The Issue The issue in this case is whether, and under what conditions, the Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District (District), should grant Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 40-109-81153-1 authorizing Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn (Ginns or Applicants), to construct a 136-unit single-family residential development with associated surface water management system.
Findings Of Fact The Parties and Proposed Project Respondent, the District, is a special taxing district created by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, charged with the duty to prevent harm to the water resources of the District, and to administer and enforce the cited statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules promulgated by the District under the authority of those statutes. (Unless otherwise stated, all Florida Statutes refer to the 2003 codification, and all Florida Administrative Code Rules refer to the current codification.) Respondents, Jay and Linda Ginn, are the owners of 47 acres of land located just west of the City of St. Augustine in St. Johns County, Florida. They are seeking ERP Permit No. 40- 109-81153-1 from the District to construct a 136-acre residential community and associated surface water management facilities on the property, to be known as Ravenswood Forest. The 47-acre project site is predominantly uplands, with a large (10.98-acre) wetland (Wetland 1) located on the eastern boundary and completely separating the uplands on the project site from adjacent properties to the east. While the central portion of the site is mostly a sand pine vegetated community, and the western portion is largely a pine flatwood community, there are six other smaller wetlands scattered within the upland areas lying west of Wetland 1, each numbered separately, 2 through 7. The site is currently undeveloped except for some cleared areas that are used as dirt road trails and a borrow pit or pond excavated in the central part of the site. This clearing and excavation was accomplished in the 1980’s for a project that was never completed. The project site is bordered on the north by Ravenswood Drive. On the east lies an existing residential development probably constructed in the 1970’s; to the west of the project site is a power-line easement; and to the south is a Time Warner cable facility. The land elevations at the project site are generally higher on the west and slope off to Wetland 1 on the east. Under current conditions, water generally drains from west to east into Wetland 1. Some water from the site, as well as some water entering the site from off-site properties to the west, flows into the existing pond or borrow pit located in the central portion of the site. Under extreme rainfall conditions, the borrow pit/pond can reach a stage that allows it to overflow and discharge into Wetland 1. Some off-site water also enters Wetland 1 at its north end. Water that originates from properties to the west of the Ravenswood site is conveyed through ditches to the roadside ditch that runs along the south side of Ravenswood Drive. Water in this roadside ditch ultimately enters Wetland 1 at its north end and flows south. Once in Wetland 1, water moves north to south. Water leaves the part of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site and continues to flow south through ditches and culverts ultimately to the San Sebastian River. The Wetland 1 system is contiguous with wetlands located on property owned by Petitioner, Marilyn McMulkin. Mrs. McMulkin lives on Hibiscus Street to the east of the project. Mrs. McMulkin is disabled and enjoys observing wildlife from her home. Mrs. McMulkin has observed woodstorks, kites, deer, cardinals, birds, otter, indigo snake, flying squirrels, gopher tortoises, and (more recently) bald eagles on her property or around the neighborhood. Mrs. McMulkin informed the District of the presence of the bald eagle in 2002, but it was not discovered until November of 2003 that there was an eagle nest on the Ginns property in Wetland 1. Petitioner, Diane Mills, owns a house and property on Hibiscus Street to the east of the Project. The proposed stormwater discharge for the Project is to a wetland system that is contiguous with a wetland system that is in close proximity to Mrs. Mills' property. Petitioners' property is not located in a flood plain identified by FEMA. Nevertheless, Petitioners' property experiences flooding. At times, the flooding has come through Mrs. McMulkin's house and exited out the front door. The flood water, which can be 18-24 inches high in some places on Mrs. McMulkin's property, comes across her backyard, goes through or around her house, enters Hibiscus Street and turns north. The flooding started in the late 1980's and comes from the north and west, from the Ginns' property. The flooding started after Mr. Clyatt Powell, a previous co-owner of the Ravenswood property, started clearing and creating fill roads on the property using dirt excavated from the property. The flooding now occurs every year and has increased in duration and frequency; the flooding gets worse after the rain stops and hours pass. The evidence, including Petitioners' Exhibit 1, indicated that there are numerous other possible reasons, besides activities on the Ginns' property in the late 1980's, for the onset and exacerbation of Petitioners' flooding problems, including: failure to properly maintain existing drainage facilities; other development in the area; and failure to improve drainage facilities as development proceeds. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners have standing to object to ERP Permit No. 40-109-81153-1. Project Description As indicated, water that originates west of the project site currently enters the project site in two ways: (1) it moves across the western project boundary; and (2) it travels north to a ditch located on the south side of Ravenswood Drive and is conveyed to Wetland 1. The offsite water that moves across the western project boundary comes from a 16-acre area identified as Basin C (called Basin 4 post-development). The offsite water that moves north to the ditch and enters Wetland 1 comes from a 106.87-acre area identified as Basin D (called Basin 5 post-development). The project’s stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities include two connected wet detention ponds with an outfall to a wetland on the eastern portion of the project site. Stormwater from most of the project site will be conveyed to a pond, or detention area (DA) DA-1, which will be located near (and partially coinciding with the location of) the existing pond or borrow pit. The water elevation in DA-1 will be controlled at a level of 26 feet. Water from DA-1 will spill over through a control structure into a pipe that will convey the spill-over to DA-2. In addition to the spill-over from DA-1, offsite water that currently enters the project site across the western boundary will be conveyed to a wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site. At that point, some of the water will be taken into DA-2 through an inlet structure. The water elevation in DA-2 will be controlled at level 21. Water from DA-2 will be released by a control structure to a spreader swale in Wetland 1. While some of the water conveyed to the wetland area at the southwest corner of the project site will enter DA-2, as described, some will discharge over an irregular weir (a low area that holds water until it stages up and flows out) and move around the southern boundary of the project site and flow east into Wetland 1. Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre onsite portion of a larger offsite wetland area extending to the south and east (which includes the wetlands on Mrs. McMulkin's property). For purposes of an Overall Watershed Study performed by the Ginns' engineering consultant, the combined onsite and offsite wetlands was designated Node 98 (pre-development) and Node 99 (post- development). From those areas, water drains south to ditches and culverts and eventually to the San Sebastian River. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers, if needed. In addition, the District's TSR imposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. The District's TSR also imposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. Wetland Impacts Onsite Wetlands Wetland 1 is a 10.98-acre mixed-forested wetland system. Its overall condition is good. It has a variety of vegetative strata, a mature canopy, dense understory and groundcover, open water areas, and permanent water of varying levels over the course of a year. These attributes allow for species diversity. Although surrounded by development, the wetland is a good source for a variety of species to forage, breed, nest, and roost. In terms of vegetation, the wetland is not unique to northeast Florida, but in November 2003 an eagle nest was discovered in it. A second wetland area onsite (Wetland 2) is a 0.29-acre coniferous depression located near the western boundary of the site. The overall value of the functions provided by Wetland 2 is minimal or low. It has a fairly sparse pine canopy and scattered ferns provide for little refuge and nesting. Water does stand in it, but not for extended periods of time, which does not allow for breeding of most amphibians. The vegetation and inundation do not foster lower trophic animals. For that reason, although the semi-open canopy would be conducive to use by woodstorks, birds and small mammals do not forage there. A third wetland area onsite (Wetland 3) is a 0.28-acre mixed-forested wetland on the northern portion of the site. The quality of Wetland 3 is low. A 24-inch culvert drains the area into a 600-foot long drainage ditch along the south side of Ravenswood Drive leading to Wetland 1. As a result, its hydroperiod is reduced and, although it has a healthy pine and cypress canopy, it also has invasive Chinese tallow and upland species, along with some maple. The mature canopy and its proximity to Ravenswood Drive would allow for nesting, but no use of the wetland by listed species has been observed. In order to return Wetland 3 to being productive, its hydroperiod would have to be restored by eliminating the connection to the Ravenswood Drive ditch. A fourth wetland area onsite (Wetland 4) is a 0.01- acre portion of a mixed-forested wetland on the western boundary of the site that extends offsite to the west. Its value is poor because: a power line easement runs through it; it has been used as a trail road, so it is void of vegetation; and it is such a small fringe of an offsite wetland that it does not provide much habitat value. A fifth wetland area onsite (Wetland 5) is a 0.01-acre portion of the same offsite mixed-forested wetland that Wetland 4 is part of. Wetland 5 has a cleared trail road through its upland fringe. Wetland 5 has moderate value. It is vegetated except on its upland side (although its vegetation is not unique to northeast Florida), has a nice canopy, and provides fish and wildlife value (although not as much as the interior of the offsite wetland). A sixth wetland area onsite (Wetland 6) is a 0.28-acre wetland located in the western portion of the site. It is a depression with a coniferous-dominated canopy with some bays and a sparse understory of ferns and cord grass that is of moderate value overall. It does not connect with any other wetlands by standing or flowing water and is not unique. It has water in it sufficient to allow breeding, so there would be foraging in it. Although not discovered by the Ginns' consultants initially, a great blue heron has been observed utilizing the wetland. No listed species have been observed using it. Wetland 6 could be good gopher frog habitat due to its isolation near uplands and its intermittent inundation, limiting predation by fish. In addition, four gopher tortoise burrows have been identified in uplands on the project site, and gopher frogs use gopher tortoise burrows. The gopher frog is not a listed species; the gopher tortoise is listed by the State of Florida as a species of special concern but is not aquatic or wetland-dependent. Woodstorks are listed as endangered. Although no woodstorks were observed using Wetland 6, they rely on isolated wetlands drying down to concentrate fish and prey in the isolated wetlands. With its semi-open canopy, Wetland 6 could be used by woodstorks, which have a wingspan similar to great blue herons, which were seen using Wetland 6. However, Wetland would not provide a significant food source for wading birds such as woodstorks. The other surface water area onsite (Wetland 7) is the existing 0.97-acre pond or borrow pit in the southwest portion of the project site. The pond is man-made with a narrow littoral shelf dominated by torpedo grass; levels appears to fluctuate as groundwater does; and it is not unique. It connects to Wetland 1 during seasonal high water. It has some fish, but the steep slope to its littoral shelf minimizes the shelf's value for fish, tadpoles, and larvae stage for amphibians because fish can forage easily on the shelf. The Ginns propose to fill Wetlands 2, 3, 4, and 6; to not impact Wetland 5; and to fill a 0.45-acre portion of Wetland and dredge the remaining part into DA-1. Also, 0.18 acre of Wetland 1 (0.03 acre is offsite) will be temporarily disturbed during installation of the utility lines to provide service to the project. Individually and cumulatively, the wetlands that are less than 0.5-acre--Wetlands 3, 6, 2, 4, and 5--are low quality and not more than minimal value to fish and wildlife except for Wetland 5, because it is a viable part of an offsite wetland with value. While the Ginns have sought a permit to fill Wetland 4, they actually do not intend to fill it. Instead, they will simply treat the wetland as filled for the purpose of avoiding a County requirement of providing a wetland buffer and setback, which would inhibit the development of three lots. Offsite Wetlands The proposed project would not be expected to have an impact on offsite wetlands. Neither DA-1 nor DA-2, especially with the special conditions imposed by the District, will draw down offsite wetlands. The seasonal high water (SHW) table in the area of DA- 1 is estimated at elevation 26 to 29. With a SHW table of 26, DA-1 will not influence groundwater. Even with a SHW table of 29, DA-1 will not influence the groundwater beyond the project's western boundary. DA-1 will not adversely affect offsite wetlands. A MODFLOW model was run to demonstrate the influence of DA-1 on nearby wetlands assuming that DA-1 would be controlled at elevation 21, that the groundwater elevation was 29, and that no cutoff wall or liner would be present. The model results demonstrated that the influence of DA-1 on groundwater would barely extend offsite. The current proposed elevation for DA-1 is 26, which is higher than the elevation used in the model and which would result in less influence on groundwater. The seasonal high water table in the area of DA-2 is 28.5 to 29.5. A cutoff wall is proposed to be installed around the western portion of DA-2 to prevent it from drawing down the water levels in the adjacent wetlands such that the wetlands would be adversely affected. The vertical cutoff wall will be constructed of clay and will extend from the land surface down to an existing horizontal layer of relatively impermeable soil called hardpan. The cutoff wall tied into the hardpan would act as a barrier to vertical and horizontal groundwater flow, essentially severing the flow. A MODFLOW model demonstrated that DA-2 with the cutoff wall will not draw down the adjacent wetlands. The blow counts shown on the boring logs and the permeability rates of soils at the proposed location of DA-2 indicate the presence of hardpan. The hardpan is present in the area of DA-2 at approximately 10 to 15 feet below the land surface. The thickness of the hardpan layer is at least 5 feet. The Ginns measured the permeability of hardpan in various locations on the project site. The cutoff wall design is based on tying into a hardpan layer with a permeability of 0.052 feet per day. Because permeability may vary across the project site, the District recommended a permit condition that would require a professional engineer to test for the presence and permeability of the hardpan along the length of the cutoff wall. If the hardpan is not continuous, or if its permeability is higher than 0.052 feet per day, then a liner will be required to be installed instead of a cutoff wall. The liner would be installed under the western third of DA-2, west of a north-south line connecting the easterly ends of the cutoff wall. (The location of the liner is indicated in yellow on Applicants' Exhibit 5B, sheet 8, and is described in District Exhibit 10.) The liner would be 2 feet thick and constructed of clay with a permeability of no more than 1 x 10-6 centimeters per second. A liner on a portion of the bottom of pond DA-2 will horizontally sever a portion of the pond bottom from the groundwater to negate the influence of DA-2 on groundwater in the area. A clay liner would function to prevent adverse drawdown impacts to adjacent wetlands. The project, with either a cutoff wall or a clay liner, will not result in a drawdown of the groundwater table such that adjacent wetlands would be adversely affected. Reduction and Elimination of Impacts The Ginns evaluated practicable design alternatives for eliminating the temporary impact to 0.18-acre of Wetland 1. The analysis indicated that routing the proposed utility services around the project site was possible but would require a lift station that would cost approximately $80,000 to $100,000. The impact avoided is a temporary impact; it is likely that the area to be impacted can be successfully reestablished and restored; and preservation of Wetland 1 is proposed to address lag-time for reestablishment. It was determined by the Ginns and District staff that the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Petitioners put on evidence to question the validity of the Wetland 1 reduction/elimination analysis. First, Mr. Mills, who has experience installing sewer/water pipes, testified to his belief that a lift station would cost only approximately $50,000 to $60,000. He also pointed out that using a lift station and forced main method would make it approximately a third less expensive per linear foot to install the pipe line itself. This is because a gravity sewer, which would be required if a lift station and forced main is not used, must be laid at precise grades, making it is more difficult and costly to lay. However, Mr. Mills acknowledged that, due to the relatively narrow width of the right-of-way along Ravenswood Drive, it would be necessary to obtain a waiver of the usual requirement to separate the sewer and water lines by at least 10 feet. He thought that a five-foot separation waiver would be possible for his proposed alternative route if the "horizontal" separation was at least 18 inches. (It is not clear what Mr. Mills meant by "horizontal.") In addition, he did not analyze how the per-linear-foot cost savings from use of the lift station and forced main sewer would compare to the additional cost of the lift station, even if it is just $50,000 to $60,000, as he thinks. However, it would appear that his proposed alternative route is approximately three times as long as the route proposed by the Ginns, so that the total cost of laying the sewer pipeline itself would be approximately equal under either proposal. Mr. Mills's testimony also suggested that the Ginns did not account for the possible disturbance to the Ravenswood eagles if an emergency repair to the water/sewer is necessary during nesting season. While this is a possibility, it is speculative. There is no reason to think such emergency repairs will be necessary, at least during the approximately 20-year life expectancy of the water/sewer line. Practicable design modifications to avoid filling Wetland 4 also were evaluated. Not filling Wetland 4 would trigger St. Johns County wetland setback requirements that would eliminate three building lots, at a cost of $4,684 per lot. Meanwhile, the impacted wetland is small and of poor quality, and the filling of Wetland 4 can be offset by proposed mitigation. As a result, the costs of avoidance outweigh the environmental benefits of avoidance. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 2 and 6, and the District did not require them. As explained in testimony, the District interprets ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1 to require a reduction/elimination analysis only when a project will result in adverse impacts such that it does not meet the requirements of ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.3.7 and 12.2.5 through 12.3.8. But ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with those sections for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances not applicable to this case: if they are used by threatened or endangered species; if they are located in an area of critical state concern; if they are connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and if they are "more than minimal value," singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. See ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(a) through (d). Under the District's interpretation of ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, since ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1 does not require compliance with the very sections that determine whether a reduction/elimination analysis is necessary under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.1, such an analysis is not required for Wetlands 2 and 6. Relying on ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a., the Ginns did not perform reduction/elimination analyses for Wetlands 3 and 7, and the District did not require them, because the functions provided by Wetlands 3 and 7 are "low" and the proposed mitigation to offset the impacts to these wetlands provides greater long-term value. Petitioners' environmental expert opined that an reduction/elimination analysis should have been performed for all of the wetlands on the project site, even if isolated and less than half an acre size, because all of the wetlands on the project site have ecological value. For example, small and isolated wetlands can be have value for amphibians, including the gopher frog. But his position does not square with the ERP- A.H., as reasonably interpreted by the District. Specifically, the tests are "more than minimal value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) and "low value" under ERP-A.H. 12.2.1.2, a. Secondary Impacts The impacts to the wetlands and other surface waters are not expected to result in adverse secondary impacts to the water resources, including endangered or threatened listed species or their habitats. In accordance with ERP-A.H. 12.2.7(a), the design incorporates upland preserved buffers with minimum widths of 15 feet and an average width of 25 feet around the wetlands that will not be impacted. Sediment and erosion control measures will assure that the construction will not have an adverse secondary impact on water quality. The proposed development will be served by central water and sewer provided by the City of St. Augustine, eliminating a potential for secondary impacts to water quality from residential septic tanks or septic drainfields. In order to provide additional measures to avoid secondary impacts to Wetland 1, which is the location of the bald eagles’ nest, the Applicants proposed additional protections in a Bald Eagle Management Plan (BEMP) (App. Ex. 14). Under the terms of the BEMP, all land clearing, infrastructure installation, and exterior construction on homes located within in the primary zone (a distance within 750 feet of the nest tree) is restricted to the non-nesting season (generally May 15 through September 30). In the secondary zone (area between 750 feet and 1500 feet from the nest tree), exterior construction, infrastructure installation, and land clearing may take place during the nesting season with appropriate monitoring as described in the BEMP. Proposed Mitigation The Ginns have proposed mitigation for the purpose of offsetting adverse impacts to wetland functions. They have proposed to provide mitigation for: the 0.18-acre temporary impact to Wetland 1 during installation of a water/sewer line extending from existing City of St. Augustine service to the east (at Theodore Street); the impacts to Wetlands 3, 4 and 7; and the secondary impacts to the offsite portion of Wetland 4. The Ginns propose to grade the 0.18-acre temporary impact area in Wetland 1 to pre-construction elevations, plant 72 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. Although the easement is 30 feet in width, work will be confined to 20 feet where vegetation will be cleared, the top 1 foot of soil removed and stored for replacing, the trench excavated, the utility lines installed, the trench refilled, the top foot replaced, the area replanted with native vegetation, and re- vegetation monitored. To facilitate success, the historic water regime and historic seed source will give the re-vegetation effort a jump-start. The Ginns propose to restore and enhance a 0.12-acre portion of Wetland 1 that has been degraded by a trail road. They will grade the area to match the elevations of adjacent wetland, plant 48 trees, and monitor annually for 5 years to document success. This is proposed to offset the impacts to Wetland 4. The proposed grading, replanting, and monitoring will allow the area to be enhanced causing an environmental benefit. The Ginns propose to preserve 10.58 acres of wetlands and 3.99 acres of uplands in Wetland 1, 1 acre of upland buffers adjacent to Wetlands 1 and 5, and the 0.01 acre wetland in Wetland 5. The upland buffer will be a minimum of 15 feet wide with an average of 25 feet wide for Wetland 1 and 25 feet wide for Wetland 5. A conservation easement will be conveyed to the District to preserve Wetlands 1 and 5, the upland buffers, and the wetland restoration and enhancement areas. The preservation of wetlands provides mitigation value because it provides perpetual protection by ensuring that development will not occur in those areas, as well as preventing activities that are unregulated from occurring there. This will allow the conserved lands to mature and provide more forage and habitat for the wildlife that would utilize those areas. Mitigation for Wetlands 2 and 6 was not provided because they are isolated wetlands less than 0.5-acre in size that are not used by threatened or endangered species; are not located in an area of critical state concern; are not connected at seasonal high water level to other wetlands; and are not more than minimal value, singularly or cumulatively, to fish and wildlife. As previously referenced in the explanation of why no reduction/elimination analysis was required for these wetlands, ERP-A.H. 12.2.2.1(d) does not require compliance with under ERP- A.H. 12.3 through 12.3.8 (mitigation requirements) for regulated activities in isolated wetlands less than one-half acre in size except in circumstances found not to be present in this case. See Finding 44, supra. The cost of the proposed mitigation will be approximately $15,000. Operation and Maintenance A non-profit corporation that is a homeowners association (HOA) will be responsible for the operation, maintenance, and repair of the surface water management system. An HOA is a typical operation and maintenance entity for a subdivision and is an acceptable entity under District rules. See ERP-A.H. 7.1.1(e) and 7.1.2; Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C- 42.027(3) and (4). The Articles of Incorporation for the HOA and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions contain the language required by District rules. Water Quantity To address water quantity criteria, the Applicants' engineers ran a model (AdICPR, Version 1.4) to compare the peak rate discharge from the project in the pre-project state versus the peak rate discharge after the project is put in place. The pre-project data input into the model were defined by those conditions that existed in 1985 or 1986, prior to the partial work that was conducted, but not completed, on the site in the late 1980's. The project’s 1985/1986 site condition included a feature called Depression A that attenuated some onsite as well as offsite stormwater. Because of work that was done on the project site after 1985/1986 (i.e., the excavation of the borrow pit and road-clearing activities in the late 1980's), the peak rate of discharge for the 1985/1986 project site condition was lower than the peak rate of discharge for today’s project site condition. (Flooding at Mrs. McMulkin's house began after the work was performed on the project site in the late 1980's.) Because this partial work conducted in the late 1980's increased peak rate discharge from the site, by taking the pre-project conditions back to the time prior to that work, the peak rate of discharge in the 1985-86 pre-project condition was lower than it would be under today's conditions. The model results indicated that for the 25-year, 24- hour storm event, the pre-project peak rate discharge is 61.44 cubic feet per second (cfs). The post-project peak rate discharge is 28.16 cfs. Because the completed project reduces the pre-project peak rate discharges, the project will not cause any adverse flooding impacts off the property downstream. A similar analysis of the peak rate discharges under pre-project conditions that exist today (rather than in 1986) was compared to peak rate discharges for the post-project conditions. This analysis also showed post-project peak rate discharges to be less than the peak rate discharges from the site using today’s conditions as pre-project conditions. As further support to demonstrate that the project would not cause additional flooding downstream, a second modeling analysis was conducted, which is referred to as the Ravenswood Overall Watershed Model (OWM). The Applicants' engineer identified water flowing into the system from the entire watershed basin, including the project site under both the pre- and post-project conditions. The water regime was evaluated to determine what effect the proposed project will have on the overall peak rate discharges, the overall staging, and the duration of the staging within the basin that ultimately receives the water from the overall watershed. This receiving basin area was defined as the "wetland node" (Node 98 pre- project, and Node 99 post-project). As previously stated, the area within this "wetland node" includes more than just the portion of Wetland 1 that is located on the Ravenswood site. It also includes the areas to the south and east of the on-site Wetland 1 (including properties owned by the Petitioners) and extends down to an east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street. The project’s surface water management system will not discharge to a landlocked basin. The project is not located in a floodway or floodplain. The project is not located downstream of a point on a watercourse where the drainage is five square miles or more. The project is impounding water only for temporary storage purposes. Based on testimony from their experts, Petitioners contend that reasonable assurances have not been given as to water quantity criteria due to various alleged problems regarding the modeling performed by the Ginns' engineer. Tailwater Elevations First, they raise what they call "the tailwater problem." According to Petitioners, the Ginns' modeling was flawed because it did not use a 19.27-foot SHW elevation in Wetland 1 as the tailwater elevation. The 19.27-foot SHW was identified by the Ginns' biologist in the Wetland 1 near the location of the proposed utility line crossing the wetland and was used as the pre-development tailwater in the analysis of the project site. The post-development tailwater condition was different because constructing the project would change the discharge point, and "tailwater" refers to the water elevation at the final discharge of the stormwater management system. (SW- A.H., Section 9.7) The post-development tailwater was 21 feet, which reflects the elevation of the top of the spreader swale that will be constructed, and it rose to 21.3 feet at peak flow over that berm. For the OWM, the final discharge point of the system being modeled was the east-west ditch located just north of Josiah Street, where the tailwater elevation was approximately 18.1 feet, not the 19.27 feet SHW mark to the north in Wetland 1. The tailwater condition used in the modeling was correct. Petitioners also mention in their PRO that "the Applicants' analysis shows that, at certain times after the 25 year, 24 hour storm event, in the post development state, Wetland 1 will have higher staging than in the predevelopment state." But those stages are after peak flows have occurred and are below flood stages. This is not an expected result of post- development peak-flow attenuation. Watershed Criticism The second major criticism Petitioners level at the Applicants' modeling is that parts of the applicable watershed basins were omitted. These include basins to the west of the project site, as well as basins to the north of the site, which Petitioners lumped into the so-called "tailwater problem." Petitioners sought to show that the basins identified by the Ginns as draining onto the project site from the west were undersized, thus underestimating the amount of offsite water flowing onto the project site. With respect to Basin C, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should be 60 acres instead of 30 acres in size, and that consequently more water would flow into pond DA-2 and thus reduce the residence time of the permanent pool volume. In fact, Basin C is 16 acres in size, not 30 acres. The water from Basin C moves onto the project site over the western project boundary. A portion of the water from Basin C will be directed to pond DA-2 through an inlet structure, and the rest will move over an irregular weir and around the project site. With respect to Basin D, Petitioners' witness testified that the basin should encompass an additional 20 acres to the west and north. West of Basin D, there are ditches routing water flow away from the watershed, so it is unclear how water from an additional 20 acres would enter the watershed. The western boundary of the OWM is consistent with the western boundaries delineated in two studies performed for St. Johns County. Petitioners' witness testified that all of the water from the western offsite basins currently travels across the project site's western boundary, and that in post-development all of that water will enter pond DA-2 through the inlet structure. In fact, currently only the water from Basin C flows across the project site's western boundary. Post-development, only a portion of water from Basin C will enter pond DA-2. Currently and post-development, the water in Basin D travels north to a ditch south of Ravenswood Drive and discharges into Wetland 1. Petitioners also sought to show that a 50-acre area north of the project site should have been included in the OWM. Petitioners' witness testified that there is a "strong possibility" that the northern area drains into the project site by means of overtopping Ravenswood Drive. The witness' estimate of 50 acres was based on review of topographical maps; the witness has not seen water flowing over Ravenswood Drive. The Ginns' engineer testified that the area north of Ravenswood Drive does not enter the project site, based on his review of two reports prepared by different engineering firms for St. Johns County, conversations with one of those engineering firms, conversations with the St. Johns County engineer, reviews of aerials and contour maps, and site observations. Based on site observations, the area north of the project site drains north and then east. One report prepared for St. Johns County did not include the northern area in the watershed, and the other report included an area to the north consisting of 12 acres. The Ginns' engineer added the 12-acre area to the OWM and assumed the existence of an unobstructed culvert through which this additional water could enter Wetland 1, but the model results showed no effect of the project on stages or duration in the wetland. Even if a 50-acre area were included in the OWM, the result would be an increase in both pre-development and post- development peak rates of discharge. So long as the post- development peak rate of discharge is lower than the pre- development peak rate of discharge, then the conveyance system downstream will experience a rate of water flow that is the same or lower than before the project, and the project will not cause adverse flooding impacts offsite. Petitioners' witness did not have any documents to support his version of the delineations of Basins C and D and the area north of Ravenswood Drive. Time of Concentration Time of concentration (TC) is the time that it takes a drop of water to travel from the hydraulically most distant point in a watershed. Petitioners sought to show that the TC used for Basin C was incorrect. Part of Petitioners' rationale is related to their criticism of the watersheds used in the Ginns' modeling. Petitioners' witness testified that the TC was too low because the distance traveled in Basin C should be longer because Basin C should be larger. The appropriateness of the Basin C delineation already has been addressed. See Finding 71, supra. Petitioners' witness also testified that the TC used for the post-development analysis was too high because water will travel faster after development. However, the project will not develop Basins C and D, and thus using the same TC in pre- development and post-development is appropriate. The project will develop Basins A and B (called Basins 1, 2, and 3 post- development), and the post-development TC for those basins were, in fact, lower than those used in the pre-development analysis. Groundwater Infiltration in DA-2 One witness for Petitioners opined that groundwater would move up through the bottom of DA-2 as a result of upwelling (also referred to as infiltration or seepage), such that 1,941 gallons per day (gpd) would enter DA-2. That witness agreed that if a liner were installed in a portion of DA-2, the liner would reduce upwelling in a portion of the pond. Another witness for Petitioners opined that 200 gpd of groundwater would enter the eastern part and 20,000 gpd would enter the western part of DA-2. Although that witness stated that upwelling of 200 gpd is not a significant input and that upwelling of 20,000 gpd is a significant input, he had not performed calculations to determine the significance. Even if more than 20,000 gpd of groundwater entered DA-2, DA-2 will provide sufficient permanent pool residence time without any change to the currently designed permanent pool size or the orifice size. Although part of one system, even if DA-2 is considered separate from DA-1, DA-2 is designed to provide an additional permanent pool volume of 6.57 acre-feet (in addition to the 20.5 acre/feet provided by DA-1). This 6.57 acre-feet provided by DA-2, is more than the 4.889 acre-feet of permanent pool volume that would be necessary to achieve a 21-day residence time for the 24+ acres that discharge directly into DA-2, as well as background seepage into DA-2 at a rate of 0.0403 cfs, which is more upwelling than estimated by Petitioners' two witnesses. There is adequate permanent pool volume in DA-2 to accommodate the entire flow from Basin C and for water entering through the pond bottom and pond sides and provide at least 21 days of residence time. Water Quality Criteria Presumptive Water Quality The stormwater system proposed by the Ginns is designed in accordance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 40C-42.024, 40C-42.025, and 40C-42.026(4). Wet detention ponds must be designed for a permanent pool residence time of 14 days with a littoral zone, or for a residence time of 21 days without a littoral zone, which is the case for this project. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(c) and (d). DA-1 and DA-2 contain sufficient permanent pool volume to provide a residence time of 31.5 days, which is the amount of time required for projects that discharge to Class II Outstanding Florida Waters, even though the receiving waterbody for this project is classified as Class III Waters. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40C-42.026(4)(k)1. Best management practices will be used during project construction to address erosion and sediment control. Such measures will include silt fences around the construction site, hay bales in ditches and inlets, and maintenance of construction equipment to prevent release of pollutants, and may include staked sod on banks and turbidity barriers if needed. In addition, the District proposed permit conditions that require erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented. (Dist. Ex. 1, pp. 8-9, #4; Dist. Ex. 2, p. 1, ##3, 4, and 5, and p. 6, #10). ERP/MSSW/Stormwater Special Conditions incorporated into the proposed permit require that all wetland areas or water bodies outside the specific limits of construction must be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excess turbidity, and dewatering. (Dist. Ex. 2). The District also proposed a permit condition that requires District approval of a dewatering plan for construction, including DA-1 and DA-2, within 30 days of permit issuance and prior to construction. The Ginns intend to retain the dewatering from construction on the project site. As previously described, Petitioners' engineering witness sought to show that DA-2 will not provide the required permanent pool residence time because Basin C should be 60 acres in size. Petitioners' environmental witness also expressed concern about the capacity of the ponds to provide the water quality treatment required to meet the presumptive water quality criteria in the rules, but those concerns were based on information he obtained from Petitioners' engineering witness. Those issues already have been addressed. See Findings 77-78, supra. Groundwater Contamination Besides those issues, Petitioners raised the issue that groundwater contamination from a former landfill nearby and from some onsite sludge and trash disposal could be drawn into the proposed stormwater management system and cause water quality violations in the receiving waters. If groundwater is contaminated, the surface water management system could allow groundwater to become surface water in proposed DA-1. St. Johns County operated a landfill from the mid-1950s to 1977 in an area northwest of the project site. The landfill accepted household and industrial waste, which was buried in groundwater, which in turn could greatly enhance the creation of leachate and impacted water. Groundwater flows from west to east in the vicinity of the landfill and the project site but there was conflicting evidence as to a minor portion of the property. The Ginns' witness testified that if the landfill extended far enough south, a small part of the project site could be downgradient from the landfill. But there was no evidence that the landfill extended that far south. Petitioners' witness testified that the groundwater flow varies on the south side of the landfill so that groundwater might flow southeast toward the site. Even if Petitioners' witness is correct, the surface water management system was designed, as Petitioners' other witness agreed, so that DA-1 would have minimal influence on groundwater near the pond. In 1989, sewage sludge and garbage were placed in a pit in the central part of the project site, north of the existing pond, which also is the area for proposed DA-1; and at various times refuse--including a couple of batteries, a few sealed buckets, and concrete--has been placed on the surface of the site. In 1989, to determine the amount of sewage and garbage on the project site, the St. Johns County Health Department chose several locations evidencing recent excavation south of Ravenswood Drive, had the areas re-excavated, and found one bag of garbage and debris such as tree stumps and palmettos. In 2001, an empty 55-gallon drum was on the site; there was no evidence what it once contained or what it contained when deposited onsite, if anything. In addition, trespassers dumped solid waste on the property from time to time. Petitioners' witness searched the site with a magnetometer and found nothing significant. On the same day, another of Petitioners’ witnesses sampled with an auger but the auger did not bore for core or any other type sample; it merely measured groundwater level. In 1985, 1999, and 2000, groundwater offsite of the project near the landfill was sampled at various times and places by various consultants to determine whether groundwater was being contaminated by the landfill. The groundwater sampling did not detect any violations of water quality standards. Consultants for the Ginns twice sampled groundwater beneath the project site and also modeled contaminant migration. The first time, in 2001, they used three wells to sample the site in the northwest for potential impacts to the property from the landfill. The second time, they sampled the site through cluster wells in the northwest, middle, and south. (Each cluster well samples in a shallow and in a deeper location.) The well locations were closest to the offsite landfill and within an area where refuse may have been buried in the north- central part of the site. Due to natural processes since 1989, no sewage sludge deposited onsite then would be expected to remain on the surface or be found in the groundwater. The evidence was that the sewage sludge and garbage were excavated. Although samples taken near the center of the property contained substances that are water quality parameters, they were not found in sufficient concentration to be water quality violations. There is an iron stain in the sand north of the existing pond in the area where pond DA-1 is to be located. Based on dissolved oxygen levels in the groundwater, Petitioners' witness suggested that the stain is due to buried sewage, but the oxygen levels are not in violation of water quality standards and, while toward the low end of not being a violation, the levels could be due to natural causes. No evidence was presented establishing that the presence of the iron stain will lead to a violation of water quality standards. Petitioners' witness, Mr. Boyes, testified that iron was a health concern. But iron itself is a secondary drinking water standard, which is not a health-based standard but pertains to odor and appearance of drinking water. See § 403.852(12) and (13), Fla. Stat. Petitioners argued that the Phase I study was defective because historical activity on the project site was not adequately addressed. But the Phase I study was only part of the evidence considered during this de novo hearing. Following up on the Phase I study, the 2001 sampling analyzed for 68 volatile organics and 72 semi-volatile organics, which would have picked up solvents, some pesticides, petroleum hydrocarbons, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons--the full range of semi-volatile and volatile organics. The sampling in August 2003 occurred because some of the semi-volatile parameters sampled earlier needed to be more precisely measured, and it was a much broader analysis that included 63 semi-volatiles, 73 volatile organic compounds, 23 polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, 25 organic phosphate pesticides, 13 chlorinated herbicides, 13 metals, and ammonia and phosphorus. The parameters for which sampling and analyses were done included parameters that were representative of contaminants in landfills that would have now spread to the project site. They also would have detected any contamination due to historical activity on the project site. Yet groundwater testing demonstrated that existing groundwater at the project site meets state water quality standards. Based on the lack of contaminants found in these samples taken from groundwater at the project site 50 years after the landfill began operation, the logical conclusion is that either groundwater does not flow from the landfill toward the project site or that the groundwater moving away from the landfill is not contaminated. Groundwater that may enter the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that will exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards. Taken together, the evidence was adequate to give reasonable assurances that groundwater entering the stormwater ponds will not contain contaminants that exceed surface water quality standards or groundwater quality standards and that water quality violations would not occur from contaminated water groundwater drawn into the proposed stormwater management system, whether from the old landfill or from onsite waste disposal. The greater weight of the evidence was that there are no violations of water quality standards in groundwater beneath the project site and that nothing has happened on the site that would cause violations to occur in the future. Contrary to Petitioners' suggestion, a permit condition requiring continued monitoring for onsite contamination is not warranted. J. Fish and Wildlife Except for the bald eagle nest, all issues regarding fish and wildlife, listed species, and their habitat as they relate to ERP-A.H. 12.2.2 through 12.2.2.4 already have been addressed. When the Ginns were made aware in November 2003 that there was an eagle nest in Wetland 1, they retained the services of Tony Steffer, an eagle expert with over 25 years of experience working specifically with eagles and eagle management issues, including extensive hands-on experience with eagles and the conduct of field studies, aerial surveys, and behavioral observations as well as numerous research projects on the bald eagle. Mr. Steffer visited the Ravenswood site on numerous occasions since the discovery of the nest, made observations, and was integral in the drafting of the Ravenswood BEMP. It is Mr. Steffer’s opinion that the proposed project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the eagles. This opinion was based on Mr. Steffer's extensive knowledge and experience with eagle behavior and human interactions. In addition, Mr. Steffer considered the physical characteristics of the Ravenswood site and the nest tree, the dense vegetation in Wetland 1 surrounding the nest site, and the existing surrounding land uses, including the existing residential community that lies a distance of about 310 feet from the nest site, the existing roadways and associated traffic, and the school (with attendant playground noise) that is to north of the site. In Mr. Steffer's opinion, the eagles are deriving their security from the buffering effects provided by the surrounding wetland. He observed that the nesting and incubating eagles were not disturbed when he set up his scope at about 300-320 feet from the tree. The BEMP requires that Wetland 1, and the upland islands located within it, be preserved and limits the work associated with the water/sewer line to the non-nesting season. With the BEMP implemented, Mr. Steffer expressed confidence that the Ravenswood eagles would be able to tolerate the proposed activities allowed under the BEMP. The Ravenswood project plans and the BEMP were reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS analyzed information in their files relating to projects which proposed activities within the primary zone of an eagle nest and reported abandoned nests. None of the reported abandoned nests could be attributed to human activities in and around the nest tree. Based on the project plans, the terms of the BEMP, and this analysis, the USFWS concluded that the Ravenswood project "is not likely to adversely affect" the bald eagles at the Ravenswood site. According to the coordination procedures agreed to and employed by the USFWS and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), the USFWS takes the lead in reviewing bald eagle issues associated with development projects. In accordance with these procedures, for the Ravenswood project, the USFWS coordinated their review and their draft comments with the FFWCC. The FFWCC concurred with the USFWS’s position that the project, with the implementation of the BEMP, will not adversely affect the Ravenswood eagles or their nest. This position by both agencies is consistent with the expert testimony of Mr. Don Palmer, which was based on his 29 years of experience with the USFWS in bald eagle and human interactions. Petitioners and their witnesses raised several valid concerns regarding the continued viability of the Ravenswood eagle nest during and after implementation of the proposed project. One concern expressed was that parts of the Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (Eagle Management Guidelines) seem inconsistent with the proposed project. For example, the Eagle Management Guidelines state: "The emphasis [of the guidelines] is to avoid or minimize detrimental human-related impacts on bald eagles, particularly during the nesting season." They also state that the primary zone, which in this case is the area within a 750 foot radius of the nest tree, is "the most critical area and must be maintained to promote acceptable conditions for eagles." They recommend no residential development within the primary zone "at any time." (Emphasis in original.) They also recommend no major activities such as land clearing and construction in the secondary zone during the nesting season because "[e]ven intermittent use or activities [of that kind] of short duration during nesting are likely to constitute disturbance." But the eagle experts explained that the Eagle Management Guidelines have not been updated since 1987, and it has been learned since then that eagles can tolerate more disturbance than was thought at that time. Another concern was that the Ravenswood eagles may have chosen the nest site in Wetland 1 not only for its insulation from existing development to the north and east but also for the relatively sparse development to the west. Along those lines, it was not clear from the evidence that the eagles are used to flying over developed land to forage on the San Sebastian River and its estuaries to the east, as the eagle experts seemed to believe. Mr. Mills testified that eagles have been seen foraging around stocked fish ponds to the west, which also could be the source of catfish bones found beneath the Ravenswood nest. But it is believed that the confident testimony of the eagle experts must be accepted and credited notwithstanding Petitioners' unspecific concerns along these lines. Finally, Petitioners expressed concern about the effectiveness of the monitoring during the nesting required under the BEMP. Some of Petitioners' witnesses related less-than-perfect experiences with eagle monitoring, including malfeasance (monitors sleeping instead of monitoring), unresponsive developers (ignoring monitors' requests to stop work because of signs of eagle disturbance, or delaying work stoppage), and indications that some eagle monitors may lack independence from the hiring developer (giving rise, in a worst case, to the question whether an illegal conspiracy exists between them to ignore signs of disturbance when no independent observer is around). Notwithstanding these concerns, Petitioners' witnesses conceded that eagle monitoring can be and is sometimes effective. If Mr. Steffer is retained as the eagle monitor for this project, or to recruit and train eagle monitors to work under his supervision, there is no reason to think that eagle monitoring in this case will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. Even if the Ginns do not retain Mr. Steffer for those purposes, the evidence did not suggest a valid reason to assume that the Ginns' proposed eagle monitoring will not be conducted in good faith and effectively. K. Other 40C-4.301 Criteria – 40C-4.301(1)(g)-(k) 40C-4.301.301(1)(g) - No minimum surface or groundwater levels or surface water flows have been established pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rules Chapter 40C-8 in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(h) - There are no works of the District in the area of the project. 40C-4.301.301(1)(i) - The proposed wet detention system is typical and is based on accepted engineering practices. Wet detention systems are one of the most easily maintained stormwater management systems and require very little maintenance, just periodically checking the outfall structure for clogging. 40C-4.301.301(1)(j) - The Ginns own the property where the project is located free from mortgages and liens. As previously indicated, they will establish an operation and maintenance entity. The cost of mitigation is less than $25,000 so that financial responsibility for mitigation was not required to be established. (Costs associated with the proposed BEMP are not included as part of the Ginns' mitigation proposal.) 40C-4.301.301(1)(k) - The project is not located in a basin subject to special criteria. Public Interest Test in 40C-4.302 The seven-factor public interest test is a balancing test. The test applies to the parts of the project that are in, on, or over wetlands, and those parts must not be contrary to the public interest unless they are located in, on, or over an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) or significantly degrade an OFW, in which case the project must be clearly in the public interest. No part of the project is located within an OFW. Balancing the public interest test factors, the project will not be contrary to the public interest. 40C-4.302(1)(a)1. - The project will not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others because the surface water management system is designed in accordance with District criteria, the post-development peak rate of discharge is less than the pre-development peak rate of discharge, and the project will not cause flooding to offsite properties. 40C-4.302(1)(a)2. - Mitigation will offset any adverse impacts of the project to the conservation of fish and wildlife or their habitats, and the BEMP is designed to prevent adverse effects on the Ravenswood eagles. Although active gopher tortoise burrows were observed on the site, the impacts to these burrows are addressed by the FFWCC’s incidental take permit. The mitigation that is required as part of that permit will adequately offset the impacts to this species. 40C-4.302(1)(a)3. - The project will not adversely affect navigation or cause harmful shoaling. The project will not adversely affect the flow of water or cause harmful erosion. The project's design includes erosion and sediment control measures. The project's design minimizes flow velocities by including flat slopes for pipes. The stormwater will be discharged through an upsized pipe, which will reduce the velocity of the water. The stormwater will discharge into a spreader swale (also called a velocity attenuation pond), which will further reduce the velocity and will prevent erosion in Wetland 1. The other findings of fact relevant to this criterion are in the section entitled "Water Quantity." See Findings 61-67, supra. 40C-4.302(1)(a)4. – Development of the project will not adversely affect the legal recreational use of the project site. (Illegal use by trespassers should not be considered under this criterion.) There also will not be any adverse impact on recreational use in the vicinity of the project site. Wetlands 1 and 5 may provide benefit to marine productivity by supplying detritus to the marine habitat, and these wetlands will remain. 40C-4.302(1)(a)5. - The project will be of a permanent nature except for the temporary impacts to Wetland 1. Mitigation will offset the temporary adverse impacts. 40C-4.302(1)(a)6. - The District found no archeological or historical resources on the site, and the District received information from the Division of Historical Resources indicating there would be no adverse impacts from this project to significant historical or archeological resources. 40C-4.302(1)(a)7. - Considering the mitigation proposal, and the proposed BEMP, there will be no adverse effects on the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed project. The proposed project is no worse than neutral measured against any one of these criteria, individually. For that reason, it must be determined that, on balance, consideration these factors indicates that the project is not contrary to the public interest. Other 40C-4.302 Criteria The proposed mitigation is located within the same drainage basin as the project and offsets the adverse impacts so the project would not cause an unacceptable cumulative impact. The project is not located in or near Class II waters. The project does not contain seawalls and is not located in an estuary or lagoon. The District reviewed a dredge and fill violation that occurred on the project site and was handled by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) in 1989. The Ginns owned the property with others in 1989. Although they did not conduct the activity that caused the violation, they took responsibility for resolving the matter in a timely manner through entry of a Consent Order. The evidence was that they complied with the terms of the Consent Order. Applicants' Exhibit 30K was a letter from DER dated February 13, 1991, verifying compliance based on a site inspection. Inexplicably, the file reference number did not match the number on the Consent Order. But Mr. Ginn testified that he has heard nothing since concerning the matter either from DER, or its successor agency (the Department of Environmental Protection), or from the District. The evidence was that the Ginns have not violated any rules described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 40C- 4.302(2). There also was no evidence of any other DER or DEP violations after 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the St. Johns River Water Management District enter a final order issuing to Jay and Linda Ginn ERP number 40-109-81153-1, subject to the conditions set forth in District Exhibits 1, 2, and 10. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2004, 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 16th day of April, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Hillside Sod Farms, Inc., is a producer of agricultural products, grass sod. Respondent, S. J . Harper Landscaping Enterprises, Inc., is a dealer of such products in the normal course of its landscaping business activity. Petitioner generally deals on a cash basis with customers, unless the customer is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the sale of agricultural products. Customers who are licensed may maintain an open account status with Petitioner. Respondent is licensed by the Department. The Respondent has maintained an open account with Petitioner since 1986. Petitioner sold Respondent grass sod by the truck load for various projects, and was given an invoice therefor. Under the terms of the account, payment was due in full the week following receipt of the sod. On November 21, 1988, including invoice number 12284, Respondent's account balance was $2,098.80. On November 25, 1988, the account balance was $3,129.12. On December 12, 1988, Respondent paid on the account the sum of $2,594.88, leaving a balance due, owing and unpaid of $534.24. Respondent's alleged that in early November, 1988 several trucks loads that were accepted by Respondent were short of sod by approximately eight pallets (each pallet contains 400 square feet of sod) Simon J. Harper, Respondent'S president, reported this fact to Petitioner's foreman, Larry Poole, at night after the work day. He did not reject the trucks with the lesser amount of sod on them, but accepted them. Respondent did not file a complaint or objection to the billing, verbally or in writing, to an officer in the Petitioner's company, although he had dealt with the company for years. Respondent estimated the amount of sod it believed they had been shorted and sent a check for the unpaid balance, less the charges for shorted sod. The amount withheld was the sum of $534.24.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Respondent to pay to the Petitioner the sum of $534.24. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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. COPIES FURNISHED: Avery P. Wisdom Vice President Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. 1620 East State Road 46 Geneva, FL 32732 Simon J. Harper President S. J. Harper Landscaping Enterprises, Inc. 205 Zenith Point Geneva, FL 32732 Clinton H. Coulter, Jr., Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Ben H. Pridgeon, Jr. Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Mallory Horne General Counsel 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 16th day of March, 2007.
Findings Of Fact By Pre-Hearing Stipulation, the parties agreed, and it is so found, that the District is a public corporation in Florida under Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 40E, F.A.C.. It exists as a multipurpose water management district with its principal office in West Palm Beach. Respondent James P. McCarthy and his wife, Rebecca, reside at 6017 Southern Road South in West Palm Beach. This property is located within Section 3, Township 44 South, Range 42 East, in Palm Beach County. On December 31, 1991, the District issued a Notice of Violation to the Respondent notifying him that his 2 inch pvc irrigation line, exposed near the top of the bank due to erosion, constituted an encroachment on the District's right-of-way adjacent to Canal 51 at the rear of his property. The line was not removed. On April 9, 1992, the District issued its Second Notice of Violation to Respondent McCarthy assessing a civil penalty in the ultimate amount of $560.00 for the same alleged encroachment, and on April 24, 1992, Mr. McCarthy filed his Petition for Formal Hearing to contest that action. Mr. McCarthy does not contest the fact that the line exists as indicated by the District but debates the allegation that it constitutes an encroachment violation requiring a permit, contending that the District has failed to properly complete the work it promised to do on his property, the completion of which is a condition precedent to the requirement for a permit. The South Florida Water Management District owns a right-of-way located on the south bank adjacent to C-51 canal in West Palm Beach, and the McCarthy's property is adjacent to that right-of-way. They have constructed a 1 1/2 inch PVC lawn irrigation line from the sprinkler system in their backyard beneath and across the District's right-of-way into the canal. According to Douglas Sykes, the District's senior engineering field representative in the area, who inspected the McCarthy's pipe line subsequent to the completion of the Corps' work, the line meets the District's standards and is permittable. All that is required is for McCarthy to make the requisite application and pay the permit fee. On April 17, 1989, the McCarthys and the District entered into a written Settlement Agreement by which both granted deeds to each other for portions of the land adjacent to the canal for the payment of the sum of $11,000.00, plus attorneys fees, to be paid to the McCarthys. This agreement did not, however, address either the slope or grade of the canal bank adjacent to the McCarthy property. The bank slope was to be constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with their proposed constructions plans. The agreement did, however, call for the McCarthys to obtain an irrigation permit pursuant to District criteria "after completion of construction." The Director of the District's Right-of-Way Division, responsible for the enforcement of the occupancy regulations in the right-of-way, considered the canal complete when the Corps ceased its construction activities and removed its equipment. This was done before September, 1991. The Corps notified its contractor that it accepted the C-51 project as complete on March 20, 1991. Mr. Sykes also inspected the area subsequent to the departure of the Corps' contractor. He found the work to be consistent with the District requirements, though as late as June, 1992, some additional work was being done by the District on property to the east of the McCarthy property. There is some indication that when the District sought permission to cross McCarthy's property line to access that work area, permission was denied. The District crossed McCarthy's property anyway, causing some minor damage. This work has now ceased. The District employee who negotiated the settlement agreement with the McCarthys intended for the term "completion of construction" to mean the moment when the Corps relinquished its control of the right-of-way to the District. This was done on September 4, 1991. Other landowners applied for and received permits for irrigation lines when the Corps' contractor left the site. As McCarthy tells it, in early 1990, after the settlement agreement was signed, the heavy construction was begun on the canal project and the trees were removed. A roadway was put in and the contractor began to install a large earthenware berm on the property. After some of it was done, he stopped the workers and found that the berm should go on another property. It was removed and after that, no other work was done. Mr. McCarthy contends the agreed-upon canal bank was not properly constructed by the Corps. He claims the Corps' contractor left the canal bank without the required grading and in a rough state without sod. This is, supposedly, the only parcel that was not graded properly or sodded. He was left with a 1 1/2 :1 slope - very steep, and he complained about this in writing to the District because it was not what he claims they had all agreed upon. Mr. Shattner, the District's Director of Construction Management, indicates that regardless of what drawing is examined, the slope is no more gentle than 2:1. Throughout 1990 and 1991, Mr. McCarthy alleges, he repeatedly advised the District that it had not lived up to their agreement but never got an answer. The agreement does not define the slope to be used except as it referred to a survey which was supposedly attached to the agreement. Towards the end of 1991, Mrs. McCarthy wrote to Mr. Swartz of the District about the work but received no answer. She then called the office of Mr. Creel, the District Executive Director, to complain. On December 19, 1991, someone called back and agreed to send someone out to look at the berm. No one came, however, and the next contact with the District was the violation letter of December 31, 1991. Mr. McCarthy has repeatedly taken the position with the District that it has not lived up to the terms of its agreement with him and he will not apply for a permit for the line until the construction is completed properly. The current line complained of by the District is temporary and will be destroyed by the corrective construction. The residue of the Corps' work remaining on his property is, he complains, unsafe. It does not conform to either the county code or the District's own manual which calls for a 4:1 ratio.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued dismissing the assessment of the currently assessed $560.00 civil penalty against the Respondents herein, James and Rebecca McCarthy, but requiring them to apply within 30 days from the date of that Order for a permit to construct and maintain an irrigation pipeline across the District's right-of way for Canal C-51 at the rear of their property. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of December, 1992, 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 30th day of December, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott A. Glazier, Esquire Toni M. Leidy, Esquire South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 James P. and Rebecca R. McCarthy 6017 Southern Boulevard South West Palm Beach, Florida 33415 Tilford C. Creel Executive Director South Florida Water Management District P.O. Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has submitted an application to the Respondent for a permit to undertake a dredge and fill project at the easterly end of Lake Winona in Volusia County, Florida. The specific area involved is circled in red ink on a map which was received in evidence at the hearing as Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Petitioner contemplates the dredging and removal of an approximately 130' x 185' marsh which is adjacent to a canal at the extreme eastern tip of the lake. The canal was constructed some years ago by unknown persons. Petitioner wants to utilize the dredged material to fill in a dogleg at the eastern end of the canal, and to construct a berm, or dyke, and a retention pond. The Petitioner owns a portion of the lakefront property which adjoins the proposed project. A portion of the project would be on land owned by other individuals who have apparently consented to the project, and intend to pay for a portion of it. It is Petitioner's desire to replace the marshland with a sandy beach. A drawing of the area which shows the portion of the canal which would be filled, and the portion of the marsh which would be excavated was received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits 5. A cross sectional diagram which depicts the marsh, or muck land which would be removed, the canal which would be filled, and the berm or dyke which would be constructed was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 8. Petitioner originally attempted to accomplish his proposed project without seeking a permit from the Respondent. Before work was stopped, a portion of the marshland which the Petitioner is seeking to remove was dredged. Lake Winona is a relatively undisturbed and pollution-free lake in comparison to most of the lakes in central Florida. The YMCA of Daytona Beach maintains a campground on land which it owns adjacent to the lake. The site of the camp is marked in purple ink on Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The YMCA and its members are the primary recreational users of the lake. A fernery has been operating for some years on land adjacent to the tip of the canal, a portion of which the Petitioner is proposing to fill. During certain periods large amounts of water are discharged from the fernery into the lake. The pattern which the discharged water follows in flowing into Lake Winona is depicted with red arrows on a drawing which was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. Most of the water is discharged directly, without being filtered in any manner into the canal which the Petitioner proposes to fill. A small portion of the water is discharged through the marsh which the Petitioner proposes to dredge. Marshlands, and other transitional zones surrounding water bodies are of crucial importance to the water-quality of the body, and to preservation of fish and wildlife resources in the water body. A band of marshland, occasionally broad and at times a mere fringe, surrounds nearly all of Lake Winona. This band of marshland is critically important to the water quality of Lake Winona, and to preservation of the fish and wildlife resources of Lake Winona. The marshlands serve as a filtration system for runoff which enters the lake from uplands. The marshlands also serve as a habitat for fish and wildlife species, and forms an essential part of the food chain for aquatic wildlife in the lake. The marshland which the Petitioner is seeking to dredge performs all of these functions to a limited extent. Because of its proximity to the fernery, and to the canal, however, this particular marsh area does not serve as a particularly effective filtration system, wildlife habitat, or food producer. Because of a sand fill which is located upland from the marsh, most of the general upland runoff is diverted away from this particular marsh area. The primary runoff for which the subject marshland could be called upon to serve as a filtration system comes from the fernery. The marshland is unable to serve this function for two reasons. In the first place, most of the runoff from the fernery is discharged directly into the canal which adjoins the marsh. This runoff is not filtered in any way as it flows through the canal into the lake. In the second place, runoff from the fernery which does reach the marsh reaches only a small corner of it, and this small amount of marsh is not capable of performing such a formidable filtration task. Tests reveal that virtually the same amount of nutrients are discharged through the marsh from the fernery runoff as are discharged directly into the canal from the fernery. The subject marsh may serve to a limited extent as a habitat for aquatic wildlife. That extent is, however, extremely minimal. The marsh is submerged only approximately thirty percent of the year. The overabundance of nutrients in the marsh which come from the fernery would appear to make the marsh an unpalatable natural habitat. Large quantities of runoff from the fernery have caused considerable erosion in the area which the Petitioner proposes to fill. In the weeks just prior to the hearing, a severe amount of erosion occurred. This erosion is depicted in photographs that were received in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, and 4, and in slides which were received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 10. The Petitioner's proposed dredge and fill project is not likely to cause any adverse impact upon the water quality of Lake Winona. As has already been stated, very little upland runoff flows through the marsh area which the Petitioner proposes to dredge. The runoff which does enter the marshland is primarily from the fernery, and the marshland is not able to provide an effective filtration of the large amounts of nutrients contained in this runoff. The most immediate source of pollution in Lake Winona is the fernery. Most of the runoff from the fernery is discharged without the benefit of any filtration at all into the canal, and then directly into Lake Winona. The Petitioner's proposed project would provide a retention pond. Runoff from the fernery would be discharged directly into the retention pond, and would not reach Lake Winona until after it had filtered through a berm which would be constructed from the muck, or fill dirt taken from the marshland. Petitioner's project can be expected to have a positive affect upon water quality in Lake Winona because runoff from the fernery would no longer be discharged directly into the lake. Petitioner's proposed project is not likely to cause any increased erosion. Considerable erosion is already occurring in the area as a result of substantial runoff from the fernery. Petitioner's project will prevent this erosion. The removal of the marshland is not likely to cause any additional erosion because very little upland runoff flows through the marsh. Petitioner's proposed project is not likely to have any adverse impact upon the fish and wildlife resources of Lake Winona. As has already been stated, the marshland which would be removed provides an extremely limited habitat for wildlife, and an inefficient link in the food chain due to its proximity to the fernery and to the canal, and due to the fact that it is submerged only thirty percent of the year. The Petitioner has agreed to permit the primary recreational user of Lake Winona, the Daytona Beach YMCA, to utilize the area involved in this permit application. He has agreed to permit members of the YMCA to land boats in the area, and to use adjoining lands for supervised recreational purposes. The Respondent has pointed out that even though the removal of the subject marshland may not have any clearly measurable impact upon the water quality, and wildlife resources of Lake Winona, the cumulative effects of a piecemeal removal of a considerable amount of the marshlands surrounding the lake would have a seriously detrimental effect. The evidence offered at the final hearing in this case supports that proposition. The Respondent fears that the granting of a permit to the Petitioner in this case would mandate a granting of similar permit applications from other owners of property which adjoins Lake Winona. This fear is misplaced in the instant case. The canal and the fernery which adjoin the Petitioner's property render the instant situation unique. If not for the canal and the fernery, it would appear that removal of the marshland would be likely to have an adverse impact upon Lake Winona, even if the impact could not be specifically measured because of the cumulative effect pointed out by the Respondent. Pollution and erosion being caused as a result of discharge from the fernery, and the existence of the canal necessitate the taking of some action. Petitioner's proposed project will be helpful in alleviating these circumstances. Petitioner has given reasonable assurance that the proposed project will not have an adverse impact upon the water quality of Lake Winona, or upon the fish and wildlife population of Lake Winona. Petitioner's proposed project does not, however, provide the best solution to the problems resulting from the fernery and the canal. The most ideal solution would be to fill the entire canal with fill dirt from uplands areas, and to restore the entire area to a marshland, which was its original natural state. Other somewhat less dramatic, but desirable solutions would be to dredge smaller amounts of the marshland than proposed by the Petitioner, and to fill the canal from those sources, restoring some of the subject area to its original state.
The Issue This is a challenge to certain administrative rules adopted by the St. Johns River Water Management District relating to permitting criteria for isolated wetlands. Section 373.414, F.S. mandates that permitting criteria for isolated wetlands be adopted by water management districts, by rule, by March 31, 1987. The statute also includes four more specific requirements for those rules. Petitioners contend that St. Johns River Water Management District Rule Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook, Management and Storage of Surface Waters, adopted as a rule by reference, fail to comply with the statutory mandate and are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority by the District. Respondent, St. Johns River Water Management District, contends that its rules comply with Section 373.414, F.S.. St. Johns River Water Management District contests the standing of Petitioner, the Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. Intervenors, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. and Associated Minerals (USA), Inc., support the District's position and contest the standing of both Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sierra Club, Inc., (Sierra) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business within the state of Florida. It is an international organization, with regional committees, state chapters, and local regional groups. The Florida chapter has 15 regional groups, several of which are located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD). About 6,000 members live within the boundaries of the SJRWMD. The overall purpose of Sierra is to explore, enjoy and protect the natural resources of the earth. Sierra commonly offers outings for the enjoyment and education of its members and the general public. These involve traveling, hiking, birdwatching and other wildlife observation. Part of the outings program includes hiking and viewing of isolated wetlands and wildlife dependent on those wetlands. These outings take place within the SJRWMD. Some Sierra members are actively involved in work related to isolated wetlands, including studies, consulting, and managing of wetlands, some of which are located within the SJRWMD. The Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. (FWF) is a non-profit corporation registered to do business in the state of Florida. It is comprised of organizations and individual members who support the wise use and management of Florida's natural resources. Sportsmen and naturalists who belong to the club are involved in hunting, fishing, hiking, birdwatching, nature photography and other activities loosely called "naturalizing". These activities take place within SJRWMD boundaries and rely on wildlife species which live in, or are dependent upon, isolated wetlands. FWF attracts membership by publicity of its existence and purpose directed to sportsmen and naturalists. Respondent, SJRWMD, is a political subdivision of the state of Florida, with the authority to regulate, through its permitting process, the management and storage of surface waters (MSSW) within its designated geographical boundaries, pursuant to Part IV of Chapter 373, F.S. Prior to adoption of the administrative rules in issue in this proceeding, the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) delegated to Respondent the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule. Intervenors conduct heavy metal mining operations within the District. These mining operations are regulated pursuant to Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and the Applicant's Handbook. Virtually all mining activities exceed existing permitting thresholds and all District wetland criteria apply to the activities. Since 1983, SJRWMD has been regulating wetlands and wetland MSSW impacts, including isolated wetlands, throughout its 19-county area. The rules adopted in 1983 included all wetlands, both isolated and non-isolated. In 1986, the legislature created Section 373.414, F.S., which provided as follows: 373.414 Wetlands.-- By March 31, 1987, for those water management districts to which the department has delegated the responsibility for administration of its stormwater rule, each district shall adopt a rule which establishes specific permitting criteria for certain small isolated wetlands which are not within the jurisdiction of the department for purposes of regulation of dredging and filling. The rule shall include: One or more size thresholds of isolated wetlands below which impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats will not be considered. These thresholds shall be based on biological and hydrological evidence that shows the fish and wildlife values of such areas to be minimal; Criteria for review of fish and wildlife and their habitats for isolated wetlands larger than the minimum size; Criteria for the protection of threatened and endangered species in isolated wetlands regardless of size and land use; and Provisions for consideration of the cumulative and offsite impacts of a project or projects. This section does not affect the authority of the water management districts to regulate impacts on water quality and water quantity. Until a water management district has adopted a rule to implement the provisions of subsection (1), review of fish and wildlife impacts in small isolated wetlands shall be limited to: Wetlands that are 5 acres in size or larger; or Wetlands that are used by a federal or state designated threatened or endangered species; or Wetlands located within an area of critical state concern designated pursuant to chapter 380; or Wetlands that are less than 5 acres in size having a cumulative total acreage greater than 30 percent of the total acreage proposed for development, within a development project greater than 40 acres in size. Section 373.414(3), F.S. (1986) was repealed effective March 31, 1987, the deadline by which the districts were to have their own isolated wetlands rules in place. Sections 373.414(1) and (2), F.S. remain in effect. "Wetlands" is defined in SJRWMD's MSSW rule as: ...hydrologically sensitive areas which are identified by being inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater with a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Rule 40C-4.021(11), F.A.C. This definition is repeated in Section 10.7.3 of the Applicant's Handbook. Section 10.7.3 also provides: Wetlands are important components of the water resource because they serve as spawning, nursery and feeding habitats for many species of fish and wildlife, and because they provide important flood storage and water quality benefits. Not all wetlands provide these benefits, nor do they provide them to the same extent. A wide array of physical and chemical factors affect the functioning of any wetland community. * * * Small isolated wetlands are totally unique biological systems. They are not small versions of large wetlands. They play two major roles in animal ecology: to harbor diverse species that use the habitat for their entire life cycle, and to provide a productive resource for transient species. If a wetland is truly isolated, its fish population is generally limited to the smaller-bodied, smaller-mouthed varieties which are limited in their predatory abilities. This permits the abundance of amphibians and invertebrates not found in larger, more permanent wetlands where the fish would rapidly decimate the population. Amphibians are a cornerstone of the vertebrate food chain. They are food for a variety of snakes, which in turn, are food for hawks. Wading birds find easy prey as the isolated wetlands begin drying up and contracting. The entire cycle of the pond, from fully wet to dry, is significant. Ambystoma tigrinum (tiger salamanders) are hatched and raised in isolated wetlands; they leave, and must return to breed in the same pond. They have a strong homing instinct. Ignorant of intervening events, they are often found spending their honeymoon dodging cars on an apartment complex pavement, seeking in vain the pond of their birth. The SJRWMD adopted Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and its Applicant's Handbook to regulate the construction, operation, alteration, removal or abandonment of surface water management systems, to insure that those activities will not harm the water resources of the District and insure that they are consistent with the objectives of the District. Activities which do not meet certain thresholds established in Rule 40C-4.041, F.A.C. do not require a District MSSW permit, including those activities impacting an isolated wetland. The threshold provisions pre-date Section 373.414, F.S. and still apply. The threshold provisions of Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C., challenged by Petitioners, state as follows: 40C-4.041 Permit Required. * * * (b) An individual or general permit is required prior to the construction, alteration, operation, maintenance, abandonment or removal of a surface water management system which: Is capable of impounding a volume of water of forty or more acre feet; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding forty acres; or Serves a project with a total land area equal to or exceeding ten acres, when any part of the project is located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Provides for the placement of twelve or more acres of impervious surface which constitutes 40 or more percent of the total land area; or Provides for the placement of one half acre or more of impervious surface, when any of the impervious surface is located within the Wekiva river Hydrologic Basin north of State Road 436; or Contains a traversing work which traverses: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles upstream from the traversing work; or An impoundment with more than ten acres of surface area; or Contains a surface water management system which serves an area of five or more contiguous acres of a hydrologically sensitive area with a direct hydrologic connection to: A stream or other watercourse with a drainage area of five or more square miles; or An impoundment with no outfall, which is not wholly owned by the applicant and which is ten acres or greater in size; or A hydrologically sensitive area not wholly owned by the applicant. Is wholly or partially located within the Wekiva River Hydrologic Basin's Riparian Habitat Protection Zone as described in paragraph 40C-41.063(3)(e). The same threshold provisions are contained in Section 3.3.1, Applicant's Handbook, also challenged by Petitioners. In 1987, after passage of Section 373.414, F.S. the District amended its wetland regulations to provide that all wetlands would be evaluated, regardless of size, within the already-established permit thresholds: A wide variety of wetland habitats exist within the St. Johns River Water Management District. The functions which these habitats serve are dependent on many factors. Biological and hydrological evidence demonstrate that size is not the single determinant of wetland value. Since the District bases its evaluation on wetland functions, the District will review impacts to all wetlands (a zero acre threshold will be employed) in reviewing impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitats for systems requiring a permit from the District. * * * 10.7.5 Wetland Evaluation Applicant's Handbook As the result of an objection by the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) stating that the District had failed to comply with Section 373.414(1)(a), F.S., the District amended the zero acre review threshold for isolated wetlands and adopted a 0.5 acre review threshold, based upon biological investigations indicating that wetlands below this size have minimal fish and wildlife value. In all applications for MSSW permits under Chapter 40C-4, the District reviews impacts to isolated wetlands unless those wetlands are less than 0.5 acre in size and are not used by threatened or endangered species. No permit application, however, is required for projects under the thresholds described in paragraph 13, above, even though those projects might include wetlands larger than 0.5 acres. Staff of the SJRWMD concedes that the non-regulated isolated wetlands might have significant value and agrees with Petitioner's experts that isolated wetlands found in projects below the Rule 40C-4.041(2)(b), F.A.C. thresholds (called "get-in-the-door" thresholds) could have more than minimal fish and wildlife value. Petitioners challenge the entire Chapter 40C-4, F.A.C. and Applicant's Handbook for non-compliance with Section 373.414(1)(d), F.S. The SJRWMD does not consider, and nothing in its rules require consideration of, cumulative impacts of a series of isolated wetlands included in below-threshold projects even though there could be a negative cumulative impact from the loss of those wetlands. Petitioners challenge section 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria, Applicants Handbook, to the extent that it may limit consideration of impacts to isolated wetlands to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species, unless threatened or endangered species are involved. This section provides in pertinent part: 10.7.4 Wetland Review Criteria In determining whether a system will meet the objective contained in Paragraph 9.1.1(j) and that part of the criterion contained in Paragraph 10.2.1(e) regarding hydrologically related environmental functions, the District will, except when threatened or endangered species are involved, consider only the impacts to off-site aquatic and wetland dependent species relative to the functions currently being provided by the wetland to these types of fish and wildlife. This assessment of off-site impacts is based upon a review of pertinent scientific literature, soils and hydrologic information, and a general understanding of the ecological resources of the site. Generally, site specific biological data collection is not required. An applicant must provide reasonable assurance that a proposed system will not cause adverse off-site changes in: the habitat of an aquatic and wetland dependent species, the abundance and diversity of aquatic and wetland dependent species, and the food sources of aquatic and wetland dependent species. The only exception to limiting review of a system under this Subsection to off-site impacts is where wetlands are used or reasonable scientific judgement would indicate use by threatened or endangered species listed in Sections 39-27.003 and 39-27.004, F.A.C., which are aquatic or wetland dependent. In this instance, both off-site and on-site impacts will be assessed. Petitioners also challenge section 16.1.3(a), Applicant's Handbook, to the extent that it may limit mitigation requirements to off-site impacts. If a project as initially proposed is subject to Respondent's surface water permitting requirements, and as initially proposed fails to meet wetland review criteria, mitigation may be considered as a means of bringing the proposed project within permitting requirements. The challenged portion provides: 16.1.3 Mitigation (a) Mitigation is defined here as action or actions taken to offset the adverse effects of a system on off-site functions and in the care of threatened or endangered species, to offset the adverse effects of a system on on-site and off-site functions. Although there may be a difference in degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands on site, as compared to the degree of functions performed by isolated wetlands off-site, the difference in negligible. Adverse ecological effects on-site will also be felt off-site. In developing its criteria SJRWMD staff could not conceive of a situation where a functioning wetland or isolated wetland would be eliminated and not have an off-site impact. Finally, Petitioners challenge the last paragraph of Section 16.1.4, Applicant's Handbook, related to mitigation for mining projects that fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. (heavy mineral extraction). Section 16.1.4, Wetland Creation, Applicant's Handbook, provides guidelines to be used to estimate the extent of wetland creation which may mitigate for the destruction of a unit of wetland. The challenged portion of the section provides: For lands and mining activities that fall under the jurisdiction of the Florida Department of Natural Resources pursuant to section 378.601, F.S. mitigation or compensation plans that are consistent with the land reclamation policies and criteria approved by that agency will be considered by the District as satisfactory mitigation. (emphasis added). The District is not required to allow mitigation if impacts are so substantial that they cannot be offset. If the District does not consider a DNR reclamation plan as sufficient, the District applies its wetland review criteria in section 10.7.4, Applicant's Handbook. For heavy mineral mining, DNR requires one-to-one mitigation for every wetland, regardless of type, that is disturbed by the zoning activity, and the restoration of wildlife habitat, including threatened or endangered species. Heavy mineral mining, in contrast to other mining such as phosphate, has far less impact on the environment. This is reflected in the success which has been experienced in restoring wetlands disturbed by heavy mineral mining.
The Issue The issue is whether CF Industries, Inc. (CF), has provided reasonable assurance that its proposed mining and reclamation of the South Pasture Extension (SPE) mine in Hardee County can be conducted in a manner that complies with applicable statutes and rules so that an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP), SPE conceptual reclamation plan (CRP), South Pasture Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) Modification, and South Pasture Conceptual Reclamation Plan Modification should be issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (Department).
Findings Of Fact The Parties CF is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is the applicant in these proceedings. CF has applied for permits to conduct phosphate mining, reclamation, and associated activities on property in Hardee County known as the South Pasture Extension tract. These activities are referred to as the "Project," and the South Pasture Extension tract property is referred to as the "Project site." The Department is a state agency with jurisdiction over ERP permitting under Part IV, chapter 373, for phosphate mining activities, and jurisdiction over phosphate mining reclamation under Part II, chapter 378. Pursuant to that authority, the Department reviewed the ERP, CRP, WRP Modification, and CRP Modification applications for the Project. Petitioner is a Florida corporation in good standing, doing business in the State of Florida. Petitioner owns approximately 875 acres of land east of County Road 663 and immediately south of and adjacent to the Project site, which it leases to two affiliated companies, Florida Institute of Neurological Rehabilitation, Inc. (FINR I, Inc.) and FINR III, LLC. FINR I, Inc., operates the Florida Institute of Neurological Rehabilitation, which is a post-acute, state- licensed inpatient rehabilitation facility accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. It specializes in the treatment of children and adults who have sustained brain injury or some other form of neurologic trauma. The facility currently consists of 238 beds offering three levels of care and has approximately 135 to 140 inpatient clients, of which 115 reside on the property. The property has been used as a neurological rehabilitation center since 1986. Among other things, patients participate in organized and individual recreational activities on the property, including fishing, nature walks, baseball, and basketball games. Outdoor activities are critical to patient care, especially those with frontal lobe damage. The facility is only accessible by Vandolah Road (from the south) and that roadway serves as its only evacuation route. If the Project were to cause flooding on its property, as Petitioner alleges, it could reasonably be expected to prevent Petitioner from leasing its land to the related companies because the facility's employees or outside medical personnel could not enter the facility or evacuate the patients; it could interfere with the generators or electrical components required for patient care; it could deny the patients use of outdoor areas; and it could impede FINR I, Inc.'s ability to develop and expand facilities on the undeveloped part of the property. General Background Phosphorus is an essential element for plant and animal nutrition and is one of the primary nutrients necessary for plant growth. Phosphate rock is one, if not the only, known significant source of phosphorus, and there are no synthetic substitutes. Continued mining of phosphate rock is therefore critical to the agriculture industry as well as to the general population, both in the United States and globally. See § 378.202(1), Fla. Stat.("[t]he extraction of phosphate is important to the continued economic well-being of the state and to the needs of society"). CF has been mining in northwest Hardee County for decades. CF first began mining for phosphate in 1978 at what was then known as the North Pasture mine. Mining operations at the North Pasture mine concluded in the mid 1990s, and the lands associated with that mine have been completely reclaimed. Pursuant to local, state, and federal permits, CF relocated its beneficiation plant (which separates the phosphate ore matrix into phosphate rock, waste clay, and sand) to its present location south of State Road 62 in 1993, and began operation of its South Pasture mine in 1995. The South Pasture mine encompasses about 15,390 acres. After the startup of the South Pasture mine, CF acquired three additional land parcels totaling approximately 7,512.8 acres with mineable reserves contiguous to and immediately south of the South Pasture mine. These parcels are collectively referred to as the South Pasture Extension tract or the Project site. The Project site is bisected by County Road 663, which runs north and south through the Project site, generally in a southeasterly direction. Immediately to the west is Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC's (Mosaic's) permitted Ona Fort Green Extension and to the south is Mosaic's Ona mine, for which applications for mining approvals are currently pending regulatory approval. CF currently extracts phosphate rock at its South Pasture mine at a rate of 3.6 million tons per year. If the applications are approved, the Project will extend the life of the current South Pasture mine and beneficiation plant by ten years, permitting mining to continue at this same average rate through 2035. CF has an excellent record of compliance with respect to permits issued under chapters 373 and 378. Petitioner has raised no enforcement or compliance issues relative to CF's operation of its mining activities. In 1986, New Medico, Petitioner's predecessor in interest, established the neurological rehabilitation center on a 298-acre campus at the center of Petitioner's property and began accepting patients that same year. Petitioner actually acquired the Hardee County property in 1996, after mining activities began on the South Pasture mine. CF and Petitioner share a common boundary on three sides. The historic headwaters of Troublesome Creek are located within the Project site and along this common boundary, as well as within Petitioner's property, and they have been heavily ditched and degraded by agricultural activities. Troublesome Creek itself (as opposed to its headwaters) begins on the southeastern portion of the Project site, east of Petitioner's property, and has been reduced to a narrow, fairly incised conveyance flowing intermittently south-southeast to the Peace River. Since 1995, when CF began mining operations at its South Pasture mine, and until the present time when Petitioner filed its Petition challenging CF's Project, the parties' respective operations have co-existed and are currently approximately a half mile apart. Project Logistics Over the last five years CF has relied upon a team of experts from several different consulting firms and disciplines to assist it with preparing and supporting its application. CF will integrate materials handling on both the existing South Pasture mine and the Project site. Specifically, mining and reclamation operations at the Project site will employ the same methods currently approved by the Department for use at the South Pasture mine, and will utilize the existing operational facilities and workforce. The existing beneficiation plant at the South Pasture mine will separate the phosphate ore matrix mined at the Project site into phosphate rock, sand, and clay. Waste clays from the Project will be disposed of within existing clay settling areas (CSAs) at the South Pasture mine and new CSAs proposed for the Project site. The Project's mine water recirculation system will also be integrated with the South Pasture mine's recirculation system. As it has done at the South Pasture mine, which is located only one-half mile north of Petitioner's property, CF must install a perimeter ditch and berm system (which includes a recharge ditch system) along the Project site's boundaries prior to any clearing to contain Project water within the CF site and to protect adjacent properties during mining operations. The ditch and berm system is installed approximately six months to one year prior to the extraction of material within a particular mine block. Pursuant to Specific Condition 14 of the ERP, the recharge ditch system, which serves to provide groundwater recharge to preserved and off-site wetlands and surface waters during mining to avoid potential adverse impacts, must be constructed before mining activities can occur within 1,800 feet of any preserve or property boundary. The recharge ditch systems in each mine block adjacent to such boundaries will be designed based upon additional site-specific hydrogeologic testing and analysis and installed prior to mining after the Department has approved the final design. Specific Condition 14 also requires development and implementation of an Environmental Management Plan consistent with the requirements of that condition and with Appendix 14 of the ERP at least four years prior to mining of the Project site. Pursuant to this condition, CF must also conduct detailed baseline monitoring for at least four years prior to mining and conduct continuous during-mining monitoring, visual inspections, water table and stream flow analysis, and if necessary, implement hydrologic mitigative or remedial measures, to ensure that the recharge systems function as intended to protect unmined wetlands and other surface waters from adverse impacts by mining operations. These activities must continue until the area within 1,800 feet of the preserve or property boundary is backfilled and CF has documented that subsurface flows have achieved conditions hydrologically equivalent to those described in the Integrated Modeling Report (IMR) prepared for the Project. CF's mine plan indicates the sequence of mining on the Project site. Preparatory mining activities are scheduled to begin in 2017, with actual mining scheduled to begin in 2019, but are not scheduled to begin adjacent to Petitioner's property until 2027, progressing along CF's shared property boundary with Petitioner in a counterclockwise fashion, and west of County Road 663 through 2031. Piezometer wells and rainfall gauges must be installed along all preserves and property boundaries at least four years prior to initiating mining of the Project site, allowing for collection of an ample amount of baseline reference data before mining begins adjacent to Petitioner's property. As mining progresses within each mine block, backfilling with sand tailings and initial revegetation will follow mining almost immediately (three months) after mining, including in the vicinity of Petitioner's property. As each mine block is backfilled, within approximately three to five years after mining, the entire area will be completely backfilled, contoured, and revegetated. Within the same approximate timeframe, once the entire area is stabilized and following one year of water quality monitoring, the ditch and berm system will be dismantled and the area reconnected to its watershed. CF has sufficient water available from multiple water inputs, including very clean water from its Aquifer Recharge and Recovery Project (ARRP) on the South Pasture mine to support the proposed mining and reclamation activities on the Project site. CF will also construct a reroute ditch adjacent to Petitioner's property. The purpose of the reroute ditch is to reroute existing surface water flow in the Troublesome Creek headwater ditches off of Petitioner's property, around active mining operations, and then into Troublesome Creek as it exits the Project site to the southeast. To specifically address Petitioner's concerns regarding flooding, CF submitted conceptual designs for a reroute ditch to the Department prior to final hearing in this matter, and the Department modified its ERP accordingly. Like the recharge system, the final design of the reroute must be based on an additional site-specific assessment conducted pursuant to the ERP, prior to actually severing flow. CF's South Pasture mine has two permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) outfalls located on Shirttail Branch and Doe Branch, both of which flow into Payne Creek, which is a tributary to the Peace River. While these existing NPDES outfalls will continue to meet all of CF's discharge needs for Project mining operations due to integration of the mine recirculation system, CF may obtain additional outfalls on the Project site to provide flexibility to supplement stream flows during mining in preserved and off-site streams. One such potential discharge point was identified on the northern boundary at Petitioner's property, as "S-1." Petitioner's Allegations Conflicting testimony was presented by the parties on the issues raised by Petitioner. These conflicts have been resolved in Respondents' favor, who submitted the more credible and persuasive evidence. Where a specific allegation is not addressed in this Recommended Order, it has been considered and found to be without merit. Petitioner alleges, on the one hand, that the Project will either cause flooding on its property so as to adversely impact its and its lessees' use and enjoyment of the property, and, on the other, will cause dewatering of its property so as to adversely affect its wetlands and other water resources. While the undersigned did grant CF's Motion to Strike, Petitioner was permitted to pursue its water resource and environmental impact issues and expressed its concerns regarding the Project's impact on Petitioner's property and development potential as well as on the health, safety, and welfare of residents or inhabitants of Petitioner's property. These concerns were addressed by Steve Freeley, FINR II, Inc.'s former director of marketing and now a Vice President, and Dr. Jorge Villalba, FINR I, Inc.'s medical director. Mr. Freeley, a fact witness, summarized Petitioner's concerns, as he understood them, to be the Project's potential for flooding, dewatering, and well contamination on Petitioner's property, particularly how these events might affect Petitioner's pocketbook and the future development potential of Petitioner's property. However, Mr. Freeley admitted that he had no knowledge of the Project application or supporting materials, had never been to the South Pasture mine, and had no familiarity with phosphate mining. Dr. Villalba testified primarily on behalf of FINR I, Inc., patients at the rehabilitation facility, in particular his concerns regarding his patients' specific sensitivity to environmental stimuli. Dr. Villalba has no legal affiliation or association with Petitioner, being solely an employee of, and the medical director for, FINR I, Inc. Dr. Villalba also testified regarding the need to internally relocate some patients due to flooding caused by hurricanes in 2004. More specifically, Dr. Villalba testified that in 2004 residential cabins on-site experienced water levels rising up to the steps of the elevated residential facilities. Like Mr. Freeley, he admitted he had no knowledge of the application materials, phosphate mining, CF's South Pasture mine operations, or the materials submitted in support of the proposed agency action. For all of the following reasons, the adverse environmental and water resource-related concerns of Petitioner are determined to be without merit and are therefore not credited. Analysis of Hydrology CF and the Department thoroughly investigated the Project's potential for causing adverse flooding and dewatering impacts on adjacent properties. Event-based stormwater runoff modeling provided reasonable assurance that peak discharge rates and outflow volumes at exit points from the Project site under post- reclamation conditions would not cause adverse offsite flood impacts. The results of CF's flood modeling are summarized in a flood modeling report (FMR). The FMR demonstrated that the proposed post-reclamation land use, topography, and soil distributions will not result in any adverse changes in the peak discharge comparison to pre-mining conditions for flood flows; peak flood values will be maintained or improved by the reclamation design; and post-reclamation peak flood values along Petitioner's shared property boundary with CF will be lower than pre-mining conditions. Three standard rainfall events were evaluated: (a) the mean annual 2.33-year, 24-hour event, (b) the 25-year, 24-hour event, and (c) the 100-year, 24-hour event. These storm events are part of a standard suite of engineering design storms that the Department commonly relies upon to assess pre-mining versus post-reclamation flooding. CF utilized a one-dimensional surface water computer model, MIKE 11, to prepare the flood modeling report. MIKE 11 uses the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (formerly the United States Soil Conservation Service's) TR-55 based approach and applies a 1-D hydraulics component that represents Florida landscape conditions well. This modeling, and the resultant FMR, which is a part of the application, were not contested. It demonstrated that the proposed post-reclamation condition will not result in any adverse flooding. In fact, local flood hazards will likely be reduced due to the lowering of peak flood values. CF also developed an integrated surface and groundwater model for the Project. Integrated modeling assesses long-term hydrologic conditions to ensure that the Project will result in hydropatterns that restore and sustain reclaimed wetlands and waterbodies on the Project site. The MIKE SHE model was used to perform the hydrologic simulations; the modeling results are contained in CF's IMR, as part of the application. It was also used to establish the normal seasonal high and seasonal low ranges for wetlands and surface waters that were used in other portions of the application, such as the Recharge Modeling Report (RMR). There was no objection to the use of this model or its results. The IMR indicates that the proposed reclamation will restore on-site wetland functions, promote the maturation of on-site wetlands, and result in an overall water balance that maintains or improves regional hydrology. Off-site stream flows to Troublesome Creek will be enhanced, which will improve that system's capacity to support aquatic fauna. During-Mining Hydrologic Analysis In addition to performing pre-mining and post- reclamation condition hydrologic analyses, CF and the Department evaluated the Project's potential for causing adverse flooding and dewatering impacts on adjacent properties during mining. The existence of several factors inherent to the mining process, discussed below, typically makes during-mining flood event modeling unnecessary to provide reasonable assurances. See Lee Cnty. v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, Case No. 08-3886, 2008 Fla. ENV LEXIS 171 (Fla. DOAH Dec. 18, 2008), adopted, OGC Case No. 08- 1852, 2009 Fla. ENV LEXIS 14 (Fla. DEP Jan. 30, 2009). The application contains during-mining water balance analyses that specifically evaluated the biological integrity of on-site and off-site preserved areas, streams, and wetlands during mining and after reclamation. CF prepared a mine and production plan (MPP) describing general mine planning and scheduling, as well as its proposed integration with the South Pasture mine, that contained an operational during-mining water balance showing recirculation system inputs and outflows. The primary sources of water input into the mine recirculation system for the Project will continue to be direct rainfall capture, groundwater from existing permitted wells, water content of the mined matrix and overburden, and reclaimed water from the City of Wauchula. The primary sources of water consumption will be evapotranspiration and net waste clay entrainment; CF recycles and reuses 95 percent of its water. As described in the MPP, the primary sources of water discharge will be through its existing two (and possibly additional) permitted NPDES outfalls. There will be no substantial change in the during- mining water balance as a result of the extension of mining into the Project site. Moreover, the application, past practices and experience, and evidence presented at hearing all indicate that CF has more than sufficient amount of water available to conduct the Project while simultaneously maintaining or improving the biological integrity of downstream systems. CF has the demonstrated ability to manage large amounts of water within its mine recirculation system and store or discharge water as required to maintain downstream flows or reduce flooding potential. During mining, CF can either discharge stormwater treated to meet state water quality standards, or store it in its recirculation system, depending on downstream conditions. Thus, even without a reroute ditch, the risk of adverse flooding during mining is minimal. CF has never caused any flooding of neighboring property in over 30 years of mining. As noted earlier, upon construction of the perimeter ditch and berm system along its shared property boundary with Petitioner, CF will reroute existing water flow around active mining operations and the berm system to reconnect flow with Troublesome Creek. CF's expert witness testified that, from an engineering perspective, a reroute ditch is not difficult to design or construct, and that CF has successfully constructed similar reroutes in the past and without causing flooding. Nevertheless, in light of Petitioner's concerns, CF directed its consultants to model the potential impacts from a reroute ditch to assist in sizing the reroute ditch and associated structures. The design objective was to ensure that no off-site increases in peak flows or stages would occur during mining as compared to existing conditions as a result of the Project during high rainfall events. CF and Petitioner's consultants used the Interconnected Pond Routing (ICPR) model to evaluate the reroute ditch. CF analyzed the 25-year, 24-hour and the 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The model indicated that in many areas, where the presence or absence of a reroute ditch would not make a significant difference, water levels would remain unchanged, and that in some areas closest to the proposed reroute ditch, potential flood levels would actually be decreased by two-tenths of a foot. This would actually reduce the likelihood of localized flooding during significant storms over existing conditions, which has posed a concern to Dr. Villalba for his patients' safety during prior hurricane events. The modeling results were summarized in a Troublesome Creek Reroute Ditch Modeling and Conceptual Design Report (RDMR). Dr. John Kiefer, the co-author of the RDMR, as well as Dr. Owete, a Department expert, opined that the Project, including implementation of the proposed reroute ditch, would not cause adverse flooding or water quantity impacts on Petitioner's property during mining. Dr. Kiefer subsequently identified and corrected some minor errors in the RDMR. These changes had no effect on his ultimate opinion or this finding. According to Dr. Owete, the modeling was not necessary to provide the requisite reasonable assurances. In fact, the reroute ditch design drawings themselves were not requested by the Department to provide reasonable assurances, but were offered by CF as additional assurances in light of the concerns raised by Petitioner during these proceedings. This testimony was echoed by Dr. Kiefer, who testified regarding the various intrinsic protections against during-mining flooding that are inherent to the Project. Further, the record establishes that the design and the model are very conservative. The 100-year event, for which the reroute ditch was designed, has only a one percent likelihood of occurring in any given year within a 100-year period. The RDMR recommends that additional modeling be conducted immediately prior to implementation to confirm the design. The ERP specifically requires that the RDMR be implemented. This is similar to conditions throughout the ERP that require additional data gathering modeling or other analysis and revised designs based on this additional analysis. The ERP can provide for post-permit activities to be performed as part of reasonable assurances. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 4.070(3). Petitioner's expert, Mr. Robert Burleson, opined that the Project will cause flooding of Petitioner's property during mining due to the construction of the perimeter berm. However, Mr. Burleson used a starting water elevation on Petitioner's property to run his model that was already commensurate with a 100-year flood elevation and then added a 100-year event to that elevation. Mr. Burleson's model also assumed that no reroute ditch would be constructed, and additionally assumed artificially high surface water conditions caused by the recharge system which, conversely, Petitioner's expert, Mr. Davis, opined would not prevent dewatering. Therefore, his opinion on flooding is not credited. Mr. Burleson also opined that flooding would nonetheless occur because of the construction of the perimeter berm across Lettis Creek headwater wetlands, notwithstanding the fact that there is no "stream" at this location, the landscape is relatively flat, and County Road 663 and the railroad line would lie between Petitioner's property and the perimeter berm. However, Mr. Burleson's modeling assumed that County-maintained culverts between the properties would be blocked during mining. Even under this assumed condition, his modeling showed only a slight increase in stage durations during significant 25-year and 100-year events. However, CF has committed to maintain flow from Petitioner's property onto the Project site at Lettis Creek through existing culverts under County Road 663. Mr. Burleson also testified that in his view flooding occurs "if there's an increase in water levels above what has historically or naturally [occurred] for a given condition." Tr. 522. However, Mr. Burleson did not know whether the FINR property had ever been inundated in the way inundation was depicted in the figures he provided and did not know whether the inundation in the figures he provided could be a natural condition for the property. Thus, Mr. Burleson could not testify, whether historically or naturally, the amount of water depicted on his figures would occur. It was established that the historic headwaters in this area have been heavily ditched and altered from their historic or natural condition. CF assessed the potential that the reroute ditch could result in dewatering during non-flood events. To address this concern, CF designed the reroute ditch with a bottom elevation that would match the bottom elevation of the existing ditch, meaning the water table will intersect the reroute ditch in the same manner it currently intersects the Troublesome Creek ditch. Adjacent to Wetland 10E-40 in the southeast corner between Petitioner's property and the Project property, however, the reroute ditch received special design consideration because the reroute ditch bottom will be below the bottom of the wetland at that location. There, the reroute ditch will be armored, an overland weir will regulate flow, and an impermeable geotextile liner will be installed. Several intrinsic factors, relating to both the reroute ditch design and the overall Project design, provide further assurances that adverse flooding will not occur on Petitioner's property during mining. Once CF constructs the perimeter ditch and berm system, the area of the drainage basin contributing flow to Petitioner's property will be reduced by approximately one-half, resulting in significantly less water flowing onto Petitioner's property during flood events because the ditch and berm system will divert stormwater that normally reports to Troublesome Creek into CF's recirculation system. The conveyance capacity of the reroute ditch will be equivalent to or greater than that of the existing ditch that it would replace. The reroute ditch will be installed in concert with the ditch and berm system, which as noted above will reduce peak flood flows in Troublesome Creek, meaning a lower tailwater condition can be expected in Troublesome Creek downstream of its confluence with the reroute ditch. CF thoroughly assessed the ability of the recharge ditch to maintain recharge to wetlands and adjacent properties during active mining of the Project. Specifically, CF evaluated the seepage characteristics of the areas scheduled to be mined and provided site-specific recommendations regarding recharge system design in variable subsurface conditions. CF evaluated the efficacy of treatment options that might be necessary to incorporate in the recharge ditch design in certain subsurface conditions to prevent potential adverse impacts. The goal of the recharge ditch design was to maintain the water table during mining operations, within the normal range of seasonal high and seasonal low water table elevations along preserve and property boundaries, including Petitioner's property. The normal seasonal range used to develop the RMR was obtained from the IMR analysis. In order to appropriately evaluate subsurface permeabilities at the Project site, CF's consultants first engaged in a rigorous geotechnical exploration program: they reviewed available prospect borings and design reports; they developed subsurface profiles along wetland and property boundaries within the study areas based on prospect boring data; they completed four Standard Penetration Test borings at locations selected based on the subsurface profiles; they installed a deep, intermediate, and shallow piezometer at each of the borehole locations; and they completed in-situ hydraulic conductivity tests in each of them. This information resulted in a detailed subsurface profile that ran along the entire border of the mining areas and identified a range of subsurface conditions site-wide, with both low and high permeability values, consistent with regional data and Petitioner's findings. Next, CF's consultant developed 14 design sections, including cross sections at each of the locations specifically requested by the Department, two adjacent to Petitioner's property, and conducted seepage analyses for each. For the two design sections nearest to Petitioner's property, no continuous layer of highly-permeable limestone or other high permeability strata were encountered that were reasonably likely to affect performance of the recharge ditch, and thus no particular "add on" hydrologic mitigative measures to the recharge ditch appear reasonably likely to be needed. Nonetheless, the efficacy of those additional measures in higher permeability soils was fully evaluated. Results of the seepage analyses on the 14 design cross sections are summarized in the RMR. The RMR concludes that, in most mine areas, sufficient recharge will be provided to preserved wetlands and adjacent properties during mining using a recharge ditch designed as proposed in the RMR. Nine of the 14 cross sections did not have a continuous highly permeable limestone layer, including the two near Petitioner's property; and a recharge ditch with the water level maintained at ground level was sufficient to maintain an adequate groundwater level in off-site and preserved wetlands at these nine cross sections, to the center of the wetland. Only five of the 14 design cross sections contained a continuous, permeable limestone layer within the matrix layer. For areas where such high permeability layers do exist, additional hydrologic mitigative measures were recommended in addition to the recharge ditch, such as recharge wells, permeable trenches, localized grouting, and soil-bentonite cutoff walls, in order to maintain groundwater levels. In the event a permeable limestone layer is encountered within the matrix layer, the RMR concludes that the utilization of recharge wells, sand trenches, or other treatment options will be effective in maintaining the normal range of seasonal groundwater levels. Pursuant to the RMR recommendations, decisions regarding which specific mitigative measure is appropriate to use to address a specific subsurface condition will be made based upon more detailed, site-specific data and design modifications determined through field investigations, to include additional test borings, piezometers, field measurements of hydraulic conductivities, and additional seepage analyses. These additional measures are required by the ERP conditions and the final design must be approved by the Department. While the RMR did not assume the existence of a reroute ditch, Mr. Beriswill, a professional engineer, subsequently evaluated the potential impact of a reroute ditch on the RMR's recommendations and conclusions. Based upon this subsequent evaluation, Mr. Beriswill concluded that no significant changes in the design of the recharge ditch were necessary to account for the ditch, although he and other consultants did agree that addition of an impermeable geotextile liner to a portion of the reroute ditch would reduce the potential for dewatering adjacent to Wetland 10E-40 and should be implemented. The RMR also evaluated the stability of the mine cut face seal embankment (construction of which is common in the industry) and provided recommendations to maintain adequate and stable slopes during mining activities. Based upon these analyses, CF's consultants recommended a one-foot (vertical) to five-foot (horizontal) (1:5) slope to ensure a 1.3 factor of safety for slope stability, which is within industry standards. Water Quality Impacts In addition to the above analyses, CF and the Department also thoroughly evaluated potential on-site and off- site water quality issues associated with the Project. As noted earlier, discharges will occur only through permitted NPDES outfalls. Additional water quality protection for adjacent undisturbed surface waters and wetlands will be provided by the perimeter ditch and berm systems and other proposed best management practices (BMPs), such as silt fences and stormwater collection systems. During mining and reclamation, these practices will preclude uncontrolled releases of water to adjacent unmined and downstream areas. There are also detailed requirements in the ERP for monitoring water quality during mining and reclamation activities. All of these measures will be effective in preventing violations of water quality standards, and will ensure that the water quality of preserved on-site systems will be protected during mining activities at the Project site. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) was prepared to identify BMPs and controls for the Project during land preparation, mining, backfilling, and reclamation. The SPPP also incorporates by reference other documents already in place on the South Pasture mine pursuant to CF's NPDES permit for the South Pasture mine. Among these documents are a Best Management Practices/Pollution/Prevention (BMP3) Plan that generally describes BMPs for waste management, spill reporting and response, and other specific measures to prevent pollution, and a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between CF and the Department that describes general design and construction BMPs. The MOA has also been attached to the ERP. The BMP3 Plan, which is updated annually, must be maintained on-site during mining operations. Using these measures at the South Pasture mine, CF has never had any issues with stormwater discharges causing water quality violations. Petitioner failed to present any competent substantial evidence that the Project will cause adverse water quality impacts during mining. Its expert, Mr. Robert Burleson, opined only that certain requirements specified for generic stormwater permits associated with construction activities were missing from the SPPP. However, it is unclear whether he reviewed or considered the sufficiency of the MOA or BMP3 Plan, and these contain specific BMPs to be utilized for the Project's stormwater. Additionally, Mr. Burleson admitted that he had no familiarity with preparing SPPPs for industrial facilities with NPDES permits. Dr. Durbin, a CF expert, who has such experience and reviewed all of these materials as well as South Pasture mine water quality data, opined that implementation of these practices and the existence of the NPDES permit ensure that water quality of downstream systems will be protected during mining and that no adverse water quality impacts will occur. The application is therefore consistent with applicable ERP permitting requirements. The generic stormwater permit proffered by Petitioner does not apply, and is not available, to facilities like CF that are required to obtain individual NPDES permits that address stormwater discharges. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-620.100(2). Ecological Issues The level of detail and analysis provided by CF in its application to the Department for the ERP, CRP, and WRP and CRP Modifications is more than adequate. Indeed, CF provided substantially more baseline information in terms of existing site conditions, wetland conditions, and wildlife information than is provided in typical ERPs. CF expert witnesses Dr. Kiefer and Dr. Durbin both testified as to the local and regional ecological, hydrological, and wildlife benefits expected to result from the proposed reclamation. This testimony was not disputed. Pursuant to section 373.414(6)(b), wetlands reclamation activities for phosphate mining undertaken pursuant to chapter 378 are considered appropriate mitigation if they maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities. CF's reclamation achieves that mitigation goal. It provides for an acre-for-acre, type-for-type, and foot-for-foot restoration, as appropriate, of the wetlands and other surface waters proposed for impact on the Project site. The application indicates that the proposed reclamation will restore on-site wetland functions and promote the maturation of on-site wetlands. Specifically, CF is proposing to enhance 126 acres of wetlands and 57 acres of uplands, create approximately 1,711 acres of wetlands and other surface waters, and grant perpetual conservation easements to permanently preserve 1,095 acres of unmined (avoided) and 1,789 acres of reclaimed habitat, including wetlands, streams, and associated native upland habitat in the Brushy Creek, Lettis Creek, and Troublesome Creek corridors on the Project. In addition, CF will grant a perpetual conservation easement to permanently preserve an additional 915 acres of unmined wetland and native upland habitat associated with the Horse Creek and Payne Creek corridors in the South Pasture mine. Ultimately, the Project will represent a substantial improvement in the Troublesome Creek headwater system, which has been degraded by ditching. Based upon the uniform mitigation assessment method analysis, the proposed mitigation plan will more than offset proposed impacts, resulting in a net increase in wetland functions on the Project site. While mining activity is temporary, this "surplus" improvement will be permanent. CF considered the potential impacts to off-site wetlands from the Project both during mining and after reclamation, particularly those wetlands that straddle CF's shared property boundary with Petitioner. Wetlands on Petitioner's property are similar to nearby wetlands on the Project site, in that historically they have been impacted by agricultural activities, including ditching. None of Petitioner's experts provided testimony of adverse impacts to wetlands or surface waters that would be reasonably likely to occur as a result of the Project. In contrast, Dr. Durbin testified that the wetlands on Petitioner's property are degraded and dehydrated due to the prevalence of agricultural alterations and that a modicum of additional water might actually benefit them. The application indicates that the proposed reclamation will result in an overall water balance that is consistent and compatible with the region's surface and sub- surface hydrology, and the combined groundwater and surface water outflow volumes from the Project site will be similar to pre-mining conditions. As noted earlier, the proposed recharge ditch system will maintain off-site water table levels within the normal range of seasonal high and seasonal low values, which is the range of fluctuation the water table level currently experiences pursuant to the IMR. Therefore, no dewatering will occur that will have an adverse ecological effect on Petitioner's wetlands. Dr. Durbin and Dr. Kiefer opined that the improvement in ecological conditions post-reclamation on the Project site can reasonably be expected to improve the ecological condition of the immediately adjacent wetlands on Petitioner's property. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Davis, opined that CF failed to provide reasonable assurances that the Project would not cause dewatering of wetlands on Petitioner's property. He presented model results using those high permeabilities that purported to show that, at some distance proximate to the property boundary, some drawdown would occur with maximum predicted drawdown approximately 80 feet or less from the property boundary. However, Mr. Davis selected the high end of the range of the subsurface permeabilities estimated in the RMR and assumed they were present continuously along the property boundary. Although the highly permeable conditions are not continuously present along the boundary line of Petitioner's property, measures to address those conditions have been identified and recommended, should they occur. Moreover, Mr. Davis' modeling did not use the existing conditions established in the IMR as a baseline and did not evaluate any of the mitigative options recommended in the RMR for use if high permeability layers are encountered. Rather, his modeling looked at only two scenarios that were not recommended in the RMR in such cases, namely, the recharge ditch alone, and charging the recharge ditch five feet above ground surface. He admitted that the options recommended in the RMR for high permeability subsurface conditions were all widely-used options capable of being implemented. Mr. Davis' assertions regarding the potential for a half-foot of drawdown near the property line are based on a series of assumptions and conditions which are not supported by competent substantial evidence. Therefore, his testimony does not rebut the prima facie case of CF and the Department regarding reasonable assurances and is not credited. Mr. Palmer criticized the adequacy of the monitoring contained in Specific Condition 14. However, he admitted that monitoring of the proposed piezometers would detect any water table changes, and the ERP requires comparison against the baseline data as well as long-term rainfall records. He also acknowledged that he reviewed only a portion of the condition. Thus, Mr. Palmer's criticisms are not credited. CF's reclamation also consists of a Stream Restoration Plan (SRP). Implementation of the SRP will result in replacing lower-functioning streams and lotic systems, like the ditched headwaters of Troublesome Creek, with higher quality systems post-mining pursuant to state reclamation requirements. Dr. Kiefer opined that this is reasonably likely to result in both localized and regional improvements to Troublesome Creek by restoring its headwaters to a more natural condition. This evidence was not refuted. Petitioner provided no testimony regarding the ecological effect of the Project on Petitioner's wetlands and water resources. FINR witnesses Burleson, Davis, and Palmer claimed no expertise as ecologists. In fact, Mr. Davis admitted that he normally provides his modeling reports to others with expertise regarding whether a modeled water level drop could actually be expected to cause harm. This was not done here. There was no credible testimony that adverse environmental or water resource impacts would result to Petitioner's property from the Project. Materials CF has analyzed whether it will have sufficient materials available to it to accomplish the objectives within the CRP, and sufficient capacity in existing South Pasture mine and proposed Project site CSAs to dispose of waste clays generated by the phosphate matrix processing. For this purpose CF prepared a Life of Mine Backfill Plan (LOMBP). The LOMBP describes how on-site materials will be utilized by CF, during both mining and reclamation activities, over the life of the mine. Based upon CF's calculations as reflected in the LOMBP, information contained in the MPP, and testimony from CF's expert witness, CF will have sufficient materials to achieve its mining and reclamation objectives, and sufficient capacity to dispose of waste clays in existing CSAs located on the South Pasture mine and proposed CSAs on the Project site. CF will be able to accomplish the mining and reclamation as proposed. Petitioner's expert, Mr. Palmer, opined that CF had not provided reasonable assurances of sufficient overburden to create the overburden soil slopes on mine faces discussed in the RMR. For the following reasons, his testimony is not credited. He admitted no experience with mining, dragline booms, how draglines cast overburden, or how cast overburden slopes are created, and he mistakenly assumed CF was limited in the transport of overburden to a distance of 330 feet, a figure not supported by the record. Additionally, Mr. Palmer incorrectly assumed that CF would be mining to an average depth of 73.3 feet, when in fact as reflected in the MPP, CF will be mining to an average depth of 40.4 feet, which means the average overburden thickness will be 18.9 feet, far greater than the 11.5 feet he assumed in his calculations. On the other hand, CF witness Wuitschick testified that there would be sufficient overburden to create the overburden seals called for in the RMR. Mr. Blitch, a CF employee with extensive mining experience and familiarity with the Project, testified that transportation of overburden is not limited to 330 feet and confirmed that CF will have more than enough overburden to create the overburden slopes, which are needed only along preserve and property boundaries and the ability to move it where it is required. Rules Requirements With respect to the ERP criteria contained in section 373.413 and rule 40D-4.301, CF has demonstrated, by a preponderance of the evidence, reasonable assurances that the Project: Will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands. Will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. Will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Will not adversely impact the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface waters and other water related resources. Will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that the water quality standards will be violated. Will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. Will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows. Is capable, based on generally accepted engineering and scientific principles, of being effectively performed and of functioning as proposed. Will be conducted by an entity with financial, legal, and administrative capability of ensuring that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, if issued. For the reasons expressed in Finding of Fact 64, a contention by Petitioner that the SPE mine application must be denied because CF failed to submit at hearing a separate document entitled "Construction Surface Water Management Plan" is rejected. This is because this requirement does not apply to facilities like CF that are required to obtain individual NPDES permits that address stormwater discharges. Assuming arguendo that it did apply, the Southwest Florida Water Management District Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (BOR) criteria are designed to be flexible, and other methods can be used to meet the rule objectives. Here, CF submitted numerous reports and studies which have been accepted as being the most persuasive on these issues, and collectively they show that reasonable assurances have been provided that all rule criteria have been satisfied. With respect to the additional public interest and other criteria contained in section 373.414 and rule 40D-4.302 for the protection of water resources and which are applicable to projects located "in, on, or over wetlands or other surface waters," CF has provided, by a preponderance of the evidence, reasonable assurances that the Project will: Not adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Not adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered or threatened species, or their habitats. Not adversely affect the flow of water. Not adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the activity. Be temporary in nature. Not adversely affect the current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the Project. Not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts. Will maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the Project site prior to the commencement of mining activities. The primary goal of the BOR is to meet District water resource objectives of ensuring that the permit will not authorize activities that are harmful to water resources or inconsistent with the public interest. As noted above, however, the criteria are designed to be flexible, and other methods of meeting those objectives will be considered. See BOR §§ 1.1 and 1.3. With respect to phosphate mining reclamation criteria contained in chapter 378 and rule 62C-16.0051, CF has provided, by a preponderance of the evidence, reasonable assurances that the Project will meet the reclamation criteria contained in the rule. The prima facie case provided by CF and the Department at hearing of CF's entitlement to the ERP for the Project was not successfully refuted, as discussed in the foregoing Findings of Fact. The prima facie case provided by CF and the Department at hearing of CF's entitlement to the CRP for the Project was unrefuted. No evidence concerning the reclamation criteria was presented by Petitioner. As set forth in the Order Granting the Motion to Strike and Motion in Limine issued on February 16, 2012, the Petition contained no factual allegations relative to the compliance with applicable regulatory requirements regarding, or potential for harm resulting from, the South Pasture Modifications (as opposed to the ERP or CRP for the Project). Therefore, the allegations relating to the South Pasture Modifications were stricken. The prima facie case provided by CF and the Department at hearing of CF's entitlement to the associated WRP and CRP Modifications for the South Pasture mine (South Pasture Modifications) was not refuted, and Petitioner made no proffer relative to the South Pasture Modifications prior to the close of the evidentiary proceedings. The ruling at hearing to receive in evidence the permit application and the Department's proposed agency action on these two items is reaffirmed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the applications of CF Industries, Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2012.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of Lot 28, Hidden Bay Subdivision, Martin County, Florida. On July 19, 1990, Petitioner filed an application with the Respondent for a dredge and fill permit to construct on the wetland portion of his lot a single family dwelling on stilts, a garage, and a connecting driveway to an existing roadway. The application also seeks a permit to retain a roadway that was constructed on the property before the Respondent asserted jurisdiction over the property. The existing roadway is 25 feet wide and 510 feet long and remained in existence at the time of the formal hearing. The connecting driveway on the wetlands portion of the property would require 40 cubic yards of fill. The following, taken from the Notice of Permit Denial entered by Respondent, accurately describes the proposed project: The proposed project will entail the temporary placement of 500 cubit yards of clean fill in order to set piles for a proposed stilt house. Additional fill (40 cubic yards) is proposed for a driveway to access a proposed garage. Riprap is proposed along the east slope of the driveway and along the northwest slope under the proposed stilt house. In addition, 186 cubic yards of the existing unauthorized fill road is proposed to remain. Total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. Petitioner's lot fronts Bessey Creek and is located in Section 1, Township 38 South, Range 40 East, in Palm City. Petitioner's lot is located approximately 2,200 feet south of the C-23 Canal on Bessey Creek. Bessey Creek is designated a Class III water. Bessey Creek combines with other tributaries and ultimately discharges into the North Fork of the St. Lucie River, which is designated an Outstanding Florida Water. Petitioner's lot consists of 1.82 acres. Respondent has asserted jurisdiction over approximately 1.3 acres of Petitioner's lot on the grounds that it is a fresh water wetland. Petitioner does not challenge Respondent's asserted jurisdiction in this proceeding. The Respondent has jurisdiction over dredge and fill activities conducted on the portion of Petitioner's lot that is at issue in this proceeding. This project is not exempt from permitting procedures. A dredge and fill permit is required for the proposed construction. Prior to applying for this permit, Petitioner contacted James McElheny, a landscape architect, who assisted Petitioner in drawing up the plans for the house, the driveway, and the garage that Petitioner desired to construct on the property. Without being aware that a permit from the Respondent would be required, Petitioner constructed a driveway on a portion of his property that was within the permitting jurisdiction of Respondent. This driveway extended to the landward end of a boardwalk that terminated as a dock in Bessey Creek. After Petitioner became aware of the need for a permit, he removed the filled driveway to a point that Martin County and Respondent agreed was appropriate. A portion of the driveway remained on property within the permitting jurisdiction of the Respondent at the time of the formal hearing. The plan prepared by Mr. McElheny also depicted this existing, unauthorized roadway. Petitioner's application seeks, in part, a permit to retain this driveway. On June 10, 1991, Respondent issued its Notice of Permit Denial based on the Respondent's conclusion that the Petitioner had failed to provide the required assurances in Sections 403.918(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Permit Denial provided, in pertinent part, as follows: The Department hereby denies the permit for the following reasons: This project is expected to have both short and long term impacts to biological resources and water quality. The total acreage to be impacted by this project is .092 acres. In addition, the applicant has not provided reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest pursuant to Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Pursuant to 403.919, F.S. which gives the Department the authority to examine secondary impacts, the Department has concerns about additional wetland resource and water quality impacts that may result from this project. Floodplain areas are essential to the river system and provide important functions for the environment. The floodplain serves as a buffer system in high tide and storm events. It also serves as a source of detrital input which supports the freshwater and estuarine food chains. In addition, these areas act to improve water quality by stabilizing sediment and filtering upland runoff. Long-term effects of the proposed project would include a decrease in the productivity of the system, as well as a decrease in the filtering and stabilizing capabilities of the system. Water quality degradation is also expected to occur with upland runoff from pesticides, fertilizers, sewerage and petroleum products. Floodplain wetlands also provide a habitat for a wide variety of reptiles, amphibians, birds, crustaceans and mammals. This would eliminate this wetland habitat. This project is expected to be in violation of the following Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code Rules: 403.918 Criteria for granting or denying permits 17-312.080 Standards for Issuance or Denial of Permit 17-312.300(3) Mitigation Intent 17-302.560 Criteria: Class III waters The Department has determined that the following changes to the project make the project permittable. Modify the project to reduce or eliminate adverse environmental impact by: Removing the unauthorized fill road from water of the state. Relocate the proposed house to utilize as much upland area on the property as possible. Relocate the garage and access driveway to an upland area [and] eliminate or modify the garage and access road to reduce impacts. Section 403.918, Florida Statutes, provides the following permitting criteria pertinent to this proceeding: A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be violated. . . . A permit may not be issued . . . unless the applicant provides the department with reasonable assurance that the project is not contrary to the public interest. . . . (a) In determining whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others . . . the department shall consider and balance the following criteria: Whether the project will adversely affect the public health, safety, or welfare or the property of others. Whether the project will adversely affect the conservation of fish and wildlife, including endangered species, or their habitat; Whether the project will adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling; Whether the project will adversely affect the fishing or recreational values or marine productivity in the vicinity of the project; Whether the project will be of a temporary or permanent nature; Whether the project will adversely affect or will enhance significant historical and archaeological resources under the provisions of s. 267.061; and The current condition and relative value of functions being performed by areas affected by the proposed activity. The Respondent is entitled to consider the cumulative impact of the proposed project pursuant to Section 403.919, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: The department, in deciding whether to grant or deny a permit for an activity which will affect waters, shall consider: The impact of the project for which the permit is sought. The impact of projects which are existing or under construction or for which permits or jurisdictional determinations have been sought. The impact of projects which are under review, approved, or vested pursuant to s. 380.06, or other projects which may reasonably be expected to be located within the jurisdictional extent of waters, based upon land use restrictions and regulations. The residence that Petitioner proposes to build on the wetland portion of the property will be constructed on pilings so that the underside of the house will be 12 feet above the ground. There will be a total of 12 pilings, with each piling being 10 inches square. The "footprint" of the house will be 1,654 square feet. If the project is permitted, best management practice will require that a silt screen be erected around the construction site during construction to prevent silt runoff. The proposed site for the house is located in a natural clearing that would require minimal clearing. If the project is to be permitted in this wetland, the site selected by Petitioner is the best site with the least impact on the wetland. Petitioner would be required to remove up to two laurel oaks and seven red maple trees. These are relatively small trees, and both species are common. Petitioner would also be required to remove shrub of no particular unique value. Petitioner proposes to mitigate the removal of the trees by replanting on the property trees that were removed in a 2-1 ratio, so that 6 laurel oaks and 14 red maples would be replanted. Petitioner also proposes to revegetate the area beneath the residence, with the exception of the area required by the pilings. There are invasive, exotic plants on the property, such as Brazilian pepper, that would be removed by Petitioner and replaced by native plants. Ms. Jacqueline Kelly, the environmental specialist who reviewed this project for Respondent, visited the property approximately four times for a total of eight hours. Ms. Kelly is of the opinion that no dredge and fill activity should be permitted on jurisdictional wetlands. Ms. Kelly testified that she observed several species of birds while she was on the property, including a wood stork, a great blue heron, a little blue heron, a tricolored heron, an osprey, bluejays, woodpeckers, and grackles. The wood stork is an endangered species and the little blue heron, the tricolored heron, and the osprey are species of special concern. These birds do not nest on the subject property, and they were not observed in the area of the wetland on which the proposed construction would occur. There was no testimony upon which it can be concluded that the proposed construction will stop these species from coming on to the property. Because of the slope of the terrain, the upland portion of the Petitioner's property drains away from the wetland while the portion on which the proposed construction would occur drains toward the wetland. At the formal hearing, Petitioner suggested that any concerns as to drainage from the roof of the proposed residence could be discharged onto the upland portion of the lot by gutters. In his post-hearing submittal, Petitioner proposes that a condition of the permit be that "[a] roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project." The permitting requirement contained in Section 403.918(6), Florida Statutes, pertaining to historical or archaeological resources was not at issue in this proceeding. Ms. Kelly concluded that Petitioner has not provided reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, as to each of the remaining permitting criteria. The rationale given by Ms. Kelly for her conclusions is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence is that all reasonable assurances required by Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes, that were at issue in this proceeding have been provided as it pertains to the construction of the residence. The existing roadway was filled using shell rock which has stabilized. The mere existence of the roadway on the wetland property was not shown to violate any permitting criteria since this roadway does not violate water quality standards and is not contrary to the public interest. Petitioner did not, however, provide reasonable assurances that the utilization of this existing roadway as either a driveway or a parking area would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that such use would not be contrary to the public interest or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner did not provide reasonable assurances that the construction of the garage or the extension of the driveway on these wetlands would not violate water quality standards as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(1), Florida Statutes, or that those parts of the project would not be contrary to the public interest as required by and within the meaning of Section 403.918(2), Florida Statutes. John Meyer was of the opinion that the project should be denied because of the possible precedent that the permitting of this project may establish for other owners of wetland properties. There was no factual or legal basis established for this opinion. The permitting of this project has no value as a precedent for other projects. There was no evidence that there were other permit applications pending for other projects in wetlands, and Mr. Meyer could only recall one or two such applications ever having been filed. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that speculative cumulative impacts of this project does not prohibit the permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 409.919(3), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order which permits Petitioner to construct the residence on stilts with the following conditions: That silt screens be erected during the actual construction to prevent silt runoff from the construction from reaching Bessey Creek. That a roof drainage system be installed that allows the roof to drain to the upland portion of the project. That Petitioner be required to mitigate for the removal of laurel oaks and red maple by replanting on the property two laurel oaks for each laurel oak removed and by replanting on the property two red maples for each red maple removed. That Petitioner be required to revegetate with native plants the area under the house except for the areas required for the stilts. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent deny a permit to construct a garage or extend the existing roadway. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Respondent permit Petitioner to retain the existing roadway on the condition that the roadway not be utilized as either a driveway or as a parking area for motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 12th day of January 1994.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's dredging and filling on his property in Center Hill, Florida, qualifies for an agricultural exemption under section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes,1/ from the requirement to obtain an environmental resource permit from the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Findings Of Fact The Property is comprised of 118 acres of contiguous parcels located within Section 23, Township 21 South, Range 23 East, in Sumter County, at the intersection of County Road 469 and County Road 710 in Center Hill, Florida. Title to the Property is held by Petitioner and his wife under various entities that they control.2/ The District is an administrative agency charged with the responsibility to conserve, protect, manage, and control water resources within its geographic boundaries, and to administer and enforce chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and related rules under chapter 40D of the Florida Administrative Code. The Department is the state agency authorized under section 373.407, Florida Statutes, to make binding determinations at the request of a water management district or landowner as to whether an existing or proposed activity qualifies for an agricultural-related exemption under section 373.406(2). Petitioner uses the Property for raising cattle, an agricultural use. The activities at the Property are operated under the name "Serenity Ridge Farms." Petitioner has had up to 65 head of cattle on the Property, but since 2011, has kept only approximately 30 head. The Property is classified as agricultural pursuant to section 193.461, Florida Statutes. At the time Petitioner acquired the Property, there was an approximately 2.5-acre, more or less triangular, wetland at the southern end of the western parcel at the intersection of State Road (SR) 469 and County Road (CR) 710, Center Hill, Florida (the Site).3/ This wetland was originally the northern part of a much larger wetland system but, years before, had been severed from the larger system by the construction of the two roads which form a “V” at the southern boundary of Petitioner’s property. Due to its severance from the larger system, the condition of the wetland on the Site was adversely affected. In addition, the Site had been used by others for dumping various types of debris over the years, including tires, appliances, and concrete. In approximately 2007, Petitioner decided to clean up the Site and build a pond. Although the primary water needs for his cattle had been met with water troughs serviced by a four- inch well on the Property, he intended to use the pond as a supplemental source of water supply for his cattle. In deciding to build the pond, Petitioner did not consult with the District. Nor did he confer with an engineer regarding the amount of water the pond should hold to meet the needs of his cattle. Rather, his decision as to the size and configuration of the pond was driven by the footprint of the area in the Site that Petitioner perceived as "full of garbage" and a "landfill." In March 2007, Petitioner began cleaning up the Site. He noticed a stench from the garbage as the area was cleaned. During cleanup, 26 old tires, 14-cubic yards of old appliances, and pieces of concrete and steel were removed from the Site. While there were no accurate wetland surveys of the Site prior to the initiation of Petitioner's clean-up efforts, historical photographs of the Site and remnant plants indicate that, at the time Petitioner undertook the cleanup, the wetland had been significantly impacted. The construction of roads SR 469 and CR 710, which occurred prior to 1973, severed and excluded the Site from the larger wetland area, preventing the free flow of water beyond the Site. Although remaining a wetland, the severance adversely impacted the wetland even before the dumping. The likely dominant species in the wetland were Carolina Willow (Salix spp.) and Primrose Willow (Ludwigia spp.). While both Carolina Willow and Primrose Willow are obligate wetland indicator species,4/ Primrose willow can be a nuisance species and Carolina willow can form a monoculture. In June 2007, the District became aware of Petitioner's activities on the Site. The District opened a complaint file and advised Petitioner that he should not proceed without a permit. Petitioner met with District staff on a number of occasions during his activities in an attempt to find a resolution with the District, but a resolution was never reached. As a result of Petitioner's dredging and filling, a 1.12-acre pond was created and an area of approximately 1.3 acres of wetland was filled. There is no remaining wetland function at the Site. In July 2008, the City of Center Hill sent a letter to the District's Environmental Regulation Manager. The letter, dated July 2, 2008, was signed by the City of Center Hill's Mayor, Chairman of the City Council, and City Clerk, and stated in pertinent part: As community leaders we have many responsibilities that include the stabilization and revitalization of the City of Center Hill. We are fortunate to have citizens who are concerned and active regarding the quality of life in the neighborhoods they reside in. The upkeep of our neighborhoods remains a critical element to the success of our community. Code enforcement cannot be successful without the support of our local citizens. It is the responsibility of each of us to keep our properties code compliant. This will ensure a safe and healthy City. As part of a large voluntary effort, we are pleased that Serenity Ridge Farms in eastern Center Hill implemented a clean-up on property adjacent to the intersection of SR 469 and CR 710 (E. Jefferson Street). The community has increased traffic visibility at this location after the removal of nuisance overgrowth. Additionally, the hauling of debris from the site eliminated a public health hazard that existed as a common dumping-ground for many years. In fact, the work at this location far exceeds any code compliance among the nearly 60 cases that have come to our attention in recent years. Property owners like Serenity Farms are what make our City in Sumter County a great place to live. Hence we ask that our correspondence be included in your files and distributed to members of your staff as you see fit. The subject property has no code deficiencies in the City of Center Hill. Despite the City's letter and efforts between Petitioner and the District, negotiations to settle the District's complaint by restoration or mitigation of the alleged adverse impacts of Petitioner's dredge-and-fill activities have been unsuccessful. The District’s governing board authorized initiation of litigation against Petitioner on December 14, 2010. On January 4, 2011, Petitioner submitted an after-the- fact application to the District for an environmental resource permit for the pond, along with an approximately $1,500 permit application fee. After conducting a site meeting to review the impact of Petitioner's activities, District staff made a request for additional information. The request for additional information (RAI) requested an amount of engineering that, according to Petitioner, would make compliance cost prohibitive. As Petitioner explained in his testimony: My quick estimate, and what the engineering, required all of that, surveys[,] to[p]ographic surveys, could have been anywhere from 50 to [$]75,000, maybe more. While the actual costs to comply with the Districts RAI have not been determined, Petitioner's testimony that the RAI requirements were cost prohibitive is credited. On November 14, 2011, the District wrote a letter to the Department formally requesting a binding determination from the Department as to whether the activities on the Property qualify for the agricultural exemption afforded by section 373.406(2). After receiving the District’s request, Department staff conducted a site visit of the Property on December 28, 2011. The approximately 1.12-acre open water area resulting from Petitioner’s dredging and filling ranges from 4 to 6 feet deep at the center, depending on the groundwater level. At the time of the District’s site visit, the central pond depth was approximately four feet. December is the dry season in this area of Florida and in 2011 there was a drought. The Department’s survey of the Site shows a water depth of six feet. There has been some recruitment of wetland vegetation in the shallower areas of the pond. In fact, some of the emergent vegetation is of higher quality than that which existed prior to the dredging and filling, and there is evidence that wildlife is utilizing it. In addition, Petitioner’s activities included the construction of berms below the bisecting roadways that help filter direct road run-off that previously washed into the Site. The Site, however, has not been restored to a wetland in any significant way. No regeneration is expected at sustained depths of greater than two feet. The maximum recommended depth for planting is one-and-one-half feet. The pond is fenced off, preventing the cattle from direct pond access. Petitioner has spent over $12,000 landscaping and putting in an irrigation system around the pond area. The irrigation system is designed to water the landscaping, including sapling live oaks and sod. Neither landscaping a pond nor irrigating landscaping around a pond is typical for cattle ponds. Petitioner has stated that he would someday like to build a retirement home overlooking the pond. The irrigation system, like the watering troughs on the upland portions of the Property, is serviced by a four-inch diameter well. Generally, a four-inch well can produce 60-100 gallons per minute. The pond as constructed contains approximately 100,000 gallons in the first four inches of water alone. The District’s standard permitting allocation for water withdrawal for cattle is 12 gallons of water per day. Under the Department’s best management practices rule,5/ the allocation is up to 30 gallons per head of cattle per day. On February 10, 2012, the Department rendered its Preliminary Determination which concluded that Petitioner’s activities did not meet the requirements for an agricultural exemption. Under the heading "Application of Statutory Criteria,” the Preliminary Determination stated: Pursuant to Section 373.406(2) F.S., all of the following criteria must be met in order for the permitting exemption to apply. "Is the landowner engaged in the occupation of agriculture, silviculture, floriculture, or horticulture?" YES. The [Department's Office of Agricultural Water Policy] finds that [Petitioner] is engaged in the practice of agriculture on 118 acres of agricultural land in Sumter County, as evidenced by their current agricultural land use classification, the ongoing agricultural production activities observed on site, and the aforementioned cattle sale receipts. "Are the alterations (or proposed alterations) to the topography of the land for purposes consistent with the normal and customary practice of such occupation in the area?" NO. [The Department] finds that the construction of a cattle watering pond within the footprint of a wetland is not a normal and customary practice for the area because: Cattle watering ponds are not normally constructed within wetlands; and Cattle watering troughs were observed in other upland locations throughout the property, precluding the need for a cattle pond in this location. "Are the alterations (or proposed alterations) for the sole or predominant purpose of impeding or diverting the flow of surface waters or adversely impacting wetlands?" NO. (As to impeding or diverting surface waters.) [The Department] finds that the construction of a pond in the wetland was not for the sole or predominant purpose of impeding or diverting surface waters. During the December 28, 2011 site visit, [the Department's Office of Agricultural Water Policy] staff verified that the post-development drainage patterns are consistent with the pre-development drainage patterns. Secondly, the wetland is not connected to offsite drainage systems, as it was severed in its entirety by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. This occurred prior to [Petitioner] taking ownership of the property. Lastly, the entire farm's drainage system is gravity driven, and is devoid of discharge pumps. YES. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) [The Department] is aware that the wetland was already of questionable quality (see letter from the City of Center Hill) when the pond was constructed, given that the wetland was severed and excluded from the larger wetland system by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Nevertheless, [the Department] finds that the activity was for the sole or predominant purpose of adversely impacting the wetland, as the character of the wetland was destroyed. In sum, the Preliminary Determination concluded that Petitioner’s dredging and filling activities did not qualify for the agricultural exemption provided under section 373.406(2) because the activities are not normal and customary and they adversely impacted wetlands. At the final hearing, however, the evidence indicated that Petitioner’s activities were normal and customary for cattle operations in the area. While the water needs of Petitioner’s cattle are usually served by a four-inch well, the pond constructed at the Site has been an effective supplemental source of water for Petitioner’s cattle operations. When the well ran dry, Petitioner used pump trucks to siphon water from the pond and fill the upland troughs. Petitioner plans to put a pump in the pond to supply water to his cattle, but has not yet done so. Man-made, belowground cattle-watering ponds are very typical in Florida, especially in south and southwest Florida because of the high water tables in the southern part of the peninsula.6/ Further, “[i]t is not uncommon practice for Florida cattle ranchers to excavate cattle ponds, remove muck from existing cattle ponds, and/or grade side slopes of ponds in low lying depressional areas to provide a safe and reliable water source for their cattle.”7/ The fact that it is common for cattle ponds to be built in low-lying areas was further demonstrated by aerial photographs presented by Petitioner’s witness, Mr. Modica, of areas near the Property, including an approximately six-acre pond off Palm Avenue (the Sanchez property), a pond at a site labeled Emory Lane, and a pond off CR 48. While the ponds are considered by the District to be out of compliance on the grounds that they may have adversely affected wetlands, their existence shows that dredging and filling in low areas for cattle ponds is common practice in the area.8/ Although the pond is larger than needed because the footprint of the dumping area was large, and Petitioner may have some non-agricultural plans for the Site in the future, under the facts and evidence as outlined herein, it is found that the pond constructed by Petitioner was for purposes consistent with common practices for cattle operations in the area. On the issue of whether there was adverse impact to a wetland, the evidence showed that Department changed its position several times while drafting the Preliminary Determination. Of the five drafts of the Preliminary Determination, on the question (c) "[a]re the alterations (or proposed alterations) for the sole or predominant purpose of . . . adversely impacting wetlands?” one draft stated: UNSURE. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) Documentation shows a 2.47 acre wetland impact area. This dredge and fill activity was for the purpose of converting the wetland to an open water and pasture area. However, this remnant wetland area was severed and excluded from the larger wetland system, as it was originally impacted by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Although wetland conditions prior to Zagame’s actions cannot be determined with certainty, a letter from the City of Center Hill indicates questionable wetland condition, which obfuscates remaining quality and function. Another draft, in answering the same question, stated: NO. (As to adversely impacting wetlands.) In the opinion of the [Department], the impacted remnant wetland was of questionable quality (see letter from the City of Center Hill) having been previously severed and excluded from the larger wetland system, by the construction of SR 469 and CR 710. Considering those factors addressed in the above- quoted drafts of the Department’s drafts of the Preliminary Determination, as well as the evidence of the condition of the wetland when Petitioner began his cleanup operations, it is found that the predominant purpose and effect of Petitioner’s activities was to construct a cattle pond and clean up a dumping ground, not to adversely impact a wetland.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding that the activities on Petitioner’s property addressed in this case are exempt pursuant to section 373.406(2), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2013.
