The Issue Whether the activities conducted on respondent's property required a dredge/fill permit and whether respondent violated the conditions of the permit issued on February 15, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the record holder of a parcel of land located within Section 35, Township 45, South, Range 21 East, in Lee County, Florida. Respondent's property is contiguous to Pine Island Sound, a Class II, Outstanding Florida Water. Maureen Powers, an Environmental Specialist with the Department initially inspected respondent's property on May 23, 1984, after the Department received an anonymous complaint that someone was clearing away mangroves on the property. Ms. Powers-discovered that an earthen-fill road had been constructed on the property, and a portion of the road, 24' x 43'; was located within the landward extent of the state's waters. The determination that the portion of the road was within the Department's jurisdiction was based on the dominance of black and white mangroves. There had been recent mangrove cutting in the area, and a pile of vegetative debris, the result of the cutting, had been placed in the jurisdictional wetlands contiguous to Pine Island Sound. On June 1, 1984, Ms. Powers met with respondent in Langley Adair's office to discuss the violations observed on May 23, 1984, and to discuss the resolution of these violations. Respondent agreed to remove all of the earthen fill and vegetative debris that he had deposited within the jurisdictional wetlands. He agreed to refrain from any further work within the jurisdictional area prior to receiving a permit from the department. He also agreed to open up a flow channel in the berm along Pine Island Sound to restore circulation to the area. On July 11, 1984, Ms. Powers conducted an on-site inspection and discovered that the vegetative debris and the fill material had not been removed. Further, it was apparent that respondent's proposed home site, outlined by string and stakes, was submerged and directly connected by water to Pine Island Sound. The water standing on the property covered a portion of the fill area. On August 8, 1984, another inspection was performed, and it was discovered that respondent still had not removed the fill materials. The condition of the property was essentially the same as it had been on July 11, 1984. By letter dated August 20, 1984, respondent was again notified of the violations and reminded that he had agreed on June 1, 1984, to remove the vegetative and earthen fill. Respondent was informed that he needed to remove the fill materials within 30 days of receipt of the letter in order to avoid further enforcement action. On September 5, 1984, Ms. Powers again inspected the property and found that the proposed homesite and a portion of the fill were still submerged, that the water connected directly with Pine Island Sound and the fill materials had not been removed. Also apparent was a flume of milky white water which originated at the toe of the fill and continued into Pine Island Sound. Water samples were taken which revealed that the erosion of the unauthorized fill was resulting in a violation of state surface water quality criteria, specifically, turbidity1 greater than 29 Nephelometric Turbidity Units above natural background. The background sample, taken upstream from the site of the discharge, had a value of 5.2 turbidity units. The water sample taken two feet from the toe of the fill had a value of 69 turbidity units, and the sample from Pine Island Sound waterward of the mangrove fringe had a value of 46 turbidity units. On October 9, 1984, a letter was sent to respondent which pointed out that the earthen and vegetative fill had not been removed and notifying respondent that erosion of the earthen fill into the waters of Pine Island Sound had resulted in violation of surface water quality criteria. Respondent was requested to immediately cease and desist from all unauthorized. activity under the Department's jurisdiction. To clarify the situation, original photos of the site were sent with the letter which showed the earthen fill, the vegetative debris, and the turbid water leaving the site. A diagram of the site was also included to show the location fill materials that were to have been removed. On October 25, 1984, Ms. Powers met with Mr. Decker at the site. Ms. Powers showed respondent the earthen fill and vegetative debris that should have been removed. Ms. Powers noted that the waterward 23' x 24' section of the earthen fill had become heavily colonized by black mangrove seedings and, therefore, excepted that portion of the fill from the removal requirement so that the seedlings would not be disturbed. Mr. Decker stated that he would remove the unauthorized fill within two weeks. Meanwhile, apparently in September, respondent had submitted a permit application. Mr. Beaver was the field inspector assigned by DER to evaluate the application and make a recommendation on the feasibility of the project to the dredge and fill supervisor. On October 8, 1984, Mr. Beaver performed the field inspection at the site, and on October 23, 1984, issued his permit application appraisal recommending that the application be denied. Mr. Beaver recommended that the project be reconsidered for a permit if, among other things, the house site were removed from the landward extent of the state waters and located in the uplands, the septic tank were removed from the low lying portions of the site, and previously cut areas were allowed to regrow in native vegetation. On November 15, 1984, Mr. Beaver met with Mr. Decker and Mr. Cantrell, the district supervisor of dredge and fill, to discuss the project. Mr. Cantrell asked how the project could be modified so that Mr. Decker could have his house in the location where he wanted it. Mr. Beaver suggested a stilt, elevated house with a small fill pad that would allow access to the entrance of the house. The house would have to be elevated -enough so that revegetation of wetland plants could occur underneath the house structure and water flow could be maintained. On November 19, 1984, Ms. Powers and Mr. Beaver met Mr. Decker at the property. Ms. Powers and Mr. Beaver staked the DER jurisdiction line and marked the proposed location of Mr. Decker's boardwalk. Mr. Decker asked about placing wood chip mulch on the wetlands on his property in order to beautify the area. Mr. Decker was informed that wood chip mulch was considered vegetative fill and would require modification of his permit application. Subsequent to the meeting of November 15 and the on- site inspection of November 19, Mr. Decker modified his project. However, wood chip mulch was not mentioned. On December 7, 1984, Mr. Beaver recommended that the application be approved subject to specified conditions, which were ultimately incorporated into the permit. On December 11, 1984, Ms. Powers inspected the site and discovered that a large pile of wood chips had been placed on the northeast end of the fill road waterward of the jurisdiction line. The vegetative debris and earthen fill that had previously been on the project had not been removed. Respondent was notified of the violations by a Cease and Desist letter dated January 4, 1985. The letter pointed out that respondent had been told specifically that wood chip mulch was considered vegetative fill and that dredge/fill permit would be required prior to the placement of any fill material. On February 5, 1984, respondent met with DER, officials to discuss the violations. Mr. Decker stated that the fill had been removed as requested. The Department informed Mr. Decker that an inspection would be performed and, if the fill had not been removed, the Department would pursue formal enforcement action. On February 7, 1985, the site was inspected none of the fill material had been removed. A subsequent inspection on February 20, 1985, revealed that the wood chips had been spread throughout the jurisdictional wetlands. On February 15, 1985, respondent received a permit to fill and to construct a dock and boardwalk. The specific conditions of the permit include the following: 2. A 20' x 16' - 4" fill pad shall be the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line. This fill pad will be composed of clean sand and have the banks stabilized by a riprap revetment with a slope not greater than 2H:1V. * * * The house and all associated structures shall be built upon stilts with concrete footings and/or wooden pilings. On-site turbidity control devices shall be installed and properly maintained to localize turbidity impacts to the construction area. * * * All vegetative debris, trash and spoil material resulting from concrete footing placement shall be removed from the landward extent of State Waters as defined by the jurisdiction line staked by the DER. Upon completion of construction, non- filled areas beneath the stilt house and associated structures shall be returned to original grade if they were altered by construction. Wetland vegetation shall be planted in the previously cleared area and mangroves removed by construction activities shall be replaced on a 2 for 1 basis with 80% survival over a three year period. * * * 11. The project shall comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards, namely: 17-3.051 - Minimum Criteria for All Waters at All Times and All Places. 17-3.061 - Surface Waters: General Criteria 17-3.111 - Criteria - Class II Waters Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting, Surface Waters General Conditions 2 and 5 of the permit provide: 2. This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operation applied for and indicated in the approved drawings or exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit may constitute grounds for 81' filled area was located within the landward extent of the state waters. 19. Respondent has violated several conditions of the permit issued February 15, 1985. Specific Condition #2 provided that the 20' x 16' fill pad would be "the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line." Instead, respondent filled an area approximately 78' x 81' to an average height of about 2\', totaling approximately 585 cubic yards of fill. The fill was non-native fill brought onto the site. The permit did not authorize fill for a septic tank in the revocation and enforcement action by the department. 5. This permit does not relieve the permittee from liability for harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant or aquatic life or property and penalties therefor caused by the construction or operation of this permitted source, nor does it allow the permittee to cause pollution in contravention of Florida Statutes and department rules, unless specifically authorized by an order from the department. On March 19, 1985, an inspection of the property revealed that Mr. Decker had totally ignored the conditions of his permit. Rather than a fill pad of 20' x 16', respondent had filled an area approximately 78' x 81'.2 The fill was unstabilized, and no turbidity control devices were in place. Fill material had been used to construct a earthen berm across a natural flow channel, blocking the flow of water onto the property. Further, the vegetative debris resulting from the construction of the boardwalk had been deposited in the mangrove wetlands. On March 22, 1985, a Notice of Violation and. Orders for Corrective Action was sent to the respondent. Respondent received the notice on or about March 26, 1985. The landward extent of the state waters on respondent's property, the area in which a DER permit is required for dredging and filing, was determined by the presence of red mangroves (Rhizophora mangle), black mangroves (Avicennia germinans), and saltwort (Basis maritime) as the dominant species. The jurisdiction line was originally staked on November 19, 1984, and was reestablished on April 23, 1985, from remaining landmarks, due to the original markers being removed. The 78' x81' filled area was located within the landward extent of the state waters. Respondent has violated several conditions of the permit issued February 15, 1985. Specific Condition #2 provided that the 20' x 16' fill pad would be "the only fill placed waterward of the jurisdictional line." Instead, respondent filled an area approximately 78' x 81' to an average height of about 21/2', totaling approximately 585 cubic yards of fill. The fill was non-native fill brought onto the site. The permit did not authorize fill for a septic tank in the jurisdictional wetlands, but respondent placed a septic tank and drainfield in that area.3 By filling an area several times the size of the area authorized, respondent has seriously violated the conditions of the permit. A fill area of the size that now exists eliminates the habitat and water quality functions that the area historically performed. Respondent has violated Specific Condition #4, which required that the house and associated structures be built on stilts. The purpose of such a requirement is to preserve undisturbed the existing substrate, which constitutes the base of the food chain, and to allow for a free flow of water across the site, which is essential to the health of the mangrove system. Respondent not only filled an area larger than his proposed house, he poured a solid, continuous, concrete foundation on top of the fill, which would prevent the flow of water should the water rise high enough to come onto the filled area.4 By filling the area, destroying the substrate, and preventing the flow of water into the area, respondent has violated Specific Condition #4 of the permit. Respondent violated Specific Condition #5 of his permit in that respondent failed to install any turbidity control devices. Turbidity control devices of some sort are necessary in a fill area such as the one in this case. Turbidity screens or staked hay bales could have been used. Respondent also violated Specific Condition #8. Construction debris and vegetative debris were located throughout the area. Although respondent technically has not violated Specific Condition #9, in that it requires acts to be performed "upon completion of construction", respondent has made compliance with that provision an impossibility because he has filled the "non- filled areas beneath the stilt house" and therefore there are no "non-filled areas" to return to original grade. Respondent has never requested that his permit conditions and requirements be modified. By his actions, respondent has repeatedly shown a complete disregard for the requirements of the law, and he has totally ignored the conditions set forth in the permit. Mr. Decker was not qualified as an expert and I did not find him to be a credible witness. The reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Department in relation to the enforcement aspects of this action are $866.17. These costs and expenses were incurred by the Department in its effort to control and abate pollutants and to restore the waters and property of the state to their former condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the respondent's permit, number 360902245, be revoked that the respondent be ordered to make payment to the Department in the amount of $866.17 for costs and expenses incurred by the state and that the following corrective action be ordered: Respondent shall within thirty (30) days, remove all unauthorized fill material placed within the area of Department jurisdiction. Prior to initiating the fill removal respondent shall arrange for Department personnel to stake the area to be restored. All areas shall be restored to the elevation and soil conditions which existed prior to the placement of fill material. Respondent shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that state water quality standards are not violated during the restoration work. Respondent shall not disturb adjacent areas within the jurisdiction of the Department unless approved by the Department in writing. DONE and ENTERED this a 24th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of January, 1986.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are: whether Petitioners have standing; and whether Rule 62-302.800(2) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority, as defined by Section 120.52(8)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes.3
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, St. Johns Riverkeeper, Inc. (Riverkeeper), is a nonprofit, membership-based corporation with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. It is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and restoration of the ecological integrity of the St. Johns River watershed, monitors water quality in the river and its tributaries, and involves citizens in the decisions that affect the health of the river, and organizes regular boat trips for its members and citizens to learn more about the river and how they can participate in its management. Petitioner, Henry O. Palmer (Palmer), uses the lower St. Johns River (LSJR), including its marine portions and tributaries, for kayaking, boating, and observation of wildlife, and a substantial number of Riverkeeper's members use the LSJR, including its marine portions and tributaries, for boating, fishing, crabbing, observing birds and other wildlife, and other water-based recreational activities. Based on undisputed affidavits, Petitioners are substantially affected by algal blooms and decay and vegetation and fish kills in and along the river. These conditions can be caused by excessive nutrients along with other factors. Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), has used the procedures in Rule 62-302.800(2) to establish a Type II site-specific alternative criterion (SSAC) for dissolved oxygen (DO) for the LSJR that is lower than the otherwise-applicable, default water quality standard in Rule 62- 302.530(30). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-302.800(5)(a). As a result of the SSAC, DEP revised the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for total phosphorus (TP) and total nitrogen (TN) allowed for the marine portion of the LSJR. Rule 62-302.800 sets out a procedure for establishing a SSAC. Paragraph (1) sets out the procedure for Type I SSACs, which can be established when a "water body, or portion thereof, may 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" and "when an affirmative demonstration is made that an alternative criterion is more appropriate for a specified portion of waters of the state." Paragraph (2), which is challenged in this case, sets out the procedure to petition DEP for a Type II SSAC for unspecified "reasons other than those set forth above in subsection 62-302.800(1), F.A.C." Rule 62-302.800(2) provides in part: The Department shall initiate rulemaking for the [Environmental Regulation] Commission to consider approval of the proposed alternative criterion as a rule if the petitioner meets all the requirements of this subparagraph and its subparts. The petitioner must demonstrate that the proposed criterion would fully maintain and protect human health, existing uses, and the level of water quality necessary to protect human health and existing and designated beneficial uses. If the petition fails to meet any of these requirements (including the required demonstration), the Department shall issue an order denying the petition. In deciding whether to initiate rulemaking or deny the petition, the Department shall evaluate the petition and other relevant information according to the following criteria and procedures: The petition shall include all the information required under subparagraphs (1)(a)1.-4. above. In making the demonstration required by this paragraph (c), the petition shall include an assessment of aquatic toxicity, except on a showing that no such assessment is relevant to the particular criterion. The assessment of aquatic toxicity shall show that physical and chemical conditions at the site alter the toxicity or bioavailability of the compound in question and shall meet the requirements and follow the Indicator Species procedure set forth in Water Quality Standards Handbook (December 1983), a publication of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, incorporated here by reference. If, however, the Indicator Species Procedure is not applicable to the proposed site-specific alternative criterion, the petitioner may propose another generally accepted scientific method or procedure to demonstrate with equal assurance that the alternative criterion will protect the aquatic life designated use of the water body. The demonstration shall also include a risk assessment that determines the human exposure and health risk associated with the proposed alternative criterion, except on a showing that no such assessment is relevant to the particular criterion. The risk assessment shall include all factors and follow all procedures required by generally accepted scientific principles for such an assessment, such as analysis of existing water and sediment quality, potential transformation pathways, the chemical form of the compound in question, indigenous species, bioaccumulation and bioconcentration rates, and existing and potential rates of human consumption of fish, shellfish, and water. If the results of the assessments of health risks and aquatic toxicity differ, the more stringent result shall govern. The demonstration shall include information indicating that one or more assumptions used in the risk assessment on which the existing criterion is based are inappropriate at the site in question and that the proposed assumptions are more appropriate or that physical or chemical characteristics of the site alter the toxicity or bioavailability of the compound. Such a variance of assumptions, however, shall not be a ground for a proposed alternative criterion unless the assumptions characterize a factor specific to the site, such as bioaccumulation rates, rather than a generic factor, such as the cancer potency and reference dose of the compound. Man-induced pollution that can be controlled or abated shall not be deemed a ground for a proposed alternative criterion. The petition shall include all information required for the Department to complete its economic impact statement for the proposed criterion. For any alternative criterion more stringent than the existing criterion, the petition shall include an analysis of the attainability of the alternative criterion. No later than 180 days after receipt of a complete petition or after a petitioner requests processing of a petition not found to be complete, the Department shall notify the petitioner of its decision on the petition. The Department shall publish in the Florida Administrative Weekly either a notice of rulemaking for the proposed alternative criterion or a notice of the denial of the petition, as appropriate, within 30 days after notifying the petitioner of the decision. A denial of the petition shall become final within 14 days unless timely challenged under Section 120.57, F.S. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to criteria contained in Rule 62- 302.500, F.A.C., or criteria that apply to: Biological Integrity. B.O.D. Nutrients. Odor. Oils and Greases. Radioactive Substances. Substances in concentrations that injure, are chronically toxic to, or produce adverse physiological or behavioral response in humans, animals, or plants. Substances in concentrations that result in the dominance of nuisance species. Total Dissolved Gases. Any criterion or maximum concentration based on or set forth in paragraph 62-4.244(3)(b), F.A.C. Despite any failure of the Department to meet a deadline set forth in this subsection (2), the grant of an alternative criterion shall not become effective unless approved as a rule by the Commission. Nothing in this rule shall alter the rights afforded to affected persons by Chapter 120, F.S. Rule 62-302.800 cites several statutes as its specific rulemaking authority and specific provisions of law implemented, including Section 403.061, Florida Statutes, which states in pertinent part: The department shall have the power and the duty to control and prohibit pollution of air and water in accordance with the law and rules adopted and promulgated by it and, for this purpose, to: * * * Adopt rules pursuant to ss. 120.536(1) and 120.54 to implement the provisions of this act. . . . . * * * Adopt a comprehensive program for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution of the air and waters of the state, and from time to time review and modify such program as necessary. Develop a comprehensive program for the prevention, abatement, and control of the pollution of the waters of the state. In order to effect this purpose, a grouping of the waters into classes may be made in accordance with the present and future most beneficial uses. . . . . Establish ambient air quality and water quality standards for the state as a whole or for any part thereof, and also standards for the abatement of excessive and unnecessary noise. . . . . Section 403.201, Florida Statutes, sets out a separate procedure to apply to DEP for a variance from DEP's rules and regulations, including water quality standards, "for any one of the following reasons": There is no practicable means known or available for the adequate control of the pollution involved. Compliance with the particular requirement or requirements from which a variance is sought will necessitate the taking of measures which, because of their extent or cost, must be spread over a considerable period of time. A variance granted for this reason shall prescribe a timetable for the taking of the measures required. To relieve or prevent hardship of a kind other than those provided for in paragraphs (a) and (b). Variances and renewals thereof granted under authority of this paragraph shall each be limited to a period of 24 months, except that variances granted pursuant to part II may extend for the life of the permit or certification. There was no evidence that the revised TMDLs for TP and TN allowed for the marine portion of the LSJR will lead to algal growth and algal blooms, reduced DO, fish kills, or adverse impacts to recreation on the river. To the contrary, the Type II DO SSAC for the marine portion of the LSJR has not been challenged and conclusively establishes that it will "maintain and protect human health, existing uses, and the level of water quality necessary to protect human health and existing and designated beneficial uses" and will "protect the aquatic life designated use of the water body." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 302.800(2)(c). See also Affidavit of Douglas J. Durbin, Ph.D., filed June 25, 2010.
The Issue The issue is whether the 100 foot separation of respondents/applicants sewage treatment plant from the surface water management system is adequate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following supplemental findings of fact are determined: Background Respondents/applicant, John D. Remington and Bolton S. Drackett (applicants), are the owners of record of approximately two thirds, or around 2,700 acres, of Keewaydin Island (Key Island), which lies just south of the mainland portion of the City of Naples, Florida. In conjunction with a planned luxury development of forty-two homes on Key Island, applicants have filed an application with respondent, South Florida Water Management District (District), seeking the issuance of a permit authorizing the construction and operation of a surface water management system (system) through which stormwater runoff from the project will be directed and controlled. Petitioner, Florida Audubon Society (FAS), has initiated this proceeding to contest the issuance of a permit. In an earlier and separate proceeding (DOAH Case No. 90-2415), applicants applied for a permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) to construct a wastewater treatment plant (plant) to serve the planned development. The permit was issued on January 2, 1990, and because all appeals by FAS in Case No. 90-2415 have been concluded, that proceeding is now final. Although the wastewater treatment plant has not yet been constructed, the parties agree that it will be situated more than one hundred feet from the surface water management system. This distance (100 feet) is the minimum amount of space allowed by District rule between the plant and system. Even so, the purpose of the remand proceeding is to determine whether that amount of separation is adequate. Thus, the factual issue here is whether the treated wastewater from the plant and filter fields will enter the surface water management system and cause a violation of applicable water quality standards and other relevant District criteria. In support of their respective positions on this issue, the parties have presented the testimony of a number of experts. In resolving the conflict in their testimony, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive testimony which is embodied in the findings below. A Brief Description of the Development and System The proposed development and surface water management system were described in detail in the prior recommended order entered in this case. For purposes of this Supplemental Recommended Order, it need only be noted that Key Island now has a lodge, guest quarters and recreation facilities, all presently served by septic tanks. Access to the island is provided by motor launch from an existing shore station. Subaqueous utility crossings from the mainland provide electric power and potable water to the island. The planned development includes the construction of forty-two large luxury homes and an expansion of the lodge facilities to accommodate the needs of the new residents. The homes will be built in phases with approximately ten to be built in the first year. The entire project may take as long as seven or eight years to complete. The proposed surface water management system was designed to handle a seventy-five residential unit development. However, by virtue of a reduction in size imposed by the City of Naples, the project has been reduced to forty-two homes. Even so, the capacity of the system has not been downsized. Therefore, the system as designed will more than accommodate all proposed development on the island. The development area has been divided into seven surface water management basins based upon seven existing natural water sheds on the upland portion of the project. Each basin will have a system of inlets, culverts and swales which will direct runoff to control structures. The dry swales are approximately one foot deep and five to ten feet wide and run parallel on both sides of the cart paths that link the various portions of the project. The cart paths, which will be at an elevation of 5.5 feet above mean sea level (NGVD), will have culverts running underneath to aid in maintaining the natural flow of water and limit impounding of water. The swale bottoms are designed to be one foot below the cart path elevation, or at 4.5 feet NGVD, and will be dry, except during significant rain events, because they are designed so that the bottom of the swale is at least one foot above the average wet season water table. Both the cart paths and swale system utilize a design system that is common to residential developments. Once the water reaches a specified height, it goes over the control structure and is discharged downstream into spreader swales from which the water is dispersed into either interior, low wetland areas or into two artificial lakes (7.3 and 1.0 acres in size) created for wet detention. Basins one, two, three, four and seven are designed to treat water quality by the dry detention method, that is, by the unlined swales that parallel cart paths, while water quality is accomplished in basins five and six by best management practices and wet retention, that is, the two artificial lakes. The Wastewater Treatment Plant The DER permit was issued on January 2, 1990, and carries an expiration date of January 2, 1995. It authorizes applicants to: construct a 0.035 MGD extended aeration process wastewater treatment plant with reclaimed water to dual absorption fields located at the project site as depicted on Wilson, Miller, Barton, Soll & Peek, Inc. design drawings, project number 6270, sheets 1 thru 5 of 5, dated March 20, 1989, revised October 16, 1989 and received October 19, 1989. The design drawings were submitted in support of construction application, engineering report, hydrologeolic characteristics and hydraulic modeling for effluent disposal report and related documents, dated March 20, 1989. The hydraulic capacity of the plant is limited to 0.030 MGD based on the reclaimed water disposal system. The collection system shall not exceed the 0.030 MGD hydraulic capacity as well. The wastewater treatment plant is designed to meet all DER water quality, health and safety standards. For example, the plant must achieve 90% removal of biological oxygen demand (BOD) and 90% removal of total suspended solids from the raw wastewater, or effluent levels below 20 parts per million for BOD and 10 parts per million suspended solids, whichever is more stringent. The plant must also have twenty-four hour detention in the aeration chamber and four hours detention in the clarifer. Further, a chlorine chamber contact time of fifteen minutes is required. In addition, DER has issued the permit with certain specific conditions. Among others, these include standards as to effluent chlorine residuals, the requirement that a professional engineer inspect the construction, operation requirements, sampling schedules, defined perameter levels, and the establishment of a hydraulic plant load (permitted maximum daily flow) at 30,000 gallons per day. By issuing the permit, DER has concluded that up to 30,000 gallons per day of sewage effluent can be treated and disposed of by the plant filter fields without violation of applicable DER water quality, health and safety standards. The wastewater treatment plant will be located on a centralized utility site within basin seven of the system. There are also gravity sand filters and a drainfield effluent disposal system located in basin six, which is the northeastern corner of the project. The plant will provide a high degree of treatment and disinfection for the effluent before it is discharged to the filter field. The filtered (treated) effluent will flow by gravity main to the filter fields located in an adjacent basin. Two filter fields will be used in disposing of the treated wastewater effluent. Constructed as sand mounds at a grade level of two or three feet above the existing island elevation, each filter will have dimensions of twenty feet wide and four hundred feet long. The filter fields will be constructed as a bed of gravel wrapped in filter cloth and placed within a mound of soil. A perforated four-inch pipe will be installed within the gravel bed at 5.5 feet NGVD to distribute the effluent through the filter beds. The effluent will then percolate downward and laterally away from the bed and into the groundwater table. At that point, the effluent will become indistinguishable from the groundwater Because the total daily flow will be pumped alternately into one part of the two sections of the drainfield, this allows one filter field to "rest" for a seven-day period during the use of the other filter field, thereby avoiding saturation. Therefore, the average theoretical maximum input into a filter field over a one year period at the plant's maximum capacity is 15,000 gallons per day. The plant was designed and permitted for maximum daily flows at all times of the year. However, the actual operating conditions will reflect significantly less flows due to the seasonality of the population and occupancy levels. More specifically, the plant was designed and permitted for seventy- five dwelling units and ancillary uses with an estimated maximum design flow of 28,450 gallons per day. The approved planned development will contain only forty-two dwelling units and ancillary uses with a maximum design flow of 21,200 gallons per day. Therefore, the permitted plant will treat the wastewater to a higher level due to the reserve capacity, and the plant will rarely be used at over fifty percent of its available capacity. Revised projected wastewater flows will range from daily loads of 2,325 gallons per day during the months of August and September to a high of 15,137 gallons per day during the month of February. This projected usage is consistent with historical occupancy and usage trends in the Naples area which show that occupancy of homes is at its peak during the dry season (the cooler winter months) and substantially lower during the wet season (the hot summer months). Applicants' projected wastewater flows are found to be reasonable and are hereby accepted. In making this finding, the undersigned has rejected the contention by FAS that the daily wastewater flows will be higher than that projected by the applicants and the plant will operate at maximum capacity for sustained periods of time. The system plans reflect that there will be swales within basin six located between one hundred ten and one hundred twenty feet to the west of the filter fields. These swales run parallel along a cart path and flow to the north discharging into an artificial lake at the north end of the project. The swales in this basin have a bottom elevation of 4.5 feet NGVD and decrease to an elevation of 3.5 feet NGVD at the point of discharge into the artificial lake. Adequacy of Separation Between Plant and System Rule 40E-4.091, Florida Administrative Code, adopts and incorporates by reference a document known as the "Basis for Review for Surface Water Management Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District - September 1989" (Basis for Review). Section 3.2.2.8 of the Basis for Review reads as follows: Sewage treatment percolation ponds. Above ground pond dikes shall not be within 200 feet of water bodies or 100 feet of dry detention/ detention areas. Additional calculations by the applicant may be necessary in unusual cases requiring deviations from these dimensions. The purpose of the above section is to provide adequate separation between above-ground percolation ponds and surface water management systems in case the percolation pond dike fails. For example, above grade percolation ponds contain large volumes of sewage treatment plant effluent. If a pond dike should fail, a large portion of effluent would be quickly released into the adjacent ground. The minimum 100-foot separation is designed to provide adequate distance for percolation into the ground prior to infiltrating the surface water management system. However, filter fields contain lesser volumes of effluent than do percolation ponds, and should a filter field fail, the effluent will trickle out the side of the field with a much lower rate of effluent release than from a failed pond dike. In accordance with the District rule, applicants have proposed to locate the surface water management system more than one hundred feet from the wastewater treatment plant and filtration beds. Even though the rule standards have been met, the purpose of this remand proceeding is to determine whether that amount of separation is adequate to prevent adverse impacts to the water quantity and water quality functions of the system from the operation and location of the filter fields. The Computer Models As a part of their application filed with DER in 1989, applicants' witness Missimer prepared and submitted a report known as "Hydrogeologic Characteristics and Hydraulic Modeling for Effluent Disposal at Keewaydin Club". The report was based on a computer model known as "Modflow" and was designed to show the increase in elevation of the water table for a loading rate of 30,000 gallons per day alternating between the two filtration beds. The purpose of the modeling analysis filed with DER was to investigate whether the plant would continue to discharge effluent to the drainfields under the most extreme conditions. The model demonstrated that the effluent discharge would not be impaired even under conditions that are beyond any reasonable or probable operating conditions. After reviewing the model, DER accepted those results and issued a permit. Utilizing in large part the underlying assumptions and parameters of the Missimer model, and without performing any independent field evaluation on the site, FAS witness Chin ran the model to investigate the impact of the operation of the plant on the system. Because the model used by Dr. Chin was not constructed for the design of a surface water management system, but rather was constructed for the purpose of designing an adsorption field, without modification it provided a more than worst case scenario of impacts associated with the operation of a plant. In this case, Dr. Chin utilized the ultra- conservative assumptions used in designing the adsorption field and made no revisions to the model. Thus, it is found that the model as used by Dr. Chin, and any conclusions drawn from the model alone, are not a sufficient or reasonable basis for evaluating the impact of the plant on the system. The model used by Dr. Chin is not representative of the natural occurring conditions on the island or the reasonably expected plant flow rates. Moreover, in developing the worst case scenario, as opposed to reasonable expectations, both the Chin and Missimer models incorporated the simultaneous occurrence of certain conservative assumptions including an impermeable flow boundary, a year round wet season water table elevation, a conservative rate of transmissivity, and a constant rate of evapotranspiration. The use of these assumptions caused the model output to grossly overstate the effects of the plant on the system in the following manner. First, by assuming a flow barrier on the island, the model had the effect of overestimating the height of the groundwater mound from operation of the plant than would occur if no boundary were used. Second, the assumption of a year-round wet season groundwater level is unrealistic since groundwater levels fluctuate seasonally, receding to near zero NGVD on the island during the dry season. Thus, the model overestimated the height of the groundwater level. Further, by using only the upper ten feet of the water table aquifer in calculating the rate of transmissivity, the model incorporated a much lower rate than would be attained had the entire thickness (74 feet) of the aquifer been used. This also resulted in an over-estimation in the height of the mound from the operation of the plant. Finally, by assuming a constant rate of evapotranspiration, the model "grossly exaggerated" the impact to the groundwater level from operation of the plant. In reality, as the water table increases, the loss of water from evapotranspiration increases significantly and constitutes a major output of a water budget. Besides the foregoing assumptions, the Chin model also assumed a continuous loading rate of 30,000 gallons per day for a period of up to one year. While the District should properly consider the permitted flow rate of the plant in evaluating a worst case of potential impact, there was no evidence substantiating any likelihood of the plant actually producing 30,000 gallons per day for 365 consecutive days in conjunction with all other conservative assumptions discussed above. The more reasonable and accepted method of analyzing the impact of plant flows is to examine the peak month's average day flow over a six-month period. As noted earlier, for the proposed forty-two units, the peak day flow is estimated to be approximately 21,200 gallons per day. Therefore, it is highly probable that actual flow rates will be much lower than the maximum plant capacity of 30,000 gallons per day. By failing to use the more reasonable and realistic reduced flow rates, the Chin model overestimated the elevation of the groundwater level from the operation of the plant. In contrast, the Missimer analysis demonstrates that it is extremely unlikely that the plant output will ever elevate groundwater to the extent that it would reach the system swales by either surface water or groundwater flow. The foregoing modeling assessments, including the criticisms of the Chin model, were concurred in by the District expert. Water Quantity Impacts There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the operation of the plant will adversely impact the ability of the system to provide adequate flood protection and drainage. Indeed, the more credible evidence shows that an alteration of existing drainage patterns will not occur by virtue of the operation of the plant, and the post-development discharge rates will not exceed the pre-development discharge rates. Therefore, the undersigned's previous finding that applicants have provided reasonable assurance that the the system provides adequate protection and drainage is not altered after considering the operation and location of the plant. There is insufficient credible evidence to support a finding that the plant's operation will adversely impact the system functions in such a way as to cause adverse water quantity impacts on receiving waters and adjacent lands. Indeed, the post-development discharge rate approximates the pre-development discharge rate on receiving waters, the ultimate receiving water body (the Gulf of Mexico) has an infinite capacity to receive water, and there are no adjacent lands subject to flooding from discharge of the system regardless of whether there is any impact of the plant on the system. There is no credible evidence to support a finding that the plant will cause the system to have an adverse impact on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Rather, the more persuasive evidence shows that the plant's operation will not result in groundwater elevation in the area of the system that would cause the impoundment of water or prevent the percolation of water into the soil. In addition, the overflow levels for control structures will operate as designed to insure against over-drainage or flooding. Finally, the operation of the filter fields will not cause adverse impacts on surface and groundwater levels and flows. Water Quality Impacts The operation of the plant will not impair the water quality functions of the system. This is because the swales will continue to detain the first flush of run-off allowing the majority of the suspended solids and other pollutants to settle out regardless of the operation of the plant. Further, in the unlikely event the treated wastewater effluent reached the system, it would be indistinguishable from the stormwater or rainfall due to the high level of treatment from the plant, the filter fields and dilution from groundwater and rainfall. The operation of the plant will not cause adverse water quality impacts on the receiving waters. In making this finding, the undersigned notes initially that the plant is permitted by DER, and therefore it is assumed to comply with all DER water quality standards. Second, there is no evidence that the system will impact the operation of the plant. In the event the groundwater mixed with treated effluent resurfaces, there would be no adverse impact to the surface water quality. This is because the treated effluent from the plant exceeds state water quality standards. Once the treated effluent becomes a part of the groundwater, it is unlikely that it will resurface again in the areas of the swales, which are more than one hundred ten feet away. Indeed, in order for the groundwater with effluent to travel that distance, it would have been in the groundwater system for at least one hundred days. This period of time is more than sufficient for the denitrification and adsorption processes to remove all nutrients. Even if the worst case scenario became a reality and the groundwater reached the swale bottoms, it would only result in a wetting of the ground and would not be of sufficient quantity to create a flow of water in the swale to travel off-site impacting a receiving water. In any event, at that point, any groundwater resurfacing that distance away would no longer be effluent. Finally, during abnormal conditions, such as a hurricane or large storm event, the groundwater may rise to the surface and mix with the surface water and enter the system. However, any effluent already significantly diluted under normal circumstances would be indistinguishable from the stormwater or rainfall. Adverse Environmental Impacts There is no credible evidence that the operation of the plant filter fields will adversely impact the system in such a manner as to cause an adverse environmental impact. In so finding, the undersigned rejects the contention that the system will act as a conduit for treated effluent to travel off-site to the ponds, marsh, mangrove areas or receiving waters. The evidence shows that the design of the filter fields and high permeability of the island soils will prevent the surface flow of effluent to the system swales. The elevation of the swales above the groundwater table level will prevent the introduction of effluent into the swale system. In the unlikely event the groundwater reaches the bottom elevation of the swale, there would be no significant environmental impact because the quality of effluent would be indistinguishable from the groundwater due to the high level of treatment and dilution, and such water would still be further treated by the system before discharge to receiving bodies. The location of the plant and system will not have an adverse impact on the gopher tortoise population on the island. Rather, the system should enhance the gopher tortoise population by providing mananged land with vegetation suitable for gopher consumption. Further, the general development on the island will reduce the number of raccoons which prey on gopher eggs and young gophers. Miscellaneous During the remand hearing, FAS presented evidence concerning the impact of tides and mean sea level rise and saline lakes on the island. This evidence was essentially the same as that presented in the prior hearing and was rejected in favor of the more credible evidence presented by the applicants on this issue. Nothing was presented during the remand hearing which would alter these prior findings. During the hearing, and in response to a question by District counsel, witness Missimer agreed it would not be unreasonable to install a few monitoring wells to insure that the system is operating properly. Because this requirement is not unreasonable, will serve a valuable purpose, and has been utilized by the District as a special condition on numerous prior occasions, it should be incorporated into the permit conditions. Even though the evidence clearly shows that seasonal tidal fluctuations would not have an adverse impact on the functioning of the system, if such a tidal incursion were to occur, the placement of a check valve device on the water control structures would prevent sea water from flowing back into the system. Such a device would be a minor addition to the system, would not otherwise affect its design, and if deemed necessary by the District, should be incorporated into the permit conditions. Prior to hearing, the District retained the services of an outside consultant to assist it in preparation for trial. The consultant did not testify at final hearing and prepared no reports. He did make several computer runs, none of which are a part of this record. Among other things, District witness Rogers relied upon the computer runs in formulating his opinion on the issue presented on remand.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting the requested permit in accordance with the agency's proposed agency action dated March 28, 1990. DONE and ENTERED this 22 day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22 day of March, 1991.
The Issue On June 7, 1991 the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) released its intent to issue Permit No. DC05-194008, authorizing Florida Cities Water Company (FCWC) to construct a 300-acre restricted public access spray irrigation system for the land application of treated domestic wastewater (Sprayfield Permit). And, on August 6, 1991 DER released its intent to issue Permit No. MS05-194894, relating to stormwater management and management and storage of surface waters (MSSW Permit) for the sprayfield site. Petitioners Brevard Groves, Inc. and H & S Groves, Inc. (Groves), Parrish Properties, Inc., Parrish Management, Inc. (Parrishes), Atico Financial Corp. (Atico) and David and Eleanor Shreve (Shreve), each requested a formal administrative hearing challenging the issuance of the sprayfield permit. Groves requested a hearing challenging the issuance of the MSSW Permit. The ultimate issue is whether FCWC is entitled to these permits.
Findings Of Fact FCWC is a private utility company, with headquarters at 4837 Swift Road, Suite 100, Sarasota, Florida, 34231. FCWC's Barefoot Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant (the WWTP) provides water and wastewater service to the Barefoot Bay development in southern Brevard County, Florida. DER, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2900, is an agency of the State of Florida which regulates domestic wastewater treatment and disposal facilities and permits their construction and operation. For domestic wastewater projects, DER is also charged with reviewing applications for stormwater management and management and storage of surface water pursuant to an operating agreement between DER and St. Johns River Water Management District. David and Eleanor Shreve are beekeepers who live approximately a quarter-mile from the proposed sprayfield. They maintain beehives in the groves and woods surrounding the proposed site. The remaining Petitioners own citrus groves that are adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. These groves are producing and are actively maintained. The WWTP has a treatment capacity of 0.9 million gallons per day (MGD). As of July, 1990, the WTTP was treating and disposing of effluent from approximately 4,200 residences in the Barefoot Bay development. At buildout, within the five-year life of the Sprayfield Permit, the WWTP will serve 5,000 residents, and will generate approximately 0.6 MGD of wastewater. Disposal of treated effluent is presently achieved by a 40-acre sprayfield, storage ponds and direct discharge of pond overflow to the San Sebastian Drainage District Canal (Canal). In 1986, DER issued FCWC a warning notice to the WWTP regarding an unlawful discharge to the Canal. FCWC met with DER to discuss options to correct the discharge. In 1988, FCWC entered a Consent Order that would allow FCWC to discharge treated effluent into the Canal until a deep injection well could be built for alternative disposal. FCWC also discussed other alternatives with DER, such as golf course irrigation. The Consent Order was amended in 1991 to provide for land application in lieu of deep injection. In accordance with the amended Consent Order, FCWC has submitted monthly monitoring reports to DER, for the WWTP and for the storage (percolation) ponds. DER has never issued a notice of violation to FCWC for failure to comply with monitoring in the Consent Order. The Site The proposed sprayfield site is divided into two large tracts, the "northern parcel" and the "southern parcel." The site is primarily citrus groves. Although some citrus trees were damaged by a freeze in recent years, most are still viable. Most of the areas between the trees and limited areas without trees are covered with dense grasses and weeds. The site, and the surrounding groves, have been significantly altered to provide sufficient drainage for citrus trees, which require well-drained conditions. The area is covered by shallow ditches (swales), between mounded rows of earth comprising beds for the trees. These citrus mounds, created by soil cast up during excavation of the swales, occur on 60-foot centers and rise 2 1/2-3 feet above the bottom of the swales. The swales have pipes at each end, which discharge into an agricultural collection ditch or the Canal. Each block of citrus is surrounded by a collection ditch some 8-10 feet deep. All collection ditches ultimately discharge into the Canal, which borders the site on the north and is approximately 20 feet deep and 100 feet wide. The collection ditches and Canal prevent the entrance of offsite surface water run- off into the site and receive surface water run-off and groundwater seepage from the site. The Sprayfield Project The project is proposed in two phases. Phase I meets total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.55 MGD, using both the proposed sprayfield and the existing 40-acre sprayfield, which will continue in operation for both phases of the project. Phase II meets the total annual effluent disposal needs of 0.6 MGD at build-out. This results in an average annual application rate of 0.54 inch/week or approximately 28 inches per year on the proposed sprayfield. The project is designed to eliminate the current discharge to the Canal. The effluent will be given secondary treatment with basic disinfection. The treated effluent will be pumped from the WWTP to storage ponds and then to the proposed sprayfield. The existing ponds will be retrofitted as storage ponds for Phase I. An additional storage pond will be constructed at the proposed sprayfield for Phase II. The spray irrigation system will operate primarily with four traveling gun sprinklers. Two sets of fixed-head sprinklers will also be used for the two small triangular portions of the site. The traveling sprinklers will be operated for approximately 5.9 hours/day during Phase I and 6.5 hours during Phase II. The four traveling sprinklers will run simultaneously on four of the thirty-three travel lanes (tracks) located between the swales covering the site. Ordinarily each track will be sprayed every eighth day. To make up for days when irrigation is not possible, additional disposal capacity can be obtained by operating the sprinklers for extra shifts on tracks not previously irrigated that day. The site will be mowed regularly, and any accumulated grasses or debris will be removed. Any areas presently in weeds, or the areas not covered by vegetation are reasonably expected to fill in with dense grasses when irrigation commences. Maintaining the grass cover in the swales will prevent erosion of soil and debris into the swales and reduce the need for maintenance of clogged swale outlet pipes. The system is designed and will be operated to avoid ponding or direct surface run-off of sprayed treated effluent. However, there may be some very limited potential for droplets of treated effluent clinging to vegetation being washed into the swales by a heavy storm event immediately following an application. Therefore, the sprinklers will not be operated when the water table is closer than four inches from the bottom of the swales. Operators will know when to spray by reading automatic groundwater elevation monitoring gauges installed in several places throughout each block of citrus, including the middle. In addition, an automatic device will shut off sprinklers during a rainfall, so that no significant amount of treated effluent will leave the site mixed with stormwater. The site is bordered on three sides by groves and on one side by undeveloped vacant land. The width of the proposed buffer zone from the sprayfield wetted area to the site property line is at least 100 feet, as required in Rule 17-610.421(2), F.A.C., and is substantially wider for extensive lengths of the project border. The buffer is approximately 130 ft. wide on the eastern boundary of the northern parcel, approximately 250 to 235 ft. wide on the western boundary of the northern parcel, and approximately 225 to 160 ft. on the western border of the southern parcel. The distance between the wetted area and adjacent property owners' boundaries is much greater than 100 ft. for other portions of the sprayfield borders due to linear features that provide additional buffering. It is over 200 ft. from the wetted area to the nearest property owner on the northern border of the northern parcel because of the San Sebastian Canal, and 160 ft. on the southern border of the northern parcel and the southern and eastern borders of the southern parcel because of the 60-foot wide Micco Road right-of-way. Aerosal Drift and Other Off-Site Impacts While Petitioners allege that their groves would be contaminated by aerosol drift from the site, they presented no expert or other competent, substantial evidence on the extent or volume of such drift. FCWC air modelling expert, Dr. Robert Sholtes, used the EPA Industrial Source Complex Model (ISC), the most commonly used predictive model in the air pollution community, to evaluate the project's aerosol drift. While the sprinklers are planned to be operated a maximum 6.5-hour shift, a conservative 7.0-hour shift was used. Other data inputs to the ISC Model were hourly windspeeds at the Daytona Beach weather station for five years; sprinkler nozzle size and pressure; and droplet size, distribution and settling rates obtained from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. The model yielded the annual average deposition of sprayed effluent in grams per square meter (gm/m2) outside the wetted area for one sprinkler as it moves along its track. The accumulated deposition off the site property line, considering operation of all tracks, can be predicted using these results. Because heavy deposition of droplets settles out fairly rapidly, the aerosol from tracks farther into the site does not significantly affect the maximum impact shown for one track. Due to the prevailing east and west coastal winds, heaviest deposition will occur off the eastern and western property line of the site. The volume of treated effluent that will be blown offsite is not substantial. The greatest volume is approximately 1000 millimeters/square meter/year (ml/m2/yr) off the eastern property line out to approximately 50-75 feet, and 500 ml/m2/yr off the western property line out to approximately 75 feet. A maximum of 100 ml/m2/yr is predicted and a maximum of 50 ml/m2/yr is predicted off the southern and northern lines, respectively. In practice, volumes of aerosol drift off-site will be below the predicted levels in areas where trees occur in the buffers. Most significantly, there are existing rows of citrus trees along the eastern border of the northern parcel within the buffer area, which is the area of heaviest predicted drift. In addition, aerosol drift will be minimized by operating procedures. Wind speed and direction will be monitored at the site. If the wind is over 20 miles per hour, there will be no spraying. For winds of lesser speeds, the spray tracks on the edges of the sprayfield will not be used during a strong directional wind, e.g., for a wind blowing east, the track on the eastern border will not be utilized. The tracks are on approximately 240-foot centers. Therefore, elimination of spraying for the track on the edge of the site will have the effect of withdrawing the aerosol drift deposition pattern 240 feet further into the sprayfield. Considering that the farthest extent of the maximum 1000 ml/m2/yr levels of drift is 75 feet, such a program will be very effective in minimizing drift. Because no motors will be required to operate the site, significant noise is not expected. The treated effluent will not contain significant amounts of odor-causing constituents, and odors are not expected. Finally, lighting is not planned on the proposed sprayfield, so this is not expected to be a source of offsite impact. Assurances for Proposed Application Rate A determination of the site's ability to accept treated effluent at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week without adverse effects was based on (1) the hydraulic loading capacity of the site to receive the applied water, considering soil permeability and other physical site conditions, and (2) the allowable nitrogen loading rate, considering the ability of the vegetation to uptake the nitrogen contained in the treated effluent. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes a general manual for technical assistance in designing land application systems across the United States. This manual, "Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - Process Design Manual" (EPA Manual), is cited as a general technical guidance source in DER Rule 17- 610.300(4), F.A.C. The EPA Manual contains formulae for the calculation of both the hydraulic loading capacity and the allowable nitrogen loading rate. The EPA Manual recommends use of the more restrictive of the hydraulic loading capacity or the allowable nitrogen loading rate as the hydraulic loading rate for the project. Hydraulic Loading Capacity. A hydraulic loading capacity of 0.63 inch/week for the proposed sprayfield was determined based on field exploration, laboratory testing, hydrogeological conditions and engineering evaluation, summarized in a report included in the application. This 0.63 inch/week hydraulic loading capacity is above the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week and substantially below the maximum rate of 2 inches/week allowed by DER Rule 17-610.423(4), F.A.C. EPA Equation 4-3 for hydraulic loading capacity balances the volume of water that enters the site with the volume of water that leaves the site. Values in Equation 4-3 are evapotranspiration, which is the water released to the atmosphere from soil surfaces and by vegetation (ET); precipitation rate (rainfall); and Pw, which is water removed by vertical percolation downward through the soils. Due to the high vertical permeabilities of the sandy soils at this site, unrefined use of EPA Equation 4-3 would give a very high hydraulic loading capacity for this project, on the order of 10 times that proposed by FCWC. Therefore, a more detailed input/output water balance formula was used to determine annual hydraulic loading capacity (applied effluent in the formula) of 0.63 inch/week: rainfall + applied effluent + groundwater inflow = evapotranspiration, + groundwater outflow + surface run-off + evaporation + irrigation losses. The average annual rainfall, based on data from the U.S. NOAA weather station at Melbourne, is 48.17 inches. Due to the isolating effect of the deep ditches surrounding the site, groundwater inflow is considered to be so negligible that it was not assigned a value for the equation. ET, based on standard scientific references, is 45 inches/year for citrus trees. An additional 20 inches/year loss is attributable to grasses covering soil surfaces. In lieu of vertical percolation, groundwater outflow laterally through the surficial aquifer was projected to be 1.8 inches per year, based on hydraulic conductivity and soil permeabilities for the site. Surface run-off of stormwater was estimated to be 10 inches per year. Irrigation losses were estimated at 15% of the amount of applied effluent. Pond Storage Capacity. The proposed application rates for the two phases of the project are annual averages. The volume of storage needed for occasions when conditions preclude application must be determined. DER requires the calculation of storage by analytical means for the 10-year rainfall recurrence interval, using 20 years of rainfall data, and accounting for all water inputs on a monthly basis, using site-specific data. A minimum storage volume equal to three days application is required. Rule 17-610.414 (2), F.A.C. Calculations presented in the application met these requirements and showed storage needs of 8.08 million gallons (MG), or approximately 15 application days' volume, for Phase I; and 15 MG, or 25 application days for Phase II. Additional storage calculations, reflecting the monthly variations of wastewater inflow due to the seasonal population, were prepared for Phase I. These calculations reflected the same storage requirements. Petitioners' Allegations Regarding Application Rate and Storage Although they had prepared no analyses, performed no calculations, conducted no laboratory tests and undertaken only one field test (test hole for groundwater level), Petitioners' witnesses asserted that site conditions precluded successful operation of the sprayfield at the maximum proposed application rate of 0.54 inch/week. They asserted that swale pipes would plug and a clay "hardpan" at the bottom of the swales would prohibit percolation of stormwater. Thus, the swales would be full of water for long periods and further application would be precluded. They also asserted that significant volumes of treated effluent would leave the site as run-off. They alleged treated effluent would enter the swales directly from accumulation of spray and indirectly from seepage from the sides of the citrus mounds. Finally, Petitioners asserted 15 days of storage was inadequate because the site would be too wet for application for at least a month. FCWC presented testimony and evidence based on site reviews, numerous field and laboratory tests, computer modelling, and calculations that successfully refuted these allegations. Petitioners' expert in grove management and local soil conditions, Mr. Burnette, stated that extremely wet conditions required pumping of swales for weeks at a time in nearby groves. FCWC's experts asserted that the proposed sprayfield site currently has, and will continue to have, under proper maintenance, much better drainage than Mr. Burnette's groves, where regular grading of swale inverts and herbicide applications denude soil and cause erosion which plugs pipes and backs up water in the swales. In addition, unlike the situation described in Burnette's groves, the proposed site contains no swales that are lower in elevation than the collection ditches, thereby facilitating stormwater run-off. The top layer of soil comprising the citrus mounds and the swales is relatively clean sand. Petitioners' so-called "hardpan" is a slightly clayey to clayey fine sand layer which separates the upper sand from a thick layer of very clean, beach-type sand. FCWC geotechnical experts determined the clayey sand layer was 18 to 24 inches below the bottom of the swales. Without any field testing, Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist, Mr. Oros, asserted that the clayey sand layer was at the bottom of the swales. In contrast, Mr. Burnette stated that the clayey sand layer occurs four to eight inches below the bottom of the swales on the adjoining groves, where the graded swales are 10 to 14 inches deeper than the shallow swales on the proposed sprayfield site. Thus, Mr. Burnette's testimony supports the FCWC conclusion that this layer is found up to 2 feet below the swales on the proposed site. Moreover, contrary to Petitioners' assertions that the layer acts as a "hardpan", water can pass relatively freely through it and the water table will not "perch" above it. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) reports a permeability value for this soil type of one to 12 feet per day. Dr. John Garlanger, FCWC expert in subsurface investigation and soil mechanics, conducted a field inspection of the soil and reviewed grain size distribution analyses. He determined that the permeability of the clayey sand layer is about one foot of water per day. Petitioners' expert hydrogeologist concurred that the layer could have this permeability rate. Soil is at the "wilting point" when its water content is too low for plants to transpire additional water. Soil is at "field capacity" when added water "fills up" the soil and it becomes saturated. The "water table" is the level at which the soil is totally saturated. Petitioners erroneously assert that 90% of the 0.54 inch of treated effluent will travel straight down to the water table. Instead, due to capillary action, the first foot of the sandy soil at the site can store about 0.6 inch of water between the wilting point and field capacity. If there is no rain between applications, 100% of the 0.54 inch will be transpired by vegetation out of the first foot of soil. This "resets" the soil moisture content to the wilting point in preparation for another application. If heavy rains cause the soil to remain at field capacity rather than returning to the wilting point through ET, the soil can still absorb up to 2.25 inches of water per foot, or three-fourths to one inch of water per four inches of soil, before it reaches saturation. Therefore, even if the soil is saturated up to 4 inches below the swales, the top 4 inches of soil will still absorb the 0.54 inch of treated effluent without reaching total saturation or causing any run-off. If subsequent heavy rains saturate the remaining soil and raise the water table to the bottom of the swales, the excess rainwater which falls on the saturated surface will run off as stormwater, and most of the treated effluent will remain stored within the soil. Furthermore, because the water table is proposed to be measured at centers of the blocks where, due to distance from the drainage ditches, the water table is closest to the surface, soil storage capacity across the site will exceed these projected levels. Petitioners' experts also asserted that if it rains after the 0.54 inch application, the groundwater will "mound" up below the citrus mounds, creating a hydraulic gradient or head differential (between the water table under the citrus mounds and the water table below the swales) sufficiently great to cause the treated effluent in the mound to flow toward the swales and seep into them from the sides of the citrus mounds. Mr. Golding admitted that such seepage would not occur when the groundwater table is below the bottom of the swales. Nevertheless, he opined that seepage of treated effluent would be considerable because he believed, based on opinion and experience alone, that the water table would be at the bottom of the swales or higher for at least 30 days straight in a "wet year." FCWC's experts successfully refuted these assertions. A significant portion of the treated effluent falling onto the citrus mounds will be stored in the soil as described above. The treated effluent (only applied when water level is 4 inches below the swales) that actually reaches the water table will cause only a very slight "water mound" (only 2 inches in 30 feet) which will not produce any appreciable "head" or lateral flow to the swales. On only three occasions (a total of 8 days) during the wettest year in ten did the "water mound" rise above the bottom of the swales resulting in any groundwater seepage from the citrus mounds into the swales. Thus, during the entire wettest year in ten, less than one-half of 1% (0.12 inch of the approximately 28 inches) of annual applied treated effluent, very diluted with groundwater, might seep from the mounds into the swale. Contrary to Petitioners' expert's assertion that the seasonal high water level (SHWL) was not provided by FCWC, this information was supplied in the application and was reaffirmed by calculations of Dr. Garlanger at rebuttal. The importance attached to the SHWL for this project was not adequately explained by Petitioners. FCWC experts explained that the SHWL is the average (NOT maximum) height of the groundwater during the two to six wettest months of the year. Because the water table varies throughout the year, it is the calculation of the position of the water table from month to month that is significant and is required by DER. This monthly changing water table was the basis of storage water balance calculations contained in the application. Even though the monthly storage calculation in the application meets the DER/EPA requirements, Petitioners' witnesses asserted that the application did not indicate how many days the water table would rise to four inches below the swales and thus how many days spraying was precluded and storage was required. Dr. Garlanger analytically calculated the water table beneath the site, using Darcy's Law, and known parameters at the site, such as the depths of the ditches, the geometry and relative distances, and the thickness and permeability of the soil layers. Thus, although never required for any of the 100 land application projects he has evaluated, Dr. Garlanger performed computer modelling and calculations to predict the daily level of the water table beneath the swales for both Phase I and II during the wettest year in ten. Water inputs in his model included treated effluent and daily rainfall from an actual year (1969) when rainfall reached the levels of the statistically wettest year in ten. Water losses were soil storage, ET, distribution losses, deep percolation and run-off. Treated effluent was not applied when the model predicted that the water table would be higher than four inches below the bottom of the swales and when there was significant rainfall (more than one-hundredth of an inch). This modelling predicted that 6.1 MG/11-day storage was needed for Phase I. Thus, the project as proposed has substantially more storage than needed, with a proposed 8.1 MG/15-day storage. The model produced similar results for Phase II, showing a total 10.1 MG/18-day storage need compared with the proposed 15 MG/25-day storage. Petitioners also challenged various "irrigation efficiency" figures used by FCWC experts. All water leaving a water source, in this case the WWTP, does not reach the roots of the crops for which it is intended. "Irrigation efficiency" expresses this fact as the percentage of water pumped that is used by the vegetation. In the monthly storage water balance calculations the applicant used an "irrigation efficiency" of 70% of the total applied treated effluent, which is recommended in IFAS Bulletin 247 and in the USDA, SCS, "Florida Irrigation Guide"; 15% of the applied treated effluent was attributed to "irrigation losses" in the calculations in the application to determine the hydraulic loading capacity; and Dr. Sholtes stated that data he used indicated that 94% of "the water that came out of the nozzle reached the ground" within the wetted area of the site and the remaining 6% was aerosol drift and evaporation. Petitioners' expert questioned whether an irrigation efficiency of 70%, 85% or 94% should have been used and suggested that the calculations should be redone. The expert misunderstood the terms, comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. With a 70% irrigation efficiency, 30% treated effluent is lost to the plants. Only a small portion of this 30% loss is attributable to aerosol drift and evaporation in the air. Most of the 30% treated effluent hits the ground but is still lost to the plants through evaporation of treated effluent intercepted on plant leaves, losses from the distribution system, e.g., leaky fittings at the WTTP, and percolation of water below the reach of plant roots. The "irrigation losses" (15%) in the application include all of those types of losses, except the treated effluent losses through percolation. This approximately 15% of the total treated effluent appeared as a separate value from "irrigation efficiency." Water Quality Assurances Nitrogen Loading Rate. Because nitrogen is generally the constituent of most concern for sprayfields, EPA Equation 4-4, which is intended to produce a conservative result, projects nitrogen loading possible without exceeding the groundwater standard for nitrate. Two FCWC experts calculated the allowable nitrogen loading rate. James Christopher, project engineer and expert in water quality and chemistry, adjusted the EPA equation to reflect stormwater leaving the site, which is a more technically correct refinement of the equation and has the effect of lowering the allowable rate. A "U value" (the variable for rate of nitrogen uptake by crop)of 100 kilograms/hectare/year (kg/ha/yr) was used by James Christopher. Dr. Harvey Harper, another FCWC water quality expert, an environmental engineer, who has taught numerous university courses in wastewater treatment and has been involved in scientific studies of pollution removal, also calculated the nitrogen loading rate for the annual average rainfall and the wettest year in ten. He did not adjust EPA Equation 4-4 for stormwater run-off, because Petitioners had questioned any deviations from the formula. He used a U value of 150 kg/ha/yr, because he considered a value of 100 too low to be realistic. He used the highest nitrogen value in data from the WWTP. Other values he used in the equation were nearly identical to those of Mr. Christopher. The results were an allowable nitrogen loading rate of 0.75 inch/week for a year of average rainfall and 0.93 inch/week for the wettest year in ten. These rates are substantially higher than the proposed gross hydraulic loading rate of 0.54 inch/week. Petitioners' expert, Dr. J. P. Subramani, asserted that a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr should have been used, although he admitted that a site with a U value of 0 kg/ha/yr would be bare sand devoid of vegetation. The U values of 100 and 150 kg/ha/yr used by FCWC were extremely conservative. The EPA Manual provides U value ranges for forage grasses, at a low of 130-225 kg/ha/yr for bromegrass, to a high of 400-675 kg/hayr for coastal bermuda grass. Ignoring the testimony of FCWC witnesses that the grass would be mowed and removed from the site, Dr. Subramani supported his opinion only with the unfounded contrary assertion that the vegetation on site will not be harvested and removed as a crop. Petitioners alleged that discharges from the site would contaminate surface and ground waters and otherwise adversely affect water quality; inadequate renovation of pollutants would take place in the soil; and the receiving waters were already below standards. Petitioners' experts did no studies or analyses, nor did they predict expected concentrations for any parameters for sprayed treated effluent leaving the site as surface waters or groundwaters. Petitioners' exhibits regarding water quality issues consisted of two single-day monitoring reports for the existing WWTP discharge and the Canal and a set of 1990-91 water quality report sheets for the WWTP. FCWC's expert, Dr. Harper, analyzed the project's impacts on groundwater and on surface waters (the Canal) if the treated effluent were to leave the site as surface run-off in the swales, as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches, or as aerosol drift. Based on 1990-91 water quality monitoring of the WWTP's existing treated effluent, Dr. Harper projected the concentrations of parameters of concern for the treated effluent to be sprayed at the site. Although monitoring of heavy metals is not required at the WWTP, he also projected levels for these parameters based on EPA figures and existing data from two larger domestic wastewater treatment plants. Because those two plants have contributions from industrial and commercial components not found at the WWTP, the projections substantially over-estimated heavy metals expected for the WWTP. Groundwater Impacts. Dr. Harper estimated the pollution removal efficiencies for treated effluent traveling through approximately one foot of soil by reference to the EPA Manual and a study he had performed. He then applied these efficiencies to the projected concentrations for the sprayed treated effluent. Even at maximum projected concentrations, the results showed that projected constituents would be at or better than groundwater quality standards after renovation in the soil. Thus, due to low levels of constituents of concern, including those for which no numerical standard is provided in the rules, the project will not cause groundwater water quality violations and will have no adverse effect on the biological functions in the groundwaters directly underlying the site. Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, DER witnesses stated that DER does not interpret provisions of Rules 17-600.530(4) and 17-610.310(3)(c)4, F.A.C., as requiring background groundwater samples in the application. Because research has shown that groundwater quality results for sprayfields are generally very good, DER routinely defers such sampling until after permit issuance. Thus, the groundwater monitoring plan in the application and in the draft sprayfield permit provides that all monitoring wells will be sampled to establish background water quality and results submitted to DER prior to spray irrigation. DER's expert witness in environmental engineering and wastewater land application design, Christianne Ferraro, as well as John Armstrong, DER's environmental specialist in site contamination clean-up, stated that they had reviewed groundwater monitoring currently provided by FCWC for the WWTP. They found no nitrogen violations. Surface Water Impacts. The preponderant evidence showed that treated effluent will not flow directly into the swales. Therefore, FCWC proved it will not leave site as surface run-off. However, in order to project the worst-case water quality evaluation for droplets greatly diluted by rainwater or groundwater which may enter the swales, it was assumed that all treated effluent landing within swales "made of glass" would run off directly into the Canal. In addition, uptake, removal or dilution likely to occur in the collection ditches was ignored. Pollution removal efficiencies for grassed swales (based on a year-long study) were applied to the projected concentrations for the treated effluent. After renovation in the swales, any treated effluent leaving the site would contain concentrations for parameters of concern at or better than surface water quality standards. Therefore, water quality in the receiving surface waters will not be violated. Due to removal efficiencies for soils, the treated effluent leaving the site as groundwater seepage into the collection ditches is expected to meet surface water quality standards. In addition, the trace quantity of effluent (0.12 inch for wettest year in ten) which may seep into the swales will reach the San Sabastian Canal only after being greatly diluted within the groundwater and filtered and purified in the soil in the citrus mounds and grassed swales. Even projecting ten times the amount of aerosol drift predicted for the project, the water quality impact of any sprayed treated effluent entering the Canal as drift is so small as to be insignificant. Ambient Water Quality. The existing discharge is having minimal effect on the water quality of the Canal. Furthermore, by eliminating the direct discharge, the project will reduce the present impacts on the Canal by 92-99%. Nonetheless, Petitioners suggest that the project may further degrade ambient waters which they allege are already below standards. Dr. Harper assessed the ambient water quality characteristics of the Canal, which is Class III fresh surface water and the ultimate receiving water for the site. Even including water quality data for the Canal put in evidence by Groves, the Canal is not currently at or below any state water quality standards for Class III waters, except for occasional Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels. Levels of DO in sprayed treated effluent are expected to be very high. Even if groundwater seepage into the collection ditches and the Canal from the proposed sprayfield contains low levels of DO due its travel underground, it will not lower levels of DO in the ambient waters because the groundwater will also be low in BOD, which depresses DO. Thus, groundwater seepage is expected to have a neutral effect on ambient DO or to increase DO levels due to its diluting effect on BOD. Groundwater inflow to the site is negligible but outflow occurs at a significant measured rate. The only significant inputs are sprayed treated effluent and rainfall. Therefore, the groundwater under the site will eventually reach a stable condition where its constituent levels are the average of the constituent levels in rainwater and the treated effluent. The treated effluent to be applied on this site is at or above state groundwater standards. Necessarily, regardless of the condition of the existing groundwater it cannot possibly be degraded by the treated effluent to below state standards and may well be improved by it. Thus, FCWC has provided reasonable assurances that Rule 17- 600.530(4), F.A.C., has been met, without monitoring of ambient groundwaters in the application. The deposition of treated effluent will not violate the standard that all waters of the state shall be free from components which, alone or in combination with other substances, are present in concentrations that are carcinogenic or teratogenic to humans, animals or aquatic species or that pose a serious threat to public health, safety or welfare. Human Health Risk and Contamination. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield poses a hazard for contamination of their properties. They produced no witness or evidence of contamination other than experts in grove management, citrus production and management, and Petitioners themselves, who expressed scientifically unsubstantiated fears of the impact of the sprayfield on human health or the marketing of their fruit and honey. FCWC expert Dr. Christopher Teaf, who teaches biology, toxicology and risk assessment at Florida State University and is also president and principal toxicologist with a firm doing hazardous substance and waste management research, determined that the project poses no off-site contamination hazard. Pathogens. Fecal coliform is a standard measure for the health hazards of treated effluent based on an indicator group of microbiological organisms, present in the intestinal tracts of all warm-blooded animals as well as a number of insects and cold-blooded species. These organisms do not themselves ordinarily cause human disease, but may indicate the presence of other pathogenic organisms. Coliform bacteria are common in water bodies in general, and the state limit for these bacteria is 200/100 ml. Rule 17- 302.560(6), F.A.C. The World Health Organization has concluded that levels as high as 1,000/100 ml constitute an adequate standard and will not be associated with human disease. Only extremely limited numbers of bacteria can survive the hazardous journey from the WTTP to the Petitioners' property. First, required chlorination at the WWTP will reduce the coliforms to no more than 200/100 ml. At that level, pathogenic bacteria are negligible, if present at all. Pressures during ejection from the spray heads will cause a 70-90% mortality rate. Once airborne, bacteria will be killed because of temperature, ultraviolet radiation and desiccation. As water drops evaporate, constituents become more concentrated and the drops become toxic environments for bacteria. Bacteria falling to earth are filtered in the first few inches of surface soils. Any organisms borne off site will find that, due to the antibacterial qualities of citrus peel and fruit and the plethora of chemical agents routinely applied, the adjacent groves are an extremely inhospitable environment. Too few bacteria will survive at FCWC's proposed application levels, or at 10 times those levels, to constitute an infective dose and contribute to the incidence of human disease. Thus, treated effluent in the form of aerosol drift will have no adverse effect on the health of humans or otherwise cause contamination of areas adjacent to the proposed sprayfield. Consumption of Fruit. Bacteria are not taken up by the plant roots and the aerosol drift will not have any effect on the actual health of the citrus trees themselves. The minimal deposition from spray will be removed through washing required by governmental standards to remove dirt, grime and other contamination, such as fungicides, herbicides and pesticides applied as a normal practice in the citrus industry. Based on fifteen years of scientific literature, including the EPA Manual, crops irrigated with treated effluent do not contribute to human health problems in populations that consume those crops. With application of treated effluent with bacterial concentrations, even 10,000 to 100,000 times higher than the standard, there has been no incidence of human disease related to the consumption of such crops. Part II of Rule 17-610, F.A.C., "Reuse: Slow rate land application systems; restricted public access;" governs the type of sprayfield proposed by FCWC. Petitioners alleged that, due to the proximity of their groves and beekeeping activities, higher levels of treatment than those in Part II should be required. They argued that "advanced wastewater treatment" (AWT), defined in Section 403.086(4), F.S., would be more appropriate. This statute gives DER the discretion to require AWT when it deems necessary. Section 403.086(1)(a), F.S. However, AWT would not meet the requirements of Part III of Rule 17-610, which governs irrigation ("direct contact") of edible food crops and requires Class I reliability for treatment which is not required for AWT. Section 403.086(4), F.S.; Rule 17-610.460 and 17-610.475, F.A.C. Adjacent land uses were a part of the permit review for this project required in Part II. Buffer restrictions provide protection from the sprayfield so that levels of deposition are negligible compared to those when spray irrigation is applied directly at the food crop site. Thus, by its decision to issue this permit, DER recognized that minimal aerosol drift is not the "direct contact" envisioned in Part III and that because the project did not pose a hazard to adjoining groves higher levels of treatment are not necessary. Aerosol drift from treated effluent will have no effect on human health due to contamination of honey or adverse effects on the Shreve's bees located near the proposed sprayfield. Natural enzymes in unpasteurized honey are hostile to bacteria. The Shreves have never experienced a problem with the existing forty acre sprayfield even though it is accessible to their bees and has been in the area as long as the bees have. Petitioners allege that the sprayfield will attract birds, creating an aviation hazard to airplanes using the grass airstrip owned by Petitioner, Parrish Properties. Mr. Parrish, who is a licensed pilot, asserted that water ponding on the site and the mowing operation will attract birds. Both the proposed sprayfield and the surrounding groves will be mowed and irrigated and thus will provide the same type of mixed grass and citrus tree habitat as presently found in the groves. Therefore, Petitioners are currently attracting the same type and number of birds to their groves as FCWC's proposed sprayfield will attract. FCWC's expert in botany and ornithology, Mr. Noel Wamer, observed no large birds at the site, the existing 40-acre sprayfield or the surrounding citrus groves. He did observe small birds such as northern cardinals, towhees, and warblers, typical of citrus grove habitats. Cattle egrets might also be expected in the groves and the proposed sprayfield, particularly during mowing operations. Wading birds would only be attracted if water remained on the site for approximately one week or more to allow development of aquatic organisms as a food source. Birds present on the proposed sprayfield are very unlikely to fly up and collide with planes. The grass airstrip is used infrequently, with only 12 landings in the past year. For a number of years Mr. Wamer has observed bird behavior at the Tallahassee sewage treatment plant sprayfields near the Tallahassee Airport. The one-half mile distance between the runway and sprayfields in Tallahassee is nearly the same as the distance between the Petitioners' grass airstrip and the site. Planes landing at the Tallahassee airport are at an altitude of between 500 and 600 feet over the sprayfields, the same height as predicted over the site. Regardless of the size of planes, the birds, primarily cattle egrets, do not react, but continue feeding or resting. Stormwater and Surface Water Management Activities. On April 3, 1991, FCWC submitted an application with DER to modify and operate the existing stormwater and surface water management system on the sprayfield site (MSSW system). The Notice of Intent to Issue the MSSW Permit was published in the Florida Today newspaper on July 27, 1991. Minor activities are proposed to improve the existing system: (1) culverts at the ends of swales will be cleaned to restore full flow capacity; (2) obstructions and excess vegetation will be removed from the collection ditches to restore their original flow lines; and (3) any depressions in the swales will be filled and regraded to attain a minimum swale bottom elevation of 20.2 feet above mean sea level. As asserted by DER's expert in surface water management, the stormwater discharges will not be a combination of stormwater and domestic waste sufficient to trigger review of stormwater under DER rules as required by Rule 40C-42.061(3), F.A.C. Considering all proof adduced, particularly that stormwater will be treated to applicable standards in the grassed swales, water quality will not be violated, and the post- development peak discharge will not exceed the pre-development peak discharge from the site, FCWC provided reasonable assurances that the proposed MSSW system would not be harmful to the water resources in the area and would not be inconsistent with the overall objectives of the district. Summary of Findings and Permit Conditions FCWC has established that the sprayfield, as proposed, will meet the applicable regulatory requirements for the sprayfield and MSSW permits. Included in the specific conditions attached to the notice of intent to issue the sprayfield construction permit is the requirement that the site be operated to preclude saturated ground conditions or ponding. (FCWC Exhibit #3, paragraph 13, specific conditions). Witnesses for the applicant described certain proposals to assure this condition is met, and those proposals should be incorporated into the condition. Those proposals include the cessation of spraying during a rain event and the installation of devices to automatically turn off the sprinklers when rain occurs, the cessation of spraying whenever the groundwater level is within four inches of the bottom of the swales, and the installation of ground water gauges to determine when this level is reached. In order to minimize aerosol drift, the applicant proposes to establish wind gauges indicating the direction and speed of wind at the site. It was suggested that spraying would cease when the wind reaches 20 miles an hour, and sprinklers should be positioned to avoid spraying the downwind perimeter of the site when drift is likely to occur. This condition should also be incorporated in the permit. If the operational adjustments cannot be made automatically it will be necessary to require that the plant be staffed at all times that the spray system is turned on, notwithstanding the minimum six hours, five days a week required in Rule 17-602.370, F.A.C. and referenced in the intent to issue. Engineering computations in the application rely on the assumption that the vegetation onsite will be harvested (mowed and removed). Since spray irrigation treatment of wastewater depends on renovation or removal of effluent by the soil vegetation system, periodic mowing and removal of the vegetation should also be included as a permit condition.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered issuing permits number DC05-194008 and MS05- 194894, with the additional conditions addressed in Finding of Fact paragraphs 60 and 61, above. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 27th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by Petitioners, Groves and Shreve: Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence (as to the allegation of irresponsible plant operation). 2.-4. Rejected as irrelevant. 5.-7. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in paragraph 9. 10.-11. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 12.-13. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence and mischaracterization of the witness' testimony. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as statement of testimony, not finding of fact, which testimony is outweighed by other evidence. 17.-18. Adopted in paragraph 3. 19. Adopted in paragraph 28. 20.-21. Adopted in paragraph 8. 22.-23. Adopted in substance in paragraph 22. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Average annual application rate of .54 inches/week yields 28 inches a year. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 26.-29. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 30.-31. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 19. Adopted in paragraph 20. Adopted in paragraph 11. Adopted in paragraph 19. Addressed in paragraph 36; adopted in substance. 38.-39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Adopted in paragraph 31. 41.-47. Rejected as unnecessary, or contrary to the weight of evidence as to "irrigation efficiency". 48.-49. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 50. Adopted in paragraph 34. 51.-52. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. The grass will be mowed and removed. The "U" value was based on the grasses, not the citrus. 53. Rejected as contrary to the evidence, as to "unknown density and type". 54.-57. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. 63.-64. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 65. Rejected as confusing, as to the term "unsuitable conditions". 66.-69. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 70. Rejected as confusing. 71.-72. Rejected as unnecessary. 73.-74. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the witnesses' testimony. 75.-82. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 84.-85. Rejected as unnecessary. 86.-87. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 88.-89. Rejected as unnecessary. 90.-94. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 95.-97. Rejected as unnecessary. 98.-99. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 100.-103. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. 104.-109. Rejected as a mischaracterization of the testimony or misunderstanding of the term "irrigation efficiency". 110.-112. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. 113.-114. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 117.-118. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the law and evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in paragraph 16 by implication. Rejected as unnecessary and misunderstanding of the testimony. Addressed in Conclusions of Law. 124.-126. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted by implication in paragraph 21. 129.-130. Rejected as unnecessary. 131. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 132.-134. Rejected as unnecessary. 135.-138. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 139.-141. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire M. Christopher Bryant, Esquire OERTEL, HOFFMAN, FERNANDEZ & COLE, P.A. P. O. Box 6507 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6507 Harry A. Jones, Esquire EVANS, JONES & ABBOTT P.O. Box 2907 Titusville, FL 32781-2907 Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire Richard W. Moore, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Douglas MacLaughlin Asst. General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blairstone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Dept. of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue in 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 issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided by Sarasota County (County) for the issuance of Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 44040881.000 authorizing the proposed alteration of a drainage ditch in the City of Sarasota (City), and whether Petitioner, SRQUS, LLC, was entitled to receive notice of the application pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a Florida limited liability corporation established in 2010 whose only members are Erika and Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt. In 2010, Petitioner purchased parcel 2009-16- 0015 in a tax deed sale. The parcel consists primarily of the submerged lands within the marina basin adjacent to the project area. Petitioner contends that the tax deed accords it ownership of the western most 130 feet of the existing ditch and that the County is not authorized to do work on that property. The City and County dispute this claim and it is now being litigated in circuit court. The City claims ownership or control of all of the project area to be addressed under the permit. The City authorized the County to apply for and construct the improvements authorized by the permit pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the County for consolidation of stormwater management responsibilities. The District is the agency charged with the responsibility of controlling water resources within its geographic boundaries and to administer and enforce chapter 373 and the rules promulgated in rule division 40D. The County submitted the application pursuant to an interlocal agreement with the City and will construct, operate, and maintain the project if the permit is issued. The Project U.S. Highway 41, also known as Tamiami Trail, travels through downtown Sarasota. During rainy months, between Fruitville Road and Second Street, U.S. Highway 41 experiences frequent roadway flooding. At the area where U.S. Highway 41 floods and between the Quay development to the north and the Ritz-Carlton Hotel to the south, is a stormwater ditch that drains west into a marina basin or bayou adjoining Sarasota Bay. However, it does not directly discharge into Sarasota Bay. The ditch is an upland cut drainage ditch approximately 650 feet in length and has been in existence for decades. The ditch is covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit issued to the County for the surrounding communities. Contaminants in the stormwater system are addressed under this permit. The ditch provides the only outfall for an approximately 46-acre heavily urbanized drainage basin for which stormwater is collected through the stormwater system. The stormwater is discharged into the drainage ditch through a double concrete box culvert under U.S. Highway 41 and is ultimately conveyed to a marina basin adjoining Sarasota Bay. The ditch is located in what was originally platted as the right-of-way for Eighth Street (now known as Second Street) on the Central Broadway subdivision plat within the City. Pursuant to an earlier exemption determination by the District, in 2004 the County conducted maintenance dredging on the easterly portion of the drainage ditch in an effort to remove the sediments and vegetation that had built up in the ditch over the years and reduced its flow. Since that time, the ditch has again filled in as a result of the significant amounts of sedimentation from stormwater flows entering and settling in the ditch and significant amounts of vegetation. Also, flooding on U.S. Highway 41 has become more frequent. In its current condition, the ditch is approximately eight to 12 feet wide and eight to 12 inches deep, is poorly drained due to the sedimentation and heavily overgrown mangroves and nuisance vegetation, and is tidally influenced. Accumulated sediments in the ditch are approximately four feet thick at the eastern end and become thinner at the western end of the ditch. In August 2009, staff from the City, County, District, and Florida Department of Transportation met at the site of the ditch to conduct a pre-application meeting and discuss possible ways of addressing flooding problems at this location. Aside from the ditch improvements being proposed by the County, the only other remedy is to pipe the ditch, which is cost-prohibitive and would defeat the County's goal of keeping as much desirable vegetation in place as possible. To address flooding and maintenance concerns, on September 8, 2011, the County submitted an ERP application to the District to seek authorization to dredge and undertake ditch improvements. The application identifies the ditch as being within City right-of-way. Included with the application was a letter from the City authorizing the County to apply for the ERP on behalf of the City pursuant to their interlocal stormwater agreement. At the time the application was filed, the County Property Appraiser's Office Geographic Information Systems tax parcel map showed the ditch and dredge area as being within the City right-of-way. The proposed project consists of reconstruction of the ditch with a defined channel to be lined with rip rap and geotextile fabric and the addition of two sediment sump boxes. Some of the mangroves and nuisance vegetation will be removed as necessary to construct the ditch improvements. Mangroves will be preserved where not impacted by construction. The Property Dispute Petitioner claims ownership of the western 130 feet of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. As noted above, at the time the permit application was submitted, official property records showed the existing ditch as located within City right-of-way. Therefore, the County and District had no reason to doubt City ownership or control of the ditch area. A recently filed circuit court action seeks to determine ownership of a portion of the right-of-way in which the ditch is located. The circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over all actions involving the titles and boundaries or right of possession of real property. District rules permit applicants to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the proposed project area in order to conduct the activities to be permitted. An applicant with eminent domain authority that does not have ownership or control for all property necessary for the proposed project may rely on its eminent domain authority to demonstrate sufficient ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. The permit will be conditioned to prohibit construction until all ownership or legal control of the property necessary to construct the project is acquired by the permittee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40D-4.301(1)(j); BOR § 2.0. The proposed permit contains Specific Condition No. 8 which enforces this requirement. Reasonable assurance of sufficient ownership or legal control of the project area is provided by virtue of the City's and County's eminent domain authority and the fact that the proposed permit prohibits construction until the permittee acquires all necessary ownership or other legal control of the property necessary to construct the project. Notice Requirements Petitioner contends the permit should be denied because it did not receive notice of the application pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). That rule provides that when the applicant is an entity with the power of eminent domain that does not have current ownership or control of the entire project area as described in the application, the applicant shall provide the property owner(s) identified in the application with so-called eminent domain noticing, which consists of (a) written notice of District receipt of the application, and (b) written notice of agency action on the application. Persons entitled to eminent domain noticing are owners of property located within the proposed project area as identified in the county property appraiser's records within 30 days prior to the filing of the application. The purpose of the District's eminent domain noticing provision is to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard to owners of property subject to being condemned or otherwise acquired by the applicant for part of the project area. As originally submitted, the application proposed some activities extending approximately ten feet into the marina basin and beyond the claimed City right-of-way. The permit application did not indicate City ownership or control of submerged lands within the marina basin. Consequently, in its request for additional information (RAI), the District advised that pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9)(a) and (b), eminent domain notices to affected landowners would be required for any proposed easements over offsite property. As part of the application process, a seagrass study was prepared which showed seagrasses and oyster beds growing in the marina basin just beyond the end of the ditch, where some construction activity was proposed. Because seagrasses were observed growing at the end of the ditch, the County responded to the RAI by scaling back the project to confine activities to the City's right-of-way. With the change in project area, offsite easements were no longer necessary for the project. Thus, the project no longer required eminent domain noticing pursuant to rule 40D-1.603(9). The County and District acknowledge that Petitioner did not receive eminent domain notices. Although not provided notice, Petitioner nevertheless became aware of the permit application during the course of its own application process with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for an ERP to construct a 4,760-square foot, ten-slip docking facility on its adjacent submerged lands in the marina basin. The lack of notice has not prevented Petitioner from challenging the project or has otherwise prejudiced it. Having received actual notice of the permit, Petitioner filed a timely objection and request for hearing in this matter. Petitioner contends that while it does not oppose the ditch dredging, it would have wanted an opportunity to suggest a re-design of the ditch to include a dingy dock and kayak launching facility. Although it has known of the project since at least May 21, 2012, when it filed its first petition, and probably several months earlier, Petitioner has not provided the County or District with any alternative designs to maximize the potential for recreational use of the drainage canal. There is no requirement for ERP applicants to provide alternative designs to maximize potential public recreational uses. Requiring the County to do so would impose requirements that go beyond the conditions for permit issuance. ERP Permitting Criteria To obtain an ERP, a permit applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not cause adverse impacts to water quality, water quantity, and other environmental resources. For activities proposed in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters, reasonable assurance must also be provided that such activities are not contrary to the public interest and do not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. The conditions for issuance of an ERP are set forth in rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302. The standards and criteria in the BOR are used to determine whether an applicant has met the conditions for issuance in those two rules. The parties have stipulated that the project either complies with the following conditions for issuance or that they are not applicable: 40D-4.301(1)(b), (c), (g), (h), (j), and (k) and 40D-4.302(1)(a)6. Also, rule 40D-4.302(1)(c) and (d), which concerns projects located in, adjacent to, or in close proximity to certain shellfish harvesting waters or which involve vertical seawalls, is not applicable to this matter. Based on the parties' Stipulation, at issue is whether reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands (40D-4.301(1)(a)); will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife by wetlands and other surface waters (40D-4.301(1)(d)); will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that applicable state water quality standards will be violated (40D-4.301(1)(e)); and will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources (40D-4.301(1)(f)). Petitioner also contends that the County has failed to give reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest and that it will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts, as required by rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) and (b). Water Quantity Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) requires reasonable assurance be provided that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Existing and post-construction flows were modeled by the County using the accepted Inter-Connected Pond Routing model. Drainage calculations demonstrate that for the 25-year storm, the flood stage will be reduced by 1.94 feet, and for the 100-year storm event, by 1.75 feet, which will provide flood relief. Modeling results demonstrate a reduction in flood stages not just for U.S. Highway 41 but for other adjoining properties. The evidence establishes that while the project is not designed to eliminate all potential flooding, flooding during normal events will be reduced. Specifically, no adverse water quantity impacts were demonstrated with respect to Petitioner's adjacent submerged lands. Improvements proposed to the ditch will increase its storage capacity and allow water to flow more efficiently. By increasing the storage and hydraulic efficiency of the ditch without generating any additional runoff volume, the proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts and will have no adverse water quantity impacts on the receiving waters. Reasonable assurance has been demonstrated that the project will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters or adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property, including adjacent submerged lands owned by Petitioner. Impact on Value of Functions Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that project activities "will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources of the District." The existing ditch provides limited ecological functions for fish and wildlife, as it contains significant levels of exotics and nuisance vegetation that provide little in the way of habitat. The removal of the nuisance vegetation, improved water circulation, and decreased sediments will be an improvement. The proposed ditch reconstruction and replanting with other vegetation will provide a more suitable habitat for younger life stages of fish such as sea trout, red fish, and hog chokers, which are species typically found in tidally influenced drainage systems. Overall, the proposed project will result in an improved habitat available for fish and wildlife. The project will retain as many of the existing mangroves as possible, thereby retaining the ecology of the mangrove wetlands. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the project will not adversely impact the value of functions being provided to fish and wildlife and will actually improve the ecological functions provided by the ditch. Quality of Receiving Waters Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e) requires that reasonable assurance be provided that the proposed ditch alterations will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that water quality standards will be violated. The parties have stipulated that the project will not violate water quality standards set forth in rule chapters 62-522 and 62-550. Petitioner contends, however, that reasonable assurance has not been provided concerning possible impacts relating to surface water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, the anti- degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, or the groundwater permitting and monitoring requirements of rule chapter 62-522. No evidence was presented by Petitioner that the activities will adversely affect the groundwater protection provisions of rule chapter 62-522. The proposed ditch alterations do not involve activities relating to these state water quality standards. Under BOR section 3.2.4, reasonable assurance must be provided for the short term and the long term that water quality standards are not violated. As to potential construction or short-term impacts, the proposed construction work involves the removal of sediments accumulated in the ditch, reconstruction of the ditch to be wider and deeper and within a more defined course, the addition of rip rap and geotextile fabric on the ditch bottom, and replanting of the ditch banks with salt- tolerant grasses and other vegetation to provide soil stabilization and erosion control. The proposed permit addresses the potential for turbidity during construction activities to cause short-term water quality violations by authorizing a temporary mixing zone and by requiring the installation of turbidity barriers and ongoing turbidity monitoring during construction. To further minimize the potential for any water quality violation during construction activities, construction methods will include the use of cofferdams or similar techniques to provide a barrier between the open water of the marina basin and the work being constructed within the ditch, which will be undertaken in segments starting at the eastern outfall at U.S. Highway 41. These provisions adequately address the potential for any short- term water quality impacts and are consistent with BOR provisions relating to short-term water quality. As to possible long-term water quality impacts, the evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not add any additional pollutants or new pollutant source to the receiving waters and will not cause or contribute to any violation of water quality standards. To the contrary, by removing existing stormwater sediments, which are known to contain pollutants, controlling sedimentation through collection of sediments in sediment sumps, and armoring the ditch channel to prevent erosion, water quality is expected to improve. The proposed sediment sumps to be added as a best management practice are appropriately sized to handle the approximately 5,600 pounds of sediments that accumulate annually in the ditch, as determined by annual pollutant load calculations provided by the County. The sumps will be located most efficiently at the outfall where the ditch begins. Preventing sediments from entering the receiving waters is one of the best things that can be done to improve water quality in nearby Sarasota Bay. Improvements in water quality are also expected to occur as a result of the addition of rip rap that will dissipate the flow energy, thereby allowing any remaining sediments to settle down, and the geotextile fabric that will keep soil in place and not allow it to float up. The sodding and replanting of the ditch embankments will also prevent side erosion from occurring, which erosion could add sediments in the ditch. Once constructed, the ditch will be regularly maintained by the County, with sediments to be cleaned out of the sump on a quarterly schedule. Any sediments settling on the rip rap and on plant vegetation would be cleaned out as needed, as determined by regular inspections. Petitioner contends that reasonable assurance has not been provided to show that water quality standards in rule chapter 62-302, and the anti-degradation provisions of rule chapter 62-4, will not be violated by the proposed activities. Its expert opined that the impact of the proposed activity on state water quality standards cannot be determined because no sampling of the receiving water was conducted, the permit does not require compliance monitoring, and the existing ditch sediments were not sufficiently analyzed. The evidence establishes that it can be reasonably presumed, without compliance monitoring or sampling, that the water flowing from the 46-acre urbanized watershed served by the ditch contains sediments and other pollutants typically associated with urban runoff. Most of the expected pollutants are contained within, or settle into the sediments that are deposited into, the ditch. By removing sediments through the use of adequately sized sediment sumps, slowing the water down to allow suspended solids to settle out within the ditch, adding geotextile fabric and rip rap covering the ditch bottom, establishing vegetation on the ditch sidebanks to prevent erosion, and implementing periodic maintenance through vacuum removal of collected sediments, the proposed activities will remove pollutants from the water flowing into the ditch and discharging into the marina basin and ultimately entering Sarasota Bay. Thus, it is reasonable to expect without sampling or monitoring that the proposed activities will improve water quality. In addition to identifying the positive benefits of the proposed activities, the evidence established that the proposed activities will not add a pollutant source to the receiving waters. This was not credibly disputed by Petitioner. Because the project does not generate pollutants, the proposed activities will not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards. There is no reason to require pre-construction or baseline sampling to compare with post- construction sampling, as no pollutants will be generated. The removal of sediments and ongoing ditch maintenance will result in an improvement in water quality. Therefore, it can be reasonably assured without requiring sampling or monitoring that the activities will not result in any violations of state water quality standards. Secondary Impacts Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f) and BOR section 3.2.7 require that an applicant provide reasonable assurance that a regulated activity will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resource. As originally proposed, the project included activities extending beyond the end of the ditch and into the marina basin, where seagrasses and oyster beds are present. By avoiding impacts to these resources, the project also avoids any secondary impacts to manatees that may frequent Sarasota Bay. Turbidity control measures to be used during construction will also avoid secondary impacts to these resources. Petitioner provided no evidence that secondary impacts would occur as a result of the project. Reasonable assurance has been provided that the proposed activities will not result in any secondary impacts to the water resources. Public Interest Test Rule 40D-4.302(1)(a) requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that activities to be located in, on, or over wetlands and other surface waters will not be contrary to the public interest, as determined by balancing certain criteria, or if such activity significantly degrades or is within an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW), that the activity will be clearly in the public interest. The proposed activities are not located within Sarasota Bay, a designated OFW. Petitioner provided no evidence that the proposed activities would significantly degrade that body of water. Therefore, the County need only demonstrate that the proposed activities are not contrary to the public interest. The parties have stipulated that rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)6., which governs historical and archaeological resources, is not applicable to this matter. The remaining criteria at issue are whether the activity will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others; whether the activity will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats; whether the activity will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; whether the activity will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values of marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity; whether the activity will be of a temporary or permanent nature; and the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The evidence establishes that the project will reduce flooding during normal stages and remove sediments. By reducing the potential for roadway flooding and improving water quality through sediment reduction, the project will have a beneficial impact on public health, safety, and welfare, and will not adversely affect the property of others. Efforts were made to reduce or eliminate impacts to wetlands and other surface waters in the design of the project. Proposed activities will involve the removal of some of the existing mangroves. Based upon an analysis conducted pursuant to the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Manual, the unavoidable impacts to wetlands and other surface waters will result in a functional loss score of 0.08. Unavoidable wetland and other surface water impacts anticipated from the project will be appropriately mitigated through the use of a 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek Regional Offsite Mitigation Area (ROMA). The evidence demonstrates that the project will not adversely affect the value of functions provided by wetlands and other surface waters to conservation of fish and wildlife, including any endangered or threatened species, or their habitats and will actually result in an improvement in wetland and other surface water functions and habitat. The evidence establishes that the proposed activities will not adversely impact navigation or the flow of water and will not cause erosion or shoaling. The ditch reconstruction will prevent the possibility of shoaling at the downstream end of the ditch adjoining Petitioner's submerged lands by increasing the width of the ditch, slowing the water down, removing sedimentation along the ditch bottom, and reducing erosion through the planting of salt-tolerant sod and other vegetation along the ditch side banks. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence. No adverse impacts are expected to occur with respect to fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the proposed activity. By removing sediments, the project will provide an improvement to fishing and recreational activities in the marina basin and Sarasota Bay. Petitioner raised concerns regarding the amount of floatable material that will be discharged from the ditch as a result of removal of mangroves. As provided in the permit plans, significant portions of the mangroves will remain undisturbed. Under current conditions, the ditch and mangroves do not prevent or trap all trash and floatables entering the ditch. On-site observations of existing conditions confirmed there is not a large amount of trash and floatables currently being retained by existing mangroves. Any temporarily retained floatables within the ditch area ultimately float out to Sarasota Bay with the tide. The evidence establishes that even with the removal of some mangroves, the project is not expected to result in an easier flow or increased amount of floatables entering the marina basin. Finally, because the project activities do not add floatable materials to the ditch, requiring the County to implement design changes to remove floatables would exceed what is necessary to meet the conditions for permit issuance. Petitioner also raised concerns regarding the levels of fecal coliform and the possibility of illicit connections to the stormwater collection outfalls to the ditch. The ditch is part of a MS4 permit that is regulated pursuant to NPDES Permit No. FLS000004 issued to the County. The NPDES permit governs stormwater discharges within the unincorporated portions of the County, the municipalities within the County, and that part of Longboat Key that is in Manatee County. The primary function of the MS4 permit is to address issues of water quality as they relate to stormwater discharges. The MS4 permit requirements would be the appropriate regulatory framework to address elevated fecal coliform, illicit connections, or other water quality concerns in the stormwater emanating from the drainage basin served by the ditch, and not the ERP regulatory program. Having weighed and balanced the six applicable criteria, and based upon the evidence presented, the County has provided reasonable assurance that the proposed activities will not be contrary to the public interest. Cumulative Impacts Rule 40D-4.302(1)(b) requires an applicant to demonstrate that the proposed activities will not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts on wetlands and other surface waters, as further described in BOR sections 3.2.8 through 3.2.8.2. BOR section 3.2.8 provides that if an applicant proposes to mitigate any adverse impacts within the same drainage basin as the impacts, and if the mitigation fully offsets those impacts, then the regulated activity is considered to have no unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and other surface waters. Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts upon wetlands will be provided through the use of the 0.08 credit from the Curry Creek ROMA. The evidence establishes that the proposed mitigation fully offsets the impacts and is within the same drainage basin as the proposed impacts. No adverse cumulative impacts will occur with the project. Petitioner presented no contrary evidence of adverse cumulative impacts. Impaired Receiving Waters Petitioner contends that the project does not comply with the requirements of rule 40D-4.301(2) and related BOR section 3.2.4.5, which are applicable when existing ambient water quality does not meet state water quality standards. Rule 40D-4.301(2) provides that if an applicant is unable to meet water quality standards because existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant shall meet the requirements of BOR section 3.2.4.5 and related sections cited in that provision. Together, these provisions require that where existing ambient water quality does not meet standards, the applicant must demonstrate that for the parameters that do not meet water quality standards, the proposed activity will not contribute to the existing violation. If it does contribute to the existing violation, mitigation measures will be required that result in a net improvement of the water quality in the receiving waters for the parameter that does not meet standards. The marina basin that is the receiving waters for the ditch has been identified by DEP as impaired due to levels of mercury in fish tissue. The evidence demonstrates that the project will not contribute to this water quality violation. Although not required to implement mitigation measures that will cause a net improvement of the levels of mercury in fish tissue, the evidence establishes that to the extent existing sediments contain mercury deposits, removal of the sediments reduce a source of mercury that can be ingested by fish in the receiving waters. Water Quality Certification Petitioner contends that Specific Condition No. 9 of the proposed permit, which expressly waives certification of compliance with state water quality standards, is contrary to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1341, and inconsistent with the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j). As explained by unrefuted testimony of the District, the water quality certification provisions of Section 401 allow states an opportunity to address the water resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. Under Section 401, a federal agency cannot issue a permit or license for an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States unless the affected state has granted or waived Section 401 certification. A state may grant, deny, or waive certification. Granting certification allows the federal permit or license to be issued. Denying certification prohibits the federal permit or license from being issued. Waiving certification allows the permit or license to be issued without state comment. Pursuant to rule 40D-4.101(4), an application for an ERP shall also constitute an application for certification of compliance with state water quality standards where necessary pursuant to Section 401. Issuance of the permit constitutes certification of compliance with water quality standards unless the permit is issued pursuant to the net improvement provision of section 373.414(1), or the permit specifically states otherwise. By letter dated February 2, 1998, to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, DEP has delegated to the state's five water management districts the authority to issue, deny, or waive water quality certifications under Section 401. DEP has also established categories of activities for which water quality certification will be considered waived. Under the DEP delegation, water management districts may waive water quality certification for four situations, one of which is when the permit or authorization expressly so provides. This is still current DEP direction. The types of permitting decisions which constitute the granting of water quality certification and the types of activities for which water quality certification could be considered waived are also addressed in the current Operating Agreement between the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), DEP, and the five water management districts. According to both DEP guidance and the water management district agreement with the USACE, water quality certification will be considered waived when the permit or authorization expressly so states. The District most often expressly waives water quality certification for permits issued pursuant to the net improvement provisions and for projects that discharge into impaired waters. Proposed Specific Condition No. 9 of the permit expressly waives water quality certification due to the fact that the receiving waters are listed by DEP as impaired. Conditioning of the permit in this manner is consistent with DEP guidance and District practice under these circumstances. Although water quality certification for federal permitting review purposes is waived, the project must still comply with water quality requirements by demonstrating that the proposed activities do not cause or contribute to a violation of state water quality standards or if the activities contribute to an existing violation, that a net benefit is provided. The evidence establishes that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards and is not expected to contribute to the receiving water impairment of elevated mercury levels in fish tissue. While not required, the project is nevertheless expected to have a positive benefit on overall water quality and likely will reduce mercury levels in fish tissue by removing the sediments that contain metals such as mercury. The District's waiver of water quality certification is consistent with Section 401, the legislative declaration of policy set forth in section 373.016(3)(f) and (j), and applicable regulatory practices for Clean Water Act water quality certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Southwest Florida Water Management District enter a final order approving the issuance of ERP No. 44040881.000 to the City and County, as joint permittees. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of May 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Blake C. Guillery, Executive Director Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34604-6899 Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Achim Ginsberg-Klemmt SRQUS, LLC 3364 Tanglewood Drive Sarasota, Florida 34239-6515 Martha A. Moore, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District 7601 Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida 33637-6758 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Office of the County Attorney 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236-6808 Michael A. Connolly, Esquire Fournier, Connolly, Warren & Shamsey, P.A. One South School Avenue, Suite 700 Sarasota, Florida 34237-6014
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 Respondent Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. (JSI) filed a permit application with the State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, (DER), for permission to conduct maintenance dredging in a basin associated with its shipyard operation. This permit application was made in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. In the face of DER's statement of intent to grant this permit, George H. Hodges, Jr., (Petitioner), has petitioned in protest. Therefore, the issues to be considered in this dispute concern the entitlement of JSI to the grant of an environmental permit for maintenance dredging of its shipyard basin.
Findings Of Fact DER is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the environmental protection of waters within Florida. Its authority includes regulatory powers announced in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Certain activities involving state waters require permission from DER before they be lawfully undertaken. Among those activities are dredge projects such as contemplated by JSI in its pending request to be allowed to maintenance dredge as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material per year from its shipyard basin located in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. This is an undertaking which is envisioned by Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, related to the permit responsibility of DER. It is specifically addressed by Rule 17-4.28, Florida Administrative Code, in which is found the statement of permit requirements for dredge and fill activities. JSI, the applicant, operates a facility known as Bellinger Shipyard, which is engaged in the repair and maintenance of commercial and naval vessels. This enterprise includes the drydocking of vessels upon which repairs are effected, through the use of several drydock chambers in shipyard basin. In the course of the maintenance, a technique known as "gritblasting" is employed. The purpose of this "gritblasting" is to clean the ships in anticipation of repainting. On occasion the "gritblasting" would remove all coats of paint down to the metal finish of the ship. The paints being removed contain antifouling and anticorrosive materials. Those materials have, among other properties, the ability to repel marine organisms, causing their mortality. The "gritblasting" process utilizes a material known as "black beauty." This is a waste product from firing power plant boilers and it contains iron, silica, aluminum, titanium, magnesium, lime, penta oxide (P2O5), sodium oxide, sulfur trioxide and potassium oxide. The "black beauty" is applied through the use of a pressurized system which forces the material onto the treated surface under pressure of 70 to 85 pounds per square inch. After the preparation is made, vessels under repair are repainted, and similar paint with antifouling and anticorrosive properties is reapplied. During the "gritblasting" process, dust is generated and a portion of that material finds its way into the water within the basin. Other particles being removed drop to the deck surface of the drydock. When paint is reapplied to the surface of a vessel undergoing repair, it is given the opportunity to dry and the vessel is then refloated and removed from the drydock. To do this, the drydock itself is submerged. When the vessel has exited the drydock facility, the drydock resurfaces and is allowed to dry out. The material which has been removed from the surface of the repaired vessel is then shoveled into containers and transported to an offsite sanitary landfill for disposal. This material removed includes the "gritblasting" compound and paint which has been stripped from the surface of the vessel. When the drydock is submerged following vessel servicing, the inference can be drawn that a certain amount of the materials on the drydock deck surface will be introduced into the water within the basic before the drydock is resurfaced. The arrangement for refloating the vessel is the reverse of the technique employed in lifting the vessel out of the water for maintenance. When the vessel is brought in for service, it is guided into a submerged drydock. Water is then pumped out of the hollow drydock walls and deck to raise the vessel out of the water, allowing access to the vessel, which is completely above the water surface, as is the drydock work deck. The basin in which the business activities of JSI take place is located on the western shore of the Intercoastal Waterway. The Waterway and basin are part of an estuarine system, as these water bodies are tidally influenced. The basin and the Intercoastal Waterway constitute Class III waters of Florida. The configuration of the basin is as found in JSI Exhibit 16, an aerial photograph of the site. Moving from east to west within the basin, it is approximately one thousand feet from the Intercoastal Waterway to the back of the basin in its western-most extremity. In the back area of the basin the north- south axis is 250 feet. The interface between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway on the eastern reach north-south axis is approximately 625 feet. There are no obstructions to the confluence of the Intercoastal Waterway and the eastern side of the repair basin. The southern-most reach of the basin is approximately 350 feet in length running east to west. On the eastern side of the basin there is a pier area which is roughly 360 feet north-south by 60 feet east-west. As described before, the pier is not a solid structure extending to the bottom of the water. Thus, water can be exchanged between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway beneath the pier. JSI had acquired the Bellinger Shipyard in 1974. At that time environmental permits had been issued allowing for the maintenance dredging of the basin. These permits were valid through 1975. In 1975, JSI obtained a dredge and fill permit from the Florida Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, as well as a dredge and fill permit from the United States Corps of Engineers. These permits were for a ten-year period. They allowed maintenance dredging in the amount of 66,000 cubic yards per annum and for the disposal of the dredged material in an EPA-approved offshore site. In 1980 DER confirmed the dredge and fill permit that had been obtained from the Florida Board of Trustees. This permit by DER required JSI to conduct monitoring of turbidity during dredging, but did not require employment of turbidity screens. In 1979 the Army Corps had required JSI to conduct bioassay analysis in furtherance of the federal dredge and fill permit. In the face of the results obtained in that bioassay analysis, the Army Corps continued the dredge and fill permit to JSI dating from August 14, 1980. A subsequent extension of the federal permit was given through August 14, 1986. Contemporaneous with the present permit application before DER, JSI has requested further permission from the Army Corps related to the ability to excavate as much as 66,000 cubic yards of material on an annual basis. JSI has not been cited by any regulatory agency related to water quality violations associated with its dredging activity. The present DER permit application is for renewal of the 1980 Permit No. 16-21380 and is being processed under the DER File No. 161071139. This application for permit renewal was submitted on July 16, 1985. The application requests permission to maintenance dredge for a period of ten years. If granted, it is the intention of the applicant to use a closed clam shell bucket to excavate the material in the basin. This choice is in furtherance of the suggestion of DER and is a departure from the applicant's initial intention to use an open bucket to excavate. JSI also intends to employ turbidity curtains during the dredge activities. The applicant intends to transport the dredged material to the aforementioned EPA disposal site which is at sea. In doing so, a hopper barge is propelled by a towing vessel. Both the barge and towing vessel are inspected and certified by the United States Coast Guard. The crews involved in the transport of the material are qualified and licensed. In the past, transport of the material has been done under fair weather and smooth sea conditions, and it is intended that the transportation be done in that same setting if the permit is granted. The barge would not be loaded fully, thereby minimizing spillage. This was the arrangement in the past. The United States Coast Guard will be apprised of the departure time of the voyage in transport of the material, certain activities within that transport and upon return. The hopper barge has a bottom dump which is closed during transport and is opened at the bottom in disposing the dredge material. After satisfying DER about its proposal, JSI was informed that DER intended to grant the dredge permit requested. When Petitioner, George H. Hodges, Jr., the owner of real property adjacent to the site of the project, learned of the stated intention to grant the maintenance dredging permit, he offered a timely petition in opposition to the proposed agency action. This property of Petitioner is in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida. It is located north of the JSI property at issue. Petitioner's real property is connected to the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner has filed this action in opposition to the grant of the permit upon the expressed belief that the dredging activity will cause pollution at his property. In particular, it is JSI's intention at various times in the calendar year to do maintenance dredging in the entire basin. In addition to using a closed clam shell bucket, a system of turbidity barriers or curtains will be employed in segmented dredge areas. Those several locations within the basin which are cordoned off with the turbidity curtains are as depicted in JSI's Exhibit 9 admitted into evidence. The design maintenance depths for the dredging project are set forth in JSI's Exhibit 4 admitted into evidence. They vary from -17 to -37.5 feet, with the greatest depth being contemplated under drydock number 1 in the northwestern corner of the basin. Near the Intercoastal Waterways the depth sought is -17 feet, transitioning to -21.5 feet moving toward the back of the basin at the western extreme and outside of the area dredged beneath drydock number 1. The depths sought under drydock numbers 2 and 3 are -26.5 feet and -20 feet respectively. These desired elevations correspond to conditions at mean low water. The tidal range in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin, which would promote an influence in the basin proper, is in the neighborhood of 4-foot intervals, with two tidal cycles a day. This would mean, as example, that at the high tide range, the shallowest design depths for dredging of -17 feet become -21 feet in the transition from mean low water to mean high water. Those 4-foot variations would pertain to the other design depths contemplated in the dredging as described in the preceding paragraph as well. The turbidity barriers contemplated for use will extend from the surface through the water column to depths near the bottom. See JSI Exhibits 4 and 9. It is desirable, according to Dr. Gregory Powell, witness for JSI, a reliable expert in describing the effectiveness and use of turbidity curtains, to have those curtains extend to an area just above the bottom. Dr. Powell's education includes a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering and a Ph.D. Degree in engineering mechanics, with emphasis on coastal and oceanographic engineering. In consideration of his remarks, under the influence of high tide there could be as much as a 4 foot gap between the curtain and the bottom. Powell and other experts who offered testimony agreed that turbidity screens can have effectiveness in areas of low current velocity, assuming the proper installation, maintenance and extension to a location near the bottom of the water body. If mismanaged, turbidity screens are not effective in controlling turbidity. Moreover, they are less effective in areas where significant current velocities are experienced. This would include the circumstance in which a foot and a half or more per second of flow was being experienced, according to Dr. Powell, whose opinion is accepted on this point. He also indicated that the quiescent areas in the basin, toward the back of the basin or western dimension of the basin, would show a flow regime in a rate of one centimeter per second. This expression is credited. Although, as described by Dr. Powell, the currents in the Intercoastal Waterway are moving at a rate approximating nine feet per second on ebb time at the bridge located on the Intercoastal Waterway to the south of the project site, these current velocities are not expected in the area where the dredging is occurring. Dr. Powell is correct in this assessment. As he describes, and in acceptance of that testimony, eddies from the current from the Intercoastal Waterway at peak flood tide could come into the basin and temporarily show velocities of one foot per second; however, these velocities are within the acceptable range of performance of the turbidity barrier. Dr. Powell's conclusion that wind would have no significant effect on the current velocity, given the depth of this basin, is also accepted. The remaining flow regime in the basin is not found to be a detriment to the function of the turbidity barriers. The use of turbidity curtains in this project is not found to be a "placebo" to placate DER as suggested by Erik J. Olson, engineering expert who testified in behalf of the Petitioner The monitoring that is intended in the course of the dredging activities would call for examination of background turbidity levels at three sites in the Intercoastal Waterway prior to commencing of dredging and twice daily at each of these sites during dredging. Should a violation of state water quality standards for turbidity be detected, dredging will cease until the problem with turbidity can be rectified. To provide ongoing assurances of compliance with water quality standards, JSI will analyze the sediment in the basin for the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, lead, mercury, oil and grease every two years. Dr. Powell, expert in engineering and recognized as an expert in the matter of transport of the resuspended sediment associated with the dredging, as well as David Bickner, the project review specialist for DER, believe that the use of the closed clam shell bucket technique and employment of siltation screens or barriers, together with turbidity monitoring, will effectively protect against turbidity violations in the Intercoastal Waterway adjacent to the basin. This opinion is accepted. Bickner brings to his employment a Bachelor of Science degree in biology and a Master of Science degree in ecology. Bickner identified the principal concern of DER related to this project as the possibility of release of resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. With the advent of the techniques described in the previous paragraph, only minimal changes in background conditions related to turbidity are expected. Although there would be turbidity violations within the confines of the areas where the dredging occurs, the principal influence of that turbidity will be confined in those regions. This speaks to dredge areas I, 2 and 3. According to Bickner, whose opinion is accepted, the turbidity changes within the dredge areas in relationship to background conditions do not require a mixing zone permit, nor do they constitute a basis for denial of the permit. As alluded to before, and as described by Dr. Powell, the basic nature of the basin in question is one of quiescent conditions with low current velocity. He points out that the layout of the basin is such that it is a sediment trap allowing the deposit of silt, in particular in the deeper sections of the basin near the western side. The greatest influence by resuspension of sediment in the dredging activities can be expected in the back portions of the basin and it is in this area that the silt barrier can be expected to be most efficient, based upon Powell's remarks. Dr. Powell indicated that there is the expectation of increased efficiency in turbidity control when a closed clam shell bucket is used, as opposed to the open style of clam shell bucket. Those efficiencies range from 30 to 70 per cent. There is some risk of increased turbidity near the bottom of the water column in the use of a closed clam shell bucket, and for that reason the applicant should monitor the activities of the operator of the excavation machinery to guard against inordinate disturbance of the area being excavated. On balance, the closed clam shell bucket is a superior technique to the open style of clam shell bucket excavation when those alternatives are compared. As Dr. Powell explained, the segmentation of the dredge area allows the resuspended sediment to be confined in more discrete circumstances and to be controlled. The location of the silt barriers behind the pier structure guard against the effects of eddying. The silt barriers can be properly anchored and will not be unduly influenced by current velocity. Dr. Powell believes that the use of silt barriers, taking into account a low velocity of current in the basin, and the proper deployment of the siltation screen could bring about a reduction of the resuspended solids by 80 to 90 per cent on the outside of the barrier. To calculate the influence or the environmental significance of that remaining 10 to 20 per cent of resuspended solids at the Intercoastal Waterway, Dr. Powell testified that the suspended load behind the silt curtain resulting from the dredging is expected to average from 100 milligrams per liter to a peak amount of 500 milligrams per liter. He believes that, depending on which methods of calculation is used, the dilution factor in the Intercoastal Waterway ranges from 330:1 to 600:1. In using an environmentally conservative assessment, that is 80 per cent effectiveness of the silt curtain with a 330:1 ratio, Powell calculated that the release of resuspended materials into the Intercoastal Waterway would be approximately .3 to 1.5 milligrams per liter. This translates to less than 1 NTU against background conditions. This result would not exceed the 29 NTU limit against background that is described as the standard for turbidity control. Dr. Powell's opinion of turbidity results based upon the dredge activity is accepted. There is exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway and to accommodate this influence, the turbidity curtains would be placed in such a fashion that they would not compete with the ebb and flow of the tide. Dr. Powell's assessment of the circumstance in describing the effectiveness of turbidity barriers takes into account the tidal conditions and the inappropriateness of trying to have the silt curtains prohibit the flow conditions during these tidal changes. In order to promote maximum effectiveness of the turbidity barriers during the entire course of excavation of materials, the length of, the silt screen must be adjusted as desired elevations are approached. Erik J. Olson is an expert in civil engineering with an emphasis on hydraulics and the holder of a Masters Degree in coastal and oceanographic engineering. As alluded to before, he questions the validity of the use of siltation barriers as an effective protection against the implications of turbidity. He properly points out that the curtains will not extend to the region of the interface of the basin and the water column at all times. He describes the exchange of water between the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway, to include the unrestricted sediment transport beneath the turbidity curtain. He believes that wind can cause changes in current velocity as great as .2 foot per second, activities within the basin an additional .3 foot per second, and eddying .3 foot per second. All of these taken together do not exceed the range of effective response of the turbidity barriers. On balance, Olson's criticism of the benefit of turbidity curtains is unconvincing. Arlynn Quinton White, Jr., who holds a Bachelor of Science Degree, a Master of Science Degree in biology and a Ph.D. in matters related to marine biology, offered his testimony in support of Petitioner. He believes that as much as 2 to 3 per cent of the resuspended sediment related to the dredging activities would reach the Intercoastal Waterway under the best of conditions. It is difficult to translate that testimony into a measurement of changes in turbidity levels against ambient conditions in the Intercoastal Waterway. In any event, as already indicated, the changes in turbidity levels are not expected to exceed 29 NTU against background. It is evident that the turbidity curtains are necessary and their proper use must be assured to protect against problems associated with turbidity and the implications of the constituents of the resuspended particulate matter related to possible toxicity. Therefore, the close monitoring suggested in the statement of intent to grant the dredge permit is viable. Another matter associated with the implications of turbidity pertains to the fact that when the dredge material has been resuspended, as much as two days could pass before the basin returns to background conditions, given the high content of silt with its attached metals. This becomes significant given the uncertainty of the location of the dredge equipment during the course of excavation, i.e., inside the barrier or outside the barrier. Final choice about the placement of the dredge equipment will have to be made at the time of the excavation. Should the dredge equipment be inside of the cordoned area while excavation is occurring, it would be necessary to allow turbidity conditions to achieve background levels before opening up the barrier for the exit of the hopper barge which contains the excavated material. Otherwise, the estimates as to the influence of the dredging activities in the Intercoastal Waterway are unduly optimistic. Likewise, if the excavation platform is placed outside of the work site, that is to say, on the outside of the siltation curtain, extreme caution must be used to avoid spillage of the excavated material when being loaded onto the hopper barge. The occasions in which the excavation is being made from this side of the barrier should be minimized. These safeguards are important because any changes in sediment loading within the Intercoastal Waterway promote an influence in the area immediately adjacent to the basin and other sites within the Intercoastal Waterway as well. The subject of the use of a hydraulic dredge as an alternative to excavation by use of a closed clam shell bucket was examined in remarks by the witnesses appearing at hearing. Olson believes that there are hydraulic dredges which can achieve the design depth contemplated by the project and which equipment could fit inside the basin area. This is contrary to the opinion of witnesses for the applicant and DER who do not believe that the hydraulic dredging equipment which would be necessary to achieve the design depths would fit into the basin area. On balance, the record does not establish that such equipment with the appropriate capability and size does exist. More importantly, the proposed method of excavation is environmentally acceptable when examined in the context of the permit sought in this case. Finally, it was not essential for the applicant to make a detailed investigation of availability of hydraulic dredging equipment and it is not determined that failure to make this investigation warrants the denial of the requested permit. Although an hydraulic dredge is more desirable from the standpoint that it causes less turbidity through resuspension of sediments, it is not the only plausible method of excavation in this instance. Raymond D. Schulze testified in behalf of JSI. He holds a Bachelor of Science Degree and a Master of Science Degree in environmental engineering sciences. In particular, he established the fact that the amount of resuspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway associated with the dredging activity would not result in the smothering of organisms or to clogging of gills of fish. In addition to the possible problems with turbidity, there is the additional issue of violation of water quality standards in the several parameters associated with concentrations of metals in the water column within the basin and in the sediments or related parameters such as dissolved oxygen and biological integrity. Having considered the testimony, the facts do not point to water quality violations for any parameters occurring in the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the dredging. To arrive at this factual impression, the testimony of Dr. Pollman and Schulze is relied upon. Water quality sampling done by JSI in locations within the basin and in the Intercoastal Waterway, that by Dr. Pollman and Schulze, supports their impression of the acceptability of the dredge activities. This water quality data was admitted as JSI's Exhibit 18. Additionally, the field conditions existing at the time of testing, to include water temperature, weather conditions, tidal cycle, ph and dissolved oxygen were also made known. This water quality data and other information examined by these witnesses points to the fact that no increases in concentrations of metals are occurring within the Intercoastal Waterway as a result of the business activities of the applicant, nor are they to be expected while dredging operations are under way. Dr. Pollman correctly identifies the fact that there will not be significant degradation of water quality, above DER's minimum standards, related to the Intercoastal Waterway based upon the dredging activities within the basin, dealing with the water quality parameters of mercury, zinc, cadmium, chromium, lead, aluminum, iron and copper, substances which are within the basin. Dr. Pollman also examined sediment data collected by DER, and that data tended to confirm his assessment of the influences of the dredging activity related to these parameters. Dr. Pollman does not believe that metal concentrations contained in the sediment of the basin are leaching into the water column in quantities sufficient to cause violation of water quality standards. His opinion is accepted. Pollman had collected water quality samples in the two locations where the greatest siltation rate was expected and as a consequence the greatest concentration of metals would be expected. The water quality samples were taken at several depths to reach an opinion as to the matter of leaching of metals into the water column and the possibility of those metals dissolving in the water column. If leaching had been occurring, a concentration of metals expressed as a gradient would be expected. The greatest concentration in this instance would be near the sediment interface with the water column. No such gradation was detected and the idea of leaching was ruled out. Bickner's testimony established that testing for the exact amount of iron present at the dredge site was not required, given the nature of the iron source being introduced into the water within the basin. Bickner did not find that type of iron to be toxic. As stated before, Pollman agrees that no violation of state water quality standards as a result of the presence of iron associated with the maintenance dredging should be expected. There is some data which shows water quality violation for mercury in the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. Subsequent water samples collected by Schulze in the westerly portion of the basis did not show detectable levels of mercury. Moreover, data taken by Pollman and Schulze and compared with the DER sediment data shows that the concentration levels of mercury are greater in the Intercoastal Waterway than in the basin, thereby suggesting that there is no concentration gradient for mercury which would lead to the belief that the basin contributes to the amount of mercury found in the Intercoastal Waterway, nor is the mercury believed to be leaching into the water column in the basin. The explanation of the differences in measurements of the amount of mercury in the basin, depending upon the point in time at which analysis was made, may be attributable to a natural phenomenon, given numerous sources of mercury within the environment. Whatever the explanation of these changes, Dr. Pollman does not believe that the release of mercury associated with the resuspended sediments that may find their way into the Intercoastal Waterway would show a violation of the state water quality standard for mercury in that water body and his opinion is credited. Data collected by Pollman and Schulze did not show water quality violations for aluminum and the DER test data described before indicated aluminum levels lower in the basin than in the Intercoastal Waterway. Some data collected by Technical Services, Inc., an environmental consulting firm in Jacksonville, Florida, which was reviewed by Pollman, Schulze, and Bickner showed a substantial violation of the water quality standard related to aluminum in sediment sampling that was done. The origin of that amount of aluminum found on that occasion was not clear. It is possible, as described by Bickner, Pollman and Schulze, that the level detected In the Technical Service report could have occurred based upon natural phenomena such as storm water runoff from uplands. Bickner also questioned the findings of Technical Service and felt like the determination might be influenced by some intervening circumstance which would promote the need for re-analyzing that parameter. Whatever the explanation of the findings in the Technical Service report, it does not point to any water quality violation of the standard related to aluminum based upon the dredging activities, given the limited amount of total suspended solids that would be introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze, in his assessment of the implications of metal concentrations in the sediment transported to the Intercoastal Waterway, did not find them to cause concern about toxicity to marine life in the Intercoastal Waterway. This point of view is accepted. In trying to understand the implications of metal concentrations, Schulze believed that the biologically available fractions of those metals in the sediment is not very high, and when the dilution of the sediments which occurs in these circumstances is examined, no toxicity is expected. Moreover, as Dr. Pollman described related to the parameter aluminum, it is not a toxic material at the ph levels found in the basin, and the resuspension during dredging will not cause it to gain toxicity. This opinion of Dr. Pollman is supported by Bickner and Schulze. The opinion of Dr. White that the amount of aluminum, copper and zinc within the sediment found in the basin would eventuate in the violation of water quality standards for those parameters when introduced into the Intercoastal Waterway is rejected. The information available to Pollman, Schulze and Bickner which describes their opinion about water quality standards was sufficient to reach an opinion, the position of Petitioner's witness Sanford Young, holder of a Bachelor of Science Degree in civil engineering and a Master of Science Degree in zoology notwithstanding. As Bickner indicated in his testimony, it is essential that an applicant give reasonable assurances of compliance with all parameters listed in Chapter 17-3, Florida Administrative Code, dealing with water quality. However, this does not mean that testing must be done for each parameter set forth in that chapter. Reasonable assurance has been given that water quality parameters as identified in that chapter will not be violated. Bickner indicates the biological integrity standard is not one of concern in that given the nature of business operations within the basin, there is no expectation of a stable benthic community which might be disturbed by dredging. From the remarks of Schulze, there is no prospect of danger to benthic communities within the Intercoastal Waterway. These impressions by Bickner and Schulze are accepted. Under the facts of the case, the failure of the DER permit appraisers to discover benthic organisms in the sample grabbed at the site is not unexpected. There is also some question about whether that sample is representative of the circumstance at the site, given the limited sampling. On the topic of normalization of the DER data which was described in the course of the hearing and is identified by Dr. Pollman, the value of that information is seen as establishing the relative quantities of certain metals within the basin as compared with other sites throughout the Intercoastal Waterway. Twenty-one different locations were involved in this analysis. Concentration ratios using aluminum to normalize the data are as reflected in JSI's Exhibit 17 admitted into evidence. The significance of this information as it grossly describes whether the basin routinely contributes to increases in the amounts of these metals within the Intercoastal Waterway. Overall, basin activities are not shown to have promoted such an outcome. This normalization comparison does not address the issue of site specific water quality violations; however, no such violations are expected associated with the dredging activities within the basin as it relates to violations in the adjacent Intercoastal Waterway. Schulze had made sampling related to dissolved oxygen within the basin and the Intercoastal Waterway. As Schulze describes, the levels of dissolved oxygen seem to be at their lowest point just prior to the dawn hours. Sampling which he did was done at 5:00 a.m. in order to obtain the lowest dissolved oxygen readings. Three sites were sampled within the basin and an additional site was sampled in the Intercoastal Waterway. Readings were taken at varying depths at each site to gain an impression of the overall water column. The mean reading for the circumstance was in excess of the required range for state water quality, that is 4.0 per million. Having considered the evidence, no problems with dissolved oxygen are expected in that deficit contribution is in the range of .1 milligram per liter, per Pollman. In addition, Dr. Powell, through modeling, examined the implications of long-term dredging activities on the topic of dissolved oxygen. He employed field data gathered by Schulze in this assessment. This modeling established that decreases in dissolved oxygen levels would range from .1 to .15 milligrams per liter. Given the average of 4.5 parts per million oxygen in the basin at present, the incremental decreases in dissolved oxygen levels related to the dredging would not pose a problems with state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen other than short-term effects in the immediate vicinity of the dredge area, which is an acceptable deviation. As the Petitioner urges in its fact proposal, a 1983 report of Technical Services, Inc., JSI Exhibit 4, and a 1985 report of that firm, JSI Exhibit 7, were made available as part of the application. Officials within Technical Services, Inc. did not appear at the hearing and offer testimony related to the specific findings found in those reports. This information was used by the experts who did testify on behalf of the applicant, in particular Dr. Pollman, as data to question, his assumptions made about the implications of the project in terms of water quality concerns. Pollman also utilized DER data taken from a source known as Storette, and this pertains to the 21 sampling stations involved in the preparation of JSI Exhibit 17, the graphing document related to concentrations of various metals. Again, this was in furtherance of the basic underlying opinion which Pollman had about the project. The Storette data as such was not offered into evidence. Witnesses for the Petitioner, namely Olson and White, were aware of the two reports of Technical Services, Inc. and the use of the DER Storette data and offered their criticism of the project taking into account this information. Petitioner points out that there is no indication as to how far below the sediment/water interface the Technical Services, Inc., and DER sediment samples related to reports of the consultant and the Storette information of DER were extracted. Therefore, it only reflected one portion of the sediment at a depth of extraction. A more complete understanding of the sediment characteristics would have been shown through a core sample, especially in the area to be dredged, but that understanding was not essential. The suggestion by the Petitioner that it was inappropriate to normalize data for purposes of describing the relative concentrations of the metals parameters is not accepted. The preparation of JSI's Exhibit 17 does not point to abnormally high amounts of aluminum, such that the use of aluminum as a known commodity in carrying out the normalization would be contraindicated. As identified by the petitioner in its proposal, sediment sizes within the strata found in the basin depicts higher percentage of silt and clay-size sediments in the back end of the basin with lesser amounts of the silt- and clay-size sediments in the southern reach of the basin and at the intersection of the basin with the Intercoastal Waterway. The smaller the particles, such as silt and clay, will remain suspended for a longer period of time and have a tendency to promote bonding with heavy metal. Nonetheless, this information does not change the impression that the turbidity barriers will be effective. The 1983 Technical Services, Inc., information related to the settling of resuspended sediment and similar information imparted in the 1985 report by that organization tend to confirm that approximately two days should be necessary to allow the area of excavation to return to background conditions related to turbidity. This is in corroboration of remarks by Dr. Powell. These time projections are not found to be inadequate when taking into account other factors such as tidal changes, boat traffic, other activities within the basin, wind and weather events. As White described, the antifouling properties of the paint involved in the business activity of the applicant can be expected to adversely impact any larval forms of marine organisms when introduced into the basin. Nonetheless, this toxicity is not expected to pose a danger to marine organisms in the Intercoastal Waterway given the percentage of resuspended sediment that will escape capture by the sediment barriers and the dilution factor before introduction of those resuspended sediments into the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner questions the acceptability of evidence of the findings set forth by E G & G Bionomics, a firm which performed an examination to determine existing diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates. Those results are reported in Petitioner's Exhibit 13, a 1980 report. They were not accepted as evidence of the specific findings within that report in that they were not the subject of discussion by persons who authored that report. The use was limited to corroboration of the opinion by Dr. Pollman and Schulze as to water quality considerations and they were not Crucial to their opinions. Moreover, it was not necessary for the applicant to perform a more recent bioassay in order to give reasonable assurance to DER concerning water quality matters or to establish the implications of the influence of contaminants within the sediment found in the basin related to benthic macroinvertebrates. The biological integrity of the basin area was at risk prior to the proposal for maintenance dredging. The relevant inquiry is the influence of the dredging activities on the biological integrity in the Intercoastal Waterway and those activities do not place organisms within the Intercoastal Waterway in peril. Any synergistic aspects of metals which act as toxins, for example, the increase in the aggregate value of the toxicity of zinc and cadmium, compared to their individual implications as toxins, will not present problems with water quality in the Intercoastal Waterway. Petitioner takes issue with the proposed disposition of the dredge material at an ocean site. While an appropriate upland disposal site would be preferred, it is not mandated. The approved EPA disposal site within federal jurisdiction is acceptable. Petitioner in its fact proposals found at paragraphs 36-39 (incorporated by this reference) points out violations of water quality standards for cadmium, mercury, and aluminum, and other possible violations of the standard for mercury. This information does not cause a change of opinion about the acceptability of the project in terms of reasonable assurances. There is no indication that oils and greases will present a problem related to water quality standards. The project is not contrary to public interest in that: (a) the project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, welfare or the property of others; (b) the project will not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitat; (c) the project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion of shoaling; (d) the project will not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; (e) the project will be of a temporary nature; (f) the project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; (g) the project is in no other way contrary to the public interest. The purpose of this fact finding does not include the issue of whether there are ongoing violations of state water quality standards associated with the business activity of the applicant, that not being the subject of the hearing. In any event, the testimony of Dr. Pollman established that the operations of JSI are not causing water quality problems associated with the parameters of cadmium, copper, aluminum, mercury, lead, chromium, tin, zinc or iron related to the Intercoastal Waterway. The influences of the business activities associated with those parameters within the basin are not understood when the evidence presented is examined but are not found to be essential to the resolution of this dispute.
Recommendation Having considered the facts, and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That DER issue a final order which grants the requested maintenance dredging permit in keeping with the safeguards described in the fact finding of this recommended order. DONE AND ORDERED this 16th day of October 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 16th day of October 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-0365 Having examined the proposed facts submitted by the parties, those proposals have been found as fact with the exception of the following which are distinguished: Petitioner's facts Paragraph 1: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 2: The first sentence in this paragraph is rejected because the fact is not found within the indicated exhibits, nor can that fact be fairly inferred. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 14, and 15: Except for the last sentence in that latter paragraph are subordinate to facts found. Paragraph 15: The last sentence: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 18: The last sentence: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 27: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 31: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 32: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 33 and 34: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 35: Contrary to facts found. Paragraphs 40, 41 and 42: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraphs 44, 45: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 47: The first two sentences are information that is not sufficiently credible to allow application to the issues of the present case. Paragraphs 48, 49, 50 and 51: Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 52: Reject as fact. Paragraph 54: Contrary to facts found. Paragraph 55: Not necessary to dispute resolution. JSI and DER facts Paragraph 2: Pertaining to sentence 8 and the last phrase within sentence 11; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 3: As to the first sentence, fourth sentence and seventh sentence; Not necessary to fact resolution. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 to the colon in paragraph 6: Not necessary to dispute resolution. The remaining portions of paragraph 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 10: as to the last two sentences; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 13: As to the next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraph 14: As to the fourth sentence and the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 and 20: Subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 21: Sentence 3 is subordinate to fact finding sentence 4 is not necessary to dispute resolution; sentences 5 and 6 are subordinate to fact finding. Paragraph 22: Next to the last sentence; Not necessary to dispute resolution. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38 and 41: Subordinate to fact finding, except the comments in the last sentence of paragraph 41 related to the operations of JSI causing or contributing elevated concentrations of parameters within the basin which is not found as fact. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 44: Subordinate to fact finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth G. Oertel, Esquire Chris Bryant, Esquire OERTEL AND HOFFMAN, P.A. Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Thomas M. Baumer, Esquire Deborah Barton, Esq. GALLAGHER, BAUMER, MIKALS, BRADFORD, CANNON AND WALTER, P.A. 252-5 Independent Square Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bradford L. Thomas, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are entitled to issuance of a permit by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD or District) for the modification of a surface-water management system to serve the 24.1-acre World Dressage Complex in Wellington, Florida.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioners Charles Jacobs and Kimberly Jacobs are the owners of a residence at 2730 Polo Island Drive, Unit A-104, Wellington, Florida. The residence is used by the Jacobs on an annual basis, generally between October and Easter, which corresponds to the equestrian show season in Florida. Petitioners maintain their permanent address in Massachusetts. The District is a public corporation, existing by virtue of chapter 25270, Laws of Florida 1949. The District is responsible for administering chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and title 40E, Florida Administrative Code, within its geographic boundaries. The District’s statutory duties include the regulation and management of water resources, including water quality and water supply, and the issuance of environmental resource permits. The Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC, are Florida limited-liability companies with business operations in Wellington, Florida. The Applicants are the owners of four parcels of property, parts of which comprise the complete 24.1- acre proposed Complex, and upon which the surface-water management facilities that are the subject of the Permit are to be constructed. Contiguous holdings of the four Applicants in the area consist of approximately 35 additional acres, primarily to the north and west of the Complex. Acme Improvement District The Acme Improvement District was created in the 1950s as a special drainage district. At the time of its creation, the Acme Improvement District encompassed 18,200 acres of land. As a result of additions over the years, the Acme Improvement District currently consists of approximately 20,000 acres of land that constitutes the Village of Wellington, and includes the Complex property. On March 16, 1978, the District issued a Surface Water Management Permit, No. 50-00548-S, for the Acme Improvement District (1978 Acme Permit) that authorized the construction and operation of a surface-water management system, and established design guidelines for subsequent work as development occurred in the Acme Improvement District. The total area covered by the 1978 Acme Permit was divided into basins, with the dividing line being, generally, Pierson Road. Basin A was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the north into the C-51 Canal, while Basin B was designed so that its interconnected canals and drainage features would discharge to the south into the C-40 Borrow Canal. Water management activities taking place within the boundaries of the Acme Improvement District are done through modifications to the 1978 Acme Permit. Over the years, there have been literally hundreds of modifications to that permit. The Property The Complex property is in Basin A of the Acme Improvement District, as is the property owned by Petitioners. Prior to January 1978, the property that is proposed for the Complex consisted of farm fields. At some time between January, 1978 and December 18, 1979, a very narrow body of water was dredged from abandoned farm fields to create what has been referred to in the course of this proceeding as “Moose Lake.” During that same period, Polo Island was created, and property to the east and west of Polo Island was filled and graded to create polo fields. Polo Island is surrounded by Moose Lake. When it was created, Polo Island was filled to a higher elevation than the adjacent polo fields to give the residents a view of the polo matches. Petitioners’ residence has a finished floor elevation of 18.38 feet NGVD, which is more than three-quarters of a foot above the 100-year flood elevation of 17.5 feet NGVD established for Basin A. The Complex and Petitioner’s residence both front on Moose Lake. There are no physical barriers that separate that part of the Moose Lake fronting Petitioners’ residence from that part of Moose Lake into which the Complex’s surface-water management system is designed to discharge. Moose Lake discharges into canals that are part of the C-51 Basin drainage system. Discharges occur through an outfall at the south end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-23 canal, and through an outfall at the east end of Moose Lake that directs water into the C-6 canal. There are no wetlands or surface water bodies located on the Complex property. 2005-2007 Basin Study and 2007 Acme Permit Material changes in the Acme Drainage District since 1978 affected the assumptions upon which the 1978 ACME Permit was issued. The material changes that occurred over the years formed the rationale for a series of detailed basin studies performed from 2005 through 2007. The basin studies, undertaken by the District and the Village of Wellington, analyzed and modeled the areas encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit in light of existing improvements within the Acme Improvement District. The changes to Basin A and Basin B land uses identified by the basin studies became the new baseline conditions upon which the District and the Village of Wellington established criteria for developing and redeveloping property in the Wellington area, and resulted in the development of updated information and assumptions to be used in the ERP program. On November 15, 2007, as a result of the basin studies, the District accepted the new criteria and issued a modification of the standards established by the 1978 Acme Permit (2007 Acme Permit). For purposes relevant to this proceeding, the 2007 Acme Permit approved the implementation of the new Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington.1/ The language of the 2007 Acme Permit is somewhat ambiguous, and portions could be read in isolation to apply only to land in Basin B of the Acme Improvement District. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the language of the permit tended to focus on Basin B because it contained significant tracts of undeveloped property, the land in Basin A having been essentially built-out. However, he stated that it was the District’s intent that the Permit Criteria and Best Management Practices Manual for Works in the Village of Wellington adopted by the 2007 Acme Permit was to apply to all development and redevelopment in the Acme Improvement District, and that the District had applied the permit in that manner since its issuance. Mr. Waterhouse’s testimony was credible, reflects the District’s intent and application of the permit, and is accepted. The Proposed Complex The Complex is proposed for construction on the two polo fields to the west of Polo Island, and properties immediately adjacent and contiguous thereto.2/ The Complex is designed to consist of a large covered arena; several open-air equestrian arenas; four 96-stall stables, with associated covered manure bins and covered horse washing facilities, located between the stables; an event tent; a raised concrete vendor deck for spectators, exhibitors, and vendors that encircles three or four of the rings; and various paved access roads, parking areas, and support structures. Of the 96 stalls per stable, twenty percent would reasonably be used for storing tack, feed, and similar items. The surface-water management system that is the subject of the application consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, dry detention areas, swales for conveying overland flows, and exfiltration trenches for treatment of water prior to its discharge at three outfall points to Moose Lake. The horse-washing facilities are designed to tie into the Village of Wellington’s sanitary sewer system, by-passing the surface water management system. The Permit Application On May 18, 2011, two of the Applicants, Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, applied for a modification to the 1978 Acme Improvement District permit to construct a surface-water management system to serve the proposed Complex. At the time of the initial application, the proposed Complex encompassed 20 acres. There were no permitted surface water management facilities within its boundaries. The Complex application included, along with structural elements, the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) for handling manure, horse-wash water, and other equestrian waste on the property. Properties adjacent to the Complex, and under common ownership of one or more of the Applicants, have been routinely used for equestrian events, including temporary support activities for events on the Complex property. For example, properties to the north of the Complex owned by Far Niente Stables II, LLC, and Polo Field One, LLC, have been used for show-jumping events, derby events, and grand prix competitions, as well as parking and warm-up areas for derby events and for dressage events at the Complex. Except for an earthen mound associated with the derby and grand prix field north of the Complex, there has been no development on those adjacent properties, and no requirement for a stormwater management system to serve those properties. Thus, the adjacent properties are not encompassed by the Application. Permit Issuance On November 22, 2011, Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 was issued by the District to Far Niente Stables II, LLC. Polo Field One, LLC, though an applicant, was not identified as a permittee. On January 13, 2012, the District issued a “Correction to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203.” The only change to the Permit issued on November 22, 2011, was the addition of Polo Field One, LLC, as a permittee. On January 25, 2012, the Applicants submitted a request for a letter modification of the Permit to authorize construction of a 1,190-linear foot landscape berm along the eastern property boundary. On February 16, 2012, the District acknowledged the application for the berm modification, and requested additional information regarding an access road and cul-de-sac on the west side of the Complex that extended into property owned by others. On that same date, the Applicants provided additional information, including evidence of ownership, that added Stadium North, LLC and Stadium South, LLC, as permittees. On March 26, 2012, the District issued the proposed modification to Permit No. 50-00548-S-203. On November 15, 2012, the Applicants’ engineer prepared a revised set of plans that added 2.85 acres of property to the Complex. The property, referred to as Basin 5, provided an additional dry detention stormwater storage area. On or shortly after December 3, 2012, the Applicants submitted a final Addendum to Surface Water Management Calculations that accounted for the addition of Basin 5 and other changes to the Permit application that increased the size of the Complex from 20 acres to 24.1 acres. On December 18, 2012, the Applicants submitted final revisions to the BMPs in an Updated BMP Plan. On January 7, 2013, the District issued the final proposed modification to the permit. The modification consisted of the addition of Basin 5, the deletion of a provision of special condition 14 that conflicted with elements of the staff report, the Updated BMP Plan, the recognition of an enforcement proceeding for unauthorized construction of the linear berm and other unauthorized works, and changes to the Permit to conform with additional information submitted by the Applicants. The final permitted surface-water management system consists of inlets and catch basins, underground drainage structures, a 0.64-acre dry detention area, swales for conveying overland flows, and 959-linear feet of exfiltration trench. For purposes of this proceeding, the “Permit” that constitutes the proposed agency action consists of the initial November 22, 2011, Permit; the January 13, 2012, Correction; the March 26, 2012, letter modification; and the January 7, 2013 modification. Post-Permit Activities at the Complex Work began on the Complex on or about November 28, 2011. Work continued until stopped on April 18, 2012, pursuant to a District issued Consent Order and Cease and Desist. As of the date of the final hearing, the majority of the work had been completed. In late August, 2012, the Wellington area was affected by rains associated with Tropical Storm Isaac that exceeded the rainfall totals of a 100-year storm event. Water ponded in places in the Polo Island subdivision. That ponded water was the result of water falling directly on Polo Island, and may have been exacerbated by blockages of Polo Island drainage structures designed to discharge water from Polo Island to Moose Lake. No residences were flooded as a result of the Tropical Storm Isaac rain event. The only flooding issue related to water elevations in Moose Lake was water overflowing the entrance road, which is at a lower elevation. The road remained passable. Road flooding is generally contemplated in the design of stormwater management systems and does not suggest a failure of the applicable system. Permitting Standards Standards applicable to the Permit are contained in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.301(1)(a)-(k), and in the District’s Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR), which has been adopted by reference in rule 40E-4.091(1)(a). The parties stipulated that the standards in rules 40E-4.301(1)(d),(g) and (h) are not at issue in this proceeding. Permitting Standards - Water Quantity Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quantity, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands; Will not cause adverse flooding to on- site or off-site property; Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. In addition to the preceding rules, section 6.6 of the BOR, entitled “Flood Plain Encroachment,” provides that “[n]o net encroachment into the floodplain, between the average wet season water table and that encompassed by the 100-year event, which will adversely affect the existing rights of others, will be allowed.” Section 6.7 of the BOR, entitled “Historic Basin Storage,” provides that “[p]rovision must be made to replace or otherwise mitigate the loss of historic basin storage provided by the project site.” The purpose of a pre-development versus post- development analysis is to ensure that, after development of a parcel of property, the property is capable of holding a volume of stormwater on-site that is the same or greater than that held in its pre-development condition. On-site storage includes surface storage and soil storage. Surface Storage Surface storage is calculated by determining the quantity of water stored on the surface of the site. Mr. Hall found no material errors in the Applicants’ calculations regarding surface storage. His concern was that the permitted surface storage, including the dry detention area added to the plans in December 2012, would not provide compensating water storage to account for the deficiencies he found in the soil storage calculations discussed herein. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants’ surface storage calculations are found to accurately assess the volume of stormwater that can be stored on the property without discharge to Moose Lake. Soil Storage Soil storage is water that is held between soil particles. Soil storage calculations take into consideration the soil type(s) and site-specific soil characteristics, including compaction. Soils on the Complex property consist of depressional soils. Such soils are less capable of storage than are sandier coastal soils. When compacted, the storage capacity of depressional soils is further reduced. The Applicants’ calculations indicated post- development storage on the Complex property to be 25.04 acre/feet. Mr. Hall’s post-development storage calculation of 25.03 acre/feet was substantively identical.3/ Thus, the evidence demonstrates the accuracy of Applicants’ post- development stormwater storage calculations. The Applicants’ calculations showed pre-development combined surface and soil storage capacity on the Property of 24.84 acre/feet. Mr. Hall calculated pre-development combined surface and soil storage, based upon presumed property conditions existing on March 16, 1978, of 35.12 acre/feet. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Hall concluded that the post-development storage capacity of the Complex had a deficit of 10.09 acre/feet of water as compared to the pre-development storage capacity of the Property, which he attributed to a deficiency in soil storage. The gist of Mr. Hall’s disagreement centered on the Applicants’ failure to consider the Complex’s pre-development condition as being farm fields, as they were at the time of issuance of the 1978 Acme Permit, and on the Applicants’ application of the 25-percent compaction rate for soils on the former polo fields. As applied to this case, the pre-development condition of the Complex as polo fields was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage, rather than the farm fields that existed in January 1978, and is consistent with the existing land uses identified in the 2005-2007 basin studies and 2007 Acme Permit. Given the use of the Complex property as polo fields, with the attendant filling, grading, rolling, mowing, horse traffic, parking, and other activities that occurred on the property over the years, the conclusion that the soils on the polo fields were compacted, and the application of the 25- percent compaction rate, was a reasonable assumption for calculating soil storage. Applying the Applicants’ assumptions regarding existing land uses for the Complex property, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that the proposed surface water management system will provide a total of 25.04-acre feet of combined soil and surface storage compared to pre-development soil and surface storage of 24.84-acre feet. Thus, the proposed Project will result in an increase of soil and surface storage over pre-development conditions, and will not cause or contribute to flooding or other issues related to water quantity.4/ Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the proposed surface-water management system will meet standards regarding water quantity established in rule 40E-4.301(1)(a), (b), and (c), and sections 6.6 and 6.7 of the BOR. Permitting Standards - Water Quality Those provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that pertain to water quality, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards . . . will be violated; Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Section 373.4142, entitled “[w]ater quality within stormwater treatment systems,” provides, in pertinent part, that: State surface water quality standards applicable to waters of the state . . . shall not apply within a stormwater management system which is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained for stormwater treatment Such inapplicability of state water quality standards shall be limited to that part of the stormwater management system located upstream of a manmade water control structure permitted, or approved under a noticed exemption, to retain or detain stormwater runoff in order to provide treatment of the stormwater . . . . Moose Lake is a component of a stormwater-management system that is located upstream of a manmade water control structure. The Permit application did not include a water quality monitoring plan, nor did the Permit require the Applicants to report on the water quality of Moose Lake. During October and November, 2012, Petitioners performed water quality sampling in Moose Lake in accordance with procedures that were sufficient to demonstrate the accuracy of the results. The sampling showed phosphorus levels in Moose Lake of greater than 50 parts per billion (ppb).5/ That figure, though not a numeric standard applicable to surface waters, was determined to be significant by Petitioners because phosphorus may not exceed 50 ppb at the point at which the C-51 Canal discharges from the Acme Improvement District into the Everglades system. Notwithstanding the levels of phosphorus in Moose Lake, Mr. Swakon admitted that “the calculations that are in the application for water quality treatment are, in fact, met. They’ve satisfied the criteria that are in the book.” In response to the question of whether “[t]he water quality requirements in the Basis of Review . . . the half inch or one inch of runoff, the dry versus wet detention . . . complied with those water quality requirements,” he further testified “[i]t did.” Mr. Swakon expressed his belief that, despite Applicants’ compliance with the standards established for water quality treatment, a stricter standard should apply because the pollutant-loading potential of the Complex, particularly phosphorus and nitrogen from animal waste, is significantly different than a standard project, e.g., a parking lot. No authority for requiring such additional non-rule standards was provided. The evidence demonstrates that the Applicants provided reasonable assurances that all applicable stormwater management system standards that pertain to water treatment and water quality were met. Permitting Standards - Design Features and BMPs Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that constitute more general concerns regarding the design of the Complex, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being performed and of functioning as proposed. Petitioners alleged that certain deficiencies in the Complex design and BMPs compromise the ability of the stormwater management system to be operated and function as proposed. Design Features Petitioners expressed concern that the manure bin, though roofed, had walls that did not extend to the roofline, thus allowing rain to enter. Photographs received in evidence suggest that the walls extend to a height of approximately six feet, with an opening of approximately two feet to the roof line. The plan detail sheet shows a roof overhang, though it was not scaled. Regardless, the slab is graded to the center so that it will collect any water that does enter through the openings. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the manure bins are sufficient to prevent uncontrolled releases of animal waste to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners suggested that the horse-washing facilities, which discharge to a sanitary sewer system rather than to the stormwater management facility, are inadequate for the number of horses expected to use the wash facilities. Petitioners opined that the inadequacy of the wash facilities would lead to washing being done outside of the facilities, and to the resulting waste and wash water entering the stormwater management system. Petitioners provided no basis for the supposition other than speculation. Mr. Stone testified that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to handle the horses boarded at the stables and those horses that would reasonably be expected to use the facility during events. His testimony in that regard was credible and is accepted. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the horse-washing facilities are adequate to prevent the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Petitioners expressed further concerns that horse washing outside of the horse-washing facilities would be facilitated due to the location of hose bibs along the exterior stable walls. However, Mr. Swakon testified that those concerns would be minimized if the hose bibs could be disabled to prevent the attachment of hoses. The December 2012 Updated BMP Plan requires such disabling, and Mr. Stone testified that the threads have been removed. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the presence of hose bibs on the exterior stable walls will not result in conditions that would allow for the release of wash water to the stormwater management system or Moose Lake. Best Management Practices The Updated BMP Plan for the Complex includes practices that are more advanced than the minimum requirements of the Village of Wellington, and more stringent than BMPs approved for other equestrian facilities in Wellington. Petitioners identified several issues related to the Updated BMP Plan that allegedly compromised the ability of the Complex to meet and maintain standards. Those issues included: the lack of a requirement that the Applicant provide the District with a copy of the contract with a Village of Wellington-approved manure hauler; the failure to require that BMP Officers be independent of the Applicants; the failure to require that the names and telephone numbers of the BMP Officers be listed in the permit; and the failure of the District to require that violations by tenants be reported to the District, rather than being maintained on-site as required. Mr. Stone testified that the BMP conditions included in the Updated BMP Plan were sufficient to assure compliance. His testimony is credited. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that the terms and conditions of the Updated BMP Plan are capable of being implemented and enforced. Permitting Standards - Applicant Capabilities Provisions of rule 40E-4.301 that remain at issue in this proceeding, and that are based on the capabilities of the Applicants to implement the Permit, are as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will be conducted by an entity with the sufficient financial, legal and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. As the owners of the Complex property, the Applicants have the legal authority to ensure that their tenants, licensees, invitees, and agents exercise their rights to the property in a manner that does not violate applicable laws, rules, and conditions. Regarding the financial capability of the Applicants to ensure the successful and compliant operation of the Complex, Mr. Stone testified that the entity that owns the Applicants, Wellington Equestrian Partners, has considerable financial resources backing the Complex venture. Furthermore, the Applicants own the property on and adjacent to the Complex which is itself valuable. As to the administrative capabilities of the Applicants to ensure that the activities on the site will comply with relevant standards, Mr. Stone testified that an experienced and financially responsible related entity, Equestrian Sport Productions, by agreement with the Applicants, is charged with organizing and operating events at the Complex, and that the Applicants’ BMP Officers have sufficient authority to monitor activities and ensure compliance with the BMPs by tenants and invitees. Mr. Stone’s testimony that the Applicants have the financial and administrative capability to ensure that events and other operations will be conducted in a manner to ensure that the stormwater management system conditions, including BMPs, will be performed was persuasive and is accepted. The fact that the Applicants are financially and administratively backed by related parent and sibling entities does not diminish the reasonable assurances provided by the Applicants that the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Complex will be undertaken in accordance with the Permit. Petitioners assert that many of the events to be held at the Complex are sanctioned by international equestrian organizations, and that their event rules and requirements -- which include restrictions on the ability to remove competition teams from the grounds -- limit the Applicants’ ability to enforce the BMPs. Thus, the Petitioners suggest that reasonable assurances cannot be provided as a result of the restrictions imposed by those sanctioning bodies. The international event rules applicable to horses and riders are not so limiting as to diminish the reasonable assurances that have been provided by the Applicants. Based on the foregoing, the Applicants have provided reasonable assurances that construction and operation of the stormwater management system will be conducted by entities with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the permit. As a related matter, Petitioners assert the Applicants failed to disclose all of their contiguous land holdings, thus making it impossible for the District to calculate the actual impact of the Complex. Although the application was, for a number of items, an evolving document, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicants advised the District of their complete 59+- acre holdings, and that the Permit was based on a complete disclosure. The circumstances of the disclosure of the Applicant’s property interests in the area adjacent to the Complex was not a violation of applicable standards, and is not a basis for denial of the Complex permit. Permitting Standards - C-51 Basin Rule The final provision of rule 40E-4.301 that is at issue in this proceeding is as follows: In order to obtain a standard general, individual, or conceptual approval permit under this chapter . . . an applicant must provide reasonable assurance that the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, removal or abandonment of a surface water management system: * * * Will comply with any applicable special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, F.A.C. Mr. Hall testified the Complex violated permitting standards partly because it failed to comply with the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-041, Part III, pertaining to on-site compensation for reductions in soil storage volume. Mr. Waterhouse testified that the C-51 Basin rule does not apply to the lands encompassed by the Acme Improvement District permits, including the Complex property. The C-51 Basin rule was promulgated in 1987, after the issuance of the original Acme Improvement District permit. The District does not apply new regulatory standards to properties that are the subject of a valid permit or its modifications. Therefore, the area encompassed by the 1978 Acme Permit, and activities permitted in that area as a modification to the 1978 Acme Permit, are not subject to the C-51 rule. The Joint Prehearing Stipulation provides that “Chapter 373, Fla. Stat., Chapter 40E-4, Fla. Admin. Code, and the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District (July 4, 2010) are the applicable substantive provisions at issue in this proceeding.” The Stipulation did not identify chapter 40E-41 as being applicable in this proceeding. Given the testimony of Mr. Waterhouse, which correctly applies standards regarding the application of subsequently promulgated rules to existing permits, and the stipulation of the parties, the C-51 Basin rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 40-E-041, Part III, does not apply to the permit that is the subject of this proceeding. Therefore, the stormwater management system does not violate rule 40E-4.301(1)(k). Consideration of Violations Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-4.302(2), provides, in pertinent part, that: When determining whether the applicant has provided reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met, the District shall take into consideration a permit applicant’s violation of any . . . District rules adopted pursuant to Part IV, Chapter 373, F.S., relating to any other project or activity and efforts taken by the applicant to resolve these violations. . . . Petitioners have identified several violations of District rules on or adjacent to the Complex property during the course of construction, and violations of District rules associated with the Palm Beach International Equestrian Center (PBIEC), the owner of which shares common managers and officers with the Applicants, for consideration in determining whether reasonable assurances have been provided. Violations on or Adjacent to the Complex On March 22, 2012, the District performed an inspection of the Complex property. The inspection revealed that the Applicants had constructed the linear berm along the eastern side of the Property that was the subject of the January 25, 2012, application for modification of the Permit. The construction was performed before a permit modification was issued, and was therefore unauthorized. A Notice of Violation was issued to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, on March 22, 2012, that instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease all work on the Complex. Several draft consent orders were provided to Far Niente Stables II, LLC, each of which instructed Far Niente Stables II, LLC, to cease and desist from further construction. Construction was not stopped until April 18, 2012. The matter was settled through the entry of a Consent Order on May 10, 2012 that called for payment of costs and civil penalties. The berm was authorized as part of the March 26, 2012 Complex permit modification. All compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District During inspections of the Complex by the parties to this proceeding, it was discovered that yard drains had been constructed between the stables and connected to the stormwater management system, and that a bathroom/utility room had been constructed at the north end of the horse-washing facility. The structures were not depicted in any plans submitted to the District, and were not authorized by the Permit. The yard drains had the potential to allow for animal waste to enter Moose Lake. The Applicants, under instruction from the District, have capped the yard drains. No other official compliance action has been taken by the District. A permit condition to ensure that the yard drains remain capped is appropriate and warranted. At some time during or before 2010, a mound of fill material was placed on the derby and grand prix field to the north of the Complex to be used as an event obstacle. Although there was a suggestion that a permit should have been obtained prior to the fill being placed, the District has taken no enforcement action regarding the earthen mound. Petitioners noted that the Complex is being operated, despite the fact that no notice of completion has been provided, and no conversion from the construction phase to the operation phase has been performed as required by General Condition Nos. 6 and 7 of the Complex permit. Such operations constitute a violation of the permit and, as such, a violation of District rules. However, the District has taken no official action to prohibit or restrict the operation of the Complex pending completion and certification of the permitted work and conversion of the permit to its operation phase. The construction of the berm, yard drains, and bathroom/utility room, and the operation of the Complex, causes concern regarding the willingness of the Applicants to work within the regulatory parameters designed to ensure protection of Florida’s resources. However, given the scope of the Complex as a whole, and given that the violations were resolved to the satisfaction of the District, the violations, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met. Violations related to the PBIEC At some time prior to February 13, 2008, one or more entities affiliated with Mark Bellissimo assumed control and operation of the PBIEC. When the facility was acquired, the show grounds were in poor condition, there were regulatory violations, it had no BMPs of consequence, there were no covered horse-wash racks, and the wash water was not discharged to a sanitary sewer system. After its acquisition by entities associated with Mr. Bellissimo, the PBIEC was substantially redesigned and rebuilt, and BMPs that met or exceeded the requirements of the Village of Wellington were implemented. The PBIEC currently has 12 arenas that include facilities for show jumping events, and nine horse-wash racks. The PBIEC has the capacity to handle approximately 1,700 horses. On March 14, 2008, the District issued a Notice of Violation to Far Niente Stables V, LLC, related to filling and grading of an existing stormwater management system and lake system at the PBIEC; the failure to maintain erosion and turbidity controls to prevent water quality violations in adjacent waters; the failure to maintain manure and equestrian waste BMPs; and the failure to transfer the PBIEC stormwater management permit to the current owner. On October 9, 2008, Far Niente Stables V, LLC, and the District entered into a Consent Order that resolved the violations at the PBIEC, required that improvements be made, required the implementation of advanced BMPs, and required payment of costs and civil penalties. On January 12, 2011, a notice was issued that identified deficiencies in the engineer’s construction completion certification for the stormwater management system improvements, horse-wash facility connections, and other activities on the PBIEC. Although completion of all items required by the Consent Order took longer -- in some instances significantly longer -- than the time frames set forth in the Consent Order,6/ all compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. On January 7, 2011, the District issued a Notice of Violation and short-form Consent Order to Far Niente Stables, LLC, which set forth violations that related to the failure to obtain an environmental resource permit related to “Tract D and Equestrian Club Drive Realignment.” The short-form Consent Order was signed by Far Niente Stables, LLC, and the compliance items were ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the District. Based on the foregoing, the violations at the PBIEC, though considered, do not demonstrate a lack of reasonable assurances that District permitting standards will be met for the Complex Permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein it is RECOMMENDED that the South Florida Water Management District enter a final order: Incorporating the June 29, 2012, Order of Standing and Timeliness; Approving the issuance of Surface Water Management System Permit No. 50-00548-S-203 to Far Niente Stables II, LLC; Polo Field One, LLC; Stadium North, LLC; and Stadium South, LLC.; and Imposing, as an additional condition, a requirement that the unpermitted yard drains constructed between the stables be permanently capped, and the area graded, to prevent the unauthorized introduction of equine waste from the area to the stormwater management system. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 26th day of April, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Krista Howard,2/ is entitled to issuance of the Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, as announced by Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, in the Consolidated Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit and Lease to Use Sovereignty Submerged Lands issued on July 28, 2017, and subsequently amended on January 11, 2018.3/
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Defenders is a Florida non-profit corporation that has been in existence since the mid-1980s or earlier. Defenders' primary purpose is to protect and preserve Crooked Lake so that it may remain an Outstanding Florida Water ("OFW") for all members of the public to use and enjoy. Defenders has more than 25 members who reside in Polk County, Florida. Its membership consists of approximately 100 family memberships, mostly comprised of persons who live on or near Crooked Lake. Petitioners Gerards are riparian landowners on Crooked Lake, whose property is located immediately adjacent to, and slightly to the northwest of, Respondent Howard's property. The Gerards' home address is 1055 Scenic Highway North, Babson Park, Florida 33827. Respondent Howard is the applicant for the Consolidated Authorization for the Dock. Howard's property, which is riparian to Crooked Lake, is located at 1045 Scenic Highway North, Babson Park, Florida 33827. Respondent DEP is the administrative agency of the State of Florida statutorily charged with, among other things, protecting Florida's water resources. As part of DEP's performance of these duties, it administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 373, part IV, Florida Statutes, and the rules adopted pursuant to that statute. Pursuant to that authority, DEP determines whether to issue or deny applications for ERPs. Pursuant to section 253.002, Florida Statutes, DEP also serves as staff to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") and, in that capacity, reviews and determines whether to issue or deny, applications for approval to use sovereignty submerged lands.5/ DEP Review of the Application The Dock is proposed to be located on sovereignty submerged lands and in surface waters subject to State of Florida regulatory jurisdiction. Therefore, an environmental resource permit and a sovereignty submerged lands lease are required. On or about February 14, 2017, Todd Rickman, Howard's professional contractor who designed the Dock, filed an Application for a Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease for Existing Structures and Activities6/ ("Application") with DEP's Southwest District Office, seeking approval to construct and operate the Dock. On or about March 15, 2017, DEP requested additional information regarding the project. Howard submitted the requested items, and the Application was determined complete on May 30, 2017. Notice of DEP's receipt of the Lease portion of the Application was provided as required by section 253.115. The comment period commenced on June 15, 2017, and ended on July 6, 2017. As previously noted, on July 28, 2017, DEP issued the Consolidated Notice of Intent, proposing to issue the Consolidated Authorization to construct and operate the Dock. On January 11, 2018, DEP amended the Consolidated Notice of Intent to accurately reflect the "clearly in the public interest" permitting standard for the ERP portion of the Consolidated Authorization, which is applicable to projects proposed in OFWs. Background Crooked Lake Crooked Lake (also, "Lake") is an approximately 4,247-acre freshwater lake in Polk County, Florida. It is an irregularly shaped karst lake roughly resembling an inverted "L," with the longer axis running north to south. It is located on the Lake Wales Ridge. Crooked Lake is designated an OFW by Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.700(9)(i)9.7/ The Lake is classified as a Class III waterbody pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-302.400(15).8/ The elevations and bottom contours in Crooked Lake vary substantially throughout the Lake. Thus, water depths may, and generally do, vary substantially from one location to another throughout the Lake. The water levels in Crooked Lake fluctuate frequently and, at times, dramatically, depending on rainfall frequency and amounts. A graph prepared by Petitioners' Witness James Tully, using Southwest Florida Water Management District ("SWFWMD") historical water level data for Crooked Lake measured in National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 ("NGVD") shows water levels historically fluctuating from as low as approximately 106 feet in or around 1991, to as high as 123 feet NGVD in or around 1951, 1961, and 2004. Rickman generated a water level graph using the Polk County Water Atlas ("Atlas") website. This graph, which covers the period of 2008 through mid-2017, shows that the water levels in Crooked Lake, for this most recent ten-year period, fluctuated approximately five feet, with the lowest levels falling slightly below 114 feet NGVD for relatively short periods in 2012 and 2013, and the highest level rising to approximately 119 feet NGVD in mid-2017. The competent, credible evidence shows that although water levels in Crooked Lake may occasionally rise to levels at or around 123 feet NGVD, those conditions have been associated with extreme weather events such as hurricanes, are atypical, and are relatively short-lived. The maximum water level in Crooked Lake is subject to control by a weir located south of the Lake. Discharge from the weir occurs at a control elevation of 120 feet NGVD. As such, the water level in parts of Crooked Lake may, at times, temporarily exceed 120 feet NGVD, but will eventually decrease to 120 feet NGVD as the water flows south and is discharged through the weir. To the extent rainfall does not recharge the Lake, water levels may fall below 120 feet NGVD. The ordinary high water line ("OHWL"), which constitutes the boundary between privately-owned uplands and sovereignty submerged lands, has been established at 120.0 feet NGVD for Crooked Lake. Crooked Lake is used for recreational activities such as fishing, swimming, boating, and jet ski use, and there are public and private boat ramps at various points on the lake that provide access to the Lake. There is no marina having a fueling station on the Lake. The credible evidence shows that the northeast portion of the Lake, where the Dock is proposed to be located, experiences a substantial amount of boat and jet ski traffic. This portion of the Lake also is used for swimming, water- skiing, wakeboarding, the use of "towables" such as inner tubes, and for other in-water recreational uses. The Proposed Dock Howard holds fee title by warranty deed to parcel no. 333028-000000-033140 located at 1045 Scenic Highway, Babson Park, Florida.9/ This parcel has approximately 110 linear feet of riparian shoreline on Crooked Lake. The Dock is proposed to be constructed and operated on sovereignty submerged lands adjacent to this riparian upland parcel, which is located on the eastern shore of the northeastern portion of Crooked Lake. The Dock, as proposed, is a private single-family residential dock that will be used by Howard for water-dependent recreational purposes, such as specifically, boating, fishing, swimming, and sunbathing. The Dock is not proposed to be constructed or used by, or to otherwise serve, commercial or multifamily residential development. The Dock is configured as a "T," supported by pilings and consisting of a 4-foot-wide by 152-foot-long access walkway, and an approximately 1,983-square-foot terminal platform comprised of a lower-level platform having four vessel slips and a flat platform roof. Two sets of stairs lead from the lower level of the terminal platform to the platform roof, which will be elevated eight feet above the lower-level platform and will have a railed perimeter. The platform roof will function as a roof for the boat storage area below and a sundeck. The four slips on the Dock's lower-level platform will be used for permanent mooring for up to six watercraft: a 23-foot-long ski boat,10/ a 20-foot-long fishing boat, and four jet skis. As proposed, the Dock will occupy a total area of approximately 2,591 square feet. The lower platform of the Dock is proposed to be constructed at an elevation of 121 feet NGVD. The roof/upper platform will be constructed eight feet above that, at an elevation of 129 feet NGVD. The pilings supporting the Dock will be wrapped in an impervious material to prevent leaching of metals and other pollutants into the water. Pursuant to the Specific Purpose Field Survey ("Survey") for the Lease submitted as part of the Application, the Lease will preempt approximately 2,591 square feet, and closely corresponds to the footprint of the Dock. The submerged lands surrounding the Dock that are not occupied by the footprint of the Dock, including the area between terminal platform and the shoreline, are not included in the preempted area of the Lease.11/ The Survey shows "approximate riparian lines" which delineate Howard's riparian area oriented to the center of the waterbody and to the primary navigation channel in the northeast portion of Crooked Lake. As shown on the version of the Survey initially filed as part of the Application, the Dock was proposed to be located approximately 4.7 feet, at its closest point, from the southern riparian line. However, in response to DEP's request for additional information, the Survey was modified in April 2017, to shift the Dock northward within Howard's riparian area. The Dock is now proposed to be located 25.1 feet, at its closest point, from the southern riparian line, and 29.4 feet, at its closest point, from the northern riparian line. The walkway of the Dock will commence at an approximate elevation of 120 feet NGVD, which corresponds to the OHWL established for Crooked Lake. As previously noted above, the walkway will extend waterward approximately 152 feet, where it will intersect with the terminal platform. The terminal platform will extend another 52 feet waterward. In total, the Dock is proposed to extend waterward approximately 204 feet from the OHWL. Although the Dock would be one of the longest and largest docks on Crooked Lake, the credible evidence establishes that there are several other docks of similar size and/or length on the Lake. Rickman testified that he obtained approvals for, or was otherwise aware of, several docks over 2,000 square feet on the Lake. Additionally, the evidence showed that eight other docks on the Lake are longer than the proposed Dock.12/ Rickman testified that most of the larger docks on Crooked Lake have roofs, and that most of these roofs are pitched, rather than flat.13/ As noted above, the water level in Crooked Lake frequently and, at times, extensively fluctuates. As a result, there are periods during which water depths in parts of the Lake are extremely shallow. Rickman testified that the Dock was designed to extend far enough out into Crooked Lake to reach sufficient water depth to enable Howard to maximize the use of the Dock for boating throughout the year. The Dock is designed to extend out to the point at which the bottom elevation of the Lake is approximately 109.9 feet NGVD. Based on the Atlas' ten-year water level graph for Crooked Lake referenced above, Rickman projected that at this point, the water depth typically would be sufficient to allow Howard to operate her largest vessel, the 23-foot ski boat. The ski boat has a 25-inch draft.14/ The boat will be stored out of the water on a boat lift on the Dock, attached by cables to a sub-roof immediately beneath the platform roof. When being lowered into or hoisted from the water, the boat will be placed in a boat cradle consisting of two containment railings approximately 18 inches high each on either side, and a "V" shaped aluminum bottom with bunks on which the boat is cradled. The aluminum bottom of the cradle was estimated to be two to three inches thick. Although the boat cradle is approximately 18 to 21 inches in "total height,"15/ the cradle does not have to be completely lowered its entire 18- to 21-inch height into the water when used. Steven Howard explained, credibly, that the cradle needs to be lowered into the water only a few inches lower than the ski boat's 25-inch draft to enable the boat to float into or out of the cradle. To that point, Rickman testified that taking into account the 25-inch draft of the ski boat and the "total height" of the boat cradle, between 40 and 44 inches of water depth would be required when the cradle is used in order to avoid coming into contact with the Lake bottom. Based on the Atlas graph showing the lowest water levels for the previous ten-year period at approximately 114 feet NGVD, Rickman designed the Dock to extend out to the 109.9-foot NGVD bottom elevation point. At this point, the projected water depth would be slightly more than four feet during periods of the lowest projected water levels for Crooked Lake. For the Dock to be able to wharf out to 109.9 feet NGVD bottom elevation, it must extend a total of approximately 204 feet waterward into the Lake. The credible evidence establishes that while Howard's ski boat is one of the largest, it is not the largest boat operated on Crooked Lake. Impacts Assessment for Environmental Resource Permit Water Quality Impacts As noted above, Crooked Lake is a Class III waterbody. Accordingly, the surface water quality standards and criteria applicable to Class III waters in Florida codified in rule 62-302.300 apply to Crooked Lake. The Dock, as proposed to be constructed and operated, is not anticipated to adversely affect or degrade water quality in Crooked Lake. Specifically, as required by the Consolidated Authorization, a floating turbidity curtain will be installed around the boundary of the construction area before construction commences, and it must be left in place until construction is complete and turbidity levels in the work area have returned to background levels. Additionally, as noted, the pilings supporting the Dock must be wrapped in an impervious material to prevent leaching of metals and other pollutants into the water over the life of the structure. The Consolidated Authorization also prohibits the installation and use of fueling equipment at the Dock; prohibits the discharge of sewage or other waste into the water; prohibits liveaboards; prohibits fish cleaning or the installation of fish cleaning stations unless sufficient measures such as sink screens and waste receptacles are in place; and prohibits repair and maintenance activities involving scraping, sanding, painting, stripping, recoating, and other activities that may degrade water quality or release pollutants into the water. Although the Consolidated Authorization imposes a specific condition requiring, for all vessels using the Dock, a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with motor in the down position) and the top of submerged resources, it does not specifically address circumstances where the use of the boat cradle, rather than the vessel itself, may come into contact with the Lake bottom. DEP's witness acknowledged that if the boat cradle were to come into contact with the Lake bottom, water quality standards may be violated. Given the information presented at the final hearing regarding the operation of the boat lift and the need for sufficient clearance between the bottom of the boat cradle and the lake bottom, the undersigned recommends that a specific condition be included in the Consolidated Authorization prohibiting contact of the Lake bottom by the boat cradle. This recommended condition is set forth in paragraph 73.A., below. Upon consideration of the conditions imposed by the Consolidated Authorization discussed above, including imposing a specific condition that prohibits contact of the boat cradle with the Lake bottom, the undersigned finds that the Dock will not adversely affect or degrade the water quality of Crooked Lake. Water Quantity Impacts The Dock, as proposed, is a piling-supported structure that will not impound, store, or impede the flow of surface waters. As such, the Dock will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or offsite property, will not result in adverse impacts to surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, and will not result in adverse impacts to the maintenance of surface or ground water levels. Impacts to Fish, Wildlife, and Listed Species and Habitat The Application states, in section 5, question 6, that there is no vegetation on Howard's riparian shoreline. However, the Survey depicts an area of emergent grasses approximately 60 feet wide and extending diagonally approximately 70 feet waterward into the Lake. The Survey depicts this grassed area as straddling the riparian line between Howard's property and the adjacent parcel to the south. The Survey shows the Dock as being located a significant distance waterward of the grassed area, such that no portion of the Dock will be located on or near this grassed area. Additionally, an aerial photograph of Howard's property and the Lake waterward of Howard's property shows a smaller patch of what appears to be emergent grasses further offshore. This grassed area is not shown on the Survey, and it cannot definitively be determined, by examining the Survey and the aerial photograph, whether this grassed area is growing in an area that will be impacted by the Dock. Steven Howard acknowledged that this smaller grassed area may be located at or near the jet ski slip on the southeastern side of the Dock. An environmental assessment of this smaller grassed area was not performed or submitted as part of the Application. Thus, any value that this area may have as fish and wildlife habitat was not assessed as part of DEP's determination that the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and to listed species and their habitat. In order to provide reasonable assurance that the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, and to listed species and their habitat, the undersigned recommends including a specific condition in the Consolidated Authorization requiring this smaller grassed area to be completely avoided during construction and operation of the Dock, or, if avoidance is not feasible, that an environmental assessment be performed prior to construction so that the value of this grassed area, if any, to fish, wildlife, and listed species can be evaluated to determine whether minimization and compensatory mitigation should be required. This recommended condition is set forth in paragraph 73.B., below. As previously noted, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring a minimum 12-inch clearance between the deepest draft of the vessel (with the motor in the down position) and the top of submerged resources for all vessels that will use the docking facility. Compliance with this condition will help ensure that the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife and to listed species and their habitat of any such submerged resources is not adversely impacted by vessels using the Dock. The Consolidated Authorization also contains a specific condition requiring handrails to be installed on the Dock to prevent mooring access to portions of the Dock other than the wetslips. This will help protect submerged resources in shallower areas in the vicinity of the Dock. Fish populations in the immediate area of the Dock site may temporarily be affected during construction of the Dock; however, those impacts are not anticipated to be permanent. Additionally, as previously discussed, the Dock pilings must be wrapped with an impervious material to prevent leaching of pollutants into the water, and once installed, the pilings may provide habitat for fish and a substrate for benthic organisms. Provided that the conditions set forth in the draft Consolidated Authorization, as well as the recommendation regarding the smaller grassed area, are included in the final version of the Consolidated Authorization, it is determined that the construction and operation of the Dock will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish, wildlife, or to listed species or their habitat.16/ Impact on Navigation Petitioners assert that the Dock will constitute a hazard to navigation in the northeast portion of Crooked Lake. Specifically, they assert that because the Dock will extend out approximately 204 feet into the Lake, it necessarily will create a navigational hazard to boaters in the vicinity. As support, Petitioners presented evidence consisting of Steven Howard's testimony that an inner tube on which his nephew was riding, that was being pulled behind a motor boat, collided with the Gerards' 84-foot-long floating dock adjacent to Howard's riparian area. Petitioners argue that if an 84-foot-long dock creates a navigational hazard, a 204-foot-long dock would create an even greater navigational hazard. The undersigned does not find this argument persuasive. The portion of Crooked Lake on which the Dock is proposed to be located is approximately a mile and a half to two miles long and one-half to three-quarters of a mile wide. Although this portion of Crooked Lake experiences substantial boat traffic, the evidence shows that the Lake is sufficiently large in this area, even with the Dock in place, to allow safe navigation. To this point, it is noted that there are two other longer docks in the northeastern portion of Crooked Lake, extending 220 and 244 feet into the Lake from the shoreline. There was no evidence presented showing that either of these docks constitutes a navigational hazard.17/ Petitioners also assert that during periods of high water in this portion of Crooked Lake, the Dock will be underwater and thus will present a navigational hazard. In support, they presented photographs taken on October 30, 2017—— approximately six weeks after Hurricane Irma struck central Florida——showing ten docks, out of the 109 docks on Crooked Lake, that were partially or completely submerged.18/ When the photographs were taken, the approximate water elevation was 119.2 feet NGVD. All or a portion of the submerged docks had been constructed at or below the 119.2-foot NGVD elevation. The docks without roofs were mostly or completely invisible under the water. However, for the roofed docks, the roofs remained visible above the water even when their docking platforms were submerged. Here, although the walkway and lower platform of Howard's Dock is proposed to be constructed at an elevation of 121 feet NGVD, the roof will be constructed at an elevation of 129 feet NGVD. Thus, even during the relatively infrequent periods19/ during which the water level in Crooked Lake may exceed 121 feet NGVD, the platform roof will still be visible to vessels navigating in this portion of the Lake. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a specific condition requiring the waterward end of the Dock to be marked with a sufficient number of reflectors to be visible from the water at night by reflected light. This condition provides additional assurance that the Dock will not present a navigational hazard. For these reasons, it is determined that the Dock will not adversely affect navigation. Other ERP-Related Issues The evidence did not show that the Dock is proposed to be located in or proximate to a "work of the District," as defined in section 373.019(28). The only "work of the District" about which evidence was presented is the weir located south of Crooked Lake. This structure is many thousands of feet south of the Dock. There was no evidence presented showing that the Dock would have any impact on this weir. The Dock, as proposed, was designed by an experienced professional contractor who has designed and installed many docks on Crooked Lake, and, as such, is anticipated to function as proposed. The Dock must be built according to engineering diagrams to the Consolidated Authorization, and as-built drawings must be submitted when Dock construction is complete so that DEP can confirm that the Dock is constructed in accordance with the approved design. The evidence establishes that Howard, as the applicant, and Rickman, as the professional contractor in charge of construction, are financially, legally, and administratively capable of ensuring that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Consolidated Authorization. No evidence to the contrary was presented. The Dock will be located in the waters of Crooked Lake and will be affixed to the submerged bottom. The Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"), did not provide any comments indicating that historical or archaeological resources are anticipated to be impacted by the project. Additionally, the Consolidated Authorization contains a general condition requiring subsurface activity associated with construction of the Dock to immediately cease, and DHR to be contacted, if any prehistoric or historic artifacts, such as pottery or ceramics, stone tools or implements, dugout canoes, or other physical remains that could be associated with Native American cultures or early colonial or American settlements are encountered at any time within the project site area. Additional Recommended Conditions Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the following specific conditions be included in the Consolidated Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI: A minimum six-inch clearance shall be maintained between the top of all submerged resources and the deepest draft of the cradle of the boat lift while in use. For purposes of this condition, submerged resources consist of the bottom sediment and/or any submerged grasses or other aquatic organisms. Any emergent grasses in the permittee's riparian area shall be avoided during the construction and operation of the Dock. If it is not feasible to avoid these grasses, an environmental assessment of the grassed area shall be performed and submitted to the Department prior to commencing construction, so that the value of this grassed area, if any, to fish, wildlife, and listed species can be evaluated and the extent to which minimization and/or compensatory mitigation is appropriate can be determined. Clearly in the Public Interest Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.070, Standards for Issuing or Denying Permits, states in pertinent part: A permit shall be issued to the applicant upon such conditions as the Department may direct, only if the applicant affirmatively provides the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information, that the construction, expansion, modification, operation, or activity of the installation will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of Department standards or rules. In addition to the foregoing permitting requirements, because the Dock is proposed to be located in an OFW, Howard also must provide reasonable assurance that the Dock meets the "clearly in the public interest" standard. The "clearly in the public interest" standard does not require the applicant to demonstrate need for the project or a net public benefit from the project. Rather, this standard requires the applicant to provide greater assurances, under the circumstances specific to the project, that the project will comply with the applicable permitting requirements.20/ For the reasons discussed above, and with the inclusion of the additional recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the proposed Dock meets the applicable permitting requirements and the "clearly in the public interest" standard for issuance of the ERP. Impacts Assessment for Sovereignty Submerged Lands Lease Water-Dependency of the Proposed Dock A water-dependent activity is one which can only be conducted in, on, over, or adjacent to water areas because the activity requires direct access to the water body or sovereignty submerged lands for specified activities, including recreation, and where the use of water or sovereignty submerged lands is an integral part of the activity. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.003(71). Petitioners argue that the Dock will not constitute a water-dependent activity because the depth of water in the slips may, at times, be insufficient to allow operation of Howard's vessels while complying with the requirement that a minimum 12- inch clearance be maintained between the lowest draft of the vessel and submerged resources. The undersigned finds this argument unpersuasive. The Dock is being constructed specifically for the purpose of enabling Howard to use her vessels for boating——a recreational activity for which use of the water indisputably is an integral part. The Dock's primary purpose is to moor vessels that will be used for the water-dependent recreational activities of boating and fishing, and other water-dependent recreational uses of the Dock include fishing, swimming and sunbathing. Case law interpreting the Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21 makes clear that because docks are used for mooring vessels or conducting other in-water recreational uses, they are "water-dependent" activities for purposes of the rules.21/ Thus, even if water depths in the Dock's slips are at times insufficient for vessel mooring or launching,22/ this does not render the Dock not a "water-dependent activity." Resource Management Requirements The preempted area of the Lease is proposed to be used for a Dock that will be used for boating, fishing, and swimming. These traditional in-water recreational uses are consistent with the management purposes of sovereignty submerged lands as described in rule 18-21.004(2)(a). With the inclusion of the conditions currently proposed in the draft Consolidated Approval, as well as the recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., the undersigned determines that the Dock will not result in adverse impacts to sovereignty submerged lands and associated resources. With the inclusion of the conditions currently proposed in the draft Consolidated Approval, as well as the recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., the undersigned determines that the Dock is designed to minimize or eliminate impacts to fish and wildlife habitat and submerged resources. With the inclusion of the currently proposed conditions in the draft Consolidated Authorization, as well as the recommended conditions set forth in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the Dock, as designed and constructed, will minimize or eliminate cutting, removal, or destruction of wetland vegetation. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed Consolidated Approval requires the avoidance of adverse impacts to historic and cultural resources. Riparian Rights Consistent with rule 18-21.004(3)(d), the Dock is proposed to be constructed in Howard's riparian area and will be set back more than 25 feet from the northerly and southerly riparian lines shown on the Survey. Rule 18-21.004(3)(a) prohibits activities authorized under chapter 18-21 from being implemented in a manner that would unreasonably infringe on traditional common law riparian rights, as defined in section 253.141, of upland owners adjacent to sovereignty submerged lands. Similarly, rule 18-21.004(3)(c) requires all structures and activities to be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent riparian owners. Collectively, these provisions prohibit an activity that will occur on sovereignty submerged lands from unreasonably infringing on or unreasonably restricting the riparian rights of upland riparian owners. Riparian rights are rights appurtenant to, and inseparable from, riparian land that borders on navigable waters. § 253.141, Fla. Stat.; Broward v. Mabry, 50 So. 830 (Fla. 1909). At common law, riparian rights include the rights of navigation, fishing, boating, and commerce. Hayes v. Bowman, 91 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1957). The right of navigation necessarily includes the right to construct and operate a dock to access navigable waters. Belvedere Dev. Corp. v. Dep't of Transp., 476 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 1985); Shore Vill. Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 824 So. 2d 208, 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Common law riparian rights also include the right to an obstructed view. Lee Cnty v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Many of these common law riparian rights have been statutorily codified in section 253.141. Statutory riparian rights include the "rights of ingress, egress, boating, bathing, and fishing and such others as may be or have been defined by law." § 253.141(1), Fla. Stat. At issue in this case are the competing riparian rights of next-door neighbors——i.e., Howard's right to wharf out to navigable waters for purposes of boating and other water- dependent recreational activities, and the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view. The question is whether Howard's proposed construction and operation of a dock of sufficient length to enable her to use her boats would unreasonably infringe on or unreasonably restrict the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view of the Lake. By virtue of the riparian rights appurtenant to Howard's riparian property, she is entitled to wharf out to water deep enough to enable her to navigate. She owns two boats, one of which pulls a draft of 25 inches, and the other, a draft of 20 inches, which she uses to navigate the Lake. Thus, an essential aspect of Howard's riparian right of navigation is her ability to construct and operate a dock long enough to enable her to reach water depths sufficient to use these boats. However, as noted above, this right is not unfettered. Howard's exercise of her riparian navigation right cannot unreasonably infringe on Gerard's right to an unobstructed view. Florida case law holds that the right to an "unobstructed" view does not entail a view free of any infringement or restriction whatsoever by neighboring structures or activities. In Hayes, the court defined the right as "a direct, unobstructed view of the [c]hannel and as well a direct, unobstructed means of ingress and egress . . . to the [c]hannel." Id. at 801 (emphasis added). The court then prescribed the rule that "in any given case, the riparian rights of an upland owner must be preserved over an area 'as near as practicable' in the direction of the [c]hannel so as to distribute equitably the submerged lands between the upland and the [c]hannel." Id. (emphasis added). To the extent there is no channel in this portion of the Lake, Hayes dictates that riparian rights must be apportioned equitably, so that a riparian owner's right to an unobstructed view can extend only from the owner's property in the direction of the center of the Lake. Kling v. Dep't of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 77-1224 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 6, 1977; Fla. DER Nov. 18, 1977) at ¶¶ 11-12 (emphasis added). Here, no evidence was presented showing that the Dock——which will be located immediately south and east of the Gerards' riparian property and attendant riparian area——will present an obstruction to the Gerards' view of the Lake channel. Additionally, the evidence did not establish that Howard's Dock would obstruct the Gerards' view of the center of the northeast portion of Crooked Lake, which is located west and slightly south of their property.23/ Administrative precedent in Florida provides additional support for the determination that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on the Gerards' right to an unobstructed view. In O'Donnell v. Atlantic Dry Dock Corporation, Case No. 04-2240 (Fla. DOAH May 23, 2005; Fla. DEP Sept. 6, 2005), riparian owners challenged the proposed approval of expansions of sovereignty submerged lands leases authorizing Atlantic Dry Dock, a neighboring commercial shipyard, to expand its shipyard facilities and install new docking facilities. The administrative law judge noted that although the expanded shipyard would further encroach on the riparian owners' already somewhat-restricted view from their property, it would not substantially and materially obstruct the Petitioners' view to the channel. He commented: "it [their view] may be further obstructed to the west in the direction of the Atlantic Marine yard, but not in the direction of the channel." To that point, he found that although "any lateral encroachment on the Petitioners' line-of-sight to the channel by the large eastern dry dock proposed will be an annoyance, . . . [it] will not rise to the level of a substantial and material interference or obstruction of the Petitioners' view to the channel." Id. at ¶ 119. He found that "there is no 'special riparian right' to a view of the sunset, just as there was no right to a particular object of view . . . by the riparian owners complaining in the Hayes case." Id. at ¶ 120. Castoro v. Palmer, Case Nos. 96-0736, 96-5879 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 1, 1998; Fla. DEP Oct. 19, 1998), also is instructive. In Castoro, neighboring riparian owners challenged the proposed issuance of an environmental approval and sovereignty submerged lands lease for a 227-foot-long dock having a terminal platform with boat lift. The owners contended that due to the dock's length, it would impermissibly obstruct their views of the water. The administrative law judge rejected that contention, distinguishing the circumstances from those in Lee County v. Kiesel, 705 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), in which the construction of a bridge that blocked 80 percent of the riparian owners' view of the channel was held to constitute a "substantial and material" obstruction to the riparian right of view. The ALJ noted that although the dock would have "some impact on the neighbors' views" and their use of the waterbody, it did not unreasonably impact their riparian rights to an unobstructed view or to use of the waterbody. Id. at ¶¶ 73-74. In Trump Plaza of the Palm Beaches Condominium v. Palm Beach County, Case No. 08-4752 (Fla. DOAH Sept. 24, 2009; Fla. DEP Oct. 8, 2009), a condominium association challenged the proposed issuance of a sovereignty submerged lands use approval to fill in a dredged area and create mangrove islands in the Lake Worth Lagoon, alleging, among other things, that the creation of the mangrove islands would unreasonably infringe on their riparian right to an unobstructed view. In rejecting this position and recommending issuance of the submerged lands use approval, the ALJ noted that the area obstructed by the mangrove islands would be negligible compared to the remaining expanse of the view, and further noted that the owners' real concern was directed at the aesthetics of the project——specifically, they did not want to view mangrove islands. The ALJ stated: "[t]he evidence supports a finding that while the project will undoubtedly alter the view of the water from [the riparian owners' property], the impact on view is not so significant as to constitute an unreasonable infringement of their riparian rights." Id. at ¶ 86. Applying these case law principles, it is determined that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on or unreasonably restrict the Gerards' riparian right to an unobstructed view. To that point, the cases make clear that the right to an "unobstructed" view is not an unfettered right to a view of the water completely free of any lateral encroachment, but, instead is the right of a view toward the channel or the center of a lake without unreasonable infringement or restriction. Here, although the Dock will laterally encroach on the Gerards' full panoramic view of the Lake——and, as such, may even constitute an annoyance, the evidence did not show that the Dock will obstruct or otherwise restrict their view to the channel or the center of the Lake. Moreover, to the extent the Gerards have expressed concern about the Dock interfering with their view of the south shore of the Lake, O'Donnell makes clear the desire to have a particular object of view——here, the south shore of the Lake——is not a legally protected riparian right. It is also found that the Dock will not unreasonably interfere with the Gerards' riparian rights of ingress, egress, boating, or navigation. As previously noted, the Dock will be located at least 25 feet inside the riparian lines established for Howard's upland property, and, it will not be constructed in a location or operated in a manner that will obstruct, interfere with, or restrict the Gerards' access to the Lake or to sufficient water depths to enable navigation.24/ The evidence also did not establish that the Dock will restrict or otherwise interfere with the Gerards' use of their riparian area for ingress and egress, boating, fishing, bathing, or other riparian uses. In sum, it is concluded that the Dock will not unreasonably infringe on or restrict the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners. Accordingly, it is determined that the Dock will meet the requirements and standards in rule 18-21.004(3) regarding riparian rights. Navigational Hazard For the reasons discussed in paragraphs 63 through 67, it is determined that the Dock will not constitute a navigational hazard in violation of rule 18-21.004(7)(g). Not Contrary to the Public Interest Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) requires an applicant to demonstrate that an activity proposed to be conducted on sovereignty submerged lands will not be contrary to the public interest. To meet this standard, it is not necessary that the applicant show that the activity is affirmatively in the "public interest," as that term is defined in rule 18-21.003(51). Rather, it is sufficient that the applicant show that there are few, if any, "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs" of the proposed activity. Castoro, at ¶ 69. For the reasons discussed above, and with the inclusion of the additional recommended conditions in paragraphs 73.A. and 73.B., it is determined that the proposed Dock meets the "not contrary to the public interest" standard required for issuance of the Lease. Demonstration of Entitlement to ERP Howard met her burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to present a prima facie case of entitlement to the ERP by entering into evidence the Application, the Notice of Intent, and supporting information regarding the proposed Dock. She also presented credible, competent, and substantial evidence beyond that required to meet her burden under section 120.569(2)(p) to demonstrate prima facie entitlement to the ERP. The burden then shifted to Petitioners to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the competent substantial evidence, that the Dock does not comply with section 373.414 and applicable ERP rules. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Petitioners did not meet their burden of persuasion under section 120.569(2)(p) in this proceeding. Accordingly, for the reasons addressed above, it is determined that Howard is entitled to issuance of the ERP for the Dock. Demonstration of Entitlement to Lease As previously discussed, Howard bore the burden of proof in this proceeding to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Dock meets all applicable statutory and rule requirements for issuance of the Lease for the Dock. For the reasons discussed above, it is determined that Howard met this burden, and, therefore, is entitled to issuance of the sovereignty submerged lands lease for the Dock. Petitioners' Standing Defenders' Standing As stipulated by the parties and noted above, Defenders is an incorporated non-profit entity created for the primary purpose of protecting and preserving Crooked Lake so that it may remain an OFW for all members of the public to enjoy. Defenders has been in existence since at least the mid- 1980s. Robert Luther, the president of Defenders, testified that the organization's purpose also entails providing education and promoting public awareness in order to preserve the natural beauty, water quality, ecological value, and quality of life around Crooked Lake. As stipulated by the parties and noted above, Defenders has more than 25 members. Luther testified that Defenders has approximately 100 family members, most of whom live on or around Crooked Lake. He noted that many of Defenders' members own boats, which they park at a local boat landing on the Lake. Based on this testimony, it is inferred that these members operate their boats on Crooked Lake. After receiving the public notice of the project, Defenders' board of directors voted to oppose issuance of the Consolidated Authorization for the Dock. Luther testified that the board's decision was based on the determination that "it was clearly within the public interest" to oppose the Dock. Gerards' Standing The Gerards reside at 1055 Scenic Highway, Babson Park, Florida. Their riparian property is immediately adjacent to, and northwest of, Howard's property. The Gerards own a floating dock that is located within their riparian area.25/ The dock consists of two 4-foot- wide by 30-foot-long ramps attached to a 24-foot-long by 8-foot- wide pontoon boat. Priscilla Gerard testified that she enjoys spending time sitting and reading books on the beach in front of her property, and that having that area to sit and read is a significant aspect of her enjoyment of her lakefront property. Ms. Gerard observed that extensive boating activities in the northeast portion of the Lake on weekends is disruptive, and interferes with her use of her beach for relaxing and reading. She particularly noted that boats operating very close to the shore cause waves to splash up on her beach, interfering with her ability to sit and read close to the shore. She did not contend that Howard's use of the Dock for boating would contribute to the disruptive nature of existing boat traffic in the vicinity. Ms. Gerard has viewed the plans for the proposed Dock and is very concerned that due to its size, her view of the south side of the Lake will be completely blocked. She acknowledged, and other competent, credible evidence showed, that there are other docks on the Lake in the vicinity of her riparian property. The evidence shows that existing docks having lengths of 145 feet and 170 feet are located in the vicinity of, and are visible from, the Gerards' property. She testified that an existing dock and tiki hut block her view of the Lake to the north. She acknowledged that although Howard's Dock, if constructed as proposed, may somewhat obstruct her view to the left (south) of her property, it would not block her view straight out into the Lake. Phillip Gerard testified that he has boated extensively on Crooked Lake in a variety of vessel types. He further testified that he has observed a range of boating practices on Crooked Lake, including seeing water skiers and persons being towed behind motorized vessels on inner tubes and other types of "towables." He testified that, based on his personal observations, persons being towed do not have independent control of the speed or direction of the "towable"; thus, depending on the direction in which the towing vessel turns, the towable may be slung to the left or the right. Gerard commented that such lack of control could result in a person riding on a towable colliding with a dock, and he noted that Howard's nephew, who was riding on an inner tube being towed by a boat, was involved in such a collection with his (Mr. Gerard's) own dock. Mr. Gerard did not testify that the Dock would present a navigational hazard to, or otherwise interfere with, the Gerards' riparian right of ingress and egress. Neither of the Gerards testified that the Dock would impact their ability to access navigable waters in the Lake. Mr. Gerard acknowledged that if Howard's Dock were constructed, boats that currently travel very close to the shoreline of his property would be forced to swing further out in the Lake, away from his riparian shoreline, in order to avoid the Dock.
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 approving the issuance of Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Recommended Intent to Grant Sovereignty Submerged Lands Authorization, Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Consolidated Notice of Intent and attached draft of Permit No. 53-0351424-001-EI, as modified to include the Additional Recommended Conditions set forth in paragraphs 73.A. and 73B. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 5th day of July, 2018.
