The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the District should approve FRI's consumptive use permit application, no. 2-019-0012AUR, pursuant to Chapter 40C- 2, Florida Administrative Code The FRI is seeking permission to withdraw an annual average daily rate of million gallons per day (mgd) of water and 762.85 million gallons per year of ground water for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead Sand Mine. Subject to certain limiting conditions to be set forth in the FRI's consumptive use permit, the water is proposed to be produced from three Floridan aquifer wells. District proposed to grant the permit application which was challenged by LBCA, resulting in the formal administrative proceeding. LBCA challenged the issuance of the permit to FRI on the basis of the FRI's alleged failure to comply with the applicable requirements of Chapter 3V3, Florida Statutes (E.S.), and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and other applicable law. RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO FINDINGS OF FACT LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 2 that a necessary component of FRI's operation is its withdrawal of approximately 2.09 mgd of ground water for the production of sand. The 2.09 mgd is the average daily usage rate to who the parties stipulated prior to the hearing. The maximum daily usage rate is 3.75 mgd. However, FRI cannot exceed 762.5 million gallons for the year which is an average of 2.09 mgd. (Prehearing Stip. pp. 1,9). In the LBCA Proposed Recommended Order paragraph 25, the LBCA states that the operation "necessitates FRI's pumping allocation of an average daily 2.09 million gallons of water from the Floridan aquifer." Additionally, LBCA acknowledges in its Exception No. 2 that it is "known that approximately 2 mgd are pumped into the system." If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the finding is supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 41-42, 104, 913-914). LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 8 and 28 that the receiving water from the mine site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes and that the surficial aquifer recharge will result in a positive or immeasurable effect on the lakes. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings supported by evidence and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The decision to believe one expert over another is left to the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club v. Orlando Utility Comm., 436 So.2d 383, 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 475 So.2d 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Berry v. Dept. of Environmental Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). This exception is rejected because the findings are supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 105, 120-129, 146, 170, 187-190, 208-209, 235, 248, 256-257, 972-973, 1085-1093, 1139). LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 11 that the aquifer characteristics in the Floridan aquifer beneath and around the mine site are relatively uniform. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 180, 926-927). LBCA Exception Number 4 The LBCA takes exception to a mischaracterization of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 13 regarding lake leakance by stating that the hearing officer found that some of the lakes at issue do not have leakance to the Floridan aquifer. In fact, it is contextually clear that the Hearing Officer was referring to "many of the lakes within the region." This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 77-80). LBCA Exception Number 5 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 16 that very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing into the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. In making its argument, LBCA inaccurately attributes testimony to FRI witness Fountain when the referenced testimony was testimony of LBCA witness Boyes. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1145-1146). LBCA Exception Number 6 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 22 and 55 that the data collection effort of FRI and the District was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size and that sufficient site-specific information was developed to be able to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the mine operation. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The findings are supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 103, 201, 238, 918-919; FR Ex. 5). LBCA asserts that FRI did not evaluate the "worstcase" scenario in order to establish permit entitlemet LBCA provides no legal citations to support its exception. LBCA's assertion lacks legal as well as factual support. LBCA has criticized FRI's aquifer performance test and modeling effort without presenting the elusive "worstcase scenario" which presumably would show impacts greater than those modeled by FRI. LBCA seeks to impose a burden of proof which is insupportable in law. It is not FRI's burden to show a violation of the criteria in Chapter 40C-2, Fla. Admin. Code, is a scientific impossibility, only to show that the non-occurrence of such violation is reasonably assured by the preponderance of the evidence in the proceeding. The Corporation of the President v. SJRWMD and City of Cocoa, Case Nos. 89-828, 89-751 (SJRWMD Dec. 13, 1990), aff'd, 590 So.2d 427 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). An agency cannot assume the worst-case scenario unless that condition is reasonably foreseeable. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe and Gulf Stream Specimen Co. v. Dickerson Bayshore, Inc., 10 F.A.L.R. 3426 (Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, June 8, 1988). As delineated in FRI's response to this exception, FRI and the Distract presented evidence of numerous investigations regarding this application, including testing and analyses of the impact of withdrawals at greater than the average and maximum daily pumping rates. (See Record citations on pp 17-20 of FRI's Response to Exceptions; T. 115-116, 126, 176-177, 918- 920). LBCA failed to present any citation to the record where it presented testimony evincing that another scenario which would result in greater impacts than those predicted by the applicant were reasonably like to occur. LBCA's speculation that another undefined scenario of pumping would show greater impacts was rejected by the hearing officer. The applicant has provided reasonable assurances with regard to the effects of the proposed withdrawal. LBCA Exception Number 7 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's purported inference in Finding of Fact 23 that the aquifer performance test (2T) measured impacts significantly greater than could be expected to occur under "worst case" conditions as a result of the mining operation. The finding actually states "the (aquifer performance) test measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 mgd." As discussed in the ruling on exception no. 6, LBCA's assertion of a "worstcase scenario" has factual support in the instant case. The applicant is required to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed use is reasonable, beneficial, will not impact existing legal uses and is consistent with the public interest. The applicant is not required to evaluate LBCA's unspecified worst case scenario or prove the use will not cause any impacts. Florida Audubon Society, supra..; Rudloe, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-115, 141, 920). LBCA Exception Number 8 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 23 that no changes in the lake levels are attributable to the pumping at the mine. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. In Finding of Fact No. 24, the hearing officer found that the effects of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before and after the ADT test. Therefore, his conclusions are not inconsistent as alleged by the LBCA. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 120-130, 146, 759, 928- 933, 942, 944- 948, 1015-1016, 1122-1123, 1168; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA Exception Number 9 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the actual effects of the pumping will be approximately one half of the observed amounts of the 2T test on an average pumping day. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 113-117, 923-996; Dist. Ex. 5). LBCA's claim that this finding is irrelevant since only a "worstcase" scenario is pertinent is likewise rejected. Initially, it is noted that LBCA cites no legal support for its arguments. Furthermore, there is no requirement in the District's rules governing consumptive use which mandates consideration of only "worstcase" scenarios. Furthermore, an agency cannot assume worst case scenarios unless they are reasonably foreseeable, which determination is a case by case factual issue. See Florida Audubon Society, supra., Rudloe, supra.. LBCA Exception Number 10 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 26 that Dr. Stewart testified that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogenous and isotropic but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 738). LBCA Exception Number 11 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 27 that the maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 129, 182). For the same reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7, the LBCA's claim regarding irrelevancy is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 12 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 28 that a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance and that the drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. The LBCA is simply rearguing their case. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 118-120, 129, 237, 706-708, 758). LBCA's irrelevancy argument is rejected for the reasons stated in the ruling on exceptions no. 9 and 7. LBCA Exception Number 13 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 42 through 54 as being conclusion of law rather than findings of fact. The LBCA does not cite to the record or make legal argument to support the exception as required by Rule 40C-1 .564, F.A.C. Without said citation or argument, the exception is rejected. Corporation of the President, supra.. The hearing officer's recitation of the individual criteria of Rules 40C-2.301 (2), (4) and (5), F.A.C., serve as introduction to and reference for the specific findings with regard to each criterion to provide clarity in the order. To the extent that expert witnesses presented testimony on the criteria and how the applicant satisfied the criteria through proof, the elements are findings or fact. These additional reasons also serve as ground for rejection of the exception. LBCA Exception Number 14 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 56 that LBCA's referenced exhibits do not correlate with normal conditions when compared with longer periods of time. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. In addition, the hearing officer ultimately did not admit the exhibits and therefore, the Finding of Fact becomes irrelevant. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930- 933, 948, 969; FR Ex. 50A, SOB). Contrary to Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C., LBCA fails to state wish particularity citations to the record or legal basis as required by Rule 40C-1.564, F.A.C., in support of its attack on finding 56 and its inferential attack on findings 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 and conclusions 62 and 63. The entire exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 15 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 66 that LBCA's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83 have limited probative value to the extent it is predicated on FRI's rebuttal testimony. The LBCA argues that the rebuttal testimony is of low probative value. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn there from by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and, therefore, the exception is rejected. (T. 1152-1168, 411-416, 930-933, 948, 969). Exception is also taken to Findings of Fact Nos. 32, 36, and 56 and Conclusion of Law 62 because LBCA argues that the testimony on which they are based exceeded the scope of direct examination and the LBCA was not given the opportunity to object. The correct time to object was when the alleged improper testimony was elicited. The LBCA did not object to preserve the record and therefore, has waived the objection. Section 90.104(1)(a), Fla. Stat. Finally, LBCA asserts that it was denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony in violation of Section 120.57(1)(b)4., Fla. Stat. To the contrary, LBCA was not denied the opportunity to present rebuttal testimony but failed to request surrebuttal and consequently failed to preserve any denial of that request by an objection on the record. (T. 1188-1190). Since LBCA never requested surrebuttal, the hearing officer never denied that request and, therefore, LBCA's argument is without merit. Furthermore, pursuant to the order of presentation under Rule 40C- 1.5434(1), F.A.C., which is followed in a permitting proceeding (applicant, petitioner, district), LBCA's entire case tended to be in the nature of rebuttal to the applicant's case. While the hearing officer did state that he did not ordinarily allow surrebuttal (T. 1169) before the rebuttal testimony was concluded, LBCA never affirmatively requested to present surrebuttal evidence or testimony nor did LBCA proffer any such evidence or testimony. Since no proffer was made of any relevant surrebuttal testimony which LBCA contends was excluded, and no objection was made in the record to LBCA's belief that it was prohibited from adducing surrebuttal evidence, it is now precluded from complaining about this perceived adverse ruling. King v. Estate of King, 554 So.2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Holmes v. Redland Construction Co., 557 So.2d 911 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1990); Roberts v. Hollway, 581 So.2d 619 (a. 4th DCA 1991); Diaz v. Rodriguez, 384 So.2d 906 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 16 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Findings of Fact 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63. Findings of Fact 18, 19, 21, 52 and 55 and Conclusions of Law 62 and 63 are discussed in subsequent exceptions and therefore arc not addressed in this ruling on exceptions. LBCA's exception to Finding of Fact 20 fails to state with particularity any supporting citations to the record or legal argument as required by Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C., and is therefore, rejected. LBCA takes exception to Finding of Fact 17 that the hearing officer incorrectly refers to three distinct water quality studies. In fact, the hearing officer actually refers to "numerous analyses" LBCA also objects to the reference to "unknown persons" in the finding and apparently to the statement: "They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels of certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992." Clarification that HRS personnel conducted sampling in 1989 and 1992 is provided; however, since these personnel were never specifically named, to that extent the hearing officer's reference to "unknown persons" is accurate. (T. 1035, 379). The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 102-103, 130- 133, 451, 1023-1037, 1041- 1048, 1151-1152). LBCA Exception Number 17 The LBCA takes exception to that part of the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 18 that states: "This theory was predicated on... an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond." LBCA fails to prove any supporting transcript citations in violation of Rule 40C- 1.564 (3), F.A.C. In Finding of Fact 18, the hearing officer reached the conclusion that none of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., supra.. This Board cannot judge credibility of witnesses or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 133, 575, 1024-1025). LBCA Exception Number 18 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 19 by arguing that water quality on the mine site says nothing about off site impacts and positing that the finding is predicated on certain speculation. LBCA offers no helpful record citations supporting these allegations. Expert testimony established that water quality sampling by FRI and the District of the surficial aquifer at the locations chosen was where water quality impacts would be most likely to be revealed and consequently was a conservative approach. (T. 133, 144, 1029-1030, 1061, 1073). This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 130-139, 141-144, 575-576, 1028-1031, 1061-10 65, 1073, 1136-1139). LBCA Exception Number 19 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 by stating that it misleadingly implies that 212 homes were tested for water quality by HRS. To the contrary, the hearing officer's finding states "12 out of 212 homeowners" (emphasis added) south of the mine site were tested, not 212. In addition, the exhibits referenced do not reflect the testing of 212 homes. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 167-168, 379, 990, 1036-1037, 1041, 1048-1050, 1052-1053). LBCA Exception Number 20 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 on the basis that it is a legal conclusion which misrepresents and misapplies the state water quality standards. However, LBCA cites no authority or record citation for the argument as required by Rule 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C. The finding actually states "with the exception of one well... the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese"; clearly, this is a factual statement. This exception, under the guise of an unsupported legal argument, goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence which, incidentally, includes explanation and citation to the relevant exception/standard. Furthermore, the parties stipulated that official recognition was taken of chapter 17-520, F.A.C. The exception is rejected. (T. 1034, 1041, 1077-1078; Prehearing Stip. p 12; Rules 17- 520.420(2) and 17-520.200(11), F.A.C.) LBCA Exception Number 21 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 21 that the 1989 water quality samples by HRS were unreliable because of the uncertainty regarding the sampling technique protocol. This exception erroneously states there was no evidence of sampling protocol used by HRS. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 1039-1049). LBCA Exception Number 22 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 52 that the receiving body of water will not be seriously harmed, by characterizing the finding as being predicated on an unproven theory that the surficial aquifer receives all groundwater discharged from one site. LBCA has failed to read the entire finding which clearly reveals that the hearing officer did not confine his consideration to the surficial aquifer. He found that water quality standards would not be violated in the surfical aquifer, where the highest concentrations of any potential contaminants would appear, then they would not be violated in any intermediate aquifer similarly, no violations would occur in one Floridan aquifer. The decision to believe one expert over another is the role of the hearing officer, and the decision cannot be altered absent a complete lack of competent substantial evidence from which the finding could be reasonably inferred. Fla. Chapter of Sierra Club, supra.. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 105, 141-142, 1025-1030, 1034-1035). LBCA Exception Number 23 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 55 that water quality sampling was collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond. In their responses to this exception, FRI explicitly notes it has no response to this exception and District counsel concedes that although water quality samples were taken from the dredge pond and a water budget was calculated for the dredge pond, these two procedures were not linked to one another. The testimony of FRI witnesses is that water quality sampling and data to determine the water budget for the dredge pond were performed. (T. 76, 103). Counsel for FRI and the District have stipulated that the testimony does not support the finding that the water quality samples were used to evaluate the water budget. Since, as stipulated, this portion of the hearing officer's finding is not supported by any evidence in the record, the exception is accepted. LBCA Exception Number 24 The LBCA takes exception to the nearing officer's Finding of Fact 55, arguing that the applicant did not perform an environmental assessment of Lake Brooklyn, and thus cannot fairly draw any conclusions about its operation's impact on that lake. The Finding of Fact describes the site-specific information which supports the application. The pertinent part of the finding states: "FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes." To the extent Lake Brooklyn is encompassed by use of the term "area lakes", the existence of an assessment of the impacts to Lake Brooklyn is supported by expert testimony. (T. 281, 899). Additionally, the finding is otherwise supported by competent substantial evidence. (T. 266-280). The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 25 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 31 which states in pertinent part: "petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring." LBCA is essentially complaining that the entirety of Dr. Stewart's testimony should be credited not just a portion. The role of the hearing officer is to consider and weigh all the evidence, resolve conflicts and judge credibility of the witnesses. The hearing officer apparently did not view all of Dr. Stewart's testimony in the same manner as LBCA's attorney; such is his legal prerogative. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 784-786, 145- 146, 232-233, 285-286, 288-289, 897-898, 1085). LBCA Exception Number 26 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Finding of Fact 24 that the rate of decline (in Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes) during the APT test was not distinguishable from the declines which occurred before or after the test. LBCA provides no record citations to support its argument that since the hearing officer rejected its use of certain APT data in an attempted correlation between pumping and Lake Brooklyn levels, that all the APT data was entirely discredited and could have no value in an analysis regarding Spring, White Sands or Gator Bone Lakes. If a hearing officer's finding is supported by any competent substantial evidence from which the finding could reasonably be inferred, then it cannot be disturbed. Berry, supra.. This exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. The finding is supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the exception is rejected. (T. 941-948, 1015-1016, 1123, 1168). RULINGS ON EXCEPTIONS TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW LBCA Exception Number 1 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 62 and 63 and Findings of Fact 42 through 54 (which LBCA alleges should be conclusions of law) that FRI has established its entitlement to the permit. LBCA argues that the applicant failed to present sufficient information about conditions at Lake Brooklyn. LBCA's numerous "factual" statements in this exception are unsupported by record citations. The burden of proof in an administrative hearing falls initially upon the party asserting the affirmative of an issue, i.e. entitlement to a permit. Rules 40C-1.545 and 40C-2.301(7), F.A.C.; Capeletti Brothers v. Department of General Services, 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The party must prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence. Florida Audubon Society v. South Florida Water Management District, 13 F.A.L.R. 4169 (undated). The applicant's burden is to establish reasonable assurances that the proposed use is a reasonable-beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. Section 373.223, Fla. Stat. The burden of reasonable assurances is not one of absolute guarantees. City of Sunrise v. Indian Trace Community Dev. Dist., 14 F.A.L.R. 866 (January 16, 1992). The impacts which are reasonably expected to result from issuance of the permit must be addressed, not potential impacts or those that might occur Hoffert v. St. Joe Paper Co., 12 F.A.L.R. 4972 (December 6, 1990); Chipola Basin Protective Group Inc. v. Florida Chapter of Sierra Club, 11 F.A.L.R. 467 (Department of Environmental Regulation, December 29, 1988); Florida Keys Citizen Coalition v. 1800 Atlantic Developers, 8 F.A.L.R. 5564 (Department of Environmental Regulation, October 17, 1986). Once the party asserting the affirmative, FRI, has presented its prima facia case, the burden shifts to the LBCA to present contrary evidence. 1800 Atlantic Developers, supra.; Hoffert, supra.. LBCA cites Booker Creek Preservation, Inc. v. Mobil Chemical Co., 481 So.2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) in support of the exception. In Booker Creek, the Court held that additional testing, beyond that offered by the applicant, should have been done before the permit could be issued. Booker Creek was limited to its unique set of facts by the case of Berry v. Dept. of Env. Regulation, 530 So.2d 1019 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). The Berry Court, in dealing with a dredge and fill permit, refused to extend the Booker Creek holding to such permits, noting that the permit under consideration in Berry, was not a pollutant discharge permit. The permit in issue here also is not a pollutant discharge permit. More importantly, like the applicant in Berry, FRI offered evidence of extensive testing and analysis regarding where water comes from and goes to at the mine site and in the surrounding vicinity. Finding of Fact No. 55. LBCA incorrectly argues that the modeling information submitted by FRI has no applicability to impacts at Lake Brooklyn, because the model "did not include Lake Brooklyn". Particularly, in view of findings of fact 23, 28, 31-36 (exceptions to which have been previously rejected), it is apparent that the hearing officer rejected LBCA's view of the "facts" stated in this exception. While the model boundary (which is based on water level data for Floridan wells in the region (T. 164)) is between Lake Brooklyn and the pumping wells at the mine, the drawdown at the model boundary is based on a distance-drawdown relationship that relates to the pumping rate at the mine. The 1991 transient model showed that within the 9 square mile boundary, the impacts at the boundary were no more than 0.1 feet. (T. 129, 178). The reduced boundaries in the 1992 model accurately predicted what was happening at the mine site. (T. 178). The distance-drawdown relationship established by the model shows that the drawdown contour ceases before the model boundary is reached and therefore, before Lake Brooklyn is reached. (FR Exs. 5, 22). Impacts to Lake Brooklyn were also assessed through the review of water levels in the Floridan aquifer well (C- 120) between 1960 and 1992. (T. 928-933). The data showed that water levels in the well at Lake Brooklyn actually continued to rise when the 1989 and 1991 pump tests were conducted. (T. 411-412, 931-933; SJRWMD Ex. 13). In addition, when the pumping wells at the mine were turned off, the water level in the well at Lake Brooklyn did not recover. This indicates that there were outside influences for the fluctuation in the well. (T. 415, 933). The data does not show impacts from the pumping at the sand mine. (T. 942). LBCA also erroneously states that groundwater in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine. (See ruling on LBCA's factual exception 5). As listed in responses to LBCA's factual exceptions, particularly those regarding exceptions 8 and 12, there is competent, substantial evidence to support the bindings regarding no adverse impact to Lake Brooklyn. The hearing officer found that the applicant met its burden or proof in Conclusion of Law 62. In Conclusion of Law 63, the hearing officer concluded that the LBCA did not meet its burden of presenting contrary evidence that the withdrawals at the sand mine correlate with the decline in water levels at Lake Brooklyn. The exception goes to the weight of the evidence and inferences drawn therefrom by the hearing officer. This Board cannot reweigh conflicting evidence, judge credibility of witnesses, or otherwise interpret the evidence to reach a desired result. Heifetz, supra.; Freeze, supra.. This exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 2 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 that additional permit conditions in the case of a water shortage or a shorter permit duration are not necessary. The LBCA is reargue their case in the exception. The District has authority to require FRI to reduce its water use during a water shortage within the seven year life of the permit. Sections 373.175 and 373.246, Fla. Stat., and Rules 40C-2.381(2)(a)2. and 40C-21.271, F.A.C. Rule 40C-2.381(2)(a)2., F.A.C., which is incorporated into the permit as a limiting condition, states: Nothing in this permit should be construed to limit the authority of the St. Johns River Water Management District to declare a water shortage and issue orders pursuant to section 373.175, F.S., or to formulate a plan for implementation during periods of water shortage, pursuant to section 373.246, F.S. In the event a water shortage, is declared by the District Governing Board, the permittee must adhere to the water shortage restrictions, as specified by the District, even though the specified water shortage restrictions may be inconsistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. (emphasis added). Rule 40C-21.271, F.A.C., General Water Use Restrictions, specifies the restrictions which may be imposed during a water shortage on all water users and states, in pertinent parts: The Board may order use of general water use restrictions and the water use restrictions specified in Part VI for the appropriate water shortage phase for each affected source class. Further, the Board may order any combination in lieu of or in addition to the restrictions specified in Part VI of the restrictions described in Subsection (3), by use or method of withdrawal class, within each source class, if necessary to achieve the necessary percent reduction in overall demand. (emphasis added). General water use restrictions which may be imposed include provisions that facilitate the right of water users in an area to make voluntary agreements among themselves, with the concurrence of the Board or the Executive Director, providing for the mutual reduction, sharing, or rotation of use; restrictions on the total amount of water that may be used, diverted, impounded, extracted, or withdrawn during any day, month, or year during the declared shortage; restrictions on the timing of use, diversion, impoundment, extraction, or withdrawal of water; restrictions on pumping rates and schedules or diversion rates and schedules; or such other provisions or restrictions as are necessary to protect the water resources from serious harm. With the above cited authority, the District can require the withdrawals at the sand mine to be reduced during periods of water shortage within the seven year term of the permit by reducing the total amount withdrawn, controlling the schedule of withdrawals or "by other restrictions which arc necessary to protect the water resources." The hearing officer's conclusion is consistent with the rules and statutes which govern the Board. The exception is rejected. LBCA Exception Number 3 The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63 and Finding of Fact 47 that FRI satisfied the criteria regarding water conservation measures. See Rule 40C-2.301(4)(e), F.A.C. The LBCA reargues the facts which the hearing officer found to support the conclusion. However, the LBCA offered no evidence to rebut the testimony of FRI. In addition, the LBCA cites no authority that the hearing officer's conclusion is contrary to law. Florida Audubon Society v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 9 F.A.L.R. 565 (October 31, 1986). LBCA also renews its attack on the allocation amount, essentially iterating its factual exception which is rejected for the reasons set forth therein. It is improper for this Board to retry the case after the hearing has concluded by altering findings and reweighing evidence. Tampa Wholesale Liquors, Inc., 376 So.2d 1195 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). LBCA's exception lacks any record citations or legal authority in support of this exception. The conclusion and finding are supported by competent substantial, and uncontroverted, evidence and the exception is rejected. (T. 43-52, 106, 234- 237, 988-989, 1103- 1104, 1111, 1132-1133) LBCA Exception Number 3 (sic). The LBCA takes exception to the hearing officer's Conclusion of Law 63, by arguing that the use of water from the surficial aquifer requires a separate permit. Section 40C-2.051, F.A.C., states: No permit shall be required under the provisions of this rule for the following water uses: Withdrawals of ground or surface water to facilitate construction on or below ground surface ..., in the following circum- stances: ground water may be withdrawn if it is recharged on site to the aquifer from which it was withdrawn by either infiltration or direct injection; surface water may be withdrawn only from wholly owned impoundments or works which are no deeper than the lowest extent of the uppermost water bearing stratum and which have no surface hydrologic connection off site, and the surface water must be recharged on site to the uppermost water bearing stratum by either infiltration or direct injection. This exemption from permitting is applicable here, and therefore, no additional permit is required. An agency's interpretation of its rules is afforded great weight. Franklin Ambulance Service v. DHRS, 45 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). LBCA offered no auth-orty or evidence that the District's interpretation is contrary to established law. This conclusion is supported by competent substantial evidence. The exception is rejected. (T. 38-39, 105, 249, 972, 1101-1102). RULINGS ON EXCEPTION TO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN POST- HEARING EVIDENTIARY RULING LBCA excepts the hearing officer's rulings in Finding of Fact No. 56 and Conclusion of Law No, 66 excluding LBCA exhibits nos. 61, 64, 71, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83 as inadmissible for failure of LBCA to comply with subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., regarding use of summaries of evidence. LBCA takes exception to FRI's objection post-hearing alleging that the exhibits had been admitted. In fact, the exhibits were not admitted at hearing. The LBCA's citation to the transcript is not the hearing officer's ruling on the exhibits. The hearing officer did not admit the ten exhibits on the record, as he did with every other exhibit that he admitted. The LBCA's assertion that it believed the exhibits were admitted is belied by LBCA's failure to list them as admitted in its Proposed Recommended Order on page 3. Therefore, LBCA's claim that FRI's continuing objection was a surprise is without merit. LBCA asserts that FRI cannot make a post-hearing objection to the exhibits in its Proposed Recommended Order and infers gnat FRI's objection to the admission of the exhibits was not preserved at hearing. Rule 40C-1.561, F.A.C., provides for the submission of legal briefs along with proposed findings of fact and conclusions or law. For matters that remain pending at the close of a hearing, a party may file a legal brief in support of its position. FRI did not object to the opinion testimony of the LBCA expert witness, only to the graphic depictions of such testimony. (T. 356). LBCA stated at hearing that the excluded exhibits were simply graphic depictions of the expert's opinion testimony. (T. 354). The record is abundantly clear that FRI preserved its objection to the exhibits and the hearing officer reserved ruling on their admission until the recommended order was issued. (T. 353, 358, 360, 363, 369, 370, 375, 377, 524, 531, 537, 1079-1080, 1178). LBCA essentially asserts that the exhibits are not "summaries" and therefore not subject to subsection 90.956, Fla. Stat., which, of course, the fact-finder found otherwise. LBCA's reliance on Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) is misplaced. Marks did not hold that expert testimony is not subject to subsection 90.956, but only that an expert is not required to utilize subsection 90.956 when presenting underlying data relied on for his opinion. The hearing officer found that the hydrographs were summaries and the underlying information was not indicated on the summary. The hearing officer allowed FRI time to review the data and present rebuttal. The fact-finder is entitled to great latitude in admitting or excluding summary evidence. Wright v. Southwest Bank, 554 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1977)(trial court without jury is entitled to great latitude covering the admission or exclusion of summary evidence). LBCA has failed to show that the hearing officer abused this discretion in excluding the exhibits. LBCA also takes exception that LBCA was denied rebuttal, or surrebuttal, on FRI's rebuttal case. As discussed in the ruling on LBCA's Exception 15, LBCA failed to request rebuttal of FRI's case. The hearing officer allowed cross-examination and LBCA did not offer any additional evidence from LBCA witnesses. Since the LBCA never requested to offer rebuttal testimony, then the hearing officer could not and did not deny that request. It is well-settled that an objection must be preserved during an administrative proceeding or it will be deemed waived. DeMendoza v. First Federal Savings and Loan, 585 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)(even if mistake was made in trial, party's waived its right to appeal the issue since it failed to call the deficiency to the court's attention during trial); Yachting Arcade, Inc. v. Riverwalk Condominium Assoc., 500 So.2d 202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)(party's failure to object to matters at administrative hearing made those matters unreviewable, even though party claimed fundamental procedural errors, it failed to show how it was prejudiced by any such action or omission; National Dairy Products, Corp. v. Odham, 121 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1959). Therefore, LBCA's exception based on the denial of rebuttal is rejected. LBCA argues that-the proper vehicle for the objection was a motion for rehearing. LBCA does not cite authority for its assertion. Since the hearing officer never ruled on the admissibility, there was no order on which to base a motion for rehearing. Nevertheless, the alleged error, if any, of excluding the exhibits, was harmless. Sims v. Brown, 574 So.2d 131 (Fla. 1991)(exclusion of manual was harmless since experts testified to the same matters in the manual); Little v. Banker's National Life Insurance Co., 369 So.2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(harmless error to exclude letter since witnesses otherwise testified at length as to its contents and conclusions). The LBCA expert testified extensively regarding the basis of each excluded exhibit and the information it depicts in relation to the conclusions of his expert opinion which the hearing officer weighed in rendering his factual findings and conclusions. (T. 346, 349, 351, 352, 358, 359, 364, 366, 371, 373, 411, 456, 457, 458, 481, 486, 501, 504, 507, 509, 511, 512, 516, 517, 518, 519, 542). The hearing officer concluded that even if the exhibits had been admitted it would not have altered his factual findings stating that they had limited probative value. (Conclusion of Law No. 66). Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON RECOMMENDED ORDER'S COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 120.59(2), FLA. STAT. LBCA asserts that the hearing officer failed to comply with subsection 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., by not providing a sufficiently explicit ruling on each of the parties' proposed findings of fact. Section 120,59(2), Fla. Stat., requires "a ruling upon each proposed finding" The Appendix to the Recommended Order does not contain an omnibus "blanket" ruling on all of LBCA's proposed findings which the courts have found inadequate. Cf. Island Harbor beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Health Care Management, Inc. v. DHRS, 479 So.2d 193 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The Appendix clearly contains a ruling upon each of LBCA's proposed findings. Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., requires no more. LBCA relies on Island Harbor Beach Club v. DNR, 476 So.2d 1350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985), to support this argument. Island Harbor Beach Club, differs significantly from this case. The order Island Harbor Beach Club did not individually address each specific proposed finding as the Recommended Order in this case does. The only reference to proposed findings made in the Island Harbor Beacon Club order was a single paragraph which stated: The parties proposed findings of fact have been considered and where unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate. This differs from the Recommended Order in the instant case which specifically addresses each proposed finding and specifies where (by paragraph) in the Recommended Order that proposed finding is addressed. It is elementary to then read the paragraph referred to in the Recommended Order to determine what portion of the proposed finding was accepted. More applicable to this case is the case of Schomer v. Department of Professional Regulation, 417 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The order in Schomer did not contain specific rulings on each proposed finding submitted by the Appellant. The substance of the final order, however, demonstrated that each finding had been considered and ruled on. The Court noted that, for purposes of complying with Section 120.59(2) Fla. Stat., It would not elevate form over substance." An agency need not Independently quote verbatim each proposed finding and independently dispose of that proposed finding; rather, it is sufficient that the agency provide in its decision a written foundation upon which the reviewing court may assure that all proposed findings of fact have been consider and ruled upon and not overlooked or concealed. Id. at 1090. The Court held that it could discern from the substance of the order that each of the proposed findings were addressed, and to the extent the technical requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat., were departed from, the departure did not materially impair the fairness or correctness of the proceedings. Id. at 1091. LBCA merely has to compare the hearing officer's findings with its proposed findings to discern those portions accepted. Therefore, the exception is rejected. RULING ON MOTION FOR REMAND Pursuant, to Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., LBCA has filed a Motion for Remand asserting that newly discovered evidence establishes that a finding by the hearing officer is inaccurate because of allegedly false testimony by District expert witness, Dr. Larry Lee. The hearing officer found that Lake Brooklyn had been in a period of decline before and after the 1989 aquifer pump test and that due to rainfall deficits Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least 18 to 24 months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The hearing officer determined that the rate and character of declines during the pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before and after the test. Thus, he found that impacts to Lake Brooklyn water levels from the pumping were indistinguishable from the declines due to drought. (Finding of Fact No. 30). LBCA asserts that a newly discovered Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) survey, dated October 11, 1988, shows that Brooklyn Bay was not segregated from the remainder of the lake due to drought conditions prior to the 1989 aquifer pump test as testified by Dr. Lee and seeks the Board to remand the issue to the hearing officer for consideration of this new evidence. The only reasons for remand regarding fact finding are if an erroneous legal conclusion by a hearing officer warrants taking of evidence on the issue, or if a factual issue was never ruled upon by the hearing officer. See Miller v. Dept. Envt'l Reg., 5504 So.2d 1325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(agency's modification of legal conclusions necessitated factual findings on issue which hearing officer had initially disregarded as irrelevant) and Cohn v. Dept. of Prof. Reg., 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)(when the hearing officer fails to find a specific fact, agency must remand to the hearing officer to do so). Clearly, neither of these reasons have any application to Petitioner's arguments. Although subsection 40C-1.512, F.A.C., provides that the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to District administrative proceedings to the extent not inconsistent with Chapter 120 or Chapter 40C-1, the applicability of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is problematic and inconsistent with a subsection 120.57 proceeding. First, the civil procedure rule only applies to final judgments and in this subsection 120.57 administrative proceeding LBCA is attempting to apply the civil procedure rule to a nonfinal recommended order. Second, LBCA has not expressly excepted Finding of Fact No. 30 as not supported by competent substantial evidence or that a Board rule or policy has been incorrectly interpreted /1 , but actually seeks the Board to allow LBCA to supplement the record after remand with new facts for the hearing officer to weigh in applying those facts to the applicable District rules. Thus, unlike a trial court, Finding of Fact No. 30 cannot be altered by this Board if supported by any competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze v. Dept. of Business Regulation, 556 So.2d 1204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); School Board of Leon County v. Weaver, 556 So.2d 443 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). The Board may only consider whether the findings actually made by the hearing officer are sustained by the evidence, and whether, if so, they support the recommended legal conclusions. Cohn v. Dept. of Professional Regulation, 477 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Unlike a judge with plenary and equitable powers in a judicial setting, this Board, under Chapter 120, cannot authorize fact- finding after a hearing's conclusion except in the most narrow circumstances, none of which are applicable to the motion before the Board. Cf. Manasota 88, Inc. v. Tremor, 545 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous legal interpretation); Cohn, supra.. (may remand if a necessary factual issue was not determined by the hearing officer); Friends of Children v. DHRS, 504 So.2d 1345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)(may remand if hearing officer makes erroneous evidentiary ruling). In effect, LBCA wants to utilize a civil procedure rule for the Board to authorize additional fact-finding on a matter already considered by the hearing officer regarding a finding supported by competent substantial evidence. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., simply does not authorize the Board to take such action. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. Stat.; Dept. of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)(chapter 120 does not allow additional or cumulative evidence on matters already considered and the APA does not envision a never-ending process). Consequently, the application of Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is inconsistent with Chapter 120 and LBCA is free to raise any alleged error at hearing on appeal of the final order. Even assuming Rule 1.540(b), Fla. R. Civ. P., is applicable to this subsection 120.57 proceeding, LBCA has failed to clearly establish the extraordinary circumstances warranting the granting of its motion. The material issue of whether FRI's proposed pumping would impact the area lake levels already effected by a rainfall deficit was expressly raised by LBCA in its initial petition for hearing as far back as August 1992 and was also an issue stipulated in the Prehearing Stipulation prior to the February 1993 hearing. (Petition for Administrative Hearing paragraph f. 2, 3, 4.; Prehearing Stip. paragraphs B. 2, G. 1). Consequently, LBCA had over five months prior to hearing to elicit all relevant evidence to that Issue. If Rule 1.540(b) was applicable, LBCA's burden would be to clearly establish the following to receive relief: (1) it must appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the-result if a new trial is granted; (2) that it has been discovered since the trial; (3) that it could not have been discovered before one trial by the exercise of due diligence; and (4) that it is material and not merely cumulative or impeaching. City of Winter Haven v. Tuttle/White Construction Inc., 370 So.2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); King v. Harrington, 411 So.2d 912 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), rev denied, 418 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 1982). The predicate for LBCA's motion is that Dr. Lee's testimony regarding the lake separation was false, therefore LBCA could not have exercised due diligence in discovering the alleged new evidence. LBCA has filed no express exception with record support establishing that Finding of Fact No. 30 is not supported by competent substantial evidence and therefore the Board by law cannot alter that factual finding. Section 40C-1.564(3), F.A.C.; Section 120.37(1)(b)10., Fla. Stat.; Freeze, supra.. Consequently, Dr. Lee's testimony is not false. Importantly, Dr. Lee's testimony was not the only evidence supporting this finding. LBCA's own witness, the president of the association, testified that Brooklyn Bay had been segregated for four or five years from the main part of the lake and that he had been able to walk across the lake without getting wet for the last four or five years. (T. 863, 870). Likewise, LBCA's own expert stated that Lake Brooklyn's condition between 1989 to 1991 had receded to such an extent as it was no longer a continuous lake. (T. 317). Accordingly, the predicate for LBCA's motion is factually inaccurate and misplaced. Furthermore, LBCA must clearly establish that even though the exercise of due diligence before the hearing, it would not have discovered the 1988 D.O.T. survey. Brav v. Electric Door-Lift Inc., 558 So.2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)(movant's burden to establish due diligence); Plisco v. Union Railroad Co., 379 F.2d 15 (3d DCA 1967)(motion for new trial on newly discovered evidence is granted only where extraordinary circumstances are present). Even though the effects of FRI's proposed pumping on lake levels in time of rainfall deficit was an issue dating back to August 1992, LBCA asserts that it could not have obtained the survey prior to hearing in February 1993 "because of the logistics of requesting public records and the delay in delivery of same." LBCA could have reasonably anticipated that witnesses would testify regarding the disputed issue, particularly its own witnesses, and obtained the survey with the exercise of due diligence. LBCA offers no basis why D.O.T. would not have supplied the survey as required by law or that LBCA could not obtain it and, in fact, the public records law contains a provision for obtaining immediate relief if a request for records is denied. See subsection 119.11, Fla. Stat. In Florida Audubon Society v. Ratner, 497 So.2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), a 1981 judgment had been entered finding that limestone mining would be inconsistent with the water management purposes of a water management district's flowage easement on platiff's property. Plaintiff sought a new trial because of newly discovered opposing evidence in a 1980 Corps of Engineers report on the effects of limestone mining. The trial court denied the motion. The appellate court agreed finding that the granting of such motions was disfavored and that the report was prepared in September 1980 well before the trial and judgment in June 1981 and could have been discovered prior to the with the exercise of due diligence. Likewise in this proceeding, the proffered D.O.T. survey was prepared in October 1988, nearly four and one-half years before the February 1993 hearing and LBCA has failed to show that due diligence would not have discovered the survey prior to the administrative hearing in this proceeding. See also, Morhaim v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 559 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(no new trial granted based on post-judgment affidavits regarding evidence on known issue that could have been discovered prior to trial). LBCA also asserts that Dr. Lee misrepresented the contents of Clark's "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida" regarding its conclusions and his opinion concerning the separation of Brooklyn Bay from Lake Brooklyn and thus prejudiced LBCA's case. LBCA argument is an attack on the weight of the conflicting evidence which is the job of the hearing officer to resolve. An expert witness is not required to disclose the facts and data underlying his opinion. Marks v. Marks, 576 So.2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). LBCA could have cross examined Dr. Lee regarding the separation. LBCA was aware of the "Clark Report" (T. 844) and even anticipated testimony regarding water levels in its case in chief (T. 846). Indeed, the report was listed by LBCA as its Exhibit 13 in the Prehearing Stipulation, although LBCA chose not to introduce it into evidence during the hearing. Dr. Lee testified not once but twice about the location of the staff gauge (T. 946 and 962-966). On cross, LBCA did not inquire about the location of the staff gauge or the lack of water beneath the bridge. (T. 991-1017). It was LBCA's burden to challenge the factual basis for Dr. Lee's opinion. City of Hialeah v. Weatherford, 466 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). An insufficiency in the expert opinion offered, if any, should have been addressed in cross-examination by LBCA, not by a post-hearing motion. LBCA alleges that the outcome would be different if the DOT survey were part of the evidence. The Board cannot accept new evidence or rule on the admissibility of evidence which was not presented to the hearing officer. The Finding of Fact to which LBCA refers states six reasons why the correlation between the pumping at the sand mine and its effects on Lake Brooklyn water level were not established. See Recommended Order, Finding of Fact 32. The location of the staff gauge in Brooklyn Bay rather than Lake Brooklyn was one of those six. LBCA's error was in not knowing the location of the staff gauge (T. 418-420) rather than the testimony of Dr. Lee. Therefore, LBCA's allegation that but for the testimony of Dr. Lee, the hearing officer would have found differently is unfounded. The mere chance that the hearing officer might have found differently is insufficient to remand the hearing for additional fact finding. Cluett v. Dep't of Professional Regulation, 530 So.2d 351, 355 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). The courts look with disfavor on motions based on newly discovered evidence because to look with favor would bring about a looseness in practice and encourage counsel to neglect to gather all available evidence for a first trial by speculating upon the outcome, and then, being defeated, become for the first time duly diligent in securing other evidence to cure the defects or omissions in their showing upon the first trial. Rushing v. Chappell, 247 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); Henderson Sians v. Fla. Dept. of Transp., 397 So.2d 769 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). It is well-settled that no abuse of discretion occurs on the part of an agency by refusing to direct a remand to receive evidence which could have been introduced during the course of the original proceedings. Department of Transportation v. J.W.C., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) LBCA has failed to clearly establish a right to relief and therefore the motion is denied. RULING ON MOTION FOR OFFICIAL RECOGNITION AND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD LBCA has filed a Motion for Official Recognition and to Supplement the Record seeking the Board to accept into evidence the October 11, 1988 D.O.T. survey which was the subject of LBCA's Motion for Remand and also the U.S.G.S. publication "Report of Investigations No. 33-Hydrology of Brooklyn Lake Near Keystone Heights, Florida", by Clark, also referenced In LBCA's Motion for Remand. The Board is not a fact-finder in this subsection 120.57 proceeding and it is reversible error for the Board to supplement the record through post-hearing evidence. Section 120.57(1)(b)10, Fla. stat., Marks v. Northwest Florida Water Management District, 566 So.2d 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)(court refused to take judicial notice of factual matter based on records that could have been offered at administrative hearing); Nest v. Dept. of Professional Regulation 490 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Shongut v Mark, 173 So.2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)(Where matters raised on motion for relief from judgment could have been available to movant during trial proceedings, denial of motion was not abuse of discretion); Weaver, supra.. Moreover, the Motion for Remand has been denied. LBCA's post- hearing motions will be available as part of the record of this proceeding for purposes of any appeal which may be pursued. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: The Recommended Order dated June 4, 1993, attached hereto as Exhibit A, is adopted in its entirety except as modified by the final action of the Governing Board of the St. Johns River Water Management District (Ruling on LBCA Exception 23). Florida Rock Industries' application for consumptive use permit no. 2-019-0012AUR is hereby granted under the terms and conditions as provided herein. The post-hearing Motion for Remand, Motion for Official Recognition and Motion to Supplement the Record filed by LBCA are hereby denied. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of July 1993, in Palatka, Florida. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT By: JOE E. HILL CHAIRMAN RENDERED this 14th day of July 1993. By: SANDRA L. BERTRAM ASSISTANT DISTRICT CLERK
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background Respondent, Florida Rock Industries (FRI or applicant), a Florida corporation, operates a nine hundred and eighty acre sand mine known as the Goldhead Sand Mine (Goldhead) in Clay County, Florida. The mine is located approximately six miles northeast of Keystone Heights and fifty miles southwest of Jacksonville. FRI has operated the mine since 1958. With the exception of eighty acres of land owned by FRI, the remainder of the land on which the mine is located is owned by Carroll-Phillips Investors and has been leased to FRI since 1973. The mine lies within the jurisdictional boundaries of respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), a special taxing district created by the legislature and charged with the responsibility for administering and enforcing permitting programs for consumptive uses of water. FRI is accordingly subject to the District's regulatory authority. As a necessary component of its operation, FRI withdraws approximately 2.09 million gallons per day (MGD) of groundwater from the Floridan Aquifer which is used in the production of sand. This use of water is made pursuant to a consumptive use permit (no. 2-019-0012U) issued to FRI by the District on December 11, 1984, and which allows it to consume 762.85 million gallons per year of groundwater for hydraulic dredging, cleaning and purification of sand at the Goldhead mine. The permit was issued for seven years. In order to continue groundwater withdrawal and use, FRI has applied to the District for a seven-year renewal of its permit with no request for an increase in allocation. That request, which has been identified as application no. 2-019-0012AUR, is the subject of this proceeding. After conducting a review of the application, making site inspections, and performing various studies and analyses, on July 28, 1992, the District, through its staff, gave notice of its intent to approve the application with certain conditions. Thereafter, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, Lake Brooklyn Civic Association, Inc. (petitioner), a nonprofit corporation made up of property owners in adjacent areas of Clay County, filed a petition under Subsection 403.412(5), Florida Statutes, seeking to contest the proposed action. Petitioner is a citizen of the state and has an interest in activities that may injure or harm the state's water resources. Thus, it has standing to bring this action. As twice amended, the petition generally alleged that the consumptive use would (a) cause an unmitigated adverse impact on adjacent land uses, including a significant reduction in water levels in Lake Brooklyn and Spring, Gator Bone, and White Sands Lake, which lie generally to the south and southwest of the mine site, (b) cause a deterioration in water quality, (c) cause economic or environmental harm, and (d) be for purposes other than operating a sand mine. The broad three-pronged test to be used in determining whether the permit should be issued is whether the proposed consumptive use is a reasonable- beneficial use, whether it will interfere with presently existing legal uses of water, and whether it is consistent with the public interest. In addressing this test, the parties have presented extensive expert testimony involving highly technical subject matter. As might be expected, the experts reached different conclusions as to whether the criteria have been met. In resolving these conflicts, the undersigned has accepted the more credible and persuasive evidence, and this accepted testimony is recited in the findings below. The Mining Site Operations The entire mine site is around 7,000 feet east to west, about one mile north to south in a rectangular shape, and lies within the lake region of northeast Florida. The mine's product is silica sand used for concrete and masonry mortar for construction throughout northeast Florida. As such, it produces an economic benefit to the region. The mine is located on one of the few sites in the northeast Florida area with deposits suitable for construction purposes and is the closest sand mine to the Jacksonville market. In 1958, FRI installed three ten-inch diameter production wells in the center of the mine site. One well is 450 feet deep while the other two are 460 feet deep. The 1984 permit authorizes withdrawals of 762.85 million gallons of water per year, an average rate of 2.09 MGD, and a maximum rate of 3.75 MGD. This rate is consistent with the amount of water used at other mines in north Florida and is based on FRI's projected maximum annual use. The use is industrial commercial for sand mining while the source is the Floridan Aquifer, the lowest acceptable water quality source available capable of producing the requested amount of water. Water use withdrawal from the three wells is monitored by in-line flow meters installed in 1991 as a water control and conservation measure. The pumping rate depends on the number of fixtures and valves open in the system at the time of pumping. However, the actual rate of water production cannot be varied at any of the pumps since the wells are connected to "on or off" pumps. The need for water in the dredge pond and processing plant dictates how long FRI will have a pump in operation. Water from the wells is first discharged into a dredge pond, twenty feet deep, which is an approximately 155-acre excavation lake located in the southwest portion of the mine site. In periods of low water, the water is used to float the dredge, which requires some three feet of water to float, and in conjunction with a bulldozer, to wash sand down from the bank toward the dredge. After the dredge sucks up sand and water from the bottom of the pond, this mixture is slurried to an on-site processing plant where more water is added to sort and wash the sand. The end product (silica sand) is then loaded onto trucks which haul the product to the market. After processing, the moisture content of the sand product is only 5 percent. The tailings (unusable waste product) and wash water are then routed by a slurry pipe to settling areas and eventually recirculated through a system of ditches, canals and water control structures back into the dredge pond. No chemicals are used in the operation. Although FRI's contract with the lessor of the property requires it to maintain the dredge pond elevation at a specified elevation, this requirement cannot be fulfilled during drought conditions. The mining operation is a closed system to the extent there is no point source (surface water) discharge from the system. Even so, a significant amount of water loss occurs during the process, mainly through percolation into the ground. Other water loss occurs through evaporation. The receiving water from the site is primarily the surficial aquifer which recharges the downgradient lakes, including Gator Bone, White Sands, and Spring Lakes. Water may also travel through the surficial aquifer into the sinkholes on site and thence to the Floridan Aquifer. However, not all water is lost to sinkholes in the settling area because they are filled with fine materials. This is confirmed by the fact that water returns to the dredge pond. The mining operation has not affected this pattern. The lakes in the region are replenished solely by rainfall, either by direct rain on the lakes or through water seeping through sands. FRI plans to mine approximately thirty additional acres at the Goldhead Site during the next seven years. To this end, it has secured a management and storage of surface waters permit from the District which allows construction of this additional acreage. It also has acquired an industrial waste water discharge permit from the Department of Environmental Regulation. It is expected that within the next two to four years, FRI will abandon the current dredge pond and start a new one on the north side of the property to accommodate mining operations, or in the alternative, extend the current pond to the north. Water conservation A water conservation plan has been submitted by FRI. Measures already implemented include (a) using in-line flow meters to monitor amounts of withdrawal, (b) not pumping for more than seventeen hours per day to prevent exceeding the maximum allotment per day, (c) regularly monitoring withdrawals to ensure allocations as not being exceeded, (d) extending the plant discharge further past the sinkholes in the settling area to maximize return water to the dredge pond, (e) raising water levels in the settling area to facilitate flow back to the dredge pond, (f) during periods of drought using bulldozers instead of water spray to break loose sand formations, (g) curtailing production when further production would cause the plant to exceed allocations, (h) replacing water-cooled bearings in plant machinery with bearings that do not require water, and (i) restricting dredge mobility to allow operation in shallower water. No other water conservation measures are economically, environmentally or technologically feasible. Hydrogeologic characteristics at the mine site The mine site, which is located within the Upper Etonia Creek surface water drainage basin, generally slopes from 200 feet NGVD on the north to 120 feet NGVD on the south, and is underlain, in order, by approximately 10 to 50 feet of sand (known as the surficial aquifer), 200 feet of dense, moist clay (known as the Hawthorn Formation), and then a highly transmissive limestone formation (known as the Floridan Aquifer). The surficial aquifer flows from north to south across the site while water falling on the site primarily moves downgradient through the surficial aquifer. There are five sinkholes on the site, all having predated the mining activities, which may provide a conduit for recharge from the surficial aquifer to the Floridan aquifer. Except where the Hawthorn formation, a confining unit to the Floridan aquifer, is breached, recharge through the Hawthorn formation is very slow because of the dense clays of that formation. Aquifer characteristics within the Floridan aquifer beneath the site and immediately adjacent thereto are relatively uniform. As noted earlier, 5 percent of the water leaves the mine site as moisture in the sand product. The remaining 95 percent of water is immediately recharged on site to the surficial aquifer through various impoundments, and after entering the surficial aquifer, that portion of the water which is not recirculated to the dredge pond for reuse in the mining process moves either vertically into the Hawthorn formation, vertically into the Floridan aquifer through a sinkhole, downgradient through the surficial aquifer to one of the lakes south of the mine, or evaporates. It is noted that notwithstanding the mining operations, the flow in the surficial aquifer system still parallels the topography as it existed prior to mining, and the same saturated thickness within the surficial aquifer exists on site as existed before mining occurred. Hydrogeologic Characteristics of the Region The region in which the mine is located is very high in topographic altitude indicating that it is a groundwater recharge area. Like the mine site, the region has three distinct geologic units underlying the surface, including sands and clayey sands (surficial aquifer), thick clays (Hawthorn formation) and limestones and dolomites (Floridan aquifer). The Hawthorn unit serves as a confining unit or semi-confining unit between the surficial aquifer, or water table, in the upper unit and the Floridan aquifer in the lower unit. When solution channels develop within the limestones in the lower unit, the openings can cause the overlying units to collapse, forming sinkholes. Thus, when the Hawthorn formation is breached by the development of a sinkhole, water can move rapidly through the overlying units to the Floridan aquifer. Many of the lakes within the region exist over collapsed features within the limestone units beneath them and are referred to as sinkhole lakes. The rate of recharge from each lake depends on the rate of leakance into the Floridan aquifer. Some lakes leak fast, others not at all. For example, Lake Brooklyn fluctuates about two feet, Lake Johnson about thirteen feet, and Pebble Lake about thirty feet. Lake Brooklyn, which lies several miles to the southwest of the mine, is the fourth lake in a chain of lakes consisting of Blue Pond, Sand Hill Lake, Lake Magnolia, Lake Brooklyn, Keystone Lake, Lake Geneva, Oldfield Pond, and Half Moon Lake. All of these lakes are in a different surface water drainage sub-basin within the larger Upper Etonia Creek Basin than the mine site. The lakes above Lake Brooklyn in the chain are at higher elevations than Lake Brooklyn, and when rainfall is sufficient, water flows from Blue Pond to Sand Hill Lake, to Lake Magnolia, and then to Lake Brooklyn through Alligator Creek. Direct rainfall and surface water inflows from Alligator Creek represent the most significant sources of water to Lake Brooklyn. Other pertinent lakes in the area are Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes, which lie almost directly along the mine site's southern boundary and are each less than a mile from the mine's dredge pond. During the period records have been maintained for water levels in Lake Brooklyn, it has fluctuated over a range of slightly more than twenty feet. Although average rainfall within the Upper Etonia Creek Basin is approximately fifty-one inches per year, during the period from 1974 through 1990 the basin experienced a continuing period of below normal rainfall resulting in a cumulative deficit of rainfall for this period of minus seventy-eight inches. Since 1988, the lake region has experienced a severe drought. Because the lakes in the region have risen or fallen in correlation with periods of below normal or above normal rainfall, lake levels have fallen dramatically in recent years. Water levels in Lake Brooklyn began declining in 1974 at the same time the period of below normal rainfall began and continued declining until 1991, a year in which the region experienced above normal rainfall. These low water levels were exacerbated by the cessation of surface water inflows from Alligator Creek in late 1988 which continued until late 1992 when such flows resumed. The cessation of surface water flows into Lake Brooklyn during the period from 1988- 1992 were a direct consequence of the extended period of below normal rainfall in the region. Finally, very little, if any, of the groundwater flowing in the Floridan aquifer beneath Lake Brooklyn flows toward the mine site. Water Quality Impacts Numerous analyses have been conducted to determine water quality of the site, water quality in nearby homeowners' water systems, and water quality impacts of the proposed consumptive use. They include analyses conducted by the District in 1989 and 1992, including sampling of water quality and an analysis of the background levels for certain parameters, and an assessment of data from HRS testing in March 1989 and May 1992. In addition, FRI conducted water quality sampling on site in eight wells, the dredge pond and a settling pond. Finally, petitioner reviewed water quality samples from off-site private water supply wells taken on March 1, 1989, and on July 22, 1992, by unknown persons. As to this latter sampling, petitioner had no knowledge of the protocol used in obtaining the 1989 samples and offered no evidence of reliability of the 1992 data. Thus, the reliability of its assessment is in doubt. None of the water quality samples taken from the mine site indicate a violation of state water quality standards. However, petitioner posits that a chemical reaction is likely occurring at the deeper levels of the dredge pond, possibly causing undissolved iron in sediments to become dissolved, and then traveling in solution through the clays of the Hawthorn formation into transmissive units and finally to off-site homeowners' wells which may be in those units. This theory was predicated on the results of 1989 HRS sampling which revealed some wells near White Sands Lake experienced elevated levels of iron and manganese, and an assumption that a chemical reaction was occurring because herbicides were used in the dredge pond. However, only one application of a herbicide occurred, and that was in 1990, or one year after iron was detected in the off-site homeowners' wells. Petitioner agreed that the 1990 application of herbicide could not have affected the 1989 sampling. It also agreed that these reactions were less likely to be occurring in a pond with water flowing through it. In this case, water is circulated through the dredge pond by being pumped into it, pumped out of it, and allowed to flow back into the pond. FRI determined that no state water quality standards were exceeded for iron, manganese, zinc, turbidity, total dissolved solids, chloride and nitrate in the surficial aquifer and Hawthorn formations at the site. The wells used for monitoring water quality were installed and sampled using standard quality assurance techniques. Water quality from the surficial aquifer was emphasized because if iron or manganese were present in the water, it would most likely be detected in wells in the surficial aquifer because they are detected in wells immediately downgradient of the source. If the chemical reaction is occurring, water leaving the dredge pond is contaminated, and such water will follow the path of least resistance by going either to the Hawthorn formation or the surficial aquifer. Because of the geologic properties of the Hawthorn, this path is the surficial aquifer. At least 70,000 gallons per day enter the surficial aquifer from the bottom of the dredge pond. Since contaminated water would receive water quality treatment by absorption of the Hawthorn but not in the surficial, water in the surficial aquifer represents the worst case scenario as to the possible presence of contaminated water. The chemical reactions which petitioner believes may be occurring in the deeper portions of the dredge pond require the presence of an acidic environment and reduced oxygen levels in the water. FRI's water quality testing indicates that water in the dredge pond is not acidic, but rather is neutral. Therefore, any reaction which might be occurring could not be on a large enough scale to affect water quality. Moreover, even if the reactions were occurring, it was established that the clays in the Hawthorn formation would absorb iron, and such absorption would not take place in the surficial aquifer. Therefore, it is found that there would be no adverse impact to groundwater including the surficial aquifer and that water quality standards will be met. Although petitioner presented evidence that in 1989 HRS testing of 12 out of 212 homeowners south of the mine site indicated that three homeowners had iron concentrations in excess of state drinking standards and two had manganese concentrations in excess of state drinking water standards, this is insufficient to prove that the mining operation has an adverse impact on water quality. To begin with, some of the wells sampled were thirty to fifty years old even though the life expectancy of a well is fifteen to twenty years. Some were constructed of galvanized steel pipe, and those wells also indicated high turbidity levels. High turbidity levels are caused by a number of unrelated factors and will result in increased iron levels that are not representative of the quality of the groundwater in the formation, but rather of the iron-laden sediments in the formation, or from the casing material. With the exception of one well (the Sutton well), the water from the homeowners' wells did not exceed background water quality for iron and manganese. The elevated iron and manganese concentrations in the Sutton well are caused by a number of factors other than the mine. Then, too, a proper sampling technique may not have been followed during the 1989 sampling event thus rendering the results unreliable. Finally, properly constructed monitoring wells should be used to assess the quality of the groundwaters, and the wells sampled in 1989 and 1992 were not of that type. The Mine's Impact on Water Levels Perhaps the issue of primary concern to members of petitioner's organization is whether the mining operations have contributed to the decline in water levels of nearby lakes, including Lake Brooklyn. This is because of serious declines in the levels of those water bodies over the past years, and a concomitant decrease in the value of homes which surround the lakes. In an effort to resolve this and other water level issues, the parties made numerous studies of the current and anticipated water level impacts from the site. This data collection effort was far more extensive than is normally conducted for a mine of this size. They included aquifer performance tests by FRI and the District, steady state and transient computer modeling of impacts on the Floridan and surficial aquifers by FRI, an analysis of correlations of pumping and water level changes in lakes and aquifers by FRI and petitioner, photolinear and fracture trace analyses of structural conditions by FRI and petitioner, a stratigraphic analysis of a geologic core retrieved from the site by FRI, installation of deep and shallow wells for groundwater monitoring by FRI, groundwater flow mapping by FRI, review of literature by all parties, review and analysis of rainfall data by all parties, analysis of evaporation data by the District and petitioner, and an analysis of geophysical logs from wells by FRI and the District. Aquifer performance tests Aquifer performance tests, which enable hydrologists to reach conclusions regarding the characteristics of the aquifers tested, were conducted in January 1989 by the District and June 1991 by FRI. In a typical pump test, an aquifer production well pumps at a constant rate, while water levels are monitored in observation wells at specified distances from the pumping well. In this case, the tests measured effects of pumping from the mine production wells for periods ranging from 78 hours to 108 hours at approximately twice the average rate of 2.09 MGD. The zone of influence of pumping was measured at wells placed at the property boundaries, at Gold Head State Park, east of the mine, as well as wells to the south of the mine for the 1989 tests. During the 1989 tests, lake levels for Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes were recorded. The effects of pumping were approximately equal for wells spaced approximately equal distances along the east, south and west. Thus, for purposes of analysis, the Floridan aquifer was considered isotropic and homogeneous. This is consistent with assumptions commonly made by geologists in Florida. Computer models were calibrated with actual results of these tests to account for variations caused by this assumption. The District has concluded, and the undersigned so finds, that no changes in the levels of the lakes are attributable to pumping. Further, the aquifer itself will not be harmed by the use of the amount of water requested in the application. The tests indicate the maximum amount of drawdown in the Floridan aquifer from pumping at twice the average rate is 0.1 to 0.6 foot in neighboring wells. Effects of actual pumping will be approximately one-half the test observed amounts on an average pumping day. For example, based on the 1989 test results, drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer at the boundary of the FRI property during an average day of pumpage should not exceed 0.2 to 0.3 feet while drawdowns beneath Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes to the south of the mine should be less than 0.2 feet. The tests provide actual measurements of the effects of pumping. Indeed, all three lakes were declining before the 1989 test began and continued to decline after the test was ended. However, the rate of decline during the seventy-eight hours of the test was not distinguishable from declines which occurred before or after the test. Computer modeling As a supplement to the aquifer performance tests, FRI performed computer modeling to determine effects of the water withdrawal and use on the Floridan and surficial aquifers. These models are used by hydrologists to predict impacts associated with a particular source of stress, such as pumpage, to an aquifer and, in this case, occurred in three phases. The first was an impact model which determined the drawdown in the Floridan aquifer. The second occurred as a result of questions raised by residents of the sand mine area and included a "steady state" model simulation of impacts of the Floridan and surficial aquifers. The third occurred as a result of questions raised by petitioner and included new data along with both a "transient state" and "steady state" simulation. All three phases of modeling were consistent in finding that the effects of pumping are non-existent or negligible, that is, a predicted drawdown in various locations of the Floridan aquifer of from less than 0.1 to 0.3 feet on an average pumping day, and they corroborated the drawdowns observed during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests. Petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart criticized FRI's 1992 "steady state" computer modeling on the grounds FRI had insufficient data to conduct the modeling, the constant head boundaries were set too close to the pumping, a transient model should have been run, and the modelers assumed that the Floridan aquifer is isotropic and homogeneous. However, Dr. Stewart failed to review or consider (a) any technical data or information gathered since September 10, 1992, (b) the 1991 transient model, (c) the December 1992 transient model, (d) the computer disc for the July 1992 steady state model, (e) the December 1992 steady state model, (f) the December 1992 calibration, (g) the basis for setting the constant head boundaries, or (h) the data from the 1989 and 1991 pump tests. All of this data was part of the evidence FRI's experts used in formulating their opinions. Dr. Stewart agreed that he could not form any conclusions on this data and that the Floridan aquifer is rarely completely homogeneous and isotropic, but that he and other modelers regularly make that assumption. The modeling was calibrated to replicate actual subsurface and pumping conditions. Maximum drawdown in the Floridan aquifer under normal pumping conditions is modeled to be 0.1 to 0.2 feet beneath White Sands Lake. This is drawdown with no replacement, although there will be leakance back to the Floridan aquifer through sinkholes on the site and surcharge to Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes through the surficial aquifer. The impact to the Floridan is minor compared to normal water level fluctuations in that aquifer of 3 to 5 feet per year. In fact, barometric pressure changes can cause water level changes of up to one foot per week. Lake levels Because many of the lakes in the area leak downward, water levels in the lakes could be affected by the changes in levels in the Floridan aquifer. Indeed, for lakes connected to the Floridan aquifer, changes in the level of the potentiometric surface (or pressure) in the Floridan aquifer can have an impact on the level of the lakes. However, a decrease in lake levels will be less than that of the decrease in the Floridan aquifer, depending on the rate of leakance. Consequently, even if Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes do leak to the Floridan aquifer, the amount of decline in lake levels attributable to pumping at the mine will be less than the 0.1 to 0.2 foot modeled by FRI. This drawdown effect will not accumulate over time, but rather will remain constant after reaching steady state conditions. Even if levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes are affected by drawdowns in the Floridan aquifer, that effect will be more than offset by surcharge to the surficial and Floridan aquifers from the dredge pond. The net effect to the lakes would be either positive or immeasurable. This is confirmed by the computer modeling results. Lake stage and precipitation data for Spring, White Sands and Gator Bone Lakes indicates that these lakes, like other lakes in the region, rise and fall in correlation with precipitation patterns. For example, in 1991, a year with above normal rainfall, Spring Lake rose 4.1 feet in elevation, White Sands Lake 2.9 feet in elevation, and Gator Bone Lake rose 3.5 feet in elevation. Similarly, water levels were monitored before, during and after the 1989 aquifer performance test in a portion of Lake Brooklyn known as Brooklyn Bay. Because of low rainfall, Brooklyn Bay was separated from the main body of Lake Brooklyn for at least eighteen to twenty-four months before and during the 1989 aquifer performance test. The lake had been in the midst of a long term decline both before and after the test, and the rate and character of declines during the period of pumping were not distinguishable from the declines occurring before or after the test. It is accordingly found that the impacts on water levels in Lake Brooklyn, if any, as a result of pumping from the Floridan aquifer are immeasurable. According to petitioner's witness Boyes, activities at the mine have an influence on water levels in Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes by "increasing the rate of decline". However, the witness could not quantify the degree of impact but stated the impacts during the 1989 aquifer performance tests were a decline of .03, .03 and less than .03 foot, respectively, for each lake. The witness also opined that, based on District staff guage readings during the 1989 aquifer performance testing, pumping at the mine resulted in a .04 foot decline in lake level for Lake Brooklyn during the 1989 testing period. This decline had a net result of .8 acre decrease in the previously 600 acre plus Lake Brooklyn. By comparison, the drought caused a decline of 162 acres in 1989 and an additional 158 acres in 1990. It is noted that the decline in each lake would be less during average pumping conditions, or about one-half of the .04 foot decline, since average pumping is one-half of the aquifer performance test pump rate. Finally, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart opined that there is insufficient data to determine whether any impacts to lake levels are occurring. It is found, however, that these drawdowns are less than the .1 to .2 foot modeled by FRI and should have no significant adverse impacts on water levels. Preferential flow theory Petitioner presented evidence of a purported correlation between pumping at the mine and water levels in a Floridan aquifer well located on the southwest side of Lake Brooklyn, 4.3 miles from the mine, and lake levels in Brooklyn Bay, 3 miles from the mine. According to petitioner, this serves as proof of a "preferential flow pattern" in the Floridan from Lake Brooklyn to the mine, and that this preferential flow results in a .04 to .05 foot drawdown in the Floridan aquifer at Lake Brooklyn. However, this correlation is deemed to be incorrect for several reasons. First, if a true correlation existed, recovery from pumping effects would occur after pumping ceased, but the Lake Brooklyn well showed recovery in the Floridan aquifer prior to cessation of pumping, and did not recover when pumping stopped at the end of the 1989 aquifer performance testing. Second, if the premise is correct, impacts from pumping would occur in wells closer to the pumping earlier than in wells farther away, but the Lake Brooklyn well, 4.3 miles from pumping, showed drawdown began before that of the Goldhead well, only 1,000 feet from pumping. Third, levels for the Lake Brooklyn well should have declined during both the 1989 and 1991 aquifer performance tests but the levels rose during the 1991 tests. As to the water level changes in the well during the 1989 test, witness Boyes believed these may reflect declines due to hydrologic conditions rather than the pump test. Fourth, if a true correlation existed, impacts would be experienced following the same hydrographic pattern as pumping, but the Lake Brooklyn well's hydrographics did not correlate to the pumping schedule at all times of the year. It should also be noted that at least two other large scale water users are withdrawing water from wells within 1.25 miles from the Lake Brooklyn well and may affect that well's water levels. Further, the variations in the well may be explained by many other variables, such as barometric pressure changes, diurnal fluctuations in water levels, rainfall, and pumping from closer wells. Finally, Brooklyn Bay is now physically separated from Lake Brooklyn, and it was improper for petitioner to rely on lake level information from Brooklyn Bay to support its theory regarding Lake Brooklyn. To further support its hypothesis that a preferential flow path exists between the mine and Lake Brooklyn, petitioner utilized a "photo linear analysis" or "fracture trace analysis", which is based on an interpretation of surface topographic features to determine the presence of subsurface hydrogeologic features such as solution channels in the limestones of the Floridan aquifer. However, without extensive subsurface testing, which is not present here, such analyses are only interpretative to determine what, if any, subsurface features are present and their hydrogeologic effect. It is noted that subsurface fractures are present less than 50 percent of the time, and if present, the features may be hydrologic barriers as well as preferential flow paths. According to witness Boyes, a photolinear feature (fracture) exists from Lake Brooklyn through Spring Lake and across the mine property to Goldhead State Park. If such a feature did exist, however, the drawdown during the aquifer performance tests and other pumping would be greater adjacent to Spring Lake than adjacent to Lake Brooklyn. This was not observed. Moreover, petitioner's witness Dr. Stewart thought the photolinear was only inferred and had a lower degree of confidence that it exists. FRI's witness Fountain established that elongated surface features are more likely to demonstrate linear subsurface features. Both witness Boyes and Dr. Stewart agreed with this conclusion. That being the case, the postulated Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear is not demonstrated, and continuation of the elongated axis of Lake Brooklyn and Brooklyn Bay would bypass the mine site altogether. Because no investigations have been conducted to demonstrate that these postulated photolinear features exist, and the more reliable results of the aquifer performance tests indicate otherwise, the preferential flow path theory is deemed at best to be highly speculative. If the Lake Brooklyn-mine photolinear feature offered a preferential flow path as opined by witness Boyes, the resulting drawdown would be elongated with a zone of influence extending from the mine westward toward Lake Brooklyn. Therefore, areas closer but not on the feature would experience less drawdown than areas farther away which are on the feature, the zone of influence would extend from the mine's wells through Spring Lake toward Lake Brooklyn causing declined water levels along the feature, and areas closer to the pumping wells, such as Spring Lake, would experience a greater decline than areas farther away, such as Lake Brooklyn. However, evidence offered by petitioner shows that the water levels between Lake Brooklyn and the mine are actually higher than in surrounding areas. Finally, even if petitioner's preferential flow path theory were true, there is no evidence that the pumping from the mine is resulting in significant and adverse impacts as required by District rules. Therefore, it is found that the sand mine does not cause significant and adverse impacts on the water levels in the Floridan aquifer or on the water levels of Lake Brooklyn or Gator Bone, White Sands or Spring Lakes. Rather, the lake levels in each of the four lakes in issue here are directly or indirectly a function of rainfall. Intermediate and surficial aquifers Whether an intermediate aquifer is present beneath the mine site is subject to dispute. All parties agree that, on a regional scale, the Hawthorn formation contains some discontinuous water-bearing lenses that in some places produce water in quantities sufficient for household use. The lenses occur in carbonate deposits in the formation, although not all carbonate deposits or all water bearing units will necessarily transmit water. The evidence is less than persuasive that the Hawthorne formation contains carbonate units which are present on the sand mine site as transmissive beds. This finding is based on FRI's review of on-site core boring information and other data from the site. In addition, this finding is corrorborated by District witness Lee, who concluded that water from the site is not discharging into the Hawthorn, but rather into the surficial aquifer. This is because clays comprising the Hawthorn have low permeability, causing water to flow laterally through the surficial aquifer rather than into the Hawthorn. With respect to impacts to the surficial aquifer, FRI presented evidence that during mining operations, the surficial aquifer will be surcharged by up to five feet. When mining operations cease, water levels will return to natural conditions. This evidence was not contradicted. Impacts on Property Values and Recreation Testimony regarding the property values for lake front properties on Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes was offered by petitioner's witness Price. He established that values have declined since mid- 1989 as a result of a loss of recreational value suffered as water levels have receded. However, witness Price stated that he would not expect a 0.1 foot drop in lake levels to negatively affect property values. Since the declines predicted by petitioner are far less than a 0.1 foot drop, it is apparent that FRI's water use will not result in harm to property values in the area. Similarly, while it is true that declining water levels have impaired recreational uses of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, White Sands and Spring Lakes, FRI's water use cannot be blamed for such impairment. Environmental Impacts The anticipated impacts of the water use on the wetlands and wildlife resources of the area were addressed by FRI witnesses Peacock and Lowe. According to Peacock, who analyzed the wetland vegetation, the dominant species and their adaptions, the wildlife resources and their adaptions, and the general ecology of the area, the water levels in the adjacent lakes have historically fluctuated greatly, and wildlife that use the lakes have adapted to these fluctuations. His opinion that the mine's water use will not have any significant adverse impact on the environment of Lake Brooklyn and Gator Bone, Spring or White Sands Lakes is hereby accepted. Based upon witness Lowe's inspection of the three downgradient lakes, his past knowledge of Lake Brooklyn, the aquifer performance tests, and Dr. Lee's conclusion that the maximum drawdown in the lakes would be 0.1 foot, Lowe opined that the proposed water withdrawal will not cause environmental harm. In addition, such a drawdown will not adversely affect off-site vegetation or cause unmitigated adverse impacts on adjacent wetlands or other types of vegetation. These conclusions were not contradicted and are hereby accepted. Compliance with rule criteria To obtain a consumptive use permit, an applicant must give "reasonable assurance" that the proposed water use is a reasonable beneficial use, will not interfere with any presently existing legal use of water, and is consistent with the public interest. These broad criteria are further explained by criteria enunciated in Rule 40C-2.301(3)-(6), Florida Administrative Code, and sections 9.0 et seq. and 10.0 et seq. of the Applicant's Handbook adopted by reference in Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. Findings as to whether these criteria have been satisfied are set forth below. To obtain a renewal of a consumptive use permit, an applicant must first give reasonable assurance that the proposed use of water is a "reasonable beneficial use". For a use to be considered reasonable beneficial, the criteria enumerated in Rule 40C-2.301(4) and (5), Florida Administrative Code, must be satisfied. First, paragraph (4)(a) of the rule and section 10.3(a) of the handbook require that the water use must be in such quantity as is necessary for economic and efficient utilization, and the quantity requested must be within acceptable standards for the designated use. The evidence shows that FRI has used a reasonably low amount of water necessary to continue operations at the mine, it has implemented some water conservation methods and tried or considered others that proved to be inefficient or not economically feasible, and the requested amount of water is within acceptable standards for sand mines operating within the District. Then, too, some ninety-five percent of the water pumped from the wells is recirculated for reuse in the mining process or is recharged back into the surficial and Floridan aquifers on site. Finally, there is no surface discharge of water outside the mining site. Accordingly, it is found that this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(b) of the rule and section 10.3(b) of the handbook require that the proposed use be for a purpose that is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. The proposed use of the water is to produce sand used in construction materials. This is a reasonable use of water and results in an economic benefit to the region by producing a valuable product. Accordingly, it is found that the use is both reasonable and consistent with the public interest. All parties have stipulated that the Floridan aquifer is capable of producing the requested amounts of water. This satisfies paragraph (4)(c) of the rule and section 10.3(c) of the handbook which impose this requirement. The next criterion, paragraph (4)(d), as amplified by section 10.3(d) of the handbook, requires that "the environmental or economic harm caused by the consumptive use must be reduced to an acceptable amount." The evidence shows that during mine operations, the surficial aquifer is being surcharged by up to five feet. When they cease, the water levels return to natural conditions. The maximum drawdown anticipated in the Floridan aquifer at the property boundary was 0.3 feet and less than or equal to 0.1 feet for most of the area outside the mine site. At most, this equates to a maximum lake level decline of 0.04 feet at Lake Brooklyn, 0.03 feet at Gator Bone and White Sands Lakes, and less than 0.03 feet at Spring Lake. Thus, FRI's usage of water has had, and will have in the future, little, if any, immediate or cumulative impact on the levels of the area lakes. Further, the more persuasive evidence supports a finding that these lowered lake levels or aquifer levels will not result in environmental or economic harm to the area. In addition, the District has proposed to incorporate into the permit a condition that FRI implement a detailed monitoring plan which will detect any overpumping causing lake level changes and a concomitant adverse impact to off-site land uses. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(e) and section 10.3(e) require the applicant to implement "all available water conservation measures" unless the applicant "demonstrates that implementation is not economically, environmentally or technologically feasible." The rule goes on to provide that satisfaction of this criterion "may be demonstrated by implementation of an approved water conservation plan as required in section 12.0, Applicant's Handbook: Consumptive Uses of Water." Because FRI's water conservation plan insures that water will be used efficiently, as required by section 12.3.4.1. of the handbook, this criterion has been met. The next paragraph provides that "(w)hen reclaimed water is readily available it must be used in place of higher quality water sources unless the applicant demonstrates that its use is either not economically, environmentally or technologi-cally feasible." Since the unrebutted testimony establishes that reclaimed water is not readily available to the mine site, it is found that paragraph (4)(f) has been satisfied. Paragraph (4)(g) of the rule and section 10.3(f) of the handbook generally require that the lowest acceptable quality water source be used. Since the evidence shows that the Floridan aquifer is the lowest acceptable quality water source, this requirement has been met. Paragraphs (4)(h) and (i) provide that the consumptive use "should not cause significant saline water intrusion or further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems" nor "cause or contribute to flood damage." The parties have stipulated that these requirements are not in dispute. The next paragraph provides that the "water quality of the source of the water should not be seriously harmed by the consumptive use." The uncontradicted evidence shows that the source of the water for the proposed use will not be seriously harmed from either saltwater intrusion or discharges to the Floridan aquifer. Paragraph (4)(j) and section 10.3(g) have accordingly been met. Paragraph (4)(k) and section 10.3(k) require that the water quality of the receiving body of water "not be seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. In this case, there is no surface water discharge from the mine site. Thus, the only relevant inquiry here is whether the receiving water (surficial aquifer) will be "seriously harmed" by the consumptive use. To determine compliance with this criterion, the District compared water quality samples from the mine site and surrounding areas with the DER monitoring network to ascertain whether state water quality numerical standards and natural background levels were exceeded. The relevant standards are found in Rule 17-520.420, Florida Administrative Code. Monitoring data from eight wells and from the dredge pond indicate there are no water quality violations resulting from the sand mine operations. Petitioner has contended that water from the dredge pond provides a significant source of water to an intermediate aquifer, which would also be a receiving body of water. However, the evidence shows that any contaminants resulting from the dredge pond flowing into an intermediate aquifer will also be contained in the surficial aquifer. The clays of the Hawthorn formation would absorb and filter out iron and manganese as they traveled to a water transmissive zone. Therefore, the concentrations sampled in the suficial aquifer downgradient from the dredge pond represent the highest concentrations. Since the concentrations in the surficial aquifer do not violate water quality standards, the same finding as to concentrations in the intermediate aquifer can be made. Further, the rule criteria require consideration of the future water use's effect on water quality, and if the intermediate aquifer is in fact a receiving water as contended by petitioner, the reactions which could cause water quality violations are presently occurring. There is no reason to believe they would cease if the mine ceases operation, and the mining operation adds oxygen to the water, which reduces the possibility of the reaction described. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. The parties have stipulated that the requirements of paragraph (4)(l) have been fulfilled. Finally, rule 40C-2.301(5)(a) provides that a proposed consumptive use will not meet the criteria for issuance of a permit if such proposed water use will significantly cause saline water encroachment or otherwise cause water flows or levels to fall below certain minimum limits set forth in the rule. The evidence shows that, to the extent these criteria are applicable and in dispute, they have been satisfied. Miscellaneous The contention has been made that insufficient site-specific information was submitted by the applicant to determine the effects of the proposed use of water at the sand mine. In this regard, the evidence shows that FRI consultants installed monitoring wells, performed core borings, and took soil samples at the site. The geology of the site was verified by core boring, review of geologic logs and drilling wells. Slug tests were performed to measure the hydraulic conductivity of the material in which the monitor wells were set, and a step drawdown analysis was performed to measure hydraulic conductivity. A number of monitoring wells to measure water levels data were installed before and after running the 1991 aquifer performance tests, and groundwater modeling in both the transient and steady state modes were run using data that was collected in the field. In addition, water quality samples were collected to evaluate a water budget for the dredge pond, and FRI conducted an assessment of the environmental impacts to the wetland and wildlife resources of the area lakes, including White Sands, Spring and Gator Bone Lakes. Besides this submission and analysis, the District reviewed United States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, potentiometric maps and aerial photographs of the area, water levels of the surrounding lakes, potentiometric surfaces in Floridan and intermediate aquifer wells, geophysical logs for wells, rainfall records, the core generated by FRI consultants, and scientific literature relied upon in making consumptive use permitting assessments. It also monitored the 1991 aquifer performance test and reviewed the resultant model. Before and after submission of the application, the District conducted aquifer performance testing at the site and evaluated the 1991 aquifer performance test conducted by FRI consultants. Finally, the District assessed water quality impacts of the sand mine in 1989 and in the present by site visit, sampling of the Floridan production well and dredge pond, and reviewing sampling data from both monitor wells and homeowner wells. It also reviewed information on water quality data gathered from other sand mines and applied data from the DER background monitoring network. Therefore, the contention that insufficient site-specific information was submitted and considered is rejected. Petitioner has offered into evidence petitioner's exhibits 61, 64, 65, 71, 75, 76, 78-80, 82 and 83. A ruling on the admissibility of the exhibits was reserved. The exhibits, which are based on data collected by the District and the USGS, are hydrographs showing water levels from lakes and monitoring wells during so-called "normal mine operations" on selected dates in 1988, 1989 and 1991. Although FRI was given copies of the exhibits ten days prior to hearing, it was not informed of the source of the data until final hearing. As it turned out, petitioner's witness had reviewed records over an extensive period of time and selected two or three days out of that time period as being representative of "normal" conditions. However, FRI established that, when longer periods of time were reviewed, the correlations alleged to exist by the graphs did not in fact exist and thus they did not represent normal conditions. Attorney's fees and costs FRI has requested an award of attorney's fees and costs on the theories petitioner interposed various papers and brought and participated in this action for "an improper purpose" within the meaning of Subsections 120.57(1)(b)5. and 120.59(6), Florida Statutes. In addition, petitioner has filed a motion for sanctions on the ground four motions filed by FRI were filed for an improper purpose within the meaning of Subsection 120.57(1)(b)5., Florida Statutes. It may be inferred from the totality of the evidence that petitioner did not intend to participate in this proceeding for an improper purpose. Likewise, the same inference may be made with respect to the four motions filed by FRI. Therefore, fees and costs (sanctions) are not warranted for either party.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the District granting application number 2-019-0012AUR as proposed by the District in its notice of intent to approve the application issued on August 6, 1992. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 4th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5017 Petitioner: 1-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 10-12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 15-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 25. Partially accepted in findings of fact 7 and 8. 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 27-28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 31-33. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. 34-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. 36-42. Partially accepted in findings of fact 14-16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. Rejected as being irrelevant. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. 52-53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding 23. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 59-61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 64-71. Partially accepted in findings of fact 32-36. 72. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 73-74. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 75. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 76-77. Partially accepted in findings of fact 8 and 11. Rejected as being contrary to the more persuasive evidence. See finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. 83-120. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 121-139. Partially accepted in findings of fact 25-27. 140-144. Rejected since even if true, the impacts are not significant. 145. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. 146-158. Partially accepted in findings of fact 18-20. 159-171. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 172-177. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. Respondent (District): 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 2-4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 5-6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1, 3 and 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 17-18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 19-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. 24-40. Partially accepted in findings of fact 12-16. 41-51. Partially accepted in findings of fact 11. 52-59. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 60-64. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. 67-69. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 72-73. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 74-77. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. 80-81. Partially accepted in findings of fact 23 and 24. 82-83. Partially accepted in finding of fact 29. 84. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 85. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. 86-90. Partially accepted in finding of fact 30. 91. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. 92-94. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 95. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. 96. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 97-100. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. 101. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 102-103. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 104-121. Partially accepted in findings of fact 19 and 20. 122-130. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. 131-133. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 134-138. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 139. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. 140-141. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 142. Partially accepted in finding of fact 48. 143. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. Respondent (FRI): Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in findings of fact 3 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in findings of fact 2 and 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. Partially accepted in findings of fact 6 and 7. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 15. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 25. Partially accepted in finding of fact 26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 27. Partially accepted in finding of fact 28. Partially accepted in finding of fact 31. 22-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 32. Partially accepted in finding of fact 33. Partially accepted in finding of fact 34. Rejected as being unnecessary. Partially accepted in finding of fact 35. 29-30. Partially accepted in finding of fact 36. 31-35. Partially accepted in finding of fact 37. Partially accepted in finding of fact 38. Partially accepted in finding of fact 17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 19. 40-41. Partially accepted in finding of fact 20. 42-45. Partially accepted in finding of fact 21. Partially accepted in finding of fact 40. Partially accepted in finding of fact 41. Partially accepted in findings of fact 40 and 41. 49. Partially accepted in finding of fact 39. 50-51. Partially accepted in finding of fact 42. 52. Partially accepted in finding of fact 43. 53. Partially accepted in finding of fact 44. 54. Partially accepted in finding of fact 45. 55. Partially accepted in finding of fact 46. 56. Partially accepted in finding of fact 47. 57-58. Partially accepted in finding of fact 49. 59. Partially accepted in finding of fact 51. 60. Partially accepted in finding of fact 52. 61. Partially accepted in finding of fact 54. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, cumulative, not supported by the more credible, persuasive evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Patrice Flinchbaugh Boyes, Esquire Post Office Box 1424 Gainesville, Florida 32602-1424 Peter B. Belmont, Esquire 511 31st Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire Jennifer L. Burdick, Esquire Post Office Box 1429 Palatka, Florida 32178-1429 Marcia Penman Parker, Esquire Emily G. Pierce, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive Suite 1500 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The 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 for consideration at the hearing was whether the Respondent, Roger Harloff, should be issued a consumptive use permit to withdraw and use ground water from the wells on his property, and if so, in what amount and under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roger Harloff, owns several farms in southeastern Manatee County, Florida which, taken together, make up an irregular 8,500 acre tract located approximately 2 1/2 miles north of the City of Sarasota's Verna Wellfield. Mr. Harloff grows vegetables on much of this tract, of which approximately 1,500 acres is devoted to tomatoes. This tomato crop is the prime crop produced by Mr. Harloff, and provides the raw material for the Harloff packing plant which is dependent upon the tomato crop in order to stay in business. Mr. Harloff also operates a plant nursery at which he produces many if not most of the seedling plants utilized in his vegetable growing operations. In order to be economically feasible and remain operative, Mr. Harloff must farm approximately 3,800 acres during the Spring growing season and approximately 3,000 acres during the Fall. These acres are made up of tomatoes and other vegetables. The packing plant and the plant nursery are dependent upon the farm operation and without adequate water, the farm operation cannot be successfully carried on. In September 1988, Mr. Harloff applied to the District for a consumptive use permit to withdraw water from twelve wells located on his property, requesting an annual average rate of 12,995,606 gpd, and a maximum daily rate of 47,520,000 gpd. The consumptive use permit application filed by Mr. Harloff was assigned District Number 204467.04. After evaluation of the application in conjunction with its needs and policies, the District issued a staff report and proposed agency action on the application which recommended issuance of the permit authorizing water to be drawn from the 12 wells at a rate approximating that requested in the application. Thereafter, the City of Sarasota, which operates the nearby Verna Wellfield, considering that the proposed withdrawal would have a substantial adverse impact on its wellfield operations, filed a Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing objecting to the issuance of the permit to Mr. Harloff. Though Mr. Harloff has owned much of the property which make up the 8,500 acre tract in question here, at the time of his application, he did not own, but had under contract, a substantial portion. He closed on the purchase of that remainder after he received notice of the District's intention to issue the permit in question but prior to the City's filing its Petition For Formal Hearing. The purchase price of the property in question was $9,000,000.00 which carries an interest payment on the financed portion of $52,000.00 per month. The wells pertinent to the issues in this proceeding are as follows: # Cons. Depth Cas. Lin. Diam. Cap. Loc. 1 1978 1185' 200' 220-490' 12" 2000 gpm SE 2. 1988 1320' 210' 210-480' 16" 3000 gpm SE 9. 1974 1130' 390' 16" 3000 gpm C 10. 1976 1232' 231' 283-400' 16" 3000 gpm NW 11. 1979 1120' 210' 260-480' 12" 2000 gpm NW 12. 1976 1180' 480' 12" 2000 gpm SW 3. 1989 1434' 460' 16" 3000 gpm SE 5. 1989 1374' 610' 16" 3000 gpm W 8. 1989 1292' 548' 16" 3000 gpm NW 13. 1989 1310' 635' 16" 2000 gpm NE Well No. 8 was used as the pump test well for the constant rate discharge test and Well No. 13 was the deep observation well for that test. Wells 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 have all been previously permitted by the District and No's 1, 2, 9 and 10 are currently permitted under two other permits, while 11 and 12 were permitted under a different permit. Wells No. 3, 5, 8 and 13 have been authorized for construction but not, as yet, to produce water. Wells 4, 6 and 7 have not yet been constructed. The intention is to drill them to a depth of 1,300 feet and case them to 600 feet. Each will have a pump capacity of 3,000 gpm. Number 4 will be in the southeast portion of the tract, number 6 in the central portion, and number 7 will be located just north of number 6. Wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 currently have a combined permitted maximum daily rate of 13,680,000 gallons under permits number 204467.03 for 1 and 2, and 204630 for 9 and 10. The former was issued on December 29, 1987 and will expire on December 29, 1993, and the latter, issued on October 7, 1981, will expire on that same day in 1991. The permit previously issued for wells 11 and 12 authorized withdrawal at a maximum daily rate of 2,160,000 gallons. That permit, number 204374, expired on September 9, 1986 and was not renewed. After the City filed its Petition challenging Mr. Harloff's proposed permit, Mr. Harloff, on June 26, 1989, filed an amended application to withdraw water at an average annual rate of 10.99 mgd and a maximum daily rate of 48.96 million gallons. This amended application refers to an additional proposed well, Number 13. The District, however, had previously approved wells 3 - 8 and 13, and pursuant to this authorization, wells 3, 5, 8, and 13 were built. Mr. Harloff submitted additional amendments to his application on August 7 and 9, 1989. The former requests a seasonal average daily rate of 25.34 mgd and a seasonal maximum daily rate of 32.79 mgd. The latter requests a seasonal average rate of 26.18 mgd, an annual average rate of 15.18 mgd, and a seasonal maximum rate of 31.56 mgd. In that regard, a seasonal rate is the same as an annual rate, (average or maximum) when applied to a growing season as opposed to a year. The additional amendments to the application were evaluated by District staff who, on August 18, 1989, issued a revised staff report and a proposal to issue to Mr. Harloff a consumptive use permit authorizing an average annual withdrawal of 11.1. mgd, an average seasonal withdrawal of 15.6 mgd, and a seasonal maximum withdrawal of 20.1 mgd. The proposed permit also contains terms and conditions which, the District contends, will, inter alia, permit Mr. Harloff to withdraw more water than he is currently authorized without additional adverse impact on the City's Verna Wellfield. It is to some of these terms and conditions that Mr. Harloff objects. Since the issuance of the revised staff report and intent to issue, the parties have negotiated on the various terms and conditions in question and have agreed to some and the amendment of others. Mr. Harloff has no objection to conditions number 1, 2, 3, 7 - 14, 23, 24, 26, 28 - 30, 32, and 34 & 35. The parties agree that other conditions, as indicated herein, should be amended as follows: Condition 19, on the third line, should be changed to read, " up to 20 inches tapering to 12 inches." Condition 22, on the second line, should be changed from "30 days" to "10 days". Condition 25, on the first line, should be changed from "within 60 days" to within 120 days". Condition 31, on the third line, starting with "following month" should be changed to "following months: January, April, July and October". Also, under Sampling Frequency, "Monthly" should be changed to "Quarterly". Condition 33, on the ninth line, insert the work "economically" before the word "feasible" in the phrase "specific operation and irrigation improvements are feasible". Mr. Harloff objects to conditions 4, 5, 15 - 17, 20 & 27. He does not object to the proposed new standards for new wells. Taken together, the parties then disagree only on the requirement for abandonment or refurbishment of existing wells and the quantities of water Mr. Harloff will be allowed to draw. The City supports the District's position on both issues. The City of Sarasota owns and operates a public water system to serve between 50 to 75 thousand people located in Sarasota County. The primary source of water for this system is the Verna Well field which is also owned by the City and which accounts for approximately 60 percent of the City's water needs. The City also operates a reverse osmosis, (R.O.) water desalinization facility, and has back-up wells at St. Armond Key and at the Bobby Jones Wellfield. The Verna Wellfield is located about 17 miles east of the Sarasota city limits on approximately 2,000 acres of land in northeastern Sarasota County. It consists of two tracts of land: Part "A", which is approximately 1/2 mile wide by 4 miles long; and Part "B", which is approximately 1 mile square located about 500 feet southeast of Part "A". The Verna Wellfield's permitted allocation is based on whether the R.O. facility is producing at capacity. If it is, the Verna daily allocation is 7 mgd, and if not, 9.5 mgd. The R.O. facility's capacity is 4.5 mgd and the backup wells have a capacity of 1.7 mgd. The wellfield contains 39 permitted production wells, 30 of which are in Part "A" and 9 of which are in Part "B." One of them, well 30, is currently inactive. The wellfield has been in operation as a part of the City's public water system since September 1966. When the Verna Wellfield was constructed in 1965-1966, its original design specified casing on most wells down to 140 feet with pump bowl settings at 125 feet. Each pump was to have a total dynamic head, (TDH) of 200 feet. Over the years, the City has decreased the TDH of the pumps at Verna from 200 feet to 175 feet. This has resulted in a reduction of the pumps' ability to produce water with sufficient pressure to carry it to the discharge point. This decline has been caused by an increase in withdrawal of water regionally, and not solely because of withdrawals from the Verna Well field. Verna is impacted by the use of water outside the boundaries of the wellfield. The City has an ongoing program calling for the refurbishment of 2 to 3 wells per year at the Verna Wellfield. It is the City's intent to convert the pumps to 200 feet TDH on all well refurbishments in the future. In August 1977, a program requiring permits for the consumptive use of water was implemented in both Sarasota and Manatee Counties. At that time, the Verna Wellfield had a production rate of 6.9 mgd annual average daily rate. On January 6, 1978, the City applied for a permit for Verna and on April 3, 1979, the District issued permit number 27804318 to allow the City to draw water from the Verna Wellfield. The City applied for a renewal of that permit in October 1983 and thereafter, in January 1985, the District authorized the continued withdrawal of water from Verna by the issuance of permit 204318 which, at Condition 18, placed limitations on the City's use of water from the wellfield. Specifically, the permit limited withdrawals from Verna to: ...6,000,000 gallons per day average and 7,000,000 gallons per day maximum, except during those times when ... [the R.O. process is reduced or to facilitate maintenance or repairs]. At such times, ... [withdrawals) may be increased to provide additional supplies not to exceed 8,000,000 gallons per day average annual and 9,500,000 gallons per day maximum. This condition clearly provides for additional supplies to be drawn to increase the Verna Well field production to a total of 8,000,000 and 9,500,000 mgd, respectively, not in addition to the regular permitted amount, by those quantities. The City's permit has been neither suspended nor revoked nor is any violation enforcement action currently under way. The current permit expires January 9, 1991. The water pumped from the Verna wells is held in a 1,000,000 gallon reservoir at the wellfield. This reservoir, which is topped at approximately 22 to 23 feet, electronically controls the pumping activity at the well field by turning on and shutting off pumps, in series, as the water level in the reservoir rises and falls. The water, when needed, is transmitted to another reservoir near the City's treatment plant in downtown Sarasota by gravity flow through a 30" diameter, 92,000 foot long pipe. The flow rate is approximately 5,000 gpm normally. When the treatment plant needs more water, a pump at the well field forces the flow at a rate of between 7,200 to 8,200 gpm, depending upon the level of water in the receiving reservoir. A flow of 8,200 gpm would draw 11.8 mgd from the wellfield. The operating capacity of the Verna Wellfield, in August 1988, was 17.9 mgd. Harloff's experts assert, and there is no concrete evidence to rebut it, that if all wells at Verna were pumping during a 24 hour period in May 1989, the reservoir could have been maintained at full level. However, though there is a manual override of the automatic reservoir/pump control system, it is unrealistic and unwise to expect full production on a 24 hour basis for any lengthy time period. Water under both Mr. Harloff's property and the Verna Well field is found at various levels known by different names. These include, in order of descent, the Surficial Aquifer, the Intermediate Aquifer, the Upper Floridan Aquifer, and the Lower Floridan Aquifer. The Surficial Aquifer extends from the surface down to between 20 and 60 feet below the surface. A 20 foot thick bed of clay separates the water in this aquifer from that in the aquifer immediately below it, the Intermediate Aquifer, which extends from approximately 80 feet down to approximately 420 feet below the surface. In the lower part of the Intermediate Aquifer, permeability decreases until a confining unit separating the bottom of the Intermediate Aquifer from the top of the Upper Floridan Aquifer is formed. There is such a confining unit between 420 and 500 feet. There is no well-defined confining unit between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers. There is, however, a substantial difference in the transmissivity in each zone. "Transmissivity" is defined as the amount of water that will exist through a section of the aquifer that is the same width from the top to the bottom. The lower the transmissivity rate, the deeper the cone and the narrower the radius of effect. The higher the rate, the shallower the cone and the broader the radius. The Lower Floridan Aquifer has an extremely high transmissivity. Its top is found at a range of from 1,050 to 1,200 feet below the surface on Mr. Harloff's property. The water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer is of higher quality than that in the Lower. It is more readily usable for drinking than that in the Lower, but the Lower water is quite acceptable for agricultural purposes. What confining layer exists between the Upper and Lower Floridan Aquifers is made up of relatively impermeable anhydrides and gypsum. Because of this, there is little likelihood of the highly mineralized water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer rising into the better quality water in the Upper. If, therefore, water for agricultural purposes is drawn from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, with its high transmissivity and narrower cone radius, and if the wells utilized to procure this water are cased down to within the Lower aquifer, there is little chance of a negative impact on the better quality water, used for drinking by the City, within the Upper Floridan and Intermediate Aquifers. Mr. Hardin, an expert geologist and hydrogeologist testifying for Mr. Harloff, concluded, utilizing certain commonly accepted computer models, that Mr. Harloff's requested additional withdrawals would not have a significant effect on the Verna Wellfield's ability to produce water sufficient for the City's needs. This conclusion was based on 1989 seasonal use figures including an average rate of 21.95 mgd, a maximum rate of 27.04 mgd, and a maximum rate of 29 mgd under a "run time" calculation and the fact that during that period, the City was able to pump at least its permitted quantity from its wells at Verna. The City and the District do not accept this conclusion as reasonable, however, because, they claim, the withdrawal figures cited are not meter readouts but estimates based on the number of acres farmed and the number of pump operating hours during the period in question. The City's experts contend the data used by Hardin and Prochaska in their opinions is not that which other experts in the field would reasonably rely upon. They do not appear to be unrealistic, however, and, therefore, Mr. Hardin's opinion is accepted as but one factor to be considered. On the other hand, Mr. Anderson, also a Harloff expert hydrogeologist, claims the requested withdrawals would result in only an additional 1.7 foot drawdown in the Upper Floridan Aquifer underlying the Northeast corner of the Verna Well field. To be sure, this is only one small portion of the wellfield in issue. There has, however, been a continuing history of declining groundwater levels in this area over the past several years. After the 1975 drought, the City started to experience declining water levels at Verna which, because of the reduction in ability to produce water, required a lowering of the pump elements in some wells, and also caused the City to develop an R.O. facility in an effort to reduce dependence on well water. This drop in capability occurred again during the 1985 drought and this time the City modified the pump motors to shut off prior to cavitation and initiated a schedule of operating times for wells, so that water is drawn from different and geographically separated areas in a sequence designed to allow periodic regeneration of an area's supply. Nevertheless, water supply remains a concern at Verna, and the problems previously experienced continue to occur during periods of drought. In May 1989, the Verna Wellfield was periodically "unable" to meet it's short term peak demands at times even though all operating wells were pumping. This means that at the times in question, more water was being drawn from the Verna reservoir than could be replaced by pumping activities. It does not mean that the reservoir ran dry and water could not be furnished to the treatment plant. However, this condition is serious and indicative of a more serious shortage in the future unless appropriate safeguards are instituted. Mr. Balleau, the City's expert in hydrology and hydrogeology, and the District's experts all believe the Verna Wellfield is in trouble. It is operating well beyond its design range and the imposition of additional demands on it would seriously and adversely affect its ability to produce water. This position is supported by the facts and found to be accurate. There appear to be several options open to the City to contend with the Verna problem potential. These include: drill deeper wells at Verna to tap the Lower Floridan Aquifer. (This will produce the lower quality water found there and require additional treatment facilities. construct a linear wellfield along the pipeline from Verna to the treatment facility. (This will require additional permitting to draw the water, high construction and operating costs, and still result in low quality water requiring treatment. redevelop the downtown wells currently supplying the R.O. facility. (This will require satisfaction of regulatory issues, adversely impact on the users of the upper aquifers, possibly result in poor water quality and in contamination from nearby landfills.) develop a new well field southeast of Verna. (This will experience regulatory issues and high construction costs, with an unknown water quality result.) buy water from Manatee County. (This is expensive, may result in transmission and compatibility problems, and would be only a short term solution. lower pump assemblies; replace existing pumps and modify the pump circuits. (These are all unreliable, short term solutions of minimal benefit.) Mr. Harloff and the City/District disagree on the appropriate amount of water needed for the successful growing of the crops produced by his operations. Both agree, however, that the heaviest demands for water come in the spring growing season including April and May. Tomatoes require the most water. Peppers require nearly as much. This is because the short root systems require a higher water table in the soil to supply needed moisture. In its analysis of Mr. Harloff's application, the District, referring to tables developed for the purpose of allocation and relating to Harloff's watering history during the period from August 15, 1988 to June 7, 1989, subtracted the fall season recorded application of 20.7 acre-inches from the total 10 month figure of 50.92 acre-inches and concluded he would need 30.22 acre-inches for peppers during the spring, 1989 season. Unless shown to be totally unreasonable, however, (not the case here), the applicant's water need figures should be accepted. Mr. Harloff's operation constitutes an important part of Manatee County's agricultural economy, and agriculture utilizes 68.9 percent of the land in the county. Agricultural products sold in Manatee County in 1987 were valued at $145,655,000.00, which ranked Manatee County third among all Florida counties in vegetable production. Agriculture is the fourth largest employer in Manatee County, employing an average of 4,692 people per month. Through his farm operation alone, Harloff employes as many as 1,050 people, with 200 employed on a full-time basis. Experts estimate that the loss of the Harloff operation would cause a reduction of between 16 and 18 million dollars in agricultural sales in the county with an additional loss in jobs and income to his suppliers. This estimate is not at all unreasonable. Florida produces approximately 95 percent of all tomatoes grown in this country for the fresh tomato market during the winter growing season. Tomatoes are the single largest vegetable crop grown in the state and accounted for 39.7 percent of the total value of vegetables produced in Florida during the 1987-1988 growing season. Mr. Harloff produced 4.8 percent of the total shipment of tomatoes from this state during that period. Water, primarily through irrigation, is an indispensable portion of the farming operation for this crop. Mr. Harloff currently irrigates the majority of his non-citrus crops by use of a "semi-closed ditch irrigation system", as opposed to a "drip system." The drip system is considerably more efficient than the semi-closed system having an efficiency rating, (amount of water actually used by the plants) of between 80 to 90 percent, as opposed to 40 to 60 percent for the other. While Mr. Harloff could reduce his water needs considerably and achieve substantial savings on pump fuel by conversion to a drip system for all or a part of his crops, such an undertaking would be quite costly. One of the conditions proposed by the District for the approval of Harloff's permit, as amended, is the refurbishment of several of the existing wells utilized by Mr. Harloff to make them more efficient and to promote the withdrawal of water from the Lower Floridan Aquifer, in which there appears to be adequate water and from which the Verna Well field does not draw. Currently, Mr. Harloff has seven wells which do not meet the standards of this proposed condition. They are not drilled to 1,300 feet below mean sea level and are not cased to 600 feet. To bring these wells into compliance, they would have to be drilled to the 1,300 foot level, or to a level which has a specific capacity of 400 gpm, and the casings in each would have to be extended to 600 feet. Extending the casings would be a complicated procedure and Harloff's experts in the area cannot guarantee the procedure would successfully achieve the desired end. Assuming the retrofit was successful, the cost of the entire process would be approximately $15,000.00 to $16,000.00 per well. In addition, the process would, perforce, require reducing the diameter of the well from 10 to 8 inches, thereby necessitating increasing the pump capacity to produce sufficient water. The cost of this is substantial with an appropriate new pump costing somewhere between $10,000.00 and $15,000.00 each. Consequently, the anticipated cost of bringing the existing wells up to condition standards would be between $25,000.00 to $31,000.00 per well, while the cost of constructing a new well is between $40,000.00 and $50,000.00 per well. Mr. Harloff feels it would be more prudent for him to replace the existing wells rather than to retrofit them. This may be correct. Harloff experts also claim that extending the casings on the existing wells down to 600 feet would not provide a significant benefit to the aquifer nor cause any significant reduction in drawdown impact at Verna. The District and City experts disagree and, taken on balance, caution and the interests of the public indicate that a conservative approach is more appropriate. While Mr. Harloff proposes to convert the areas served by wells 1, 9, 11, and 12 to the growing of citrus which requires much less water than tomatoes, this would not be sufficient mitigation to offset the need for some modification if large amounts of water will still be drawn. The entire area under the District's jurisdiction has been experiencing a water shortage due to a lack of rainfall. As a result, in June 1989, the District adopted a resolution identifying an area, including the area in question here, as a "water use caution area." This was done because the Floridan Aquifer has been subjected to large seasonable drawdowns of the potientiometric surface, the level to which water in a confined aquifer can rise in a well which penetrates that acquifer. This drawdown is directly related to increased water use in the area, much of which is for agricultural purposes. As a result of the District's action, special conditions on well construction for consumptive use applicants have been imposed on a permit by permit basis to insure, as much as possible, that the applicant uses the lowest quality water appropriate for his intended purpose. These conditions are not unreasonable. While accepting the District's and City's conclusion that his wells, if permitted, would have some impact on the Verna Wellfield, Mr. Harloff does not concede that the impact is significant. Specifically, the difference in impact resulting from an increase from his currently permitted use of 13.68 mgd seasonal maximum and his requested use of 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum for wells 1, 2, 9, and 10 would be a maximum increased drawdown of 1.1 feet at the Intermediate aquifer and 1.8 feet at the Upper Floridan Aquifer. Both figures relate to that portion of the wellfield found in the northeast corner of Part A. If the anticipated usage for crops predicted by Mr. Harloff's experts for the spring of 1989 is accurate, the drawdown would be 0.2 feet for the intermediate aquifer and 0.4 feet for the Upper Floridan Aquifer measured at the northeast corner of Part B of the Verna We1lfield. Harloff's experts contend that additional impacts for the spring of 1989 included, the increased usage will not have a significant effect on Verna's ability to produce its permitted daily maximum withdrawal of 9.5 mgd. While this is an educated speculation, it should be noted that during May 1989, the Verna field was able to produce up to 8.3 mgd without using all wells during any 24 hour period. This does not consider, however, the problems encountered by the City as indicated by the wellfield personnel, and the fact that some of the City wells are not pumping water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Roger Harloff be issued a consumptive use permit, No. 204467.04, as modified, to reflect authorization to draw 15.18 mgd annual average, not to exceed 31.56 mgd seasonal maximum, conditioned upon compliance with the conditions found in the conditions portion of the permit, as modified to conform to the quantities as stated herein, and to include those requirements as to acre-inch and crop-acre limitations, well usage and abandonment schedules, well modification standards, and record keeping, as are contained therein. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 89-0574 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to s. 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: City of Sarasota, joined by the District 1 & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. Accepted and incorporated herein. 8-12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14-22. Accepted and incorporated herein. 23-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26. Accepted and incorporated herein. 27 & 28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29-33. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. & 36. Accepted. 37. & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on opponent's satisfaction of its burden of proof. 42-44. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as a misstatement of fact. Water service was never interrupted. The deficiency was in the City's inability to keep its wellfield reservoir filled. 47-54. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 57-62. Accepted and incorporated herein. 63. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. 64-66. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected for the reasons outlined in 41. Rejected. & 70. Accepted and incorporated herein. 71. & 72. Accepted and incorporated herein. 73. Accepted and incorporated herein. 74 & 75. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a statement of party position. Rejected. Accepted. Irrelevant. 81-84. Rejected. 85. & 86. Accepted and incorporated herein. 87 & 88. Accepted and incorporated herein. 89. Accepted and incorporated herein. 90 & 91. Accepted and incorporated herein. 92. & 93. Accepted and incorporated herein. FOR THE RESPONDENT: Roger Harloff 1-9. Accepted and incorporated herein. 10-13. Accepted and incorporated herein. 14 & 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16-25. Accepted and incorporated herein. 26-28. Accepted and incorporated herein. 29 & 30. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not proven. 35 & 36. Accepted and incorporated herein. 37 & 38. Accepted and incorporated herein. 39-41. Accepted and incorporated herein. 42 & 43. Accepted and incorporated herein. 44. Accepted. 45 & 46. Accepted and incorporated herein. 47 & 48. Accepted and incorporated herein. 49. Accepted. 50 & 51. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. & 56. Accepted and incorporated herein. 57. Accepted. 58-60. Accepted and incorporated herein. 61 & 62. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as unproven. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. 67-68. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but an interpretation of party po Accepted. Rejected. 72 & 73. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire de la Parte, Gilbert and Gramovot, P.A. 705 East Kennedy- Blvd. Tampa, Florida 33602 Edward B. Helvenston, Esquire SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899 Douglas P. Manson, Esquire Blain & Cone, P.A. 202 Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Peter G. Hubbell Executive Director SWFWMD 2379 Broad Street Brooksville, Florida 34609-6899
Findings Of Fact This cause commenced upon the filing of an application (#440816855) by William O. Reynolds to construct a weedgate and fence in front of a dead-end canal in Bogie Channel serving the Atlantis Estates Subdivision on Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida. The proposed project would be constructed in Class III waters of the State of Florida. An existing unpermitted weedgate exists in this location and the applicants for the proposed project are attempting to obtain a proper permit for a modified version of the existing gate. Applicants for the proposed project are property owners in the Atlantis Estates Subdivision, whose properties are adjacent to the canal in front of which the proposed weedgate and fence are to be located. An ad hoc committee of certain of the Atlantis Estates Subdivision owners had met and decided to proceed with an application for the proposed project. However, not all subdivision landowners agreed with the proposed project, most specifically the Petitioners Margaret and J. A. Abbanat. William Reynolds signed and submitted the application for the project, and indicated in a notarized affidavit in tie application that he was acting as agent for property owners in the Atlantis Estates Subdivision. Reynolds is one of those property owners, specifically lot #17. There are 26 lots adjoining the dead-end canal. At hearing, twenty (20) of the property owners indicated their support for the project by submission of notarized statements. The members of the ad hoc committee and the vast majority of property owners authorized and supported the project and the filing of the application by Reynolds. The permit application for the proposed weedgate and fence was submitted due to the problems caused by dead floating sea grasses and weeds (wrack) collecting in the Atlantis Estates Subdivision canal. Wrack has collected in large quantities in the canal in the past, and at such times problems such as stench, difficulty in navigation, and fish kills have occurred. Accumulated wrack in dead-end canals can cause water quality problems, including fish kills, and may also negatively affect navigation in the canal. Wrack is likely to collect in the Atlantis Estates Subdivision canal due to its dead-end configuration and due to its location, since the open end of the canal faces the east and the prevailing winds in this area are from the east. The weedgate and fence should cause no state water quality violations, should not unreasonably interfere with navigation where it is located at the mouth of the canal, and should actually improve water quality and navigation within the canal. Water quality outside of the weedgate and fence should not be significantly decreased since the winds, tides, and currents should allow the wrack to drift away into open water and not accumulate, especially not to the extent the wrack would accumulate in the canal. According to a proposed DER permit condition, the weedgate and fence must not cause a state water quality violation, and therefore if a water quality violation were caused by the project in waters outside the weedgate and fence, enforcement action would be required to correct the problem. If the weedgate and fence becomes a navigational hazard, it is to be removed according to a proposed DER permit condition. The application was not certified by a Professional Engineer. The Department's South Florida District Office did not seek such a certification from the applicant. The proposed project consists of a stainless steel framework with vinyl covered wire fence to prevent wreck from drifting into the canal and a gate through the fence constructed of the same type of materials with a cable and counter weight system for opening and closing the gate. As proposed, the weedgate and fence should not create a navigational hazard, but should that occur, the proposed DER permit condition would require removal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulation grant the application and issue the permit subject to the following conditions: That the weedgate and fence be removed if at anytime a navigational hazard develops or the structure fall into disrepair. That the weedgate and fence must not cause a state water quality violation outside of the fence and if such water quality violations were caused by the project in water outside the weedgate and fence, enforcement action would follow. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 8th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: J. A. and Margaret M. Abbanat 5561 SW Third Court Plantation, Florida 33317 William O. Reynolds Route 1, Box 661-E Big Pine Key, Florida 33043 Douglas H. MacLaughlin, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 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 in this case is whether the St. Johns River Water Management District (District) should issue a consumptive use permit (CUP) in response to Application Number 99052 filed by the City of Titusville and, if so, what CUP terms are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Area II and III Wellfields On February 10, 1998, the District issued CUP 10647 to the City of Titusville, authorizing the withdrawal of an annual average of 6.5 mgd from the City's Area II and Area III Wellfields, 5.4 from Area II and 1.1 from Area III. These wellfields are owned and operated by the City and are located within its municipal boundaries. They produce water from the SAS. The Area II Wellfield is located near I-95 in the northeastern portion of the City and consists of shallow wells primarily constructed between 1955 and 2002. It consists of 53 production wells, of which 31 are considered to be of primary use. The City replaced 16 Area II production wells in 1995 and 4 production wells in 2000 and is currently considering the replacement of 4 additional wells. The Area III Wellfield is located in the south-central portion of the City’s service area. It consists of 35 production wells, of which 18 are considered to be of primary use. Petitioners contend that both the "safe yield" (the quantity of water the City can withdraw without degrading the water resource) and the "reliable yield" (the quantity of water the City can dependably withdraw) of the Area II and III Wellfields are the permitted limits of 5.4 and 1.1 mgd, respectively. The City and the District contend that saline intrusion into the SAS has reduced the safe and reliable yields to significantly less than the permitted amounts at this time. Historically, the Area II Wellfield was the most productive wellfield. Prior to 1988, the City relied entirely on the Area II Wellfield and pumped almost 5 mgd from it at times. Since then, several Area II wells have shown signs of water quality degradation that has resulted in a reduction in pumping to better stabilize water quality levels. For the past five years, the City has only pumped approximately 3 mgd on an annual average basis from the Area II Wellfield. Chloride concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l have been recorded in 16 Area II production wells. Chloride concentrations exceeding 250 mg/l have been recorded in 22 Area III production wells. About 10 wells in the Area II and III Wellfields have been abandoned because of water quality degradation. At the Area II Wellfields there are 10 wells whose use is impaired because of water quality issues. At the Area III Wellfields there are 15 wells whose use is impaired because of water quality issues. Area III has had serious chloride problems, with concentrations at or near 200 mg/l for much of the mid-90's. In the Area III Wellfield, the Anastasia wells have the best water quality. However, these wells have also seen increasing concentrations of chlorides, with one well over 200 mg/l. According to information introduced into evidence by the City, it appears that Area III began to have chloride problems primarily due to over-pumping.5 The City pumped far in excess of permit limits from Area III during the early 1990's, including almost twice the permit limit in 1990 and 1.5 times the limit in 1991. While chlorides were between 77 and 92 mg/l in 1990-92, they began to rise in 1993 and were between 192 and 202 mg/l for the rest of the decade. Area III production declined in 1997 to approximately 0.66 mgd and declined further to a low of approximately 0.5 mgd in 1999. In 2000, chlorides fell to approximately 138 mg/l and then rose to approximately 150 mg/l in 2002-04, while production gradually rose to close to the permit limit in 2002 and 2003, before dipping to 0.75 mgd in 2004. In 2005, production was back up to 1 mgd, and chlorides were approximately 87 mg/l. During the five years from 2001 through 2005, the City has pumped an annual average rate of approximately 1 mgd from Area III. In contrast, Area II has not been over-pumped during the same time period. Area II production generally declined from a high of 4.146 mgd in 1992 to a low of 2.525 mgd in 2000, except for an increase of approximately 0.25 mgd between 1997 and 1998. During this time, chlorides generally declined from a high of 124 mg/l in 1993 to approximately 68 mg/l in 2000, with the exception of a rise to approximately 111 mg/l in 1999. Area II production then generally increased through 2003 to approximately 3.000 mgd, where it remained in 2004 before declining to approximately 2.770 mgd in 2005. Area II chlorides were approximately 113 mg/l in 2001, 109 in 2002, 86 in 2003, 76 in 2004, and 83 in 2005. During the five years from 2001 through 2005, the City has pumped only an annual average rate of 2.86 mgd. In 1995, the City entered into a contract with the City of Cocoa requiring the City to pay for at least 1 mgd each year, whether the City actually takes the water or not (the "take-or-pay" clause). Using the Cocoa water allowed the City to reduce production from Area III without a corresponding increase in production from Area II. Water conservation measures implemented since 1998, including conservation rates, have since reduced per capita water use. In 2002, the contractual take-or-pay requirement was reduced to 0.5 mgd. After 2002, purchases of Cocoa water have amounted to 0.576, 0.712, and 0.372 mgd on an annual average basis. As a result, since at least 1990 Area II has not been required to produce at its permitted limit. It is not clear exactly what the City believes to be safe and reliable yields at this time from Areas II and III. In its PRO, the City took the position that the total reliable yield is 3.5 to 4 mgd, of which 2.25 to 2.5 mgd is attributable to the Area II Wellfield and 0.75 mgd is attributable to the Area III Wellfield. However, its consultant, Mr. Patrick Barnes, testified that the City's current reliable yields are 3 mgd from Area II and 1 or 1.1 mgd from Area III. He testified that the safe yield from Area II would be approximately 3.5 mgd. The District has not formulated an opinion as to the exact of amount of water that can be produced from the Area II and III Wellfields on a sustainable basis. However, the District believes that recent production levels, which have resulted in a stabilization of chloride concentrations, may be the most production that can be sustained from these facilities without adverse water resource impacts. That would mean approximately 4.5 mgd on an annual average basis from Areas II and III combined. It might be possible for the City to expand the reliable yield of the Area II Wellfield by constructing additional wells or through some other measures. But Brevard County’s North Brevard Wellfield, located immediately north of the City’s Area II Wellfield, utilizes the same SAS used by the Area II Wellfield, and Brevard County recently received an increased permitted allocation from the District for this facility. This would limit the City’s ability to expand the current production of water from the Area II Wellfield. Other limitations on expansion of production from Areas II and III include: the relatively high risk of contamination of the SAS from pollution sources such as underground petroleum storage tanks; the limited space available in an increasingly urbanized area for the construction of new wells; the chronic bio-fouling and encrustation of wells due to the high iron content of the SAS; and the low specific capacity of each production well. For these reasons, it is not clear at this point in time whether it is possible to sustain more water production from Areas II and III than the City has pumped in recent years. B. Area IV Application and TSR On March 6, 2001, the City of Titusville submitted its application to modify CUP 10647. Included in this application was a proposal to add a new Area IV Wellfield in northwest Brevard County to pump up to 2.75 mgd from the UFAS. The District issued a series of seven Requests for Additional Information in between April 5, 2001, and March 23, 2004. On December 15, 2004, the District issued its initial TSR for the CUP modification application. That TSR proposed to authorize the use of 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the proposed Area IV Wellfield and 3.3 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the existing Area II and Area III Wellfields to serve a projected population of 56,565 in 2008. There was no request to extend or renew the permit, which expires February 10, 2008. Miami Corporation filed a petition challenging this TSR. On May 13, 2005, the City submitted a revised application for a separate Individual CUP for the Area IV Wellfield, rather than modifying its existing CUP 10647 to include the new wellfield, with a permit expiration of December 31, 2010. On May 25, 2005, the staff issued a revised TSR. That TSR proposed a new permit to authorize up to 2.75 mgd of groundwater from the UFAS and 0.178 mgd of groundwater from the SAS from the proposed Area IV Wellfield to serve a projected population of 59,660 in 2010. The revised TSR noted that the proposed permit expiration date for the Area II and Area III Wellfields would remain February 10, 2008. Vergie Clark filed a petition challenging the revised TSR, as did Miami Corporation. After various notices on the TSR and the revised TSR to interested persons in Brevard County, in August 2005 the District issued additional notice to interested persons in Orange, Seminole and Volusia Counties. As a result, all required public notices have been issued. On March 14, 2006, the City again revised its application, and on May 1, 2006, the District issued its second revised, and final, TSR--which is the TSR now at issue. The TSR at issue recommended that a CUP be issued to Titusville for 2.75 mgd of groundwater from the UFAS and .18 mgd of groundwater from the SAS for wetland hydration and aquifer recharge from the Area IV Wellfield on an annual average basis to serve a projected population of 63,036 in 2010. This TSR provided that the proposed permit would expire December 31, 2010. TSR at Issue Water Use Allocation The CUP recommended by the TSR would only grant the City a water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield for 2009 and 2010. The recommended CUP would allow the City to withdraw water from the Area IV Wellfield at an annual average rate of 2.75 mgd during those years for public supply. (Other Condition 4) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 3.85 mgd during the four consecutive months of the dry season, which can occur during any time of the year. If 3.85 mgd is withdrawn during this four-month period, the withdrawal rate for the remaining 8 months cannot exceed 2.21 mgd. (Other Condition 8) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 4.41 mgd during any single month. (Other Condition 7) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the City’s potable water allocation from the Area IV Wellfield to a maximum rate of 6.5 mgd during any single day during a severe drought, when the existing sources (meaning Areas II and III) cannot be used without inducing water quality degradation or exceeding permitted quantities. (Other Condition 9) The CUP recommended by the TSR would allow the City to withdraw water from the SAS extraction wells at an annual average rate of up to 0.178 mgd in 2009 and 2010 for wetland hydration and surficial aquifer recharge. (Other Condition 6) The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the withdrawal of water from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields to a combined annual average rate of 5.79 mgd in 2009 and a combined annual average rate of 6.01 mgd in 2010. The CUP recommended by the TSR would limit the withdrawal of water from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields to a combined maximum daily rate of 8.88 mgd in 2009 and 9.0 mgd in 2010. (Other Conditions 5, 9) The CUP recommended by the TSR would reduce Titusville's combined annual average and maximum daily allocations from the Area II, III and IV Wellfields in 2009 and 2010 by an amount equivalent to the quantity of water purchased from the City of Cocoa during each year. (Other Conditions 5, 9) Other Condition 10 in the recommended by the TSR notifies the City that nonuse of the water supply allocated by the CUP for two years or more is grounds for revocation by the District's Governing Board, permanently and in whole, unless the City can prove that its nonuse was due to extreme hardship caused by factors beyond the City's control. Permit Duration The CUP recommended by the TSR would not allow the City to withdraw water from the Area IV Wellfield earlier than January 1, 2009; as indicated, it would expire on December 31, 2010. (Other Conditions 2, 4). Saline Water Intrusion The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to implement the proposed saline water monitoring plan by sampling and analyzing Saline Water Monitor Wells SWMW 1-6 and UFAS production wells 401, 403, 405, 407, 409, 411, 413 and 415 quarterly for water levels, chloride and total dissolved solids. (Other Condition 11) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to modify the allocation granted to the City in whole or in part or to otherwise curtail or abate the impact in the event of saline water intrusion. (Other Condition 14) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to cease withdrawal from any UFAS production well, if any quarterly water sample from that well shows a chloride concentration exceeding 250 mg/l. That same condition would limit the operation of any UFAS production well with a quarterly sample exceeding 250 mg/l to six hours per day with a minimum 24 hours recovery between pumping cycles if subsequent samples contain chloride concentrations between 200 mg/l and 249 mg/l. (Other Condition 25) Environmental Impacts and Avoidance and Minimization The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition requiring the City to implement the proposed environmental monitoring plan for hydrologic and photo- monitoring at 16 wetland sites within one year of permit issuance and to establish a baseline prior to the initiation of groundwater withdrawals. That same condition requires the City to collect water level data at each wetland site either on a daily or weekly basis and report to the District every six months in District-approved, computer-accessible format. (Other Condition 12) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to revoke the permit in whole or in part or to curtail or abate impacts should unanticipated adverse impacts occur to wetlands, lakes and spring flow. (Other Condition 23) The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to require the City to implement the proposed avoidance and minimization plan should unanticipated impacts occur to Wetland A4-2 (a shallow marsh near the middle of the wellfield) within 90 days of notice by the District. That same permit condition authorizes the District to require the City to submit a wetland rehydration plan for any other adversely affected wetland within 30 days of notice by the District and to implement the plan without 90 days of approval by the District. The District would require the City to implement avoidance measures before the wetlands are actually allowed to suffer adverse impacts. (Other Condition 24) Impacts to Other Existing Legal Users of Water The CUP recommended by the TSR contains a permit condition authorizing the District to require mitigation of any unanticipated interference to existing legal users of water due to withdrawals from the Area IV Wellfield. Mitigation may include installation of a new pump or motor, installation of additional drop pipe, new electrical wiring, connection with an existing water supply system, or other appropriate measures. (Other Condition 15) Water Conservation Measures and Reuse The City is implementing extensive water conservation measures. The City’s water conservation plan includes public education measures (e.g., televised public service announcements, helping to create water conservation videos and distributing them to the public, commissioning an award winning native plant mural, providing exhibits and speakers for public events), toilet and showerhead retrofits, and a water conservation based rate structure. A water conservation rate structure provides the potable water customer with an economic incentive to use less water. The most common conservation rate structure is a tiered-rate whereby the cost per gallon of water increases as the customer uses more water. While the District reviews the rate structure to evaluate whether it will achieve conservation, it does not mandate the cost per gallon of water. An audit of the City’s potable water distribution system was conducted and recent water use records were evaluated to determine if all necessary water conservation measures were in place. The audit indicated that the potable water system has small unaccounted-for water losses, approximately 6.5 percent, and relatively low residential per capita water use. The City has implemented a water conservation plan that implements rule requirements; as a result, the City has provided reasonable assurance that it is implementing all available water conservation measures that are economically, environmentally, or technologically feasible. The City cannot use reclaimed water to meet its potable water demands associated with direct human consumption and food preparation. However, reclaimed water can be used to replace that part of the City’s allocation that is associated with irrigation-type uses. The City has operated a reclaimed water reuse system since 1996. It is projected that 67 percent of the available wastewater flows will be utilized by 2010 for irrigation, with the remainder going to a wetland system during wet weather periods when irrigation demands are low. The City is using reclaimed water to the extent it is economically, environmentally and technologically feasible. In the case of public supply, the District looks to the amount of water requested for each person in a projected population in determining whether the water will be used efficiently. The metric that the District normally considers when conducting this part of the evaluation is the per capita usage. Population Projections and Per Capita Water Use As indicated, the proposed CUP would expire on December 31, 2010. Although the City and District would anticipate an application for renewal to be filed, demand for water projected beyond December 31, 2010, is not relevant to the need for the proposed CUP. In the case of public supply, projected demand for water usually is calculated by multiplying the projected population times per capita water use. Gross per capita (“GPC”) use in gallons per day (gpd) is the type of metric normally used to project demand for public supply of water. It is based on residential use and all other water uses supplied by the utility, including commercial, industrial, hotel/motel, and other type uses. That includes supply necessary to meet peak demands and emergencies. DEP requires that every public water supply system have an adequate water supply to meet peak demands for fire protection and health and safety reasons. If peak demands are not met, a major fire or other similar catastrophe could depressurize a public water system and possibly cause water quality problems. Projections of need for water in the future must take into account peak demands and emergency needs. Water used for those purposes is included in the historical average daily flows (ADF) from which historical GPC is derived. Unless there is good information to the contrary, in projecting GPC one assumes that those uses will increase roughly in proportion to the residential use. City's Projection Contending that the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) does not estimate or project population for municipalities, and that BEBR projections are based on historical trends that would under-project population in the City, the City used a different source and method to project population in the City's water service area on December 31, 2010. For its method, the City had Courtney Harris, its Planning Director, project the number of dwelling units that would be developed and occupied in 2011, calculating the additional people associated with each unit (based on the 2000 Census, which identified 2.32 as the average number of persons per dwelling unit in the City), and adding the resulting number to the City’s existing service area population as of 2005. The City's method yielded various results depending on when proposed developments in the City were reviewed. Ultimately, the City projected a population of 60,990 at the end of 2010. The City's method depends on the ability of its Planning Director to accurately predict the timing of new residential construction and sales, which is not easy to do (as indicated by the different results obtained by the City over time), since there are many factors affecting residential development and the real estate market. The ultimate predictions of the City's Planning Director assume that residential development will continue at an extraordinarily high pace although there already was evidence of downturn. The City's method also assumed that all new units will be sold (which, again, is contingent on market conditions) and fully occupied (although a 90 percent occupancy rate would be a more realistic.) The method also does not account for decreases in population in a number of areas in the Titusville service area (while overall population increased, mostly as a result of growth that has been occurring in a single census tract.) The City's witnesses then calculated a per capita water use rate by averaging the actual rates for the 11 years from 1995 through 2005, which resulted in projected per capita water use rate of 100.35, and a projected demand of 6.12 mgd at the end of 2010. The justification for averaging over 11 years, instead of the last five years, was that the last five years have been unusually wet, which would depress demand to some extent. However, using 11 years also increased the average water use by taking into account the higher use rates common before conservations measures, including conservation rates, went into effect (in particular, 123.75 gpd for 1995, 122.36 gpd for 1996, and 109.94 gpd for 1998.) Since 1998, and implementation of the conservation rates and other measures, water use rates have been significantly lower. While the average over the last 11 years was 100.35 gpd, the average over the last five years (from 2001- 2005) was just 92.15 gpd. Averaged since 1998, the City's water use rate has been 93.34 gpd. While wetter-than-normal conditions would be expected to depress water use to some extent due primarily to decreased lawn irrigation, many of the City's water customers have private irrigation wells for this purpose. Besides, Mr. Peterson, the City's Water Resources Manager, testified that not many of the City's water customers use potable water for lawn irrigation due to the new conservation rates. Petitioners' Projection Miami Corporation's population expert, Dr. Stanley Smith, is the Director of BEBR. Dr. Smith projected the population for the City's service area by first developing an estimate of the population of the water service area in 1990 and 2000 using block and block group data, and then using those estimates to create estimates from 2001-2005. Dr. Smith then projected population in the City's water service area using a methodology similar to what BEBR uses for county projections. Dr. Smith's methodology used three extrapolation techniques. He did not use a fourth technique, often used at BEBR, called shift-share, because he believed that, given Titusville's pattern of growth, using shift-share might produce projections that were too low. In developing his final projections, Dr. Smith also excluded the data from 1990 to 2000 because growth during that period was so slow that he felt that its inclusion might result in projections that were too low. Dr. Smith's approach varied slightly from the typical BEBR methodology in order to account for the fact that the City's growth has been faster since 2000. Dr. Smith applied an adjustment factor based on an assumption also used by the City's expert that 97.3 percent of the projected population within the City's water service area in 2010 would be served by the City. Using his method, Dr. Smith projected the population of the Titusville water service area to be 53,209 on December 31, 2010. Based on recent population estimates, Dr. Smith believes that, if anything, his projections are too high. It was Dr. Smith's opinion from the data that the annual increases for Titusville and the Titusville water service area peaked in 2003 and that they had been declining since that time. That was especially true of 2006, when the increase was the smallest that it had been for many years. Petitioners' expert, Mr. Drake, calculated a per capita water use rate by averaging the actual rates for the most recent five years (2002-2006), which resulted in a per capita water use rate of 89.08 gpd, and a projected demand of 4.74 mgd at the end of 2010. He also calculated a per capita water use rate for 2006, which came to 88.65 gpd, which would give a slightly lower projected demand of 4.72 mgd. Ultimate Finding of Projected Water Demand Based on all the evidence, it is found that Dr. Smith's projection of the population that will use City water on December 31, 2010, is more reasonable than the City's projections. The City and District contend that, regardless of the calculated per capita water use rate, it is appropriate to base the City's allocation on a rate of 100.35 gpd because 90 to 100 gpd is very conservative per capita water use rate for a public water supply utility. However, the allocation should be based on the best estimate of actual demand, not a general rate commonly assumed for water utilities, even if conservative. The City and District also contend that it is appropriate to base the City's allocation on a higher use rate because the climatic conditions experienced in the City over what they considered to be the most recent five years (2001- 2005) have been average-to-wet. More rainfall generally means less water use, and vice-versa, but the greater weight of the evidence proved that the City's demand for water has not varied much due to climatic conditions in recent years (after implementation of conservation measures, including conservation rates.) (City Exhibit 19, which purported to demonstrate the contrary, was proven to be inaccurate in that it showed significantly more water use during certain drier years than actually occurred.) However, in 2000--which was after the implementation of conservation rates and also the City's driest year on record (in approximately 75 years)--the water use rate was approximately 97.5 gallons per person per day. An average of the last eight years (1999-2006), which would include all years clearly responsive to the conservation rates as well as the driest year on record, would result in a per capita water use rate of approximately 92.8 gpd, and a projected demand of approximately 4.94 mgd by December 31, 2010. The District argues in its PRO that, because a CUP water allocation is a legal maximum, it would be inappropriate to base the City's water allocation on demand during a wet or even an average year (which, it says, would set the permittee up to violate its permit requirements 50 percent of the time). If, instead, the City's water allocation were based on demand during 2000, the driest year on record, projected demand would be approximately 5.2 mgd on December 31, 2010. Those calculated water allocations--i.e., either the 4.94 mgd or the 5.2 mgd--would then be compared to the probable safe and reliable yield of 4.5 mgd from Areas II and III to determine the deficit on an annual average basis. Allowing a reasonable margin of error for the uncertainties of the predictions involved, a reasonable maximum annual average allocation for the proposed Area IV Wellfield would be 0.75 mgd. Mr. Jenkins suggested in rebuttal that, if the need for water is less than that set out in the proposed CUP in the TSR at issue, a CUP should nonetheless be issued but with lower water allocations. While the evidence supports a reduction of the annual average limit from 2.75 mgd to 0.75 mgd, there was insufficient evidence to show how the other water allocation limits in the proposed CUP should be changed. For the past 12 years, the City of Titusville has been able to purchase water under a contract with the City of Cocoa to meet all of its demands, including any peak or emergency water demands. Under the take-or-pay provision in the contract currently in effect, the City must pay for 0.5 mgd and presumably would take and use at least that amount so long as the contract remains in effect. This would reduce the City's projected water supply deficit through the end of 2010, and the City could rely on the Cocoa contract to cover any additional demand through the end of 2010 without Area IV. However, under the contract, the City can give notice on or before April 1 of the year in which it intends to terminate the contract effective October 1 of the same year. If a CUP for Area IV is issued, the City could terminate the current contract effective as early as October 1, 2008. It also is possible that the contract could be negotiated so that its termination would coincide with the time when the Area IV Wellfield becomes operational if not near October 1 of the year. As indicated, even if the contract remains in place, to the extent that the City receives water from the City of Cocoa for potable use during either 2009 or 2010, the allocations under the proposed TSR will be reduced an amount equivalent to the quantity provided to the City by Cocoa in that year. Finally, as indicated, the existing CUP for Areas II and III is set to expire in February 2008. Although it is anticipated that the City will apply to renew the existing CUP for Areas II and III, and that the District will approve a renewal at some level, it is not clear how much production will be approved for Areas II and III for the years 2009 and 2010. Meanwhile, the CUP proposed for Area IV provides that the combined annual groundwater withdrawals for public supply for the Areas II, III, and IV may not exceed 5.79 mgd for 2009 and 6.01 mgd in 2010. Based on the findings in this case, those figures should be reduced to no more than 5.2 mgd, and it must be anticipated that a similar condition would be placed on any renewal of the existing CUP for Areas II and III as well. Site Investigation At the time the City decided to apply for a CUP for Area IV, it was known that the UFAS in much of Brevard County was not suitable as a source of potable water supply, but there was believed to be a tongue of the UFAS in the northwest corner of the County and extending towards the southeast, and narrowing in that direction, that might be suitable for that purpose, particularly in the upper part of the aquifer. Because there was insufficient information to adequately evaluate the whether proposed Area IV, which was located along the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) Right-of-Way (ROW), could be used for that purpose, the City’s consultant, Barnes, Ferland and Associates (BFA), designed a drilling and testing program to collect site-specific information in order to characterize the groundwater quality, identify the thickness of the freshwater zone in the UFAS, and determine hydraulic parameters for the groundwater system. In addition, DRMP conducted an environmental assessment of the Area IV Wellfield and surrounding property. The drilling and testing program designed by BFA for the Area IV Wellfield was similar to other hydrogeologic investigations conducted in the region with respect to wellfields operated by the City of Edgewater, the City of New Smyrna Beach, the City of Ormond Beach, the Orlando Utilities Commission and Orange County. The drilling and testing program for the Area IV Wellfield included Time-Domain Electromagnetic Mapping ("TDEM") performed by SDII Global, a consultant retained by the District. TDEM is not typically used for the hydrogeologic investigation of a new wellfield. The TDEM technique involves estimating the depth to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentration in the groundwater system using electrical resistivity probes. The technique was applied at four locations along the FEC Right-of- Way. In addition to the TDEM study, BFA installed three test production wells along the FEC ROW, collected lithologic samples with depth, performed borehole aquifer performance and step drawdown tests at two test sites and recorded water quality with depth through grab and packer samples. The northernmost test production well was Test Site 1, which corresponds to Area IV production well 401. The middle test production well was Test Site 3, which corresponds to either Area IV Well 412 or Area IV Well 413. The southernmost test production well was Test Site 2, which is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the southernmost Area IV production well. Test Sites 1 and 2 were constructed first and Test Site 3 was drilled later because of unfavorable water quality conditions encountered at Test Site 2. Test Site 1 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 430 feet southeast of the Volusia-Brevard County line. At Test Site 1, BFA installed a test-production well (UF-1D), a UFAS monitor well (UF-1S), and a SAS monitor well (SA-1) in 2001. In 2005 BFA installed two additional SAS monitor wells (MW-1 and RW-1) near Test Site 1. The test production well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet below land surface and then back-plugged to a depth of 250 feet below land surface and cased to a depth of 105-110 feet below land surface. Test Site 2 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the Volusia-Brevard County line. At Test Site 2, BFA installed a single UFAS Monitor Well (UF-2S). The monitor well was drilled to a total depth of 210-220 feet below land surface. Test Site 3 is located on the FEC ROW approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the Brevard-Volusia County line. At Test Site 3, BFA installed a test production well (UF-3D), a UFAS monitor well (UF-3S), and a SAS monitor well (SA-3). The test production well was drilled to a depth of 500 feet below land surface and then back-plugged to a depth of 210 below land surface.. Since Test Site 3 is either Area IV Well 412 or 413, and assuming production well 415 will be located 1,200 feet southeast of Test Site 3, this means that Test Site 2 is located at least one mile southeast of the southernmost Area IV production well. Test Sites 4 and 6 are located approximately three miles southeast of Brevard-Volusia County line. SAS test production wells were constructed at both sites to a total depth of about 20-30 feet below land surface. The site-specific hydrogeologic data collected by BFA as part of the drilling and testing program verified the groundwater basin and flow direction shown in Figure 15 of City Exhibit 523. DRMP’s environmental assessment of the Area IV Wellfield spanned the period from 2002 through 2006. In Spring 2002, DRMP evaluated areas within the predicted 0.2 foot drawdown contour by assessing wetland vegetation, photographing wetlands, noting wetland hydrologic conditions, investigating soil condition and wildlife utilization and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Fall 2002, DRMP evaluated potential monitoring sites both on and off Miami Corporation's property by assessing wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, investigating soil conditions and wildlife utilization, evaluating surrounding land use and natural communities and locating suitable control sites. In Fall 2003, DRMP evaluated potential wetland monitoring sites near the southernmost Area IV production wells by assessing wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, investigating soil conditions and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Spring 2005, DRMP assessed wetlands surrounding the Area IV Wellfield by evaluating wetland vegetation composition and hydrologic conditions, photographing wetlands, investigating soil conditions, evaluating surrounding land use and natural communities and collecting GPS points. In Fall 2005, DRMP investigated the Clark property by evaluating wetland vegetation and hydrologic conditions, photographing wetlands, investigating soil conditions and wildlife utilization and evaluating surrounding land uses and natural communities. In Spring 2006, DRMP developed a revised environmental monitoring plan and avoidance and minimization plan based on the new SDI MODFLOW Model by locating the final wetlands monitoring sites, developing the hydrologic and vegetative monitoring protocol, establishing the scope of the baseline study, reviewing the preliminary pipeline routing, construction and discharge inlet structures and preparing and submitting plan documents to the District. DRMP evaluated the occurrence of listed animal and plant species in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield as part of its environmental assessment. DRMP reviewed the Natural Areas Inventory for the Area IV Wellfield site, which identifies occurrences of listed species within a designated area. Additionally, DRMP made note of animal and plant species during the site visits in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2006. DRMP evaluated the Farmton Mitigation Bank as part of its environmental assessment. DRMP reviewed the permit files for the Farmton Mitigation Banks, including the annual environmental monitoring reports prepared by Miami’s consultants. In 2005, DRMP conducted a field assessment of the Clark property including a thorough investigation of the fish pond, which Petitioners claim was adversely impacted during one or more of the APTs conducted by the City at the Area IV Wellfield. It was not necessary for the City’s environmental consultants to visit each and every wetland in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield. Typically, only representative wetland sites are visited during the environmental assessment process. The scope of the City's hydrologic and environmental investigation of the Area IV Wellfield was adequate and consistent with industry standards and the District protocol for testing aquifers and characterizing aquifer performance and groundwater quality at the site. Nonetheless, Petitioners contend that there were serious deficiencies in the investigation's implementation and that additional investigation should have been performed. Hydrostratigraphy The SAS at the Area IV Wellfield is 40-to-50 feet deep and is composed primarily of unconsolidated sand, shell and silt. The intermediate confining unit (ICU) at the Area IV Wellfield consists of the Hawthorne Group and ranges in thickness from 40 to 60 feet. The top of the ICU is located 40- 50 feet below land surface and the bottom of the ICU is located 100 feet below land surface. This unit is composed of varying amounts of sand, shell, silt, indurated sandstone, clay, and some limestone. It tends to restrict the movement of water from the SAS to the UFAS. The UFAS at the Area IV Wellfield is a fairly homogenous limestone unit, which starts approximately 100 feet below land surface and extends to about 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level. It consists of the Ocala Group and grades into the upper portion of the Avon Park Formation. The middle confining unit (MCU) at the Area IV Wellfield starts at approximately 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level and ends approximately 1,000 feet below land surface. It comprises a denser, fine-grained dolomitic limestone within the Avon Park Formation. The MCU restricts the movement of water between the UFAS and LFAS. The location of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield was determined by examining cuttings and video logs collected during drilling performed at Test Sites 1 and 3 and by measuring various properties of the aquifer with down-hole geophysical techniques. The MCU can be distinguished from the UFAS by the presence of both dolomite and limestone. The lithologic log for Test Site 1 indicates the presence of gray/tan limestone between 450 and 460 feet below land surface and light/gray limestone and dolomitic limestone between 460 and 470 feet below land surface. The lithologic log for Test Site 3 indicates the presence of tan dolomitic limestone between 450 and 460 feet below land surface and tan limestone and dolomitic limestone between 460 and 470 feet below land surface. After examining the video log for Test Site 1, Petitioners’ expert, Dr. Thomas Missimer, noted a “lithologic change” at 477 feet below land surface. Other characteristics of the MCU are a lower resistivity and a sharp decrease in flow. The data collected at Test Site 1 shows a reduction in resistivity at approximately 470 feet below land surface. The flow meter log for Test Site 1 exhibits a decrease in flow at approximately 450 feet below land surface. Petitioners’ experts, Thomas Missimer, Alge Merry, and Bruce Lafrenz contend that the top of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield is located deeper than 450 feet below land surface or 425 feet below mean sea level. This contention is based on regional reports, the geophysical logs reported by BFA, and one of the packer tests conducted at the bottom of the test wells that showed a pumping rate of 85 gpm. The greater weight of evidence indicates the top of the MCU at the Area IV Wellfield starts at the elevation identified by BFA. The regional reports are not based on data collected from the immediate vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield. Additionally, the BFA's professional geologists who determined the top of the MCU included Joel Kimrey, who was the former head of the local USGS office, and had more experience with the hydrogeology of the MCU in Brevard and Volusia than any of the Petitioners’ geologic experts. Also, the BFA geologists had access to the drill cuttings, which were unavailable to the Petitioners’ experts when they made their determination. Finally, the pumping rate recorded during the packer test could be explained by an area of higher permeability within the MCU. More likely, the packer may have been partially open to the bottom of the UFAS. The Lower Floridan Aquifer System (LFAS) starts at about 1,000 feet below land surface and ends approximately 2,300 feet below land surface. Head Difference Data Head refers to the pressure within an aquifer. In an unconfined aquifer, it is the water table. In a confined or semi-confined aquifer, it is the level to which water would rise in a well penetrating into the aquifer. Head difference refers to the numerical difference between two water levels either in different aquifer at the same location or different locations in the same aquifer. In the context of the Area IV Wellfield, static head difference is the difference between the elevation of the water table in the SAS and the elevation of the potentiometric surface of the UFAS under non-pumping conditions at the same location. The static head difference reflects the degree of confinement in the ICU. If the static head difference between the SAS and UFAS is a large number, this indicates a high degree of confinement between the two systems. BFA took static head measurements at SAS and UFAS monitor wells located at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 in January 2004, April 2004, and July 2006 and calculated the head difference based on those measurements. District expert, Richard Burklew, was present when the measurements were taken in April 2004 and July 2006 and verified the readings made by the City’s consultants. During all three sampling events a downward head gradient was noted at each site, which means the water table had a higher elevation than the potentiometric surface of the UFAS. In January 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 6.2 feet, 5.5 feet and 5.9 feet, respectively. In April 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1 and 3 were 8.1 feet and 8.1 feet, respectively. Finally, in July 2006, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 8.6 feet, 6.6 feet and 9.3 feet, respectively. The average of those observed head differences was 7.46 feet. At the time the head difference measurements were taken in July 2006, the region had experienced a rainfall deficit of 17 inches over the prior 12 months. Petitioners contend that the rainfall deficit may have skewed that head difference observation. However, according to the District’s expert, Richard Burklew, this would not necessarily have affected the head difference measurements because the hydrologic system would seek equilibrium, and the head difference would be the same. BFA collected static head difference measurements from Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 during both wet and dry seasons. The measurements do not show significant differences between seasons. Head difference data collected from hundreds of other Florida locations also do not show significant differences between seasons. This suggests that static head difference remains fairly constant at the Area IV Wellfield year round. Water level measurements taken by the City’s consultants from the wells on Clark’s property and reported in City Exhibit 52 do not determine static head difference between the SAS and UFAS because the exact construction of the wells was unknown, the completion depth of certain wells was unknown, the operational history of the wells was unknown, and the putative SAS well was located several hundred feet away from the UFAS well. For example, the depth of one of the wells is reported as 57 feet, which could easily be located in the ICU. If that is the case, then the head difference measured by comparing to the water level in this well would only be the head differential between the ICU and the UFAS. Finally, the Clark property is located in a more elevated region than Test Sites 1, 2, and 3, which means the water table will be lower and the head difference will be less than at the Area IV Wellfield. Water level measurements reported in the driller’s completion log for Wells 4175, 4176, 4177, and 5230 on Miami Corporation’s property do not determine static head difference between the SAS and UFAS because critical information concerning the construction of these wells is unknown. Additionally, the wells are much shallower than test production wells at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. The water level measurements reported in the driller’s completion log for Wells 4175, 4176, 4177, and 5230 are not necessarily inconsistent with head difference measurements collected by BFA at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. The head differences at these four well sites could be 6, 4, 7, and 6 feet, respectively, depending how the water measurements were made. Also, the measurements made by a driller could not be expected to be as accurate as measurements made by trained hydrologists. Further, if the soils in the vicinity of Well 4177 indicated a depth to water table of 5 feet below land surface, that would not necessarily be inconsistent with the head difference measurements collected by BFA at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3. Depth to Water Table The depth to water table is defined as the difference between the land surface elevation and the head value in the SAS. The water table in the Area IV Wellfield area is consistently close to land surface and often above land surface. The construction of numerous above-grade forest roads and roadside ditches on the property surrounding the Area IV Wellfield has had the effect of impounding surface water and raising the water table near land surface. The Area IV Wellfield and vicinity have a variety of soil types. The predominant wetland soil type is Samsula Muck, which is classified as a very poorly drained soil with a water table either at or above land surface. The predominant upland soil type is Myakka Fine Sand, which is characterized by a water table within a foot of land surface during four months of the year and within 40 inches of land surface during remainder of the year. The average depth to water table at the Area IV Wellfield is approximately 1 foot based on soil types. SAS levels at the three Farmton Mitigation Banks were measured at piezometers installed by Miami Corporation’s consultants from 2001 through 2005. This data confirms the water table at the Area IV Wellfield is consistently close to land surface and frequently above land surface. It indicates the depth to water table is typically less than 3 feet and in many cases within a foot or two. Also, it does not matter whether any of the piezometers were located near wetlands because they show seasonal variation in water levels, where the water table changes from slightly above land surface to below land surface over the course of a year. A water table depth of 6-14 feet below land surface is not realistic at the Area IV Wellfield based on soil conditions and vegetation communities. Such a depth to water would be indicative of a landscape composed primarily of xeric scrub communities with few, if any wetlands. These types of communities do not exist near the Area IV Wellfield. Aquifer Performance Tests The flow of water through an aquifer is determined by three primary hydraulic coefficients or parameters: transmissivity; storage; and leakance. An aquifer performance test (APT) is a pumping test where water is removed from the well at a set rate for a set period of time and drawdown is measured in the well and in neighboring monitor wells to calculate the hydraulic properties of the hydrologic formation. The main hydraulic properties determined through an APT are transmissivity, leakance, and storativity. These properties are used to characterize the water production capabilities of the hydrologic formations. These properties are also used in groundwater modeling to project impacts for longer periods of time and larger distances. Aquifer parameters can be determined from an aquifer performance test using analytical "curve-matching" techniques or a groundwater flow model such as MODFLOW. Curve-matching techniques involve the creation of a curve through measurement of drawdown and the matching of that curve to standard curves derived using analytical equations. Hydraulic conductivity or “K” is the term used to describe the ability of a hydrogeologic unit to conduct fluid flow. It is usually expressed in terms of horizontal hydraulic conductivity or “Kx” and “Ky” and vertical hydraulic conductivity or “Kz.” Transmissivity is the term used to describe the rate of movement of water for a given thickness of a hydrogeologic unit. It is the hydraulic conductivity of an aquifer times its thickness. Storativity is the term used to describe the amount of water that is released from any aquifer for a given unit change in head, or the compressability of the aquifer system. This value can normally be determined during a 4-5 day aquifer performance test. Specific yield is the term used to describe the long- term capacity of an aquifer to store water. This value cannot normally be determined during a 4-5 day aquifer performance test. Leakance is the term used to describe the vertical movement of water from above or below a given unit in response to changes in head or pumpage. APTs are standard practice for evaluating the suitability of a new area for development as a wellfield. Three APTs were conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3. No aquifer performance tests were conducted at Test Site 2. Petitioners question whether the APTs for the Area IV Wellfield were conducted by BFA in accordance with the applicable standard of care in the hydrogeologic profession. The District’s expert, Richard Burklew, believes the three APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3 were adequate for purposes of determining appropriate aquifer parameters. Two APTs were conducted by BFA at Test Site 1. The first test was conducted on January 30-31, 2001, when Well UF-1D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 44-48 hours, and Wells UF-1S and SA-1 were used as monitor wells. The second test was conducted on April 8-12, 2003, when Well UF-1D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 96 hours, and Wells UF-1S and SA-1 were used as monitor wells. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,300 ft2/day and a storativity of about 0.00036 on the basis of the 2001 APT at Test Site 1. They were unable to calculate a leakance value because the drawdown data did not reasonably fit the curve- matching techniques. For that reason, BFA performed another APT at Test Site 1 in 2003. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,300 ft2/day, a storativity of 0.00045, and a leakance of 0.00029 day-1 on the basis of the 2003 APT at Test Site 1. One APT was conducted by BFA at Test Site 3 on April 10-13, 2001. Well UF-3D was pumped at about 700 gpm or approximately 1 mgd for 70 hours, and Wells UF-3S and SA-3 were used as monitor wells. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 7,450 ft2/day, a storativity of 0.0002, and a leakance of 0.00026 on the basis of the 2001 APT at Test Site 3. However, because of problems with the test, leakance was not considered a good match for the analytical techniques. Leakance values determined by BFA from the APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3 were based on the application of analytical curve-matching techniques. The leakance values determined through the conventional type curve-matching techniques employed by BFA are typically higher than the actual leakance values. They are also inherently limited because they assume the calculated leakance is due entirely to the ICU rather than a combination of the ICU and MCU as is the case at the Area IV Wellfield. The analytical techniques employed by BFA were unable to calculate separate leakance values for the ICU and the MCU. The best way to determine leakance values for each of these confining units was to use a MODFLOW model and observed head difference data. This was done by the City’s consultant, SDI, and is described in greater detail, infra. In January 2004, several APTs were conducted using two SAS wells referred to as Test Sites 4 and 6. These test sites are located more than 3 miles from the Clark property. Constant rate and variable rate APTs were conducted at both sites. During the constant rate tests, 230 gpm or about 0.33 mgd was pumped from the SAS well. Using several analytical curve-matching techniques, BFA calculated a transmissivity of 2,500 ft2/day for the surficial aquifer at those locations. Water Quality Data Consistent with the general understanding of the freshwater groundwater tongue extending from Volusia into Brevard County, the TDEM performed by SDII Global indicated that the depths to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations decrease as one proceeds south along the FEC ROW. For example, the depths to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations were 442 feet and 542 feet, respectively, at the northernmost test site, which is somewhat north of the City’s Test Site 1. The depth to the 250 mg/l and 5,000 mg/l chloride concentrations were 406 feet and 506 feet, respectively, at the southernmost test site, which is somewhat south of the City’s Test Site 2. Sixteen water quality grab samples were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 1 was drilled, beginning at 120 feet below land surface and ending at 500 feet below land surface. This type of sampling is referred to as drill-stem testing. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 480 feet below land surface were 59 mg/l and 879 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples did not exceed 250 mg/l until a depth of 460 feet below land surface was reached. Six water quality grab samples (drill-stem tests) were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 2 was drilled, beginning 120 feet below land surface and ending 210 feet below land surface. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 210 feet below land surface were 124 mg/l and 845 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples did not exceed 250 mg/l until a depth of 180 feet below land surface. Fourteen water quality grab samples (drill-stem tests), were collected every 20-30 feet as the test production well at Test Site 3 was drilled, beginning at 120 feet below land surface and ending at 500 feet below land surface. The chloride concentrations in the samples collected from 120 feet and 500 feet below land surface were 45 mg/l and 90 mg/l, respectively. The chloride concentrations in these samples never exceeded 90 mg/l. A packer test is a procedure used to isolate a particular well interval for testing. It is performed using an inflatable packer on the drill stem, which is placed at the interval to be blocked. The packer is inflated with water or air to isolate the interval to be sampled. A packer test can be used to collect water samples for analysis. Several water quality grab samples were collected in packer tests at specific depth intervals at Test Site 1. At the interval of 331-355 feet below land surface one sample was taken with a chloride concentration of 672 mg/l. At the interval of 331-400 feet below land surface, one sample was taken with a chloride concentration of 882 mg/l. Finally, at the interval of 442-500 feet below land surface two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 2,366 mg/l and 2,2712 mg/l. Several water quality grab samples were collected in packer tests at specific depth intervals at Test Site 3At the interval of 270-295 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 74 mg/l and 450 mg/l. At the interval of 340-400 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 64 mg/l and 134 mg/l. Finally, at the interval of 445-500 feet below land surface, two samples were taken with chloride concentrations of 1,458 mg/l and 2,010 mg/l. No packer test samples were collected at Test Site 2, where it was clear that water quality was too poor to be used as a fresh groundwater source. The packer test samples collected at Test Sites 1 and 3 were collected using a higher pumping rate than typically recommended by the DEP and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Consequently, the chloride concentrations in these samples are probably higher than the chloride concentrations found in the undisturbed groundwater at those depths. Since the packer sits on top of the borehole and restricts flow from above, it generally is reasonable to assume that a packer test draws more water from below than from above the packer. However, if transmissivity is significantly greater just above the packer, it is possible that more water could enter the packer from above. Seven water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2001 APT at Test Site 1. The chloride concentrations in the first and last grab sample were 59 mg/l and 58 mg/l, respectively. Seven water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2001 APT at Test Site 3. The chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 19 mg/l and 52 mg/l, respectively. Nine water quality grab samples were collected every 12 hours during the 2003 aquifer performance test at Test Site The field-measured chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 56 mg/l and 55 mg/l, respectively. The laboratory measured chloride concentrations in the first and last grab samples were 66 mg/l and 74 mg/l, respectively. The average chloride concentration for the water samples collected during the three APTs at Test Sites 1 and 2 was about 50 mg/l. Water is composed of positively charged analytes (cations) and negatively charged analytes (anions). When cations predominate over anions, the water is said to have a positive charge balance; when anions predominate over cations, the water is said to have a negative charge balance. Theoretically, a sample of water taken from the groundwater system should have a charge balance of zero. However, in real life this does not occur because every sample contains some small trace elements that affect its charge balance. Therefore, in the field of hydrogeology, a positive or negative charge balance of 10 percent or less is accepted as a reasonable charge balance error, and this standard has been incorporated in the permit conditions recommended by the District for the City’s permit. With one exception, all the water quality samples collected by BFA from Test Sites 1-3 had an acceptable charge balance. The one exception was a sample collected from the packer interval of 270-295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 with a chloride concentration of 74 mg/l. This sample has a positive charge balance of 32.30 percent. The sample collected from the packer interval of 270- 295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 has an overabundance of cations probably caused by grouting and cementing of the packer prior to taking the sample. Since chloride is an anion and not a cation, any error associated with this sample would not effect the validity of the 74 mg/l chloride concentration measured in this sample. This conclusion is also supported by the fact that two samples were collected from the same well at a packer interval of 340-400 feet below land surface with acceptable charge balances and they contained chloride concentrations of 64 mg/l and 134 mg/l. The District’s experts, Richard Burklew and David Toth, believe the 450 mg/l chloride concentration measured in a sample taken from the packer interval of 270-295 feet below land surface at Test Site 3 is a faulty measurement and should be discarded as an outlier. Dr. Toth testified that the sodium to chloride ratio indicates there was a problem with this measurement, which would call into question the reported chloride value. In 2004 and 2005, the City collected SAS water quality samples from Test Sites 4 and 6 and Monitor Wells MW-1 and RW-1 near Test Site 1. The samples were analyzed for all applicable water quality standards, which might preclude use of water from the SAS extraction wells to directly augment wetlands. The analyses found that the SAS water quality near the proposed extraction wells was very similar to the SAS water quality near the Area IV production wells and that water could be applied to the wetlands without any adverse water quality consequences. Area IV UFAS Flow Patterns and Basin Boundaries Although the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) potentiometric surface maps do not show any data points in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield, and they are not sufficient by themselves to formulate opinions regarding the future operation or impacts of the proposed wellfield, Petitioners contend that these potentiometric surface maps demonstrate that the freshwater found in the UFAS at the Area IV Wellfield is due to local freshwater recharge only and not freshwater flow from the northwest. They point to a regional report indicating that there is a groundwater basin divide just north of the Area IV Wellfield. This report is based on a 1980 USGS potentiometric surface map. However, another regional report indicates that the groundwater basin divide occurs south of the Area IV Wellfield. This report is likely based on a 1998 USGS potentiometric surface map. Because of the lack of data points in rural northwest Brevard County, the City did not rely on any groundwater basin divide maps, but rather collected site specific information regarding the proposed Area IV Wellfield. The District’s expert and the Petitioners’ own expert (the sponsor of Petitioners' potentiometric surface map exhibits) noted several errors in the flow direction arrows added by Petitioners to the maps. In addition, after reviewing the potentiometric surface maps presented by Petitioners, the District’s expert concluded that, in addition to local freshwater recharge, the predominant flow into the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield is generally from the northwest and southwest. To confirm his opinion, the District’s expert examined the head difference data collected in July 2006. At well UF-1S, the UFAS observation well at site 1, the elevation in the well was 16.27 NGVD. At site 3, which is southeast of site 1, the elevation in the UFAS observation well was 15.68 NGVD. At site 2, which is southeast of site 3, the elevation in the UFAS well was 13.87 NGVD. Since water generally flows from the highest to lowest head measurements, these measurements indicated that water would have been flowing from the northwest to the southeast in the vicinity of Area IV. However, the potentiometric surface can change both seasonally and yearly; likewise, the basin boundaries may also change. SAS and UFAS Drawdown Predicting drawdown in the SAS and UFAS in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is important to several permitting criteria, including interference with existing legal uses and impacts on wetlands, both of which relate to the public interest. During the permit application review process, the City submitted a succession of models to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed Area IV Wellfield would not result in unacceptable drawdown. Initially, BFA prepared and submitted groundwater flow simulations of the Area IV Wellfield prepared using an analytical model known as the “Multi-Layer/SURFDOWN Model.” Although the District initially accepted the submission as providing reasonable assurance to support the District's initial TSR, Miami Corporation petitioned and criticized the City's model as not actually providing reasonable assurance, both because of its predicted SAS drawdown and because it was an analytical model (which can only represent simple conditions in the environment, assumes homogenous conditions and simple boundary conditions, and provides only a model-wide solution of the governing equation). By comparison, a numerical model allows for complex representation of conditions in the environment, heterogeneous conditions and complex boundary conditions, and cell-by-cell iterative solutions of the governing equation that are typically performed by a computer. Over the past 10 to 15 years, a numerical model called MODFLOW has become the standard in groundwater modeling throughout the United States and much of the world. All of the Florida water management districts utilize MODFLOW or are familiar with it, so it is a model of choice today for groundwater flow modeling. Despite Miami Corporation's petition, the City and the District maintained that reasonable assurance had been given that operation of Area IV would not result in unacceptable drawdown. Miami Corporation's petition was scheduled for a final hearing in June 2005 that was continued until September 2005 after the first revised TSR was issued in May 2005. The final hearing was continued again until February 2006 to allow discovery and hearing preparation by Vergie Clark, who filed her petition in July 2005. As the case proceeded towards a February 2006 final hearing on the pending petitions, the City eventually made what actually was its second attempt to develop a calibrated MODFLOW model of the Area IV Wellfield. Unbeknownst to the District, BFA already had attempted to develop a MODFLOW Model of the Area IV Wellfield in 2004, with the assistance of Waterloo Hydrogeologic, Inc. (WHI) (which later was retained as Petitioners’ consultant in this case in a reverse of the Hartman client switch). When BFA ended its efforts with WHI, their efforts to calibrate a MODFLOW model for Area IV that would predict acceptable drawdown was unsuccessful, and none of those modeling efforts were submitted or disclosed to the District. In the fall of 2005, the City turned to another consultant, SDI, to attempt to develop a calibrated MODFLOW Model of the Area IV Wellfield. SDI initially prepared a so- called MODFLOW model equivalent of the Multi-layer/SURFDOWN Model prepared by BFA. It was presented to District staff at a meeting held in January 2006 for the purpose of demonstrating to District staff that the MODFLOW model equivalent of the Multi- layer/SURFDOWN Model generated results for the Area IV Wellfield that were not very different from the results obtained by BFA using their Multi-layer/SURFDOWN Model. Petitioners criticized several weaknesses in the MODFLOW equivalent model and maintained that the modeling efforts to date did not give reasonable assurance of no unacceptable SAS drawdown. By this time, the District had decided to retain Dr. Peter Huyakorn, a renowned modeling expert. Based on his recommendations, the District required the City to produce a calibrated MODFLOW model of Area IV (as well as numerical solute transport modeling, which will be discussed below). The scheduled final hearing was continued until September 2006 to allow time for this work to be completed, discovered, and evaluated. After the continuance, the City had SDI prepare a calibrated MODFLOW model to predict the drawdown that would result from operation of Area IV. SDI produced such a model in March 2006. This model predicted less drawdown. Specifically, a steady-state simulation of a 2.75 mgd withdrawal from the proposed 15 UFAS production wells and a 0.18 mgd withdrawal from the four proposed SAS extraction/wetland augmentation wells predicted the maximum drawdown of the surficial aquifer to be less than 0.5 foot (which, as discussed infra, would be acceptable). (UFAS drawdown, which is not an issue, was predicted to be an acceptable 12 feet.) But Petitioners questioned the validity of the model for several reasons, including its suspect calibration. Dr. Huyakorn also had questions concerning the calibration of SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, but subsequent work by SDI satisfied Dr. Huyakorn and the District, which issued the TSR and proposed CUP at issue in May 2006 based in part on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, despite Petitioners' criticisms. The final hearing was continued until September 2006 to give Petitioners time to complete discovery on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model (as well as the City's new solute transport modeling, which is discussed, infra). To calibrate its March 2006 MODLFOW, SDI first used a transient MODFLOW model to simulate data from the 4-day aquifer performance test (APT) from the Area IV Wellfield sites (the transient APT calibration). (A transient model is used to analyze time-dependent variable conditions and produces a time- series of simulated conditions.) Then, after calibrating to the APT data, SDI used a steady-state, non-pumping MODFLOW model (a time-independent model used to analyze long-term conditions by producing one set of simulated conditions) to simulate the static head difference between the SAS and UFAS (the steady- state head difference calibration). If the head difference simulated in the steady-state calibration run did not match the measured head difference, the ICU leakance was adjusted, and then the revised parameters were rechecked in another transient APT calibration run. Then, another steady-state head difference calibration run was performed in an iterative process until the best match occurred for both calibration models. In order to achieve calibration, SDI was required to make the ICU leakance value several times tighter than the starting value, which was the value derived in the site-specific APT using conventional curve-matching techniques (and relatively close to the values ascribed to the region in general in the literature and in two regional models that included Area IV near the boundary of their model domains--namely, the District's East Central Florida (ECF) model, which focused on the Orlando area to the south and west, and its Volusia model, which focused on Volusia County to the north). SDI's calibrated ICU leakance value derived from calibration to observed static head differences is more reliable than an ICU leakance value derived from an APT using conventional curve-matching techniques. That leaves a question as to the quality of the static head difference measurements used for SDI's calibration. BFA took static head measurements at SAS and UFAS monitor wells located at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 in January 2004, April 2004, and July 2006. On each occasion, a downward head gradient was noted at each site, meaning the water table (i.e., the SAS) had a higher elevation than the potentiometric surface of the UFAS. In January 2004, the measured head difference at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 6.2 feet, 5.5 feet and 5.9 feet, respectively. In April 2004, the measured head differences at Test Sites 1 and 3 were 8.1 feet and 8.1 feet, respectively. In July 2006, the measured head differences at Test Sites 1, 2 and 3 were 8.6 feet, 6.6 feet and 9.3 feet, respectively. The average of these observed head differences for the Area IV Wellfield was 7.46 feet. BFA's static head difference measurements included both wet and dry seasons. The measurements do not show significant differences between seasons and suggest that static head difference remains fairly constant at the Area IV Wellfield year round. This is typical of head difference data collected from hundreds of other Florida locations because the hydrologic systems seek equilibrium. Petitioners questioned taking an average of the head difference measurements because the region had experienced a rainfall deficit of 17 inches over the 12 months prior to time the measurements in July 2006 were taken. By itself, a rainfall deficit would not affect head difference measurements because the hydrologic system would seek equilibrium. But there was evidence of a possibly significant rainfall near Area IV not long before the July 2006 measurements. If significant rain fell on Area IV, it could have increased the static head differences to some extent. But there was no evidence that such an effect was felt by Area IV. Petitioners also contend for several other reasons that the static head differences used by SDI as a calibration target were "not what they are cracked up to be." They contend that "limited spatial and temporal extent . . . renders them inappropriate calibration targets." But while the site-specific static head difference measurements were limited, and more measurements at different times would have increased the reliability of the average static head difference used in SDI's steady-state calibration, the head difference measurements used were adequate. For a groundwater model of Area IV, they were as good as or better than the head differences used by Petitioners' expert modeler, Mr. LaFrenz of Tetratech, who relied on SAS and UFAS head levels from the regional-scale ECF model, which were measured by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in May and September 1995. Petitioners also contended that the measured head differences used by SDI for the steady-state calibration of the March 2006 MODFLOW model were significantly higher than other measured head differences in the general vicinity of Area IV. One such location is Long Lake, which has saltwater and an obviously upward gradient (i.e., a negative head difference between the SAS and UFAS), whereas SDI's MODFLOW depicts it as having a five-foot downward gradient (positive head difference). However, all but one of those measurements (including from Long Lake) were from locations five or more miles from Area IV. In addition, the accuracy of the measurements from the closer location (and all but one of the more distant locations) was not clear, so that the seemingly inconsistent head differences measurements may not be indicative of actual inconsistency with the head difference measurements used by SDI. Petitioners also accused the City and its consultants of "playing games with specific yield" to achieve calibration with a tighter-than-appropriate ICU leakance value. But the City and the District adequately explained that there was no merit to the accusations. It was appropriate for SDI to use just the relatively small specific storage component of SAS storativity (the 0.001 value) in its transient calibration runs, instead of the larger specific or delayed yield component. Storativity is not utilized at all in the MODLFOW steady-state calibration runs and steady-state simulations. Based on the foregoing, it is found that Petitioners' factual disputes regarding SDI's calibrated ICU leakance value do not make the City's assurance of no unacceptable drawdown provided by its MODFLOW simulations unreasonable. That leaves several other issues raised by Petitioner with regard to the SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. In calibrating its MODFLOW model, SDI utilized a value for the MCU leakance that was twice as leaky as the published literature values for the area, which Petitioners claim would reduce simulated SAS drawdown. Although the use of a higher MCU leakance value in the model may result in a prediction of less SAS drawdown, the actual effect, if any, on the predicted drawdown, was not made clear from the evidence. In any event, an MCU leakance value for Area IV calibrated to site-specific data is more reliable than regional values. Petitioners also accused the City and its consultants of using inappropriate or questionable boundary conditions, topography, and depth to the water table. They also contend that incorrect topography--namely, a nonexistent five-foot ridge or mound northwest of Area IV--provides an artificial source of water for SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. But the boundary conditions for SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model were clear from the evidence and were appropriate; and SDI's topography and water table depth were reasonably accurate (and on a local scale, were as or more accurate than the USGS topographic maps Petitioners were comparing). Besides, Dr. Huyakorn ran the Tetratech model with SDI's leakance value instead of Tetratech's value and got virtually the same drawdown results, proving that differences in topography between the two models made virtually no difference to the drawdown predictions of either model. As for the so-called "flow from nowhere," particle-tracking simulations conducted by experts from both sides established that, with pumping at 2.75 mgd, no water would enter the Area IV production zone from anywhere near the five-foot ridge area for at least 100 years. This gave reasonable assurance that the five-foot ridge or mound had no effect on the simulated results from SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. Petitioners also contend that the City's failure to simulate drawdown from pumping during the dry season, as opposed to a long-term average of wet and dry seasons, constituted a failure "to provide reasonable assurances as to the conditions that can be expected as a result of the anticipated operation of the wellfields." But the evidence was clear that long-term, steady-state groundwater model simulations are appropriate and adequate to provide reasonable assurance for CUP permitting purposes. See "Drawdown Impacts," infra. By definition, they do not simulate transient conditions such as dry season pumping. The SDI model predicts a maximum drawdown, from a 2.75 mgd withdrawal from all fifteen UFAS production wells and a 0.18 mgd withdrawal from the four SAS extraction wells, of slightly less than 0.5 feet in the SAS and of 12.0 feet in the UFAS in the immediate vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield. SDI’s model predicts a drawdown of 0.11 feet (approximately 1 inch) in the SAS and a drawdown of 2.2 feet in the UFAS at Ms. Clark’s property, which is located approximately 1 to 1.5 miles north of the Area IV Wellfield. It is found that SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model for Area IV is the best such model in evidence. That is not to say that the drawdown predicted by SDI's model is a certainty. The other models were not proven to be better than SDI's, but they did demonstrate that simulated results would vary significantly in some cases if SDI's calibration and calibrated ICU leakance values were incorrect. Having more good hydrologic information would have made it possible to reduce the uncertainties present in SDI's model, but it is found that SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model was sufficient to give reasonable assurance as to SAS and UFAS drawdown from pumping at 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd from the SAS for wetland augmentation. Drawdown Impacts As indicated, once drawdown is predicted with reasonable assurance, both interference with existing legal uses and impacts on wetlands, which relate to public interest, must be evaluated. Interference with Legal Uses Using SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, the City gave reasonable assurance that the drawdown predicted from pumping at 2.75 mgd from the UFAS and 0.18 mgd from the SAS for wetland augmentation will not interfere with existing legal users. The nearest existing legal users are located about one mile northwest and two miles east/southeast of the nearest proposed production well. The City’s MODFLOW modeling scenarios indicate that maximum drawdown in the SAS will be less than 0.5 feet and minimal (at most 2.2 feet) in the UFAS at the nearest active existing legal users. Obviously, drawdown would be much less at 0.5 to 0.75 mgd from the UFAS (with probably no wetland augmentation required). As indicated, the drawdown predicted by SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model is not a certainty. Although not likely based on the more persuasive evidence, if actual drawdown approximates the drawdown predicted by the Tetratech model, there could be interference with existing legal users. (The Tetratech model predicts that the long-term average reduction in the water table of approximately 1.6 feet of drawdown near the center of the wellfield and drawdown of 0.4 feet to 0.5 feet extending out more than a mile from the proposed Area IV Wellfield.) There probably still would be no interference with existing legal users with pumping at 0.5 to 0.75 mgd from the UFAS (with probably no wetland augmentation required). In the event of that much actual drawdown and unanticipated interference from the City’s pumping, “Other Condition” 15 of the proposed permit requires that it be remedied. See Finding 36, supra. There is no reason to think such interference could not be remedied. Environmental Impacts from Drawdown Miami Corporation’s property in the vicinity of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is a mosaic of pine flatwoods uplands interspersed with wetlands. The wetlands are mostly cypress swamps, with some areas of hardwood swamp, marshes, and wet prairies. Miami Corporation's property is managed for timber and is also used for cattle grazing and hunting. Miami Corporation has constructed a network of roads and ditches on its property, but overall the wetlands are in good conditions. The areas east and west of the proposed Area IV Wellfield consist of cypress strands, which are connected wetlands. Compared to isolated wetland systems, connected wetlands are typically larger, deeper, and connected to waters of the state. They tend to have hardwood wetland species. Connected wetlands are less vulnerable to water level changes brought about by groundwater withdrawals because they tend to be larger systems and have a greater volume of water associated with them. They are able to withstand greater fluctuations in hydroperiods than isolated herbaceous wetland systems. Isolated wetland systems are landlocked systems. They tend to be smaller in size and shallower than connected wetland systems. Isolated systems tend to be more susceptible to changes in hydrology than larger connected systems. The upland plant communities present near the proposed Area IV Wellfield include pine flatwoods that have been altered by Miami Corporation's timber operations. There is a large area surrounding the Area IV Wellfield to the north that consists of forest regeneration after timbering. There was evidence of the presence of the following listed animal species at the site of the proposed Area IV Wellfield: wood storks, roseate spoonbills, ibis, bald eagles, Sherman fox squirrels, American alligator, sandhill cranes, wood storks, black bear, and indications of gopher tortoises. The habitat in the vicinity also supports a number of other listed species that were not observed. The following listed plants species were also observed during the environmental assessment and site visits: hooded pitcher plants, water sundew, pawpaw and yellow butterwort. Ms. Clark’s property adjoins a cut-over cypress swamp on the western side of her property, and there is also a small man-made fish pond in her backyard. Some clearing has taken place in the wetland system on the back portion of Ms. Clark’s property. What appears to be a fire break on Ms. Clark’s property encroaches upon the wetland system. The wetlands on Ms. Clark’s property have experienced some human activities such as trash dumping and clearing, which have resulted in a degradation of those systems. Some trees within the wetland systems on the back portion of Ms. Clark’s property have been logged. For the most part, the hydrology appears to be normal. However, some invasive species have encroached upon the system due to the clearing that has taken place. There was no evidence of listed plant or animal species present on Ms. Clark’s property. If drawdown is of the magnitude predicted by the SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, unacceptable environmental impacts from drawdown would not be anticipated. At 0.5 or 0.75 mgd, there clearly would not be any unacceptable environmental impacts. In addition, “Other Condition” 12 of the proposed permit requires the City to perform extensive environmental monitoring. The environmental monitoring plan proposed for the Area IV Wellfield provides reasonable assurance that changes to wetland hydrology and vegetation due to groundwater withdrawals will be detected before they become significant. “Other Condition” 12 of the proposed permit prohibits the City from pumping any water from the production wells until the monitoring network is in place. The baseline monitoring will give a clear indication of the existing conditions prior to the production wells coming on-line. Once the production wells are online, the City will continue the same procedures that they conducted prior to the production wells coming online. This will allow the City and the District to monitor the effects of pumping. The City’s proposed environmental monitoring plan is adequate to detect drawdown impacts and is consistent with environmental monitoring plans that have been developed for other wellfields throughout the State of Florida. Since the City has given reasonable assurance that there will not be environmental harm from drawdown, the proposed permit does not propose mitigation. If unanticipated harm is detected, “Other Condition” 24 of the proposed permit requires the City to implement an avoidance and minimization plan to rehydrate the wetlands and restore the water levels to normal levels and natural hydroperiods by augmenting the water in the affected wetlands with water pumped from SAS wells and piped to the affected wetlands. “Other Condition” 24 includes specific timeframes for implementing wetland rehydration in the event unanticipated impacts were to occur. In addition, the City could, on its own, change its pumping schedules. If an impacted wetland is near a particular well, the City could reduce or shut off water withdrawals from that well and thereby restore water levels in the wetland. Direct augmentation of wetlands has been used at other facilities such as those of Tampa Bay Water and Fort Orange. The direct augmentation at these other sites appears to be effective. Direct augmentation of wetlands has proven to be a feasible means of offsetting adverse changes in wetlands due to groundwater withdrawals, at least in some circumstances. There is a viable source of water that can be utilized to augment these wetland systems, namely a large canal south of the production wells. Based on the predicted drawdown, SDI estimated the quantity of water needed for implementation of the avoidance and minimization plan to be 0.18 mgd. The water quality in the canal is comparable to the water quality within any wetland systems that would be affected by drawdown. The City plans to have its augmentation plan in place prior to the production wells coming online. In that way, if changes are observed within the wetland systems, the augmentation plan could be implemented in relatively short order to alleviate any impacts that might be occurring as a result of the production wells. The success of the augmentation plan depends on the extent of actual drawdown. If actual drawdown approximates Tetratech's predictions, environmental impacts would not be acceptable, and there would not be reasonable assurance that the augmentation plan would be sufficient to mitigate the environmental impacts. If drawdown is of the magnitude simulated in the City’s MODFLOW model, reasonable assurance was given that, if needed, the avoidance and minimization plan developed for the Area IV Wellfield would be capable of offsetting any adverse changes in wetlands and other waters detected through the environmental monitoring plan. If the City pumps not more than 0.75 mgd, the avoidance and minimization plan developed for the Area IV Wellfield probably would be unnecessary but certainly would be capable of offsetting any adverse changes in wetlands and other waters that would be detected through the environmental monitoring plan. If unanticipated environmental harm occurs due to excessive actual drawdowns, and the harm cannot be avoided either by the augmentation plan or by altering the pumping schedule, or both, the District can revoke all or part of the permit allocation under “Other Condition” 23. This ability gives reasonable assurance that no unacceptable environmental harm will occur even if actual drawdown approximates Tetratech's predictions. Saltwater Up-coning and Intrusion Predicting saltwater movement towards the production zone of the proposed Area IV Wellfield is important to several permitting criteria, including interference with existing legal uses and the ability of the resource to provide the requested allocation of freshwater, both of which relate to the public interest. During the permit application review process, the City submitted a succession of models to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed Area IV Wellfield would not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion. Initially, BFA prepared and submitted solute transport simulations using an analytical model known as the “UPCONE Model.” The District initially accepted the submission as providing reasonable assurance to support the District's initial TSR. Despite Miami Corporation's petition, the City and the District maintained that reasonable assurance had been given that operation of Area IV would not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion based on the "UPCONE Model." As indicated, supra, Miami Corporation's petition was scheduled for a final hearing in June 2005, but the hearing was continued until February 2006. As the case proceeded towards a final hearing in February 2006, the City not only turned to SDI to develop the numerical MODFLOW model, it also turned to SDI to develop a numerical solute transport model that would couple the MODFLOW groundwater flow equations with advection dispersion solute transport equations to simulate the movement of variable density saline groundwater in response to stresses. In addition to the initial boundary conditions, aquifer parameters and stresses specified for a groundwater model, a solute transport model requires solute parameters such as chloride concentrations, dispersivity and effective porosity. SEAWAT is a solute transport model code that combines the MODFLOW, which provides the groundwater flow component, with the MT3DMS code, which provides the mass transport component. When coupled with MODFLOW, the MT3DMS code tracks the movement of variable density water and performs internal adjustments to heads in the flow model to account for water density. Like MODFLOW, SEAWAT is capable of simulating the important aspects of the groundwater flow system, including evapotranpiration, recharge, pumping and groundwater flow. It also can be used to perform both steady-state or transient simulations of density- dependent flow and transport in a saturated zone. It was developed in the late 1990s and is rapidly becoming the standard for solute transport modeling throughout the United States. It is used by many water management agencies in the State of Florida. Initially, SDI used SEAWAT version 2.1 to simulate movement of saline water towards the Area IV Wellfield. The first such simulation was prepared in March 2006 using manually- adjusted head values along the eastern model boundary. It incorporated SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model. The District, in consultation with Dr. Huyakorn, required SDI to perform what was termed a "sensitivity run" with reduced chloride concentrations in the eastern boundaries (5,000 mg/l versus 19,000 mg/l) to better match actual measurements recorded in wells in the vicinity. In April 2006 SDI prepared and submitted those simulations. After reviewing the March and April 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 simulations, Petitioners' consultants criticized the manner in which starting chloride concentrations in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield were input into the models. In those models, SDI had input initial chloride concentration at 50 mg/l throughout the depth of the UFAS. The model was then run for 100 years with no pumping to supposedly arrive at a reasonable starting chloride concentration for the UFAS. Then, the model was run for 25 years with pumping at 2.75 mgd. However, the initial chloride concentrations at the beginning of the pumping run still did not comport well with actual measurements that were available. After Petitioners raised the issue of the starting chloride concentrations assigned to the UFAS in SDI's March and April 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 runs, the final hearing was continued until September 2006 to give Petitioners time to complete discovery on those models (as well as on SDI's March 2006 MODFLOW model, as discussed supra). During a deposition of Dr. Huyakorn in July 2006, he recommended that the District require SDI to perform another simulation (also termed a "sensitivity run") using starting chloride concentrations more closely comporting with known measurements. (There also were some changes in the constant chloride concentrations that were part of the boundary conditions on the western side of the model domain.) This resulted in SDI's early August 2006 SEAWAT 2.1 simulation of 15 years of pumping at 2.75 mgd. Petitioners also criticized the City for not using a newer version of SEAWAT, called SEAWAT 2000, as well as for using chloride concentrations as inputs for its SEAWAT 2.1 model simulations instead of total dissolved solids (TDS). (SEAWAT 2.1 required input of TDS, not chlorides; SEAWAT 2000 allowed chlorides to be input. Not until the last day of the final hearing was it pointed out by Dr. Huyakorn that using chlorides instead of TDS caused SDI's SEAWAT 2.1 simulations to over- predict saltwater intrusion.) As a result of Petitioners' criticisms, the City had SDI re-run both the April and early August SEAWAT 2.1 models in late August 2006 using SEAWAT 2000 (which the City and the District also termed "sensitivity runs.") Because the SEAWAT 2000 simulations would be time- barred from use in the City's case-in-chief under pre-hearing requirements, and whether they could be used in rebuttal could not be determined at that point in time, the City requested another continuance, this time until December 2006, to give Petitioners time to discover the SEAWAT 2000 model simulations. During Petitioners' discovery of SDI's August SEAWAT 2000 model simulations, it came to SDI's attention that SDI was not calculating mass outputs from the model correctly. Those errors were corrected by SDI in September 2006. SDI's corrected August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 simulation predicted that, after 15 years of pumping at 2.75 mgd, the chloride concentration in the Area IV production wells would increase from 54 mg/l to 227 mg/l. After the 15-year pumping run, SDI's corrected August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 simulation predicted that the chloride concentration in several of the southernmost production wells would exceed 250 mg/l. At 17.5 years of the pumping run simulation, the simulation predicted that the entire wellfield would have chlorides in excess of 250 mg/l. That prediction does not, however, mean the chloride concentration in these wells will exceed 250 mg/l in actual operation. The SDI model contains several conservative assumptions that magnified the potential chloride concentrations in those wells. First, it was assumed all the production wells would be drilled to 250 feet below land surface, while the City will likely drill the southernmost wells to a shallower depth. Additionally, the wellfield production rate used in the model was not optimized for water quality. Finally, the model was not set up to simulate a wellfield operation plan that turned wells on and off based on the saline water monitoring plan. For the sake of simplicity, the model assumed that all the wells would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire 15 year period. Petitioners continued to maintain for several reasons that SDI's SEAWAT models do not provide reasonable assurance that operation of the Area IV Wellfield will not result in unacceptable saltwater intrusion. Chlorides versus TDS Petitioners criticized SDI's corrected SEAWAT 2000 model for still not inputting chlorides correctly. While SEAWAT 2000 allows the input of chlorides instead of TDS (and input of chlorides instead of TDS is recommended since chloride is a more stable chemical than some of the other components of TDS), they must be input correctly. However, while Petitioners demonstrated that the chlorides were not input correctly, causing the model to under-calculate fluid density, Dr. Huyakorn clarified in rebuttal that under-calculating fluid density caused SDI's SEAWAT 2000 models to over-predict saltwater intrusion into the wellfield. Starting Chloride Conditions Petitioners continued to question the representation of initial chloride concentrations in the SEAWAT models. SDI's SEAWAT models included multiple vertical grid layers to represent conditions better than the layering used in the MODFLOW set-up. The SAS was represented by layer 1, the ICU by layer 2, the UFAS by layers 3 through 14, the MCU by layer 15, and the LFAS by layers 16 and 17. SDI used a chloride concentration of 0 mg/l for the SAS and ICU in its August 2006 SEAWAT model, which probably does not represent the actual initial condition but is probably close enough since the SAS is recharged by rainfall that typically has very low (1 to 2 mg/l) chloride levels. SDI used a chloride concentration of 2,500 mg/l for the MCU and a chloride concentration of 5,000 mg/l for the LFAS in its August 2006 SEAWAT model, which are reasonable initial chloride values for the Area IV Wellfield. To develop the initial chloride concentration conditions of the UFAS for its August 2006 SEAWAT model, SDI first plotted the available water quality data (63 well-data points) on a map of the Area IV Wellfield area. After examining the distribution of the data, SDI divided the UFAS into two layers to represent the upper UFAS (above –200 feet NGVD) and the lower UFAS (below –200 feet NGVD). Then, using various scientific studies containing chloride concentration maps, groundwater recharge/discharge maps (recharge indicating an area is more likely to have low chlorides in the UFAS and discharge indicating an area is more likely to have high chlorides), and maps showing the shape and extent of the freshwater lens in the area, plus SDI’s own knowledge of groundwater flows and expected higher chloride concentrations along the coast and St. Johns River, SDI used scientifically accepted hand-contouring techniques to represent the initial chloride concentration conditions of the upper and lower UFAS on maps. SDI’s two hand- contoured chloride concentration maps were reviewed and accepted by the District’s experts and reflect a reasonable representation of the initial chloride concentration conditions in the UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield. Using the two hand- contoured chloride concentration maps, SDI input the chloride concentration values from those maps into its August 2006 SEAWAT model. The chloride concentration values from the upper UFAS map were input into layers 3 through 7 of SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model. The chloride concentration values from the lower UFAS map were input into layers 11 through 14 of SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model. SDI input the average of the chloride concentration values from the upper and lower UFAS layers into the middle UFAS (layers 8 through 10). It is appropriate to average the chloride values between the upper and lower UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield because the saline water interface is not that sharp and occurs near the bottom of the UFAS (unlike conditions 11 miles to the south). Petitioners accuse SDI, the City, and the District of ignoring unfavorable chloride data in setting up its August 2006 SEAWAT 2000 model. The evidence was that all chloride data was considered and evaluated. Mr. Davis and the District's experts did not rely on the 450 mg/l chloride packer test measurement taken from the interval between 270 and 295 feet at Test Site 3 in preparing the contour maps of the UFAS because the chloride measurement was deemed inaccurate because the sodium to chloride ratio is out of balance. Mr. Davis and the District's experts did not utilize the 2,336 mg/l and 2,717 mg/l chloride concentration packer test measurements at 442-500 feet below land surface at Test Sites 1 and 3 to prepare the chloride contour maps for the UFAS because they believed these measurements from the MCU. Mr. Davis and the District's experts deemed it inappropriate to utilize a 845 mg/l chloride value reported for Test Site 2 to prepare the chloride contour for the lower portion of the UFAS because this sample was collected at just 210 feet below land surface and because a 500 mg/l contour line separates a 882 mg/l measurement at Test Site 1 from a 134 mg/l measurement at Test Site 3. The decision not to include the Test Site 2 data also is supported by the particle tracking modeling prepared by the Petitioners and the City using the groundwater component of the SDI SEAWAT model and the TetraTech model, which show that water from Test Site 2 will not enter the Area IV production wells for at least 100 years with pumping at 2.75 mgd. The chloride contour maps developed by Mr. Davis and the District experts were consistent with previous studies conducted by the USGS and the District in the region. For example, the chloride contours shown on City Exhibit 142 for the upper portion of the UFAS are generally consistent with Figure 35 of the 1990 USGS Report by Charles Tibbals and Figure 15 of the 1999 District Report by Toth and Boniol. The two chloride contour maps developed by Mr. Davis and the District's experts are a reasonable representation of the existing water quality of the UFAS in the region of the Area IV Wellfield based on the available data. Mr. Davis used the 882 mg/l chloride concentration packer test measurement from the interval between 331 and 400 feet at Test Site 1 as the starting chloride concentration in four grid cells at the bottom of the UFAS, which Petitioners' experts referred to as a "pinnacle" or "column," that were assigned a chloride value of 700 mg/l. While the representation may not have been realistic, and the "pinnacle" or "column" quickly "collapses" when the model begins to run, the representation was a concession to the existence of the datum even though it appeared at odds with water quality collected from a packer test at Test Site 3 at the same depth interval, which was much fresher. District staff agreed with Davis’ approach to representing the saltier packer test measurement from Test Site 1. The initial chloride concentrations developed for the UFAS by Mr. Davis and District staff are not inconsistent with the water quality data collected by the Petitioners’ consultants from Long Lake. The lake is located in an area of the map where the chloride concentration in the UFAS, which discharges into the lake at that location, is between 1,000 and 5,000 mg/l. Mr. Davis decided not to use 2,000 mg/l to represent the bottom layer of the UFAS even though the bottom packer tests performed at Test Sites 1 and 3 showed an average value of 2,000 mg/l at the approximate boundary of the UFAS and the MCU. Instead, he decided to associate this chloride concentration with the MCU because even if the packer had penetrated a portion of the UFAS, he did not believe the measurement was representative of static water quality conditions at that depth. The packers had been pumped for over 4 hours at 25 gpm at Test Site 1 and over 4 hours at 85 gpm at Test Site 3, which could have doubled or tripled the static chloride concentration. As was later shown in sensitivity runs by Petitioners' expert, Dr. Guo, if SDI had incorporated the 2,000 mg/l value at the bottom of the UFAS, the model simulation would have shown unrealistically high initial chloride concentrations in the production wells at the start of pumpage when compared to the water quality measured during the APTs conducted at Test Sites 1 and 3. (While only one well was pumping at a time, versus the 15 in the model simulations, the single APT well was pumping at approximately three times the rate of the 15 wells in the model simulation.) Based on all the evidence, it is found that the chloride concentrations used in SDI’s August 2006 SEAWAT model reflect a reasonable representation of the initial chloride concentration conditions in the UFAS in the Area IV Wellfield and were properly input into that model using an appropriate method. Location of the MCU Related to the last point is Petitioners' claim that the top of the MCU (i.e., bottom of the UFAS) is incorrectly represented in SDI's SEAWAT models at 450 feet below sea level (approximately 425 feet below land surface). They point to literature values indicating that the depth to the MCU is up to 150 feet greater. However, these reports did not include site- specific data or test wells in the vicinity of the Area IV Wellfield or in northern Brevard County. It was reasonable to consider and rely on site-specific information regarding the depth to the MCU in this case. BFA determined the approximate location of the MCU by examining cuttings collected during drilling at APT well sites 1 and 3 and by measuring various properties of the aquifer with down-hole geophysical techniques. Based on the site-specific information obtained, the depth to the MCU was determined to be approximately 450 to 475 feet below land surface or –425 to -450 feet NGVD. The lithologic log for well site 1 indicates the presence of gray/tan limestone between 450 to 460 feet below land surface and light/gray limestone and dolomitic limestone from 460 to 470 below land surface. The lithologic log for well site 3 indicates the presence of tan dolomitic limestone from 450 to 460 feet below land surface and tan limestone and dolomitic limestone from 460 to 470 feet below land surface. According to Petitioners' own expert, Dr. Missimer, the change to a mixture of limestone and dolomite is evidence of the MCU. After examining the video log for well site 1, Dr. Missimer noted a “lithologic change” at 477 feet below land surface (while still disputing BFA's conclusion that the MCU started there.) One characteristic of the MCU is a lower resistivity. At well site 1, a reduction in resistance occurred at approximately 470 feet below land surface. Another characteristic of penetrating the MCU is decrease in flow. The flow meter log for well site 1 suggests a decrease in flow at approximately 450 feet below land surface. On the other hand, it also is true that wells drilled completely into the MCU probably would not produce more than approximately 5 gallons per minute (gpm), whereas the packer test at the bottom of Wellsite 1 was yielding 25 gpm, and the packer test at the bottom of Wellsite 3 was producing 85 gpm. It is possible that the bottom packers were open to both the UFAS and the MCU, which could explain the higher flows. Petitioners maintain that BFA stopped drilling too soon (500 feet below land surface, or 475 feet below sea level) to ascertain the actual depth to the MCU. While it is true that drilling deeper would have made BFA's determination as to the depth to the MCU more convincing and certain, BFA's approximation of the depth to the MCU was reasonable for purposes of SDI's SEAWAT model. To the extent that BFA might have been wrong on the depth to the MCU, there was no convincing evidence that the error would have made SDI's SEAWAT model results unreliable. To the contrary, Dr. Huyakorn testified that, even if SDI put the MCU 75 feet too high, the label given to the interval is not critical to the reliability of the modeling results. More important are the parameters for transmissivity and leakance assigned to aquifers and confining units. Dr. Huyakorn testified that, given the aquifer parameters assigned to the intervals, SDI's SEAWAT modeling results would be reasonably reliable. Saline Movement Impacts As indicated, once chloride concentration changes are predicted with reasonable assurance, both interference with existing legal uses and the ability of the resource to provide the requested allocation of freshwater, which relate to public interest, must be evaluated. Significant saline water intrusion is defined as saline water encroachment which detrimentally affects the applicant or other existing legal users of water, or is otherwise detrimental to the public. (Rule 9.4.2, A.H.). Saline water may encroach from upconing or the vertical movement of saline water into a pumping well, and it may encroach laterally to the well from a saline waterbody like the ocean. The proposed use associated with the four surficial aquifer extraction wells is so minimal that it clearly would not cause saline water intrusion or harm the quality of this proposed source of water. The focus of attention is the production wells. The evidence was sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that the proposed consumptive use from the Area IV Wellfield will not cause significant saline water intrusion; further aggravate currently existing saline water intrusion problems; induce significant saline water intrusion to such an extent as to be inconsistent with the public interest; or harm the quality of the proposed source of water. First, the long-term constant rate pump tests, which were conducted as part of the APT, give some indication of the potential for saltwater intrusion. While only one well was pumping during the tests, water quality did not degrade at pumping rates that far exceeded what would be approved as part of the proposed permit. During four-day pump tests in which the wells at sites 1 and 3 were pumped at approximately 1 mgd, chlorides never exceeded approximately 74 mg/l. Second, while (as with drawdown predicted by the groundwater flow modeling) saltwater movement predicted by the City’s SEAWAT simulations is not a certainty, the simulations gave reasonable assurance that the requested allocation could be withdrawn from the Area IV Wellfield without excessive changes to water quality (specifically chlorides) and that there is an adequate thickness of freshwater at the Area IV Wellfield that could supply the requested allocations of water for 15 years without saline water intrusion, especially since it is unlikely that a number of the wells will actually be constructed to the 250-foot depth assumed in the model, particularly as one moves south along the railroad right-of way. Third, it is even more unlikely that saltwater intrusion will occur before the proposed permit expiration in 2010. Due to the time required to construct the facility, it is anticipated that the Area IV Wellfield will become operational in 2009. Assuming the City seeks to renew the permit, there would be more information on saltwater intrusion for the District to consider on permit renewal. Since the City provided reasonable assurance as to its proposed withdrawals from Area IV, there clearly is reasonable assurance that withdrawal of not more than 0.75 mgd from Area IV would not result in significant saline intrusion. The TSR includes proposed “Other Condition” 11 which requires the installation of saline monitor wells. The spatial distribution of these wells is such that the beginning of water quality degradation or saltwater intrusion, either from upconing or lateral intrusion, would not occur without it being detected by these wells. In addition to these monitor wells, proposed “Other Condition” 14 requires water quality samples to be collected from each production well. These wells are to be sampled quarterly for a suite of parameters, including chlorides. “Other Condition” 25 is proposed as a “safety net” should unanticipated saltwater intrusion occur. If any production well shows a concentration of 250 mg/l chlorides, then this proposed condition would prohibit further use of the well until the chloride concentration drops. If the monitoring shows a chloride concentration in a production well of 200-to- 249 mg/l, the well will be placed on restricted use. A production well may be placed back into regular service once the chloride concentration in the well is below 200 mg/l. Other Issues Other issues raised and maintained by Petitioners in this case include: whether the City has provided reasonable assurance that it owns or controls the property upon which the proposed wellfield will be located; whether the Area IV Wellfield is an economically feasible option; whether the City has provided reasonable assurance that it will be able to implement the project before the expiration date of the proposed permit; whether the proposed CUP is inconsistent with the District's designation of Priority Water Resource Caution Areas; whether the proposed CUP constitutes an impermissible modification of the existing CUPs for Areas II and III; and whether the City failed to pay the appropriate permit fee. Ownership or Control The City has obtained an easement from the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) to use FEC right-of-way for the City's proposed production wells. It does not yet have ownership or control of land needed for all wetland and saline monitoring sites, or for wetland augmentation if necessary, but intends to acquire the right to use all land needed through negotiation or exercise of eminent domain. Petitioners contend that the FEC easement is insufficient for several reasons: the easement is "without warranty or covenants of title of any kind"; it is impossible to define the precise boundaries of the easement because the easement is defined in terms of distance from the center of a railroad bed that existed in 1866 but no longer exists; and the precise location of proposed production wells is not definite. While the easement is "without warranty or covenants of title of any kind," the evidence is that, if contested, the precise boundaries of the easement would be difficult but not necessarily impossible to define. It is reasonable to anticipate that at least Miami Corporation will contest the legality and extent of the FEC easement. Petitioners allege that there is confusion about the location of the proposed wells because some well locations identified in the City’s permit application did not match the coordinates assigned to certain production wells on the District’s on-line database. Actually, there is no confusion regarding the location of the wells; the well locations identified in the permit application were the well sites used for modeling purposes and for review of the application. District staff explained that the well site locations identified in the District’s database would be finalized after the wells are constructed and the exact locations have been identified using GPS technology. Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, the District’s rules do not require that an applicant own the property where the proposed production wells or monitoring wells are to be located. The District has issued many CUPs where either the subject property or the property associated with the monitoring requirements of the permit are not owned by the applicant. Recent examples include the CUPs for Orange County Utilities and the Orlando Utilities Commission. This makes sense when the applicant has the power of eminent domain or some other credible means of obtaining necessary ownership or control, such as an option contract. The District’s permit application form has a section that requires the applicant to identify who owns or controls the land on which the facility will be located. The District uses this information for noticing and contact information. Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, this section of the permit application form is not intended to create a substantive permitting standard requiring property ownership before a consumptive use permit can be issued. Petitioners argue that proof of ownership or control is necessary to determine whether a drawdown from a proposed water use will adversely affect stages or vegetation on lands other than those owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. However, the evidence was that these impacts can be assessed based on the facts of this case. The City's need to eventually obtain ownership or legal control to exercise the rights granted by the proposed CUP may be problematic in this case and is a factor to be considered in the next two issues raised and maintained by Petitioners: whether the Area IV Wellfield is an economically feasible option; and whether the City has provided reasonable assurances that its project can become operational before the expiration date of the proposed permit. But it is not a reason to automatically deny the City's proposed CUP. Economic Feasibility Petitioners argue that the proposed Area IV Wellfield is too expensive and that the expense should be a factor in deciding whether it is in the public interest. But cost to the City is not a factor in determining whether to issue the CUP proposed in this case. Statutes and rules cited by Petitioners on this point do not apply to this CUP determination. See Conclusions of Law 277-279, infra. Implementation Before Expiration Date Litigation of a case filed by Miami Corporation to contest the legality and extent of the City's FEC easement will add to the (cost and) time necessary to implement the project. This additional time was not specifically taken into account by the City in estimating the time it would take to implement the project. The (cost and) time for litigation of the legality and extent of the City's FEC easement could be spared by exercising eminent domain instead. That probably would add to total the cost of eminent domain but might not add appreciably to the time necessary for acquisition of required ownership or control. In an imprecise way, the time for eminent domain proceedings necessary to gain ownership or control of land for monitoring sites and wetland augmentation (without time for litigation of a contest over the legality and extent of the FEC easement, or for using eminent domain instead) was factored into the time estimated for implementation of the project. With this rough estimate, the evidence was that the project could be expedited and completed in 33 months from issuance of a CUP. It is possible but not probable that the project could be implemented in less than 33 months. It is possible and more probable that it will take longer than 33 months to implement the project. In a worst case scenario, it could take as much as 59 months complete the project. But 33 months is a reasonable, if optimistic, estimate (without time for litigation of the legality and extent of the FEC easement, or for using eminent domain instead). As found, the proposed CUP expires at the end of 2010. Given the 33-month estimate for implementation (without time for litigation of a contest over the legality and extent of the FEC easement), the CUP would have to be issued by March 2008 to be completed before expiration. Given that estimate, it would be in operation for six months before expiration. It is likely that the City will apply to renew both the existing CUP for Areas II and III and the proposed CUP for Area IV. It appears from Petitioners' Response to the other PROs that one purpose for their arguments that the proposed CUP for Area IV cannot be implemented before its expiration is to buttress their arguments, already addressed, that there is no need for the proposed CUP for Area IV. Priority Water Resource Caution Area Designation As part of its water supply planning process, the District designates priority water resource caution areas. A priority water resource caution area is an area where existing and reasonably anticipated sources of water and water conservation efforts may not be adequate to supply water for all existing legal uses and anticipated future needs and to sustain the water resources and related natural systems. The area surrounding the Area IV Wellfield was designated as a priority water resource caution area in the District’s 2003 Water Supply Assessment and 2005 Water Supply Plan based on groundwater modeling prepared by District planning staffing using the ECF and Volusia County Regional Models. The fact the Area IV Wellfield is located in a priority water use caution area does not mean a consumptive use permit cannot be issued for this facility. In fact, over one- third of the District is located within a priority water resource caution area, and permits continue to be issued in those areas. Rather, the essence of the designation is the recognition of a concern, based on the regional models, that the proposed consumptive use of water might violate the wetland and lake constraints and that water resources other than fresh groundwater will be needed to supply the expected need for water in the area and in the District over the next 20 years. That does not mean that no additional groundwater withdrawals should be permitted in a designated area. Rather, it means that other resources should be developed and used along with whatever remaining additional fresh groundwater can be permitted. It is not an independent reason, apart from the permitting criteria, to deny the City's application. Impermissible Modification of Existing CUP Petitioners contend that the proposed CUP for Area IV includes an impermissible modification of the existing CUP for Areas II and III because “Other Condition” 5 limits average annual withdrawals from the Area II, III, and IV Wellfields, combined, to 5.79 mgd in 2009 and 6.01 mgd in 2010. (As indicated, the limitations would have to be reduced to no more than 5.2 mgd based on the more reasonable projected need.) However, the City’s current CUP for the Area II and III Wellfields expires in February 2008, which is before the Area IV Wellfield would become operational, so that "Other Condition" 5 will have no practical effect on the existing CUP for Areas II and III. In essence, "Other Condition" 5 serves to advise the City that it should not view the allocation for the Area IV Wellfield in addition to the City’s existing allocations for the Area II and Area III Wellfields and that any renewal of the existing CUP for Areas II and III will have to take the Area IV allocation into account. Appropriate Permit Fee Petitioners have alleged that the City has not paid the correct permit processing fee. In March 2001, the City paid the District $200 when it submitted its initial permit application to modify its existing CUP. In May 2005, the City paid the District an additional $800 when it amended its application and withdrew its request to modify its existing permit. All required permit processing fees have been paid for this CUP application 99052. Miscellaneous As to other issues raised by Petitioners in the case, the evidence did not suggest any danger of flooding, any proposed use of water reserved by rule for other uses, any effect on any established minimum flows or levels, or inadequate notice. Standing As found, Miami Corporation owns property immediately adjacent to the proposed Area IV Wellfield, and Ms. Clark owns property a little more than a mile away. Both alleged and attempted to prove that SAS drawdown from the proposed CUP would degrade wetlands on their property and interfere with their legal use of groundwater, and that saline intrusion from the proposed CUP would degrade the water quality of the UFAS resource which they use for potable water. As found, Petitioners did not prove those allegations; however, the evidence was that both Petitioners have substantial interests (the quality of water in the aquifer from which their wells withdraw water and wetlands on their property) that would be affected by the proposed CUP at least to some extent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the District issue the City a CUP for Area IV as provided in the second revised TSR, except for a lower water allocation at this time, namely: 0.75 mgd on an annual average basis, with appropriately lower allocations on the other bases in the TSR, and with a combined annual average rate for Areas II, III, and IV in "Other Condition" 5 of 5.2 mgd for 2009 and 2010 instead of 5.79 mgd in 2009 and 2010, and appropriately lower combined maximum daily rates for Areas II, III, and IV in "Other Condition" 9. Jurisdiction is reserved to hear and rule on the pending motions for sanctions if renewed no later than 30 days after entry of the final order in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2007.
The Issue This proceeding concerns Clarence E. Middlebrook's application #2-069- 0785AUSMV for a consumptive use permit for his project at Wekiva Falls Resort. Staff of the St. Johns River Water Management District have recommended approval of the application with certain specific limiting conditions. Petitioner, Middlebrooks, contends that the limitations placed on the approval are inappropriate and are so onerous as to preclude the continued use of his facility for public bathing. Petitioner, STS, claims that the present recreational use is not a reasonable beneficial use, interferes with existing legal users of water and is not in the public interest. STS urges limitations more restrictive than those proposed by the district staff. The basic issue for resolution, therefore, is what conditions should be placed on an approval of Middlebrook's application relating to recreational use. Approval of his application relating to an existing household consumptive use permit is not at issue. The parties have stipulated that STS has standing as a petitioner in this proceeding. In addition, in their prehearing statement filed on August 28, 1989, the parties have stipulated that the 14-inch and 28-inch standpipes on the Wekiva Falls Resort are governed by and subject to the provisions of Chapter 373, F.S., and Chapter 40C-2, F.A.C. and are legally considered to be wells for purposes of this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact In their Prehearing Stipulation filed on August 28, 1989, the parties have agreed: Middlebrooks is a private individual who co- owns, along with his wife, and does business as the Wekiva Falls Resort in Lake County, Florida. STS is the owner of approximately 1,842 acres of land contiguous to the southern and western boundary of the Wekiva Falls Resort. The District, a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, is charged with the statutory responsibility of the administration and enforcement of permitting programs pursuant to Part II of Chapter 373, Consumptive Uses of Water, specifically Sections 373-219 and 373.223, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40C-2, Florida Administrative Code. The District is the agency affected in this proceeding. On September 4, 1985, Petitioner submitted to Respondent a CUP application No. 2-069-0785AUS to withdraw a maximum of .123 million gallons per day (MGD), i.e. 31.7 million gallons per year (MGY) of water for household type use from two standpipes, one 14 inches in diameter and the other 24 inches in diameter, located on Petitioner's property in Lake County, Florida. An administrative hearing was held regarding that application on November 6 and 7, 1986, and a final order was issued on May 14, 1987. The final order was appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeal which issued its opinion on July 7, 1988 (529 So.2d 1167). Permit No. 2-069-0785AUS was issued by the District as result of these proceedings. Middlebrooks returned the permit by mail to the District. On September 13, 1988, Middlebrooks submitted to Respondent a CUP application No. 2-069-0785AUS to request approval of a maximum of .123 MGD (31.7 MGY) of water for household type use, which was revised on February 21, 1989, to request a maximum 14.26 MGD of water from the two standpipes, one 14 inches in diameter and the other 24 inches in diameter, located on Middlebrooks' property in Lake County, Florida. On March 20, 1989, District's staff gave notice of its intent to recommend approval with conditions of Petitioner's CUP application No. 2-069-0785AUS. Both Middlebrooks' and STS' petitions for administrative hearing were timely filed with the District. In 1968, C.E. Middlebrooks purchased the 140 acre tract on which the wells are located. The property is bounded on the east by the Wekiva River, and on the west by Wekiva River Road. At the time of purchase the property was underdeveloped and overgrown. Shortly after purchase, Middlebrooks inspected the property and found an oval-shaped depression from which water was flowing. Such flow is common in this area along the corridor of the Wekiva basin. These surficial seeps, also called artesian flows, emanate from the surficial and intermediate aquifers. This, and other substantiative findings regarding the characteristics of the property, were made in the recommended order as adopted in the final order in case #86-2101, on May 13, 1987. Still, Petitioner insists that the water was from a natural spring. The only new evidence presented by Petitioner regarding the existence of a "spring" is the testimony of William Shell, who in the late 1930's used to fish with his father in the tributaries and streams off of the Wekiva River. William Shell claims that he and his father took a 10-foot canoe back into the property and he swam and fished in the "spring". Shell was imprecise as to the location of the spring and conceded that the site identified on a map attached to his statement could be as much as five miles off. His testimony as to the existence and location of a spring is unpersuasive in the face of the contrary historical evidence from aerial photographs, soils and geological survey maps, and the well driller's log describing the strata through which the 24-inch well was drilled. In undertaking the development of the property, Middlebrooks dug out the area in which the wells were ultimately drilled, utilizing a dragline to clear out what is now the existing stream bed between the oval-shaped depression and the area which is now the marina (or canoe basin). Extensive dredging was done to develop the marina at a point approximately 200 feet west of the Wekiva River, and additional dredging was done to connect the marina to the Wekiva River in order to have access by boat to the Wekiva River. The stream which now extends from the western boundary to the Wekiva River is called Canoe Creek. In order to maintain the swimming area and the section of Canoe Creek extending eastward from the swimming area to the Wekiva River, it is necessary for Middlebrooks to dredge the area every two to three years. In 1972 as a part of the development activities described above, Middlebrooks hired a well drilling contractor to drill a 14-inch well at a location within the oval-shaped depression. The well was drilled into the Floridan aquifer to a depth of 107 feet, and well casing 14 inches in diameter was driven to a depth of 58 feet. In 1973 Middlebrooks hired a second well drilling contractor to construct a second well within the oval-shaped depression slightly ease of the 14-inch well. The second well was drilled into the Floridan aquifer to a depth of 120 feet, and well casing 24 inches in diameter was driven to a depth of 80 feet. As part of his development activities, Middlebrooks constructed concrete towers around each of the wells and placed diffuser plates and planters on top of each to give the appearance of a waterfall. A concrete wall and sidewalk were constructed around the oval-shaped area. The water flowing from the wells discharges into the oval-shaped swimming area and then flows eastward through Canoe Creek until it reaches the Wekiva River. Middlebrooks' business, known as Wekiva Falls Resort, has a total of 789 campsites located on the northern and southern sides of the property. The swimming area, which extends from the western end of the concrete-enclosed oval- shaped area where the wells are located, to the wooden bridge which crosses Canoe Creek just west of the marina, is licensed by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) as a public bathing facility. Middlebrooks also offers canoe rentals and paddleboat tours of the Wekiva River, each of which originate from the marina. Middlebrooks' present business operation centers around the water-based recreational opportunities provided by the water emanating from the wells. The facility employs approximately seventeen persons. Groundwater from the Floridan aquifer flows from the two wells under artesian pressure. Middlebrooks testified that he had calculated the discharge from the two wells to be 12.5 mgd and 12.72 mgd, although his records for the period from April 1986 through January 1989 showed average daily flow from the two wells to be 12.98 mgd. The prior final order entered in this matter determined average daily flow to be 12.47 mgd. Because these are artesian wells, flow varies depending on hydrologic conditions. The gate valve for the 24-inch well was frozen in the open position approximately 12 years ago and has since been encased in concrete making it inoperable. There is a diverter valve at water level, which, if opened, would increase the flow volume from the well, but which has no control over the amount of water flowing through the top of the well. As the well is presently structured, water essentially free flows from the well; Middlebrooks can control flow from the 24-inch well only through manual insertion of a poppet valve which must be first hoisted to the top of the well with a crane and then mechanically inserted into the top of the well. The only time this device is used is when Middlebrooks shuts down the well in order to do dredging or other maintenance activities. Early in 1989, the concrete tower encasing the 14- inch well fell over and had to be removed from the swimming area. The well casing was cut off at pool level, removing the gate valve on it. Although flow increased from the 14- inch well as a result of shortening the length of the casing above ground, Middlebrooks mechanically inserted a poppet valve into the top of the remaining casing in order to restrict flow. Middlebrooks contends that, with the restrictor device which is inserted in the 14-inch well, flow is essentially the same as it was before the casing was cut down and the valve removed. In 1973, shortly after the 24-inch well was constructed, USGS did an analysis of the water coming from the well to determine chloride concentrations. Chloride concentrations were measured at that time to be 230 parts per million (ppm). Chloride concentration is a measure of salt content in the water. The benchmark figure for chloride concentration in water as determined by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 250 pp. Water which exceeds 250 ppm in chloride is nonpotable. At the time these wells were drilled, the water was potable. At the base of the Floridan aquifer in the area in which Middlebrooks' property is located is a layer of seawater, extremely high in chloride concentrations, which became trapped when the ocean water which once covered Florida receded and dry land emerged. This water is called relic sea water and is necessarily very old water. Significant discharges through a well in this region can cause the interface between the fresh water in the Floridan aquifer and the relic sea water to move upward toward the cone of influence of the well and break. This is followed by turbulent mixing of relic sea water and fresh water and results in elevated chloride concentrations in the water discharged from the well. This water is sometimes referred to as connate water. Subsequent tests of the chloride concentrations in Middlebrooks' well have been done, both as part of a regional study done by the district and in preparation for this litigation. These test results show significant changes in the chloride concentrations in the water flowing from Middlebrooks' wells. Samples taken by the district in March and October 1986 showed concentrations of 312 ppm in the 14-inch well and 296 ppm for the 24-inch well for March, and 300 ppm for each of the wells in October. The 14-inch well was sampled again by the district in March and April 1989 and showed levels of 335 ppm and 296 ppm respectively, and an April 1989 sample from the 24-inch well showed 317 ppm. Samples taken by Jammal and Associates on August 5, 1989, showed 280 ppm for the 14-inch well and 290 ppm for the 24-inch well. Averaged, these results show concentrations over the 1986-89 period of 304 ppm for the 14-inch well and 300 ppm for the 24-inch well. The changes observed from the 1973 test and the 1986- 89 tests cannot be attributed to seasonal variations. The only samples taken since 1974 from the wells which do not show significant changes in the chloride concentrations are samples which were collected by Middlebrooks himself. The validity of these results is less credible than the results outlined in the previous paragraph, given the expert testimony supporting the former results. Further, the results shown from the samples collected by Middlebrooks are questionable in light of the elevated levels of minerals (including chlorides) which were noted in the analysis of waters taken from Canoe Creek, through which the water coming from the wells flows to the Wekiva River. The water flowing from Canoe Creek is 17 times higher in chlorides than water in the Wekiva River. Chloride levels in the swimming pool area were measured by Dr. Harper at almost 300 ppm. Even Dr. Roessler, an expert called by Middlebrooks noted high levels of mineralization in the water flowing through Canoe Creek to the Wekiva River from the wells and agreed that reductions in flow from the wells would result in reduced chloride concentrations within Canoe Creek. The importance of the significant increase in chloride concentrations in the water flowing from Middlebrooks' wells, as noted, is that the groundwater coming from those wells in no longer potable. Continued discharge from the wells at the current free flow level will aggravate the problem of increasing chloride levels in those wells and in the immediate vicinity of those wells. If no action is taken to address the upward movement of the saltwater-freshwater interface, there is a potential for transmittance of connate water to wells of adjacent landowners. Reduction in the flows from Middlebrooks' wells would stabilize the saltwater-freshwater interface beneath his wells. This could result in lower chloride concentrations in the water flowing from Middlebrooks' wells, and at the very least, there would be no further aggravation of the problem. Section 10D-5.120, Florida Administrative Code, governs public bathing facilities such as Middlebrooks', and essentially has two water quality requirements. The first is a flow-through requirement which specifies that there must be minimum flow of water through the facility of 500 gallons per bather per 24 hours. The second requirement is that total coliforms must not exceed 1000 most probable number of coliform organisms (mpn) per 100 milliliters. Although Middlebrooks' HRS license for his public bathing facility does not limit the number of bathers who may use his facility, there is an existing injunction obtained against Middlebrooks by Lake County, Florida, which allows a maximum of 2500 persons on the entire premises per day. Middlebrooks has made no effort in the past, nor does he presently make any effort to determine how many patrons actually use the bathing facilities on a daily basis. As the prior final order noted "for all the record shows, he may have never had that many (the maximum) since his permit was issued". The only evidence of actual usage of the bathing facilities showed a maximum of 290 persons in the pool area on a summer weekend. Regardless of how few, if any, persons utilize the bathing area under present conditions, the same amount of water flows from the wells daily. The stream which extends from the western end of the swimming area to Wekiva River Road and then off site receives drainage during wet weather conditions from offsite areas. All of Canoe Creek including the portion west of the swimming area is essentially a catch basin for surface water drainage from Middlebrooks' property. Surface water drainage enters Canoe Creek through overland flow, through swales conveying stormwater to it, and through an assortment of stormwater drainpipes which drain parts of Middlebrooks' property as well as off-site areas. The water entering Canoe Creek from this surface water drainage is extremely high in total coliforms. There are no significant stormwater treatment facilities on the site. A concrete weir with a spillway separates the swimming area from Canoe Creek west of the swimming area. The water in Canoe Creek immediately west of the swimming area is extremely high in total coliforms. A sump pump has been installed just west of the weir which, under normal weather conditions, is capable of pumping enough of the water into a roadside swale, thereby diverting it around the swimming area, to prevent this high coliform water from overtopping the weir and flowing into the swimming area. However, under rainfall conditions, the pump will not prevent this drainage from spilling over the weir and Middlebrooks does not run the pump continuously. Water has also been observed spilling over the weir into the swimming area under normal conditions. The higher coliform water which is pumped into the roadside swale is reintroduced into the swimming area through a culvert pipe midway between the oval area, where the wells are located, and the marina. There is also an apparent influx of total coliforms through surficial seepage and other sources internal to Middlebrooks' property. One of these sources of coliforms could be the wastewater treatment plant operated by Middlebrooks on the property. Other than the part-time operation of the sump pump, which was installed for aesthetic reasons rather than water quality reasons, Middlebrooks has done nothing to control the numerous sources of total coliforms to his swimming area, nor does he propose any modifications to accomplish this in his application. Instead he has relied and proposes to continue to rely on the 12.5 mgd flow of water from his wells to dilute the total coliforms entering the swimming area in order to meet the HRS standards for water quality. Middlebrooks dismisses any alterations to the site to address these total coliforms sources as "impractical". To the contrary, it is practical, technologically feasible, and economically feasible to control the introduction of coliform to the swimming area and meet HRS standards by preventing introduction of coliforms rather than relying on massive amounts of groundwater to meet the standards through dilution. One means would be to operate a sump pump around the clock instead of only on a part-time bases. Installation of additional toilet facilities for campers would reduce the use of Canoe Creek and its vicinity as a toilet. More importantly, treatment facilities such as retention and detention areas to treat stormwater runoff before it enters Canoe Creek, as well as diverting the water around the oval part of the swimming area, would enable Middlebrooks to comply with HRS total coliforms standard without the necessity of utilizing 12.5 mgd of groundwater. Reducing the flow of water from Middlebrooks' wells in accordance with the recommendations contained in the District's staff report would not cause blowouts or any other adverse geological consequences on his property or elsewhere. As indicated earlier, this region is characterized by artesian flow, and there is the potential for increased discharges from springs or other discharge points within the vicinity of Middlebrooks' property if flow is reduced from his wells. Overall, the area should return to a more naturally balanced system such as existed before the wells were constructed. The flow which discharges presently through the wells produces enough water to supply the domestic needs of 90,000 people. Reduction in the discharge from the wells would make additional water available for use for other beneficial purposes within the area as the water which now discharges from Middlebrooks' wells could be withdrawn at other locations within the vicinity of Middlebrooks' property. Through properly spacing wells and limiting their depth, (skimming well fields) these other uses of water could occur without aggravating the existing problem with chloride concentrations. Middlebrooks and one of his employees described water upwelling within the swimming area on one occasion when flow was stopped from the wells. While this would not be unusual in an area characterized by artesian flow, it may also be an indication that well construction problems exist with either or both of the wells. Having the wells geophysically logged as is required in the permit conditions proposed by district staff, would reveal, among other things, whether the well is properly grouted and sealed. If the wells are not properly sealed contaminated connate water could be allowed to move upward and interchange with other water-bearing zones, resulting in chloride contamination in those zones as well. The aquatic and wetland habitat associated with Canoe Creek can be divided into three distinct segments: (1) the intermittent stream extending westward from the weir and spillway to Wekiva River Road (hereinafter "the intermittent stream"); (2) the swimming area which begins at the weir and extends to the bridge just west of the marina (hereinafter "the swimming area"); and (3) the marina which encompasses the dredged boat basin and that portion of Canoe Creek extending eastward from the marina. These three segments have varying importance as aquatic or wetland habitats and can be separately characterized according to the impacts which would be felt from a reduction in the flow of water from the wells as recommended by the district staff report. The intermittent stream is characterized by slow flowing or stagnant water. There are species indicative of a wetland system associated with the channel here, although the banks of the stream have been mowed and maintained. Aquatic and wetland dependent species do utilize this part of the stream; however, they are in less abundance than in other parts of Canoe Creek. Because the hydrology of this portion of the stream is not affected by the flow from the wells, there would be no impact on this area if flow from the wells is reduced. The swimming area, which consists entirely of hard sand, is devoid of biological activity as a result of the regular mechanical maintenance performed on it by Middlebrooks, leaving no vegetation in the channel. Although there are aquatic species which utilize primarily the oval-shaped part of the swimming area, many of these are exotic species. In any event, there would continue to be a flow of water to maintain that environment. The southern bank of Canoe Creek in the swimming area down to the water's edge has been cleared, sodded, and is maintained as a lawn. There are no wetland plant species in this area. There are trees along the northern bank of the stream in this area, and it is less disturbed than the southern bank; however, the understory has been removed. Overall, there would be minimal impact to the aquatic and wetland species within the creek itself, and no impact to plant species along the banks of the creek if flows are reduced in accordance with the District staff' s recommendation. The marina area and the creek eastward of it provide the most abundant and productive part of the creek for aquatic species. This portion of the creek is at the same grade as the Wekiva River and therefore is in equilibrium with the river. Water levels are controlled by the pulse of the river, rather than the flow from the wells, and will be unchanged by reduction of flow from the wells. Although there would be a reduction in the amount of water moving through this area, there would be little, if any, impact to the functions of this portion of the creek as an aquatic habitat if the reduction in flow recommended in the district staff report were accomplished. Viewed as a whole, Canoe Creek, because of the wells and the alterations made to the site by Middlebrooks, is an altered natural environment with an artificially created and maintained ecosystem. The primary natural feature associated with this property is the riverine forested wetlands which extend approximately 200 feet inland from the Wekiva River. This area lies within the floodplain of the river and is influenced by the rise and fall of the river. These wetlands would not be affected at all by reduction in flows from the wells. Middlebrooks has contended that the flow from his wells provides a benefit to the Wekiva River by improving water quality in the river. Extensive water quality data showing the quality of discharges from Canoe Creek, versus ambient conditions in the river both upstream and downstream of Canoe Creek, do not support this assertion. The flow from Canoe Creek does not reduce temperatures in the river nor does it provide a thermal refuge for fish. Dissolved oxygen levels in the water flowing out of Canoe Creek are virtually the same as in the Wekiva River upstream of the creek. Chloride concentrations in the Canoe Creek discharge are 17 times higher than in the river itself. Total coliforms are higher in the Canoe Creek discharge than in the river itself. Although there is a slight reduction in nutrients as a result of the Canoe Creek flow, this slight reduction has no impact in a fast moving system such as the Wekiva River. Significantly, the flow from Canoe Creek violates State Water Quality Standards for specific conductivity (an indicator of the level of mineralization.) The probable source of this violation is the mineralized water flowing from Middlebrooks' wells. Reduction in flows from the wells would not degrade water quality in the Wekiva River and would likely eliminate the source of a specific conductance water quality violation. The 12.5 million gallons per day of groundwater which flows through Middlebrooks' wells (as distinguished from the 31.7 million gallons per year that is used for household type use) is primarily used by him to enable him to charge visitors to swim in the water. Any other uses of the water are secondary. The absolute deadline for making application to the District for continuation of existing uses and thereby to be evaluated as an existing legal user was September 11, 1985. The first application filed by Middlebrooks for an allocation of water for a use other than household type use was filed on September 13, 1988, exactly three years after the deadline for the use to be classified as and evaluated as an existing use. No exemption was sought or claimed for the water supplying the swimming area prior to the September 11, 1985, deadline.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the District Board approving the issuance of a consumptive use permit to C.E. Middlebrooks for the amounts and under the terms and conditions established in the District's Technical Staff Report dated March 24, 1989. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 31st day of January, 1990, 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 31st day of January, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the Petitioners. FACTS PROPOSED BY PETITIONER MIDDLEBROOKS 1-8 Adopted in paragraph 1. 9-12 The existence of a prior "springs" was not proven by a preponderance of evidence and these findings are rejected, with the exception of the date of purchase, which is adopted in paragraph 2. 13 Rejected as unnecessary. 14-18 See 9-12, above. 19-36 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate to the facts found. 37 Adopted in paragraph 10. 38-43 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. 44 Adopted in paragraph 10. 45-46 Adopted in substance in paragraph 24. 47, 48 Adopted in part in paragraph 9. The extent of use was not established. Rejected, except as to the existence of the injunction, which is adopted in paragraph 20. This injunction was apparently the result of neighbors' concern over a proposed rock concert to be held at the site. Adopted in paragraph 19. 51-53 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. 54, 55 Rejected as unsupported by the weight of evidence. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence. Adopted in paragraph 12. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. 59-63 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. 64-79 Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 80-81 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 85-90 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. Adopted in substance in paragraph 9. Rejected as contrary to the evidence (the "efficiency" of the bathing area). Adopted in part in paragraph 20, otherwise rejected as unnecessary. 94-99 Rejected as cumulative. These same facts are addressed above. 100-101 Adopted in part in paragraph 22. 102-168 Rejected as cumulative. These same facts are addressed above. 109-113 Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 114 Rejected as cumulative 115-118 Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as unnecessary and irrelevant. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. FACTS PROPOSED BY PETITIONER STS Adopted in substance in paragraphs 1 and 5. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 3 and 4. Adopted in paragraphs 6 and 7. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5. Addressed in the Preliminary Statement. Adopted in paragraph 11, conclusions of law. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 24 and 25. Adopted in paragraphs 19 and 25. Adopted in substance in paragraphs 22 and 23. Adopted in paragraph 33. Adopted in substance in paragraph 17. Adopted in substance in paragraph 15. Adopted in substance in paragraph 16. Rejected as contrary to the evidence. 19-22 Rejected as unnecessary or subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Routa, Esquire P.O. Box 6506 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6506 Frank Matthews, Esquire Kathleen Blizzard, Esquire P.O. Box 6526 Tallahassee, FL 32314-6526 Wayne E. Flowers, Esquire P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Henry Dean, Executive Director P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 =================================================================
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 This case presents two questions for consideration. The first question concerns the Petitioners' contention that the grant of the permit at issue must be considered contemporaneously with the matters of file in the application made by the Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, File No. 64-24208, pending before the Department. From the point of view of the Petitioners, should this contemporaneous review process be afforded, then the current permit would not be granted due to the alleged deficiencies associated with the application, File No. 64-24208. The second question to be answered in this case concerns the dispute between the Respondents on the issue of water quality monitoring as a condition to granting the permit sought herein. The Respondent Department would have the applicant monitor in six lakes in the area of the project and the applicant would restrict its monitoring activity to three lakes in the project area. The Petitioners support the Department in its position on the monitoring question. 1/
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, The Deltona Corporation, has made application with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, to effect drainage system improvements to a land locked conveyance network which consists of the enlargement and regrading 990 lineal feet of existing channel cross- section and the installation of additional culverts and control structures at road crossings. The project also involves repairs and replacement of a damaged culvert. The work would be accomplished by land based equipment transported to the work site by existing overland routes. The excavated sand fill would be placed on upland property owned by The Deltona Corporation. The details of the project and data related to the geographical area may be found in the Joint Exhibit I admitted into evidence. The date of the application for permit is December 12, 1979. On January 25, 1980, the Department of Environmental Regulation sent out a notice of the pending review by the Department of the permit application. After receipt of that notice, attorney for the Petitioners, on February 12, 1980, wrote to the Department expressing the objection to the project made by property owners in the area of the project site, together with a list of those owners found in an attached Petition of owners' names and addresses. A copy of this letter and attached Petition may be found as Joint Exhibit No. VII admitted into evidence. Subsequent to the receipt of the statement of objections, the Department issued a construction permit dated April 30, 1980, subject to conditions. A copy of this permit may be found as Joint Exhibit No. VIII admitted into evidence. The Petitioners, through their counsel, then filed a formal petition dated May 6, 1980, which was the vehicle utilized in establishing the details of this dispute and was the basis for the Department Secretary forwarding the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration by a hearing officer in keeping with the provisions of Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The hearing was conducted on October 16, 1980, and the Petitioners' position was more specifically defined in the course of that hearing and the claim as described in the issue statement of this order constitutes the substance of the Petitioners' position. 2/ Joint Exhibit No. I; petitioners' Exhibit No. 1 and Respondent Deltona's Exhibits 1, 2 and 4 constitute sketches and aerial photographs of the general project area. Joint Exhibit No. 1 identifies the work area with more particularity. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 indicates the desired flow pattern of the water through the various lake systems and indicates whether the flow is by gravity flow or pump flow. This drawing depicts the proposed channels and structural improvements that would be involved. The Department has indicated that all the regulatory concerns which it has about the project associated with Permit No. 64-26478-4E, the permit in question, have been adequately addressed, subject to the conditions set forth in the permit document. Joint Exhibit Nos. V and VI; Respondent Deltona's Exhibit Nos. 5, 6 and 7; and the Petitioners Exhibit No. 2 are exhibits pertaining to water quality concerns, to include sample results. The testing and other information provided indicates that the project as contemplaced, would meat the regulatory parameters set forth in Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 17-3 and 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The Department in expressing its concern that continued water quality monitoring be conducted has indicated that it feels that future periodic monitoring should be done in Jenkins Pond, Lake Big, Lake Diana, McGarity Lake, Sidney Lake and Lake Mitnik. The Respondent Deltona would only conduct this monitoring in the first three lakes named. By looking at the Respondent Deltona's Exhibit No. 2, it could be seen that all of the aforementioned lakes would be in the same basic flow pattern. Of the system of lakes, the area around McGarity Lake is the most highly developed and and has the greatest potential for causing unacceptable pollution. That pollution could be carried through the other lakes within the system as described in view of the potential of the system, if the project is built, to convey a greater volume of water at a higher rate of flow. A more expansive water quality monitoring system within six lakes as opposed to three lakes would increase the opportunity to discover potential hazards from pollutant at an earlier data. This is particularly so by using lakes such as McGarity Lake where there is a higher level of developmental build-out.
