STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
OCCIDENTAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 77-2051
) STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ) ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly- designated Hearing Officer, G. Steven Pfeiffer, conducted a public hearing in this matter on March 4-7, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. The following appearances were entered:
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: W. Daniel Stephens, Esquire
HOLLAND & KNIGHT
Exchange Bank Building Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33601
For Respondent: Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire
Assistant General Counsel
Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301
During 1977, Occidental Chemical Company ("Petitioner" or "Occidental" hereafter) filed a permit application for certain dredge and fill activities within an area known as the Roaring Creek Basin in Hamilton County, Florida, with the Department of Environmental Regulation ("DER" hereafter). In its application, Occidental contended that DER did not have jurisdiction over substantial portions of the proposed activity. DER evaluated the application and the jurisdictional contentions, concluded that it did have jurisdiction, and issued its notice of intent to deny the application. Occidental requested that formal proceedings be convened in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, and on November 16, 1977, DER requested that a Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings be assigned to conduct a formal hearing.
Following the filing of the matter with the Division, the parties entered into lengthy settlement negotiations. Occidental advised the undersigned by letter dated March 13, 1979, that the efforts to settle the matter had failed. The final hearing was scheduled to commence on August 13, 1979. Prior to the scheduled final hearing, the matter developed into a procedural miasma. DER
filed a motion to dismiss which was denied, whereupon an interlocutory appeal was taken to the First District court of Appeal. Occidental initiated several collateral administrative proceedings, including a challenge to the validity of various DER rules. Occidental initiated review in the First District court of Appeal with respect to an interlocutory order rendered in the rule challenge proceeding, and eventually the application proceeding and the rule challenge proceeding were stayed (one by agreement, one by order) pending appellate review. In order to facilitate the resolution of the issues, the parties ultimately agreed to voluntarily dismiss the pending appeals, and to narrow the issues to a determination of the extent of DER's jurisdictional authority over the Roaring Creek area. The parties agreed to resolve the material issues respecting the jurisdictional contentions through a formal proceeding conducted in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. After this accommodation was reached, the final hearing was scheduled to b conducted as set out above.
At the final hearing, Occidental called the following witnesses: M. P. McArthur, an Occidental vice-president; Phillip E. LaMoreaux, a consulting hydrologist; Charles F. Hains, a consulting mechanical engineer; Lawrence W. Carver, a resident of the area and an employee of Occidental; James Herbert Hogan, a resident of the area and an employee of Occidental; Ben W. Breedlove, a consulting ecologist; William F. Tanner, a consulting geologist; and Andre F. Clewell, a consulting botanist. DER called the following witnesses: Landon Ross, DER's chief biologist and the administrator of DER's biological section; Mickey D. Bryant, a wildlife biologist employed by DER; David Scott, an environmental specialist employed by DER; Stephen Gatewood, an environmental specialist employed with an association which is focusing upon restoration of the Kissimmee River; Sydney Brinson, an environmental specialist employed by DER; James McNeal, an environmental specialist employed by DER; George T. Baragona, a professional engineer employed by DER; and Jerome Kelly, a consulting biologist. Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1, Occidental Exhibits 1-45, and DER Exhibit 1-28 were offered into evidence and were received.
The parties have submitted posthearing legal memoranda and proposed recommended orders. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact set out in the proposed recommended orders have not been adopted herein, they have been specifically rejected as being either irrelevant to the issues, or not supported by the evidence.
The purpose of this proceeding in accordance with the parties' agreement is to resolve disputed issues respecting the extent of DER jurisdiction over Roaring Creek under applicable statutes and regulations. Occidental contends that DER's jurisdiction is limited to that part of Roaring Creek downstream of the point at which the creek becomes intermittent. DER asserts that its jurisdiction extends further upstream and includes the headwaters of Roaring Creek.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Occidental owns land or mineral rights to land over a broad area adjacent to the Suwannee River near Lake City and White Springs in Hamilton County, Florida. Occidental has invested approximately $350 million in the area, and presently has two phosphate mines and two chemical plants in operation. Occidental intends to expand its mining operations into an area known as the "Roaring Creek Basin." Occidental has estimated that two and one- half million tons of phosphate are available to be mined in the area with a market value of $25.00 per ton. The company's present timetable would be to
commence mining operations in the Roaring Creek Basin by midsummer, 1980. The mining operations would require dredging and filling activities. 1/
The Roaring Creek Basin is a small portion of the Suwannee River Basin. The area of Occidental's mining operation is fairly unique within the Suwannee River Basin. It has been characterized as a relatively high, flat plateau region. The Suwannee River flows in this area through a limestone channel, which is a cut in an older, broader riverbed or flood plane. Roaring Creek and other tributaries of the Suwannee River in the area flow through incisions which have been cut into the plateau area. The incisions become fairly steep in lower areas of the tributaries in close proximity to the Suwannee River. In the upper areas, the incisions are not particularly steep. Limestone beds underlie the area. Sandy clay beds which interbed with the limestone formations lie on top of the limestone beds and are covered by surficial sand beds. The surficial sands are relatively permeable, while the sandy clay beds are relatively less permeable. Rainfall in the area, therefore, typically permeates through the surficial sands and forms an aquifer above the sandy clay layers. This aquifer provides additional water to streams flowing through incisions which have cut into the sandy clay layers. Sources of water for such tributaries are rainfall and the aquifer above the sandy clay layers. There are lower aquifers which could serve as potential sources of water in the tributaries but do not because geologic conditions are not sufficient to force these waters to the surface. 2/
Viewed as a single stream, Roaring Creek has its initial source at a "bayhead" or "cypress swamp" which is located approximately four and one-half to five miles upgradient from the Suwannee River. Prior to the excavation of a channel which occurred sometime during the early 1960's, water flowed from the bayhead through a small incision which does not cut through the surficial sand layers until it reaches a point approximately 2.5 miles upgradient from the Suwannee River. An excavation has been cut through the original meandering streambed from the bayhead to approximately the point where the creekbed cuts into the lower strata. In various places, water from the natural bed flows into the excavation, while in other places, water in the original streambed has been cut off from the excavation by debris. During periods of heavy rainfall, waters in the bayhead rise and flow through the original streambed and the excavated channel to the lower areas of Roaring Creek. The bayhead collects rainwater from surrounding areas and drains fairly slowly in response to rainfall. During dry periods, water does not flow from the bayhead to the lower areas of the creek; however, normally there will be standing water in portions of the original streambed and in portions of the excavation even during drier times. The evidence offered in this proceeding would not support a finding as to the portion of time that water flows all of the way from the bayhead to the lower regions of Roaring Creek. Rainfall is the only source of water for the bayhead and the upper area of Roaring Creek, and the upper area contains water flows throughout its length solely in response to the rainfall. 3/
At a point approximately 2.5 miles upgradient from the Suwannee River, the incision or channel cut by Roaring Creek extends down into the sandy clay layers below the surficial sands. At that point, ground water, which is easily transmitted through the surficial clays, forms an aquifer above the sandy clay layers and seeps rather constantly into Roaring Creek. The point is a short distance upgradient from a road known as "Burned Bridge Road". Roaring Creek flows during all but the very driest periods from that point until its waters reach the Suwannee River. This point, which has been called the "point of intermittency", was placed at slightly different locations by various witnesses, depending upon the sort of analysis that was used. The conclusion that has been found most credible is that presented by Phillip E. LaMoreaux. Dr. LaMoreaux
found the point of intermittency to be a short distance upgradient from Burned Bridge Road, approximately 2.46 miles from the mouth of Roaring Creek at the Suwannee River. The point is depicted with precision on Occidental Exhibit 19A. The UTM coordinants of the point are 3367025N336650E. 4/
Downstream from the point of intermittency, Roaring Creek cuts deeper and deeper into the sandy clay strata. It receives waters from several tributaries and form seepage of ground water which occurs throughout this lower portion of Roaring Creek, ultimately cuts into the limestone beds and earns its name as it forms two waterfalls near its mouth at the Suwannee River. 5/
Within and immediately adjacent to the streambed upgradient from the point of intermittency, the dominant vegetation is vegetation which is included in DER's list of freshwater submerged land indicator species. Rules of the Department of Environmental Regulation, Section 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code. The predominant vegetational species are pond cypress (Taxodium Ascendens) and black gum trees (Nyssa Biflora). Within the streambed itself, there are no upland indicator species. Within the excavated channel that has been cut through the natural streambed above the point of intermittency, the predominant vegetation is Maiden Cane (Panicum Hemitomon). Within the bayhead or cypress swamp which is circled on DER Exhibit 8, and is designated with the initials "JK", the dominant vegetation is pond cypress and black gum.
The dominance of wetland indicator species which occurs within and directly adjacent to the streambed and the excavated channel does not extend laterally to any great extent. While wetland indicator species will occur sporadically outward from the channels, upland indicator species begin to predominate in all but the areas immediately adjacent to the channels. This reflects the fact that the upper portions of Roaring Creek are in a high upland plateau region. Any effort to determine dominant vegetation outward from the confines of the stream channels would result in a bias in favor of upland species.
Within the streambed, there are no small cypress seedlings. This reflects that the streambed has not been dry for any prolonged period of time so as to permit the germination of cypress trees. There are also no hardwood or upland indicator species within the streambed, which reinforces the conclusion that the streambed even above the point of intermittency does not remain dry for long periods of time. 6/
There are several Roaring Creek tributaries where the extent of DER's jurisdiction is at issue. One tributary flows not Roaring Creek from the south and meets the creek at a point upgradient from the point designated "RO-1" on DER Exhibit 8 and on Occidental Exhibit 8. This tributary is outlined with black lines on DER Exhibit 8 and with red lines on Occidental Exhibit 8. The parties agree that DER has jurisdiction over it. A tributary of this tributary is bordered in red on DER Exhibit 8 and in yellow in Occidental Exhibit 8. Very little testimony was elicited with respect to this tributary of the Roaring Creek tributary. It appears that it flows only in response to rainfall events, but the evidence is insufficient to establish whether it normally contains contiguous areas of standing water.
Another tributary over which there is a dispute flows into Roaring Creek from the northwest and meets the creek at a point almost halfway between the points "RO-1" and "RO-2", as depicted on DER Exhibit 8 and Occidental Exhibit 8. A portion of this tributary is outlined in black and a portion in
green on DER Exhibit 8. Only a portion of it is outlined on Occidental Exhibit
The portion of it outlined on Occidental Exhibit 8, and in black on DER Exhibit 8, is below the point of intermittency. The portion outlined in green on DER Exhibit 8 is above the point of intermittency. There is an identifiable streambed above the point of intermittency which connects several cypress swamps. Wetland indicator species (pond cypress and black gum) constitute the dominant vegetation within the cypress swamps and within and directly adjacent to the identifiable streambed. The portion above the point of intermittency flows only in response to rainfall. The evidence would not support any finding with respect to whether it normally contains contiguous areas of standing water.
The final testimony over which jurisdiction is disputed enters Roaring Creek from the south, just upgradient from the point designated "RO-4" on DER Exhibit 8 and Occidental Exhibit 8. This tributary is outlined in red on DER Exhibit 8 and in yellow in Occidental Exhibit 8. An identifiable streambed connects the cypress swamp at the head of this tributary with the upper portion of the Roaring Creek channel. Wetland indicator species (pond cypress and black gum) predominate within and directly adjacent to the channel, and within the cypress swamp. It appears that water flows from the cypress swamp to the upper channel of Roaring Creek only in response to rainfall. The evidence would not support any finding as to whether the cypress swamp and streambed of this tributary normally contain contiguous areas of standing water. 7/
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The parties have stipulated for the purpose of this proceeding that the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding in accordance with Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The Petitioner has a substantial interest in a determination of the extent of DER's permitting jurisdiction in the Roaring Creek Basin.
The parties disagree as to which of them has the burden of proof. Generally, the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal maintain the burden of proof. Tropical Park v. Ratliff,
97 So.2d 169, 177 (Fla. 1957); Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (1st DCA 1977). Accordingly, when an applicant is seeking a dredge and fill or other permit from DER, the burden of establishing that the applicant meets the requirements of applicable statutes and rules lies with the applicant. Department of Environmental Regulation Rule 17-4.28(3), Florida Administrative Code. Conversely, where DER is seeking to take action against a party based on alleged violations of statues or rules, the burden of proof lies with the Department. Department of Environmental Regulation v. Communities Financial Corporation, DOAH Case No. 79-1560 (Recommended Order entered March 4, 1980, adopted by Final Order entered May 10, 1980).
Neither party has cited any directly helpful judicial or administrative precedent to support their respective views that the burden lies with the other. DER contends that since this matter originated as a license application proceeding, the burden of proof for all issues rests with the Petitioner. This contention begs the issue since Occidental has contended from the outset that it does not require a permit. Rather than seeking a permit, Occidental could commence dredging and filling activities and await enforcement action by DER, in which case the burden would clearly rest with DER. DER contends further that since the vegetative index set out in its rules presumptively establishes the extent of DER's jurisdiction, the burden of proof
is left with Petitioner. This contention is not helpful, since it does not answer the question of which party has the burden of establishing the existence of dominant vegetation.
In the absence of directly helpful or analogous precedent, practical considerations must prevail. Various policy considerations lead to the conclusion that the burden of establishing its jurisdiction under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, when it is contested, should rest with DER whether the issue arises in connection with a license application proceeding, a declaratory statement proceeding, or an enforcement action. In the first place, DER is the party most familiar with its own rules and the manner in which they are applied. DER is thus in the best position to evaluate an area and determine the extent of its jurisdiction. See, Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, supra.
Secondly, the citizen is always in a position to force the burden upon DER by simply commencing the activity and awaiting enforcement action. Imposing the burden of proof with respect to jurisdiction upon the citizen in a permit application proceeding where jurisdiction is contested would have the effect of encouraging avoidance of the permitting process. The result would be an increase in enforcement actions and potentially adverse and irreparable environmental damage.
Thirdly, imposing the burden upon DER would not cause any profound or onerous additional burden upon it, since its staff must evaluate jurisdictional issues when they are raised wherever the burden lies.
Fourthly, in the context of this proceeding, Occidental is without question a serious party which fully intends to undertake mining operations within the Roaring Creek Basin and seriously questions DER's jurisdiction over the area.
Administrative economy would be best served by imposing the burden upon DER, and it is concluded that it should lie there.
DER offered evidence during the course of the proceeding that certain animal organisms were found in areas of Roaring Creek above the point of intermittency. Occidental objected to the evidence, contending that Section 403.817(2), Florida Statutes, and DER rules adopted in accordance therewith require that the landward extent of DER's jurisdiction be determined based upon plant communities or soil types. Neither the statute nor the rules provide that the designation of submerged or transitional areas be based upon the existence of animal organisms. The objections to the testimony were overruled during the hearing in order to give the parties an opportunity to submit legal briefs with respect to the admissibility of the evidence. The objections are now hereby overruled.
DER did not offer evidence respecting the existence of animal communities in lieu of testimony with respect to the existence of plant communities, or to rebut inferences that might be drawn from evidence respecting the plant communities. Rather, the evidence was offered to buttress or support other evidence. The evidence respecting the existence of animal communities was cumulative of other evidence and does not serve as the sole basis for any finding of fact set out herein. The plant and animal community evidence both establish that there is standing water in the Roaring Creek channel in the areas above the point of intermittency, and that the standing water must necessarily be present for long periods of time. Neither the plant nor the animal community
evidence establishes that there are normally contiguous areas of standing water in the areas of Roaring Creek above the point of intermittency, nor that water flows in that area of Roaring Creek other than in response to rainfall.
DER has established that it has jurisdiction to require permits for relevant activities that affect Roaring Creek. Specifically, DER's jurisdiction covers those areas of the Roaring Creek Basin which are outlined in black or in green on DER Exhibit 8, and the areas outlined in red, except the tributary of the tributary which enters Roaring Creek from the south, just upgradient from the point designated "RO-1", and the tributary which enters Roaring Creek from the south, just upgradient from the point designated "RO-4".
DER is charged by statute with the duty to control pollution of water. Section 403.061, Florida Statutes (1979). "Water" is defined at Section 403.031(3) as follows:
'Waters' shall include, but not be limited to rivers, lakes, streams, springs, impoundments, and all other waters or bodies of water, including fresh, brackish, saline, tidal, surface or underground . . . .
The Legislature granted DER broad authority to determine the landward extent of "waters" at Section 403.817(2), Florida Statutes, which provides in relevant part:
. . . [T]he department is authorized to establish by rule, pursuant to Chapter 120, the method for determining the landward extent of waters of the state for regulatory purposes. Such extent shall be defined by species of plants or soils which are characteristic of those areas subject to regular and periodic inundation by the waters of the state. The application of plant indicators to any area shall be by dominant species . . . .
DER has promulgated regulations which are published at Chapter 17, Florida Administrative Code. Chapter 17-4.28(2) provides:
Those dredging and/or filling activities which are to be conducted in or connected directly or via an excavated water body
or series of excavated water bodies to the following categories of waters of the State (including the submerged lands of such waters and transitional zones of the submerged lands) shall obtain a permit from the department prior to being undertaken:
Rivers and natural tributaries thereto;
Streams and natural tributaries thereto;
* * *
(g) Natural tributaries do not include intermittent [sic] natural water courses
which act as tributaries only following the occurrence [sic] of rainfall and which normally do not contain contiguous [sic] areas of standing water.
The department recognizes that the border of certain water bodies listed in Section 17-4.28(2) may be difficult to establish because of seasonal fluctuations in water levels and other characteristics unique to a given terrain. The intent of the
vegetation indices in subsections 17-4.02(17) and (19) is to guide in the establishment
of the border of the water bodies listed in Section 17-4.28(2). It is the intent of this rule to include in the boundaries of such water bodies areas which are customarily submerged and exchange waters
with a recognizable water body as described in Section 17-4.28(2) (i.e. submerged lands and transitional zones of submerged lands). Isolated areas which infrequently exchange water with a described water body in Section 17-4.28(2) and/or provide only insignificant benefit to the water quality of a water body as described in Section 17-4.28(2) are intended to be defined as uplands and excluded from the definition of 'submerged lands'. The vegetation indices defining 'submerged lands' and 'transitional zone
of a submerged land' are presumed to accurately delineate said submerged lands and transitional zones.
It has been firmly established in this proceeding that Roaring Creek is a natural tributary to the Suwannee River and that it is a stream. Roaring Creek is, therefore, a "water body" subject to DER's permitting authority. Occidental contends that Roaring Creek is not subject to regulation above the point of intermittency based upon Rule 17-4.28(2)(g), Florida Administrative Code. This contention is without merit. Paragraph (g) identifies a kind of water body over which the Department as chosen not to exercise jurisdiction. The paragraph does not serve to define the boundary of a body of water which is subject to the Department's jurisdiction. The borders or landward extent of
water bodies which are covered by the rules are determined in the manner set out in the paragraph following Paragraph (g) based upon the vegetative indices set out at Rule 17-4.02(17), Florida Administrative Code, as to submerged lands, and
(19) as to transitional zones of submerged lands. Rule 17-4.02(17) provides:
'Submerged lands' are those lands covered by the categories of waters listed in Section 17-4.28(2), Florida Administrative
Code, including those lands contiguous [sic] to said waters when any of the following vegetational species, or any combination
of such species, constitute the dominant plant community . . . .
Even during dry periods, Roaring Creek has a distinguishable streambed above the point of intermittency. Within and directly adjacent to the streambed, the dominant vegetation, indeed, the only vegetation, is pond cypress and black gum, both of which are submerged land indicator species under Rule 17-4.02(17).
Within the excavated channel above the point of intermittency, the dominant vegetation is Maiden Cane, also an indicator species under the rule. In the bayhead or cypress swamp, the dominant species are cypress and black gum. It is, therefore, concluded that the landward extent of Roaring Creek includes the natural stream channel, the excavated channel, and the bayhead.
Occidental has contended that submerged land indicator species are not dominant above the point of intermittency because transects taken across the area demonstrate a dominance of upland vegetational species. Determining dominance in this manner causes a totally predictable bias toward upland species because except for the streambed itself, the area is an upland plateau region. Occidental also contends that the areas above the point of intermittency are not within DER's jurisdiction because they are isolated and infrequently exchange water with an included water body and/or provide only insignificant benefit to the water quality of such a water body. Waters from the bayhead flow through the excavated channel and through portions of the natural channel above the point of intermittency during wet seasons of the year. They are, therefore, not isolated. While it is true that waters from the Suwannee River or from Roaring Creek below the point of intermittency do not flow into the bayhead, the term "exchange" in the final paragraph of Rule 17-4.28(2), Florida Administrative Code, can include a directional flow.
DER has failed to establish that it has jurisdiction over the tributary of the tributary which enters Roaring Creek from the south, just upgradient from the point designated "RO-1" on DER Exhibit 8 and which is outlined in red on the exhibit; and the tributary outlined in red on DER Exhibit
8 which enters Roaring Creek from the south, just upgradient from the point designated "RO-4". Both of these water bodies are natural tributaries of streams and must be measured in a jurisdictional sense by the provisions of Rule 17-4.28(2)(g), Florida Administrative Code. It has been established that these water bodies act as tributaries only following the occurrence of rainfall. The evidence would not, however, support any conclusion as to whether they do or do not normally contain contiguous areas of standing water. Since it has been concluded that the burden of proof with respect to jurisdictional issues lies with DER, the failure of the evidence as to these two tributaries leads to the conclusion that DER does not have jurisdiction over them.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED:
That a final order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation finding that the Department has jurisdiction over those portions of Roaring Creek described in Paragraph 5 of the Conclusions of Law set out herein.
DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1980, at Tallahassee, Florida.
G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, 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 23rd day of May, 1980.
ENDNOTES
1/ The findings in paragraph 1 are determined from the testimony of M.P. McArthur and from Occidental Exhibits 5, 9, 13 and 31, which graphically depict the geographic area of the mining operations.
2/ This finding is determined from the testimony of Phillip E. LaMoreaux, Charles F. Hains, and Ben W. Breedlove; and from Occidental Exhibits 12, 18, and 23.
3/ This finding is determined from the testimony of Phillip E. LaMoreaux, Charles F. Hains, James Herbert Hogan, Ben W. Breedlove, Landon W. Ross, Mickey
D. Bryant, David Scott, James McNeal, George T. Baragona, and Jerome Kelly; and from Occidental Exhibits 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24-27, 29 and 32-38; and from DER Exhibits 8, 11, 12, 20 and 21.
4/ This finding is determined from the testimony of Phillip E. LaMoreaux, Charles F. Hains, Ben W. Breedlove, William F. Tanner, Andre F. Clewell, and George T. Bargona; and from Occidental Exhibits 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23-
27, 29-37 and 42.
5/ This finding is determined from the testimony of Phillip E. LaMoreaux, Charles F. Hains, Ben W. Breedlove, and Andre F. Clewell; and from Occidental Exhibits 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 29 and 38.
6/ This finding is determined from the testimony of Andre F. Clewell, Landon Ross, Mickey D. Bryant, David Scott, Stephen Gatewood, Sydney Brinson, Jerome Kelly, and Ben W. Breedlove; and from DER Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 8, 14-18, 24 and 25.
7/ This finding is determined from the testimony of Mickey D. Bryant, David Scott, Sephen Gatewood, Sydney Barinson, and Jerome Kelly; and from DER Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 24 and 25; and from Occidental Exhibit 8.
COPIES FURNISHED:
W. Daniel Stephens, Esquire HOLLAND & KNIGHT
Exchange Bank Building
P.O. Box 1288 Tampa, FL 33601
Silvia Morell Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel
Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301
Jacob D. Varn, Secretary
Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 08, 1980 | Final Order filed. |
| May 23, 1980 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 07, 1980 | Agency Final Order | |
| May 23, 1980 | Recommended Order | The burden of establishing the extent of its jurisdiction lies with the Department of Environmental Regulation, not the party seeking permit, though party has to show it is entitled to permit. |
