“Thanks to all who showed up and participated. A special thanks to the RPC and CHNEP for the use of the hall. It was a great meeting location...” – says Rae Ann Wessel, Natural Resource Policy Director, after River debate of one DEP reclassification meeting in South Florida on January 30, 2007 .
The upshot from the PAC meeting was that they committed to the matrix and will finalize the development of criteria for the different levels in the next 2 months. In April DEP will meet with the PAC again to review and discuss the matrix with criteria.
The matrix includes HU5 which is characterized as unswimmable w/protection of fish consumption. When I asked why anyone would want to eat fish from waters considered a hazard from Human contact I was told this would be appropriate for Port facilities and STA's, like our C43 reservoir!
I was very surprised that Jerry Brooks broached an issue I raised at the previous meeting, that of not creating an HU7 equivalent to Class V of which FL has no waters.
I was also surprised when Phil Parsons (FL Sugar representative) suggested maybe we should stick with 4 human uses.
Jennifer Hecker, Natural Resource Policy Manager of Conservancy of Southwest Florida added: “When US Sugar Attorney Phil Parsons suggested just having HU 1-4, it was very interesting that SFWMD representative immediately piped up to keep HU 5-7, as "parking spots" just in case a need should arise. Definitely think the reservoirs are being planned for one of those categories... The Conservancy expressed our opposition to the effort to create new classifications of use and will be sending a comment letter to that effect - an alternative idea we're exploring is proposing a "Site Specific Alternative Use" similar to their existing "Site Specific Alternative Criteria" provision, which would require more demonstration and burden on the applicant/petitioner to change a waterbody from a current designated use than the current reclassification approach...but would give them the flexibility they desire for exceptional situations... (i.e. the infamous "concrete ditch" example). However, our legal counsel is determining whether this is compliant with the Clean Water Act. We'll send along a copy of our comment letter when it's available”.
Process/Timeline
In the next few months DEP is on track to draft a recommendation letter/report for the DEP Secretary on designated uses. The PAC will have one final(?) meeting to review the proposal before it goes to Secretary Sole. The Secretary will decide whether to go forward. If he does recommend proceeding the process is: Public workshops are held for public comment the proposal goes to rulemaking. The ERC hears the proposal (anticipated to take several briefings). The proposal is submitted to EPA. Once EPA approves it becomes the new classification system.
DEP indicated that at any point the process can be challenged. If it is challenged at the State level nothing goes into effect until a ruling is issued by a Judge. If it is challenged at the Federal level the changes go into effect and are the rules the State operates under until a judge rules.
Another issue that was not discussed is Table 5 that deals with Bacteriological quality, specifically fecal coliforms which questions if a standard is warranted for HU 4 &5 and indicates this criterion is currently not applicable to class HU6 and 7.
In addition to this review of the DU matrix, including the retention of HU7, the State will also have to create a process and criteria for the Use Attainability Analysis (UAA), the process by which waters are petitioned to be moved from one classification to another. Jerry indicated that this PAC or another PAC may be created for that development.
Stay tuned!
Rae Ann Wessel
Natural Resource Policy Director
Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation