12 hour boating day. When the lock is open there is no appreciable delay. The residential lots which abut the Burnt Store canals are still mostly vacant. The City of Punta Gorda has assumed the responsibility of conducting a 5 year water quality monitoring program which was previously agreed to by Punt Gorda Isles, Inc. when the lock was built. The 1973 agreement was amended in 1984 to permit the operation of the lock in a closed position for an entire year if water quality monitoring should indicate a degradation of water quality in either Alligator Creek of the Burnt Store Isles canals. This has not been necessary. The Petitioners fear that pollution generated by the addition of 65 additional boats moored at and operating from the proposed marina will cause the Department to implement that clause and order the lock to operate from a closed position year round. This does not mean that the lock would not be opened for boats, but that it would be closed when not being used. Petitioners contend that the increased usage would create an intolerable traffic jam at the lock which would, for the most part, make their use of the waterway to the Gulf intolerable. Mr. Persico is a former road and bridge contractor. Though he has never owned a marina, at one time he rehabilitated one in the Chicago area. He has owned the property in question here for four years and now plans to develop a condominium ownership marina. When he decided to do so, he hired Mr. James M. Stilwell, an environmental consultant, to prepare and submit to the Department the application for the required dredge and fill permit. Initial discussions between Mr. Stilwell and the Department dealt with many environmental issues. Mr. Stilwell pointed out that the water in the canal might already be stale and avenues were explored to mitigate that problem. They did not discuss the type of docks to be installed or the potential for destruction of mangrove stands along the seawall, but even though the original plan called for the docks to be placed against the seawall, it was to be done in such a way as not to disturb the mangroves. The modified plan removing the docks to a point 10 feet off from the wall will obviate any damage to the mangroves. Admittedly, the original submittal prepared by Mr. Stilwell contained factors which were considered unacceptable to the Department. These included construction of the finger piers with pressure treated wood. To eliminate possible pollution from leaching, the pressure treated wood was replaced with a floating dock using concrete pilings. Liveaboards, and the potential contamination from that activity, have been prohibited. The provision and required use of a sewage pump-out facility should prevent any escape of polluting sewage into the waters of the basin. The use of power hoists at each slip should prevent pollution from bottom paint leaching, and boat maintenance at the marina is to be prohibited. Fueling of the vessels will not be permitted at the site thereby obviating the potential of polluting fuel spills. The construction of a 10 foot wide littoral shelf, planted with mangroves, between the dock and the sea wall will provide increased water filtration and improve water quality. It would also help the development of the fish and wildlife population and would reduce the flushing time. Air released into the water from the use of the boat lifts should add oxygen and contribute to improved water quality. At the present time, the ambient water quality in the basin, as it pertains to dissolved oxygen, is probably below standards in the lower depths of the basin, and of the outside channels as well, due to poor light penetration. The channel depth is anywhere from 20 to 25 feet. The oxygen level at the bottom is undoubtedly depleted. Mangroves are currently located along 300 feet of the 1,300 foot seawall. Mr. Stilwell's proposal, and that approved by the Department, does not call for removal of the mangroves, but they would be built around or possibly trimmed. Mr. Stilwell is of the opinion that provision for trimming of the mangroves is inherent in the granting of the permit though such permission was not specifically sought. There is no evidence to contradict this thesis. Water quality issues were raised subsequent to the filing of the original application, and the facility as now planned is designed to minimize impacts on the environment as best as can be done. Water quality would be improved, or at worst not adversely affected, by the prohibitions against liveaboards and fueling, the provision of boat lifts and a pump station, and the prohibition against other structures beyond the dock and slips. Flushing of the water is important considering the fact that the dissolved oxygen content in the water is already low. However, Mr. Stilwell is satisfied, and it would so appear, that water quality would be improved by the implementation of the proposals as included in the conditions to the permit. Mr. Stilwell, admittedly, did no dissolved oxygen tests because they were not considered as a part of the permit application. If the Department requests them, they are done, but they were not requested in this case. It is clear that the original application did not address all the environmental concerns that Petitioners feel are pertinent. Nonetheless, those items already discussed were treated, as were turbidity control during construction. As to others of concern to Petitioners, many are included in the state standards and need not be specifically addressed in the application. The Department considered the application in light of the state standards, and by the use of the conditions appended to the Intent to Issue, provided for the water quality and other environmental standards to be sufficiently addressed and met. In his February 22, 1990 letter to the Department, Mr. Stilwell directly addressed the public interest concerns including the mangroves and the construction of the littoral shelf. The Department was satisfied that the public interest criteria were met, and considered the plans to be environmentally sound. They appear to be so. Petitioners have raised some question as to the effect of the 39 foot long dock fingers interfering with navigation within the basin. Mr. Stilwell does not feel that the facility would create this problem, even at the narrowest point, and it is so found. The width of the canal there is 136 feet. The portion of the slip designed to accommodate vessels is no more than 25 feet long, and presumably, vessels of a length much greater than that would not visit the basin. Even subtracting 39 feet from the 136 feet narrow point, 97 feet of turning space remains, and this is almost four times the length of the normal vessel anticipated in the basin. Mr. Stilwell did not address the subject of the lock as it relates to navigation, but primarily as it relates to the impact on water quality and the environment. Nonetheless, he is of the opinion, and there is no evidence to the contrary, that keeping the lock open on a year round basis would not trigger a change to the ongoing program under the agreement between the state and Punta Gorda Isles and result in the lock being closed year round. Mr. Shultz, the environmental specialist with the Department, reviewed the application here initially for file completeness, and when all required information was in, made a site visit. He evaluated the application and the attachments for permitability. For Class III waters, the project must meet water quality standards outlined in the Department's rules. Only one of the water quality criteria, that of dissolved oxygen, was shown to be not met. Since the water was already below that standard, the test to be applied then is whether the project will create some improvement." In Mr. Shultz' opinion, planting the mangroves, as proposed by the applicant, does this, as does the use of the lifts. The existing mangroves will not be impacted by the project as it is proposed, and the use of rip-rap, as proposed, will provide additional surface area for organisms which will improve the water quality. When first reviewed, the Department had some concern about on-water storage of boats. These concerns were treated by the use of hoists to hold the boats out of the water when not in use, and as a result, pollutants will not be introduced by bottom paint leaching and, presumably, bilge pumping. Standard conditions included in all Department Intents to Issue, require the project to comply with applicable state water quality standards or to give assurances that such general standards for surface waters and Class III waters will be met. In this case, Mr. Shultz is satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that water quality standards will be maintained, and there was no evidence presented by the Petitioners to contradict this. Once water quality standards are shown to be protected, then the project is balanced against the public interest criteria outlined in the statute. Here, the requirement is for a showing that the project is not contra to the public interest. It does not, because of its nature, require a positive showing that the project is in the public interest. In his opinion this project, as modified, will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the public, (it will have no environmental effect on other property). It will not adversely affect the conservation of fish or wildlife in their habitats, (the planting of mangroves will provide a net improvement to species habitat in the area). The project will not adversely affect navigation, flow of water, or erosion, (the width and length of the dock system appear to pose no threat to navigation in the basin and there would appear to be no obstruction or potential therefor as a result of this project; the project is within a no-wake zone; and the size of vessels is limited by the slip size). The permit will not adversely affect marine productivity, (there is currently very little productivity in the area now since waters below 0 depth of 6 feet are already low in oxygen, and the project would, at least minimally, improve this condition). The project is permanent and would not adversely affect historical or archeological resources in the area, (there are no objects or known resources in the area, but a standard condition in the permit requires immediate notification if known resources or objects are found). The project would not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed in the area since the area is currently a real estate development which is far from completely built. Based on his consideration of these criteria, Mr. Shultz concludes that the project is not contrary to the public interest and this appears to be a valid conclusion. There appears to be no evidence of sufficient weight, presented by the Petitioners, either through direct evidence or through cross examination of the applicant and Department witnesses that would tend to diminish the credibility of Mr. Shultz' analysis. If there are subsequent violations, the Department has enforcement action available. There is, consistent with the multiple use zoning category applied to the area across the basin from the marina, the potential for up to an additional 100 docks to be constructed in the basin beyond those treated here. Nonetheless, the Department does not consider 165 boats to be a problem either in the basin or at the lock. This is not necessarily a supportable conclusion, however. Those 100 additional docks do not currently exist and their potential should not be considered in determining whether to approve the permit under consideration here. In opposition to the applicant, Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth both indicated that the addition of 65 more boats would seriously overtax the operation of the lock and make it difficult, if not hazardous, to operate boats in that area between the Burnt Store Isles subdivision and Alligator Creek. Both individuals agree, and it is so found, that in general, motor boats pollute to some degree the waters on which that are operated as a result of oil leaks from engine operation, leakage of bilge oil, escape of sewage, and leaching of copper paint and other solvents. In addition, manatee have been seen in the area, and the increase of boating operations could present some hazard to the manatee population. There is, however, no indication that a manatee population is permanently in residence there or is even there frequently. It is also accepted that boat wake has an adverse effect on sea walls, and all of these factors should have been and, in fact were, considered in the analysis of the permitability of the project. The concerns of Mr. Konover and Mr. Forsyth were echoed by Mr. Gunderson who, over 30 years operating boats, has seen what he considers to be a definite lack of concern for the environment by many boaters who pump bilges directly into the water, throw debris overboard, and use detergents to wash their boats at marinas. He is of the opinion that renters of slips are generally less concerned about water quality than those who live on the water, and take a more cavalier approach to water quality standards. These sentiments are also held by Mr. Young who, over the years, has owned marinas in Connecticut and has observed the approach of nonowning slip users to the water at their disposal. His concerns could be met by the strict enforcement of standards at the marina. Mr. Powell, a nurseryman who owns the lot across the basin from the site of the proposed marina, fishes from his lot and has observed the an increase of pollution in the canal. He routinely sees floating dead fish, palm leaves, cocoanuts, bottles, slicks and other debris, and though he owns a multifamily lot, would have a difficult time putting in many slips since his lot, at the entrance to the basin at the narrow point, would be across from the slips proposed by applicant and their proximity would, he feels, hinder his ability to build out into the basin as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order issuing Permit No. 081679445, to W. B. Persico as modified and outlined in the Intent to Issue dated March 16, 1990. RECOMMENDED this 9 day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9 day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3093 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to S 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted. Accepted but applicable only when the locks are closed. Accepted. - 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. & 12. Accepted and incorporated in substance herein. 13. & 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. 20. & 21. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. Accepted as valid when the lock is operated from a closed position. However, the evidence indicates that currently the lock is left open from November 15 to May 15 of each year and this does not cause delay. Accepted if the lock is operated from a closed position. Unsupported by convincing evidence of record. FOR THE APPLICANT: 1. - 6. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. - 32. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE DEPARTMENT: Accepted. and incorporated herein. - 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10. - 14. Accepted and incorporated herein. 15. - 18. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph F. Lynch Burnt Store Isles Association, Inc. P.O. Box 956 Punta Gorda, Florida 33951-0956 Michael P. Haymans, Esquire P.O. Box 2159 Port Charlotte, Florida 33949 Cecile I. Ross, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Dale H. Twachtmann Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in this case was whether the Respondent, City of Cape Coral (City), was entitled to an Individual Environmental Resource Permit (Permit) that would allow removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock (Lock) and associated uplands, and installation of a 165-foot linear seawall in the South Spreader Waterway in Cape Coral, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the parties' stipulations and the evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Parties The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of the Department's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated thereunder in the Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to that authority, the Department determines whether to issue or deny applications for environmental resource permits. The City is a Florida municipality in Lee County. The City is the applicant for the Permit allowing the removal of the Lock and installation of a seawall (Project). The Project is located within the geographic boundary of the City. The South Spreader Waterway is a perimeter canal separating the City's canal system from shoreline wetlands to the west and south, which run the length of Matlacha Pass to the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River at San Carlos Bay.1/ The Association is a Florida non-profit corporation that was created in 1981. The Association was created to safeguard the interests of its members. The Association has approximately 150 members who reside in Matlacha and Matlacha Isles, Florida. A substantial number of its members have substantial interests in the use and enjoyment of waters adjacent to and surrounding Matlacha. The Association's members were particularly interested in protecting the water quality of the surface waters in the area. Matlacha is an island community located to the northwest of Cape Coral, the South Spreader Waterway, and the Lock. Matlacha is located within Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Matlacha Pass is classified as a Class II waterbody designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting, and is an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-02.400(17)(b)36; 62-302.700(9)(h). Petitioner, Karl Deigert, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Deigert is the president of the Association. Mr. Deigert’s house in Matlacha is waterfront. He holds a captain’s license and has a business in which he gives sightseeing and ecological tours by boat of the waters around Matlacha. He fishes in the waters around his property and enjoys the current water quality in the area. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would have negative effects on water quality and would negatively impact the viability of his business and his enjoyment of the waters surrounding Matlacha. Petitioner, Melanie Hoff, is a resident and property owner in St. James City. St. James City is located to the southwest of Cape Coral. Ms. Hoff’s property is located within five nautical miles of the Lock. Ms. Hoff engages in various water sports and fishes in the waters around her property. She moved to the area, in part, for the favorable water quality. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality and her ability to use and enjoy waters in the area. Petitioner, Robert S. Zarranz, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Mr. Zarranz’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. He is an avid fisherman and boater. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that the quality of fishing in the area would decline as a result. Petitioner, Yolanda Olsen, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Olsen’s house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She enjoys watersports and birdwatching in the areas around her property. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Jessica Blanks, is a resident and property owner in Cape Coral. Ms. Blanks’ house in Cape Coral is waterfront. She is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that her ability to enjoy her property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Joseph Michael Hannon, is a resident and property owner in Matlacha. Mr. Hannon is a member of the Association. He enjoys boating, fishing, and kayaking in the waters surrounding Matlacha. He is concerned that removal of the Lock would negatively impact water quality, and that his ability to enjoy his property and the surrounding waters would suffer as a result. Petitioner, Debra Hall, did not appear at the final hearing and no testimony was offered regarding her standing. The Project and Vicinity The Project site is 0.47 acres. At the Lock location, the South Spreader Waterway is 200 feet wide, and includes a 125-foot wide upland area secured by two seawalls, the 20-foot wide Lock, a 32-foot wide upland area secured by one seawall, and 23 feet of mangrove wetlands. The Lock is bordered to the north by property owned by Cape Harbour Marina, LLC, and bordered to the south by mangrove wetlands owned by the state of Florida. The 125-foot wide upland area and the 20-foot wide Lock form a barrier separating the South Spreader Waterway from the Caloosahatchee River. The preponderance of the competent substantial evidence established that the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock is not tidally influenced, but would become tidally influenced upon removal of the Lock. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 46. The City proposes to remove the Lock and one of the seawalls, reducing the 125-foot upland area to 20 feet. The proposed future condition of the area would include 125 feet of open canal directly connecting the South Spreader Waterway with the Caloosahatchee River. Joint Exhibit 1 at p. 47. The primary purpose of the Lock's removal is to alleviate safety concerns related to boater navigation. The Project's in-water construction includes demolition and removal of the existing Lock, removal of existing fill in the 125-foot upland area, removal of existing seawalls, and construction of replacement seawalls. The City would employ Best Management Practices (BMPs) throughout the course of the Project, including sediment and erosion controls such as turbidity barriers. The turbidity barriers would be made of a material in which manatees could not become entangled. All personnel involved with the Project would be instructed about the presence of manatees. Also, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities. History of the South Spreader Waterway In the mid-1970's, the co-trustees of Gulf American Corporation, GAC Properties Credit, Inc., and GAC Properties, Inc., (collectively GAC) filed for after-the-fact permits from the Department's predecessor agency (DER), for the large dredge and fill work project that created the canal system in Cape Coral. In 1977, DER entered into CO 15 with GAC to create the North and South Spreader Waterways and retention control systems, including barriers. The Lock was one of the barriers created in response to CO 15. The Spreader Waterways were created to restore the natural hydrology of the area affected by GAC's unauthorized dredging and filling activity. The Spreader Waterways collected and retained surface runoff waters originating from the interior of Cape Coral's canal system. The South Spreader Waterway was not designed to meet water quality standards, but instead to collect surface runoff, then allow discharge of the excess waters collected over and through the mangrove wetlands located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This fresh water flow was designed to mimic the historic sheet flow through the coastal fringe of mangroves and salt marshes of the Caloosahatchee River and Matlacha Pass estuaries. The fresh water slowly discharged over the coastal fringe until it finally mixed with the more saline waters of the estuaries. The estuarine environments located west and south of the Lock require certain levels of salinity to remain healthy ecosystems. Restoring and achieving certain salinity ranges was important to restoring and preserving the coastal fringe. In 1977 GAC finalized bankruptcy proceedings and executed CO 15. CO 15 required GAC to relinquish to the state of Florida the mangrove wetlands it owned on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway. This land grant was dedicated by a warranty deed executed in 1977 between GAC and the state of Florida. The Petitioners' expert, Kevin Erwin, worked as an environmental specialist for DER prior to and during the construction of the Spreader Waterways. Mr. Erwin was DER's main representative who worked with the GAC co-trustees to resolve the massive dredge and fill violation and design a system to restore the natural hydrology of the area. Mr. Erwin testified that the Lock was designed to assist in retention of fresh water in the South Spreader Waterway. The fresh water would be retained, slowed down, and allowed to slowly sheet flow over and through the coastal fringe. Mr. Erwin also testified that the South Spreader Waterway was not designed to allow direct tidal exchange with the Caloosahatchee River. In Mr. Erwin's opinion, the South Spreader Waterway appeared to be functioning today in the same manner as originally intended. Breaches and Exchange of Waters The Department's second amended notice of intent for the Project, stated that the Project was not expected to contribute to current water quality violations, because water in the South Spreader Waterway was already being exchanged with Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River through breaches and direct tidal flow. This second amended notice of intent removed all references to mitigation projects that would provide a net improvement in water quality as part of the regulatory basis for issuance of the permit. See Joint Exhibit 1 at pp. 326-333. The Department's witnesses testified that waters within the South Spreader Waterway currently mix with waters of the Caloosahatchee River when the Lock remains open during incoming and slack tides. A Department permit allowed the Lock to remain open during incoming and slack tides. Department witness, Megan Mills, the permitting program administrator, testified that she could not remember the exact date that permit was issued, but that it had been "a couple years." The location of breaches in the western and southern banks of the South Spreader Waterway was documented on another permit's drawings and pictures for a project titled "Cape Coral Spreader Waterway Restoration." See Cape Coral Ex. 9. Those documents located three breaches for repair and restoration identified as Breach 16A, Breach 16B, and Breach 20. The modeling reports and discussion that support the City's application showed these three breaches connect to Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Breach 20 was described as a connected tidal creek. Breach 16A and 16B were described as allowing water movement between Matlacha Pass and the South Spreader Waterway only when relatively high water elevations occurred in Matlacha Pass or in the South Spreader Waterway. The Department's water quality explanation of "mixing," was rather simplistic, and did not consider that the waterbody in which the Project would occur has three direct connections with an OFW that is a Class II waters designated for shellfish propagation or harvesting. Such a consideration would require the Department to determine whether to apply the OFW permitting standards, and the Class II waters permitting criteria in section 10.2.5 of the Environmental Resource Permit Applicant's Handbook, Volume I. See Fla. Admin Code R. 62-330.302(1)(a); 62-4.242(2); and 62-302.400(17)(b)36. The Caloosahatchee River, at its entrance to the South Spreader Waterway, is a Class III waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. The mouth of the Caloosahatchee River is San Carlos Bay, which is a Class II waters restricted for shellfish harvesting. There was no evidence that the Department's regulatory analysis considered that the waterbody in which the Project would occur directly connects to Class III waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting, and is in close proximity to Class II waters that are restricted for shellfish harvesting. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.400(17)(b)36. and 62-330.302(1)(c).2/ Total Nitrogen The City's expert, Anthony Janicki, Ph.D., testified that nitrogen concentrations in the Caloosahatchee River were higher than in the South Spreader Waterway in the years 2017 and 2018. Thus, he opined that if the Lock is removed, water from the South Spreader Waterway would not negatively impact the Caloosahatchee River. However, the City's application was supported by an analysis, with more than a decade of monitoring data, which showed nitrogen concentration values were comparable inside the South Spreader Waterway and in the Caloosahatchee River. Dr. Janicki also used the Department's Hydrologic Simulation Program – FORTRAN (HSPF) watershed model to estimate the Total Nitrogen (TN) loading that would enter the Caloosahatchee River through the Chiquita Lock. Dr. Janicki estimated that TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River, after removal of the Chiquita Lock, would amount to 30,746 pounds per year. The Caloosahatchee River is listed as impaired for nutrients and has a TN Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) that was set by the Department in 2009. Dr. Janicki opined that removing the Lock would not result in adverse impacts to the surrounding environment. But the Petitioners obtained his concession that his opinion was dependent on the City's completion of additional water quality enhancement projects in the future as part of its obligations under the Caloosahatchee Estuary Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for achieving the TN TMDL. Dr. Janicki additionally testified that the potential TN loading to the Caloosahatchee River did not anticipate an actual impact to the River's water quality because the TN loads from the South Spreader Waterway were already factored into the 2009 TMDL. He essentially testified that the Lock's removal was anticipated and was factored into the model when the TMDL was established in 2009. Thus, the Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department and the City were not aligned regarding how the City's application would provide reasonable assurances of meeting applicable water quality standards. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the City relied on future projects to provide reasonable assurance that the removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. The Petitioners proved by a preponderance of the competent and substantial evidence that the Department relied on a simplistic exchange of waters to determine that removal of the Lock would not cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards in the Caloosahatchee River and the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Water Quantity and Salinity The engineering report that supports the City's application stated that when the Lock is removed, the South Spreader Waterway behind the Lock will become tidally influenced. With the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes for the South Spreader Waterway would increase from zero cubic meters per day to 63,645 cubic meters per day. At the location of Breach 20, with the Lock removed, the volume of daily water fluxes would drastically decrease from 49,644 cubic meters per day to eight cubic meters per day. Dr. Janicki testified that Breach 20 was connected to a remnant tidal creek that meanders and eventually empties into an embayment. The evidence demonstrated that the embayment is Punta Blanca Bay, which is part of the Matlacha Pass Aquatic Preserve. Dr. Janicki opined that Breach 20 was an area of erosion risk and sediment transport into downstream mangroves that would be significantly reduced by removing the Lock. He explained that the reductions in flow would result in reductions in velocities through Breach 20 and in the South Spreader Waterway itself. Mr. Erwin testified that Breach 20 was not a "breach."3/ He described it as the location of a perpendicular intersection of the South Spreader Waterway with a small tidal creek, which connected to a tidal pond further back in the mangroves. Mr. Erwin testified that an "engineered sandbag concrete structure" was built at the shallow opening to limit the amount of flow into and out of this tidal creek system. But it was also designed to make sure that the tidal creek system "continued to get some amount of water." As found above, Lock removal would drastically reduce the volume of daily water fluxes into and out of Breach 20's tidal creek system. Mr. Erwin also testified that any issues with velocities or erosion would be exemplified by bed lowering, siltation, and stressed mangroves. He persuasively testified, however, that there was no such evidence of erosion and there were "a lot of real healthy mangroves." Mr. Erwin opined that removal of the Lock would cause the South Spreader Waterway to go from a closed, mostly fresh water system, to a tidal saline system. He described the current salinity level in the South Spreader Waterway to be low enough to support low salinity vegetation and not high enough to support marine organisms like barnacles and oysters. The City's application actually supports this opinion. Using the Environmental Fluid Dynamics Code (EFDC) model developed by Dr. Janicki for this Lock removal project, comparisons were made describing the salinity distribution within the South Spreader Waterway. The model was run with and without the Lock, for both a wet and dry year. Dr. Janicki testified, and the model showed, that removal of the Lock would result in increased salinity above the Lock and decreased salinity downstream of the Lock. However, he generally opined that the distribution of salinities was well within the normal ranges seen in this area. The City's application also concluded that the resultant salinities did not fall outside the preferred salinity ranges for seagrasses, oysters, and a wide variety of fish taxa. However, Dr. Janicki did not address specific changes in vegetation and encroachment of marine organisms that would occur with the increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway. Secondary Impacts to the Mangrove Wetlands Mr. Erwin testified that the mangroves located on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway are currently in very good health. He additionally testified that loss of the current fresh water hydraulic head and an increase in salinity within the South Spreader Waterway would negatively impact the health of the mangrove wetlands. In addition, the City's application stated that removing the Lock would result in a drop in the water level of one to one and a half feet within the South Spreader Waterway. Mr. Erwin credibly and persuasively testified that a drop in water level of only a few inches would have negative effects on the health of mangroves, and that a drop of a foot could result in substantial mangrove die-off. Mr. Erwin testified that the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway consist of a variety of plants and algae in addition to mangroves. He described the wetlands as a mangrove community made up of different types of mangroves, and epiphytic vegetation such as marine algae. This mangrove community provides habitat for a "wide range of invertebrates." He further testified that these plants and algae uptake and transform the nutrients that flow over and through the mangrove wetlands before they reach the receiving waters. Thus, the mangrove wetlands on the western and southern borders of the South Spreader Waterway serve to filter nutrients out of the water discharged from the Waterway before it reaches Matlacha Pass and the Caloosahatchee River. Mr. Erwin's credible and persuasive testimony was contrary to the City's contention that Lock removal would not result in adverse impacts to the mangrove wetlands adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. The City and the Department failed to provide reasonable assurances that removing the Lock would not have adverse secondary impacts to the health of the mangrove wetlands community adjacent to the South Spreader Waterway. Impacts to Fish and Wildlife, Including Endangered and Threatened Species The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) reviewed the City's application and determined that if BMPs for in-water work were employed during construction, no significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife were expected. For example, temporary signs concerning manatees would be posted prior to and during all in-water project activities, and all personnel would be instructed about the presence of manatees. The FWC determination only addressed direct impacts during in-water construction work. The City's application contained supporting material that identified the major change resulting from removal of the Lock that may influence fish and wildlife in the vicinity of the Project, was the opportunity for movement to or from the South Spreader Waterway canal system. Threatened and endangered species of concern in the area included the Florida manatee and the smalltooth sawfish. The City's application stated that literature review showed the smalltooth sawfish and the Florida manatee utilized non-main-stem habitats, such as sea-wall lined canals, off the Caloosahatchee River. The City cited studies from 2011 and 2013, which showed that non-main-stem habitats were important thermal refuges during the winter, and part of the overall nursery area for smalltooth sawfish. The City concluded that removal of the Lock "would not be adverse, and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species." However, the Petitioner's expert witness, John Cassani, who is the Calusa Waterkeeper, testified that there is a smalltooth sawfish exclusion zone downstream of the Lock. He testified that the exclusion zone is a pupping area for smalltooth sawfish, and that rapid salinity fluctuations could negatively impact their habitat. The City also concluded that any impacts to the Florida manatee would not be adverse, "and would instead result in increased areas of useable habitat by the species, as well as a reduction in risk of entrapment or crushing in a canal lock system." At the same time, the City acknowledged that "watercraft collision is a primary anthropogenic threat to manatees." The City's literature review included a regional assessment by FWC's Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) from 2006. Overall, the FWRI report concluded that the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, at San Carlos Bay, was a "hot spot" for boat traffic coinciding with the shift and dispersal of manatees from winter refugia. The result was a "high risk of manatee- motorboat collisions." In addition, testimony adduced at the hearing from an 18-year employee of Cape Harbour Marina, Mr. Frank Muto, was that Lock removal would result in novice boaters increasing their speed, ignoring the no-wake and slow-speed zones, and presenting "a bigger hazard than the [L]ock ever has." Boater Navigation Concerns Oliver Clarke was the City’s principal engineer during the application process, and signed the application as the City's authorized agent. Mr. Clarke testified that he has witnessed boater congestion at the Lock. He also testified that lack of boating experience and weather concerns can exacerbate the boater congestion issues at the Lock. Petitioners presented the testimony of Mr. Frank Muto, the general manager of Cape Harbour Marina. Mr. Muto has been at the Cape Harbour Marina for 18 years. The marina has 78 docks on three finger piers along with transient spots. The marina is not currently subject to tidal flows and its water depth is between six and a half and seven and a half feet. He testified that they currently have at least 28 boats that maintain a draft of between four and a half and six feet of water. If the water depth got below four feet, those customers would not want to remain at the marina. Mr. Muto further testified that the Lock was in place when the marina was built, and the marina and docks were designed for an area with no tidal flow. Mr. Muto also testified that he has witnessed several boating safety incidents in and around the Lock. He testified that he would attribute almost all of those incidents to novice boaters who lack knowledge of proper boating operations and locking procedures. Mr. Muto additionally testified that there is law enforcement presence at the Lock twenty-four hours a day, including FWC marine patrol and the City's marine patrol.
Conclusions For Petitioners: J. Michael Hannon, Qualified Representative 2721 Clyde Street Matlacha, Florida 33993 John S. Turner, Esquire Peterson Law Group Post Office Box 670 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 For Respondent City of Cape Coral: Craig D. Varn, Esquire Amy Wells Brennan, Esquire Manson Bolves Donaldson Varn, P.A. 106 East College Avenue, Suite 820 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven D. Griffin City of Cape Coral Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 150027 Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0027 For Respondent Department of Environmental Protection: Kirk Sanders White, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Mail Station 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order denying Individual Environmental Resource Permit Number 244816-005 to the City of Cape Coral for removal of the Chiquita Boat Lock. The final order deny Petitioners' request for an award of attorney's fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Ponce Marina, Inc., (Ponce Marina) is entitled to a dredge and fill permit and water quality certification number 64-1303059 to construct a marina on the Halifax River in Volusia County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Department received an application from Ponce Marina on February 6, 1987, for a permit/water quality certification to construct a 178 slip marina facility consisting of two marina basins and two access channels. The work was to be done in primarily existing uplands adjacent to the Intercoastal Waterway (ICW) within the boundaries of the Town of Ponce Inlet, Volusia County, Florida. In response to agency objections, the scope of the project was reduced to include the excavation of a single marina basin and entrance channel and the construction of a 142 slip marina, by: constructing a basin by excavating 153,000 cu. yds. of material landward of mean high water (MHW) to a maximum depth of -6 feet mean low water (MLW); constructing an entrance channel 200 feet long by 80 feet wide by hydraulically dredging 2,100 cu. yds. waterward of MHW to a maximum depth of -7 feet MLW; connecting the head region of the excavated basin to an existing tidal creek by installing a 60 foot long, 36 inch diameter culvert pipe set at invert -2.0 feet NGVD and fitted with a 36 inch flap gate; installing 1,695 linear feet of vertical bulkhead with a riprap toe, 1,200 linear feet of native rock revetment, 680 linear feet of native rock riprap for use as wave-breaks; constructing 3 main piers, 8 feet in width and 140 feet, 180 feet and 210 feet in length, and 66 finger piers 3 feet in width and 30 feet to 50 feet in length, providing 142 wet boatslips; constructing a stormwater treatment system for the upland development associated with the marina facility; filling a 0.53 acre barrow canal with 4,000 cu. yds. of material; impacting 2.44 acres of jurisdictional wetland area; and creating 2.9 acres of jurisdictional wetland area. The application was filed on behalf of Ponce Marina by Robert M. Snyder, P.E., a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida. On June 20, 1988, the Department issued its Intent to Issue Permit No. 64-1303059 to Ponce Marina. The Intent to Issue contains 21 Specific Conditions the Department will place on the Permit. All conditions are reasonable and necessary. The project site is located on the eastern side of the Halifax River, 3.5 miles south of the Port Orange Causeway and 2.3 miles north of Ponce Inlet in the Town of Ponce Inlet, Volusia County, Section 24, Township 16 South, Range 33 East, not in aquatic preserve, in Class III waters. The project site was formerly salt marsh associated with the Halifax River. The majority of the project site now consists of fill placed on the salt marsh at some time in the past. This fill created an upland strip approximately 500 feet wide and 2,000 feet long. Running through this upland strip is a central ditch which originates at a stormwater sewer on the east side of South Peninsula Drive and runs toward the west to the Halifax River. The proposed marina basin is to be excavated from the upland strip and central ditch described above. The marina design includes the creation of a wetland area in the head region of the basin as well as the connection of the head region to Live Oak Creek, an existing tidal creek, by installing a 60 feet long, 36 inch diameter culvert set at -2.0 feet NGVD and fitted with a 36 inch flap gate. The estuarine marsh wetland to be created at the head of the marina is designed to provide water quality treatment to incoming tides which reach this area. This treated water will then move through the flap gate into Live Oak Creek, where it will receive further treatment before entering the Halifax River. The entrance to the marina will be 180 feet wide. The dredged access channel through that 180 feet entrance, for the navigation of deeper draft boats, will be 80 feet wide by 200 feet long. Construction of the entrance channel will require the excavation of approximately 2,100 cu. yds. of material from the submerged lands of the Halifax River, however, the areas to be dredged consist of unvegetated sand which is not expected to impact marine resources. Excavation of the marina basin will result in 2.44 acres of direct wetland loss. These wetlands are mainly associated with the central ditch. Some marsh north of the upland strip will also be encroached upon. The wetland area eliminated by construction will be replaced by the creation of 2.9 acres of wetland area to be planted with mangroves and smooth cordgrass. It is expected that the created wetland area will provide those same functions as the replaced wetlands within four to five months of planting and will become fully established within two to three years of planting. There is an extremely high success rate for this type of created wetlands within marina basins. The proposed mitigation provides a 1.3:1 ratio of created saltmarsh and mangrove areas and is consistent with Department policy. Diverse shoreline treatments are proposed which will protect wetland and vegetated areas within the marina basin from boat wakes and high energy exchange. This shoreline treatment will include vertical bulkheads, sloping native rock revetments, and submerged wake breaks. There are two or more boat slips directly adjacent to the created wetland on the south side of the basin. Boats in these slips can easily hit the wetlands and damage them. These slips should be eliminated or redesigned to provide protection for these wetlands. The created wetlands are placed so as to provide nursery habitat adjacent to deep water and to filter and treat tidal waters as they move through them. The location and proximity to open water of the created wetlands and the flushing characteristics of the basin will result in higher quality wetlands than those being replaced. The approximately 94 acres of remaining wetlands surrounding the marina project will be placed in a perpetual conservation easement by Ponce Marina. This conservation easement will include two spoil islands to the south of the main upland portion of the property as well as a nonjurisdictional Oak Hammock to the north of the project. The marina, as designed, is a system which is hydraulically driven by the tide. The tide in this region has a mean range of 2.77, that is, a 2.77 feet amplitude change from slack low water to slack high water. In this particular marina system, flushing is driven by two tidal components: (1) a tidal prism which is nothing more than the ratio of the tide volume to the mean low water volume of the basin and, (2) a flow-through component which occurs because there is an elevation difference from one portion of the system to another. A more rigorous flushing action occurs in a flow- through system. The marina is designed with a flap gate so that the facility will have a flow-through potential. Because a flow- through system generates turbulence, it provides mixing through the water column to eliminate or greatly minimize potential for pockets of water that could become stagnant. This is particularly effective in the head regions of the basin. The flap gate operates not only to ensure that water regularly moves out of the head region, but also to ensure that water from the marsh area will not flow into the marina basin, since such water contains organics which could be transported into the marina basin, thereby increasing the potential to violate dissolved oxygen standards. The marina, as designed, will provide a flushing time of 4.6 days for 100 percent flushing, which is adequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be degraded in either the marina basin or adjacent waters. The velocity of water going through the flap gate will not cause erosion. While no operational problems are anticipated with the flap gate, its proper operation is critical to the flushing of the basin. An appropriate design and regular maintenance will be necessary for the flap gate to operate as anticipated. There is no condition in the Intent to Issue which addresses the design and maintenance of the flap gate. Such a condition should be included. The east-west portion of an existing L-shaped canal situated in the northern portion of the property will be filled. The area to be filled is .53 acres. The L-shaped canal is within the Department's jurisdiction, is connected to the Halifax River, and is therefore waters of the State. There is a 36-inch culvert coming from under Peninsula Drive which takes stormwater runoff from an existing condominium development and empties that runoff into the L-shaped canal. Currently, untreated water is coming off impervious surfaces and under the highway by pipe directly into waters of the state, with no detention, no retention, no initial treatment. Therefore, the worst pollutant slug is going directly into waters of the state. This stormwater runoff receives no treatment prior to being directly discharged to waters of the state. Such a system would not be permitted by the Department today. State water quality will be improved by removing the direct stormwater drainage to waters of the state. Ponce Marina has provided an alternate plan for the water which is currently coming from off the project site and discharging through the 36-inch culvert directly into waters of the state. The water is to be routed through a considerable length of grassy ditch behind a weir which will retain the water so that it will receive proper treatment before entering the marsh area. This stormwater will not be routed to a retention area in the oak hammock to the north of the project. The water quality in the remaining portion of the L- shaped canal will not be reduced by the filling of the .53 acre east-west segment, nor is it expected to decline after the filling. The proposed stormwater treatment system for the marina project meets the criteria specified by Florida Administrative Code Chapter 17-25. Further, the stormwater management system for the project was never properly made an issue in this proceeding. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a no jeopardy letter to Ponce Marina on July 11, 1988, indicating that the proposed marina will not endanger the manatee or the Atlantic Saltmarsh snake. Those are the only endangered or threatened species that would be expected to be affected by this project. On September 1, 1987, Colonel Robert M. Brantly, Executive Director of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, issued a letter to Secretary Dale Twachtmann recommending, (1) the southern basin of the original marina project be eliminated; (2) the remaining northern basin be designed to lessen wetland impacts, a hydrographic analysis be performed to ensure adequate flushing, there be a DNR determination of no adverse impact to the manatee; and (3) the oak hammock be preserved before issuance of the permit. These recommendations were followed by the Department and are incorporated in the current proposal for the project. On August 21, 1987, the Florida Department of Natural Resources issued its recommendations to the Department concerning the proposed marina, as it relates to the manatee. The recommendations of the DNR are incorporated in permit conditions 16, 17, and 18a through 181. A March 16, 1987, report prepared by staff of the Environmental Control Division of Volusia County recommended approval of the original marina project with three recommendations. Although Volusia County recommended a 90 percent survival rate, an 80 percent survival rate in the mitigation plan is reasonable. Marina plans provide for a sewage pump-out service for boats, as recommended. A condition prohibiting live-aboards on vessels was inadvertently omitted from the condition in the Intent to Issue. The PAC called as its only witness, Dr. Bernard J. Yokel, who was qualified as an expert in estuarine ecology and fisheries. Although Dr. Yokel expressed concern about the removal of a portion of the L-shaped canal and on the introduction of water from the marina into Live Oak Creek, there was no testimony whatsoever that it would be a violation of any criteria of the Department's Class III Water Standards or any other promulgated departmental standard. In fact, Dr. Yokel was unfamiliar with the provisions of Chapters 17- 3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code, and was also unfamiliar with the Coastal Marinas Assessment Handbook, the 1985 version published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although Dr. Yokel expressed some concern regarding the impact of the marina on the existing linear wetlands in the ditches, he never rendered any opinion as to whether or not reasonable assurances had been provided that the proposed permit was contrary to the public interest, would cause adverse water quality or have adverse effects on fish, shellfish, crabs, and other wildlife. He rendered no opinion as to whether or not the proposed project, if permitted, would adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife. The Petitioner, Lawrence Decker, did not testify. He did present Robert Bullard, P.E., as an expert. Mr. Bullard expressed concern about the operation of the flap gate between the marina basin and Live Oak Creek. However, Mr. Bullard expressed no opinion as to whether or not there would be a violation of any criteria contained in Chapters 17-3, 17-4, or 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, or of the Department's Class III Water Quality Standards. The witness, Mr. Bullard, also expressed concern about the hydrographic characteristics of the marina basin and of the L-shaped canal. However, Mr. Bullard never expressed an opinion that the project as designed would degrade State Water Quality Standards below those set in Chapters 17-3, 17-4, and 17-25, Florida Administrative Code, or the Department's Class III Water Quality Standards. Mr. Bullard never expressed any opinion as to whether or not reasonable assurances had been given by the applicant, Ponce Marina, to the Department, that the project would not meet the criteria as provided in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, or the rules promulgated by the Department thereunder. The applicant, Ponce Marina, has provided reasonable assurances that the project will not violate water quality standards or other standards established pursuant to Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, and Rules 17-3.051, 17- 3.061, and 17-3.121, Florida Administrative Code, relating to Class III waters. The project as designed is not contrary to the public interest. The mitigation more than offsets the wetlands lost. There is evidence to establish that the project, with mitigation, will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare, or property of others; nor adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species or their habitats; nor adversely affect navigation or flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; nor adversely affect the fishing or recreational value or marine productivity in its vicinity; nor adversely affect significant historical or archaeological resource.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein grant permit number 64-1303059 to Ponce Marina, Inc., with three additional specific conditions added to the twenty-one conditions set forth in the Intent to Issue: No live-aboard vessels are to be allowed at the marina. The applicant shall design and shall provide regular maintenance for the flap gate so as to insure that the flap gate will perform as required as an integral and critical component of the flushing design of the marina basin. The applicant shall eliminate or redesign the boat slips directly abutting the created wetlands on the south side of the basin, so as to protect those wetlands from damage. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3494 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners, Doris Kralik and Lawrence Decker 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(3); 2(2); 5(19); 10(24); 14(26); 32(26); and 35(27). 2. Proposed findings of fact 3, 4, 6-9, 11-13, 15, 16, 19, 24- 26, 28, 30, 33, 34, and 37-42 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 17, 36, and 43 are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 18, 20-23, 27, 29, and 31 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Ponce Marina, Inc. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 4(11 & 12); 5(10); 6(18); 9(3); 11(36); 15(29-32); 16 (33 & 34); 17(4);0(41) and 25(44). Proposed findings of fact 3, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, and 21-24 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 15 and 19 are unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Department of Environmental Regulation 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1 & 2) and 2-38(3-39). Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Intervenor, Volusia-Flagler Environmental Political Action Committee, Inc. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(3); 2(2); 4(8); 5(19); 8(27); 9(28); 21(24); and 22(26). 2. Proposed findings of fact 3, 6, 7, 10-13, 15, 19, 20, 23, 24, 27, 33-37, 39, and 40 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 14, 16-18, and 25 are rejected as irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 26, 28-32, 38, and 41-43 are unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence Decker 6502 John Anderson Road Flagler Beach, Florida 32036 Doris Kralik 31 Oceanview Avenue Ponce Inlet, Florida 32019 Peter B. Heebner Attorney at Law 523 North Halifax Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018 Vivian F. Garfein Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Thomas D. Wright Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1231 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32070 Dale H. Twachtmann, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
