The Issue The manner and extent to which the criteria of Rule 17-7.07, F.A.C., entitled "Dump Closing" may be required by Respondent with respect to the Town of Surfside Dump.
Findings Of Fact In 1949, Petitioner purchased approximately 378.8 acres of land located in the northwest section of Miami, Florida. It sold approximately 250 acres of the eastern portion in 1959 to County Line Development Company. Petitioner utilized the remaining land as a solid waste disposal facility known as the "Surfside Dump," and in early 1955, other municipalities in North Dade and South Broward Counties also began using the facility for waste disposal. Originally, "white" goods, rubbish, garden trash, vehicle bodies, and tires were disposed of at the site, in addition to domestic garbage. Somewhat later, the receipt of vehicle bodies and other oversize waste was discontinued. For a number of years, the basic procedure for disposal was to dump the refuse into open trenches where it was compacted by bulldozers and covered with a layer of locally available material. The dump presently is bounded by Northwest 215th Street on the north, Northwest 47th Avenue on the west, Snake Creek Canal on the south, and the land previously conveyed to County Line Development Company on the east. A large portion of the dump area on the west side has not been used since 1972. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 3) Inspections of the dump conducted by Department of Pollution Control representatives at various times from 1973 through 1975 revealed that waste was not being covered in a satisfactory manner in that trenches were dug from old refuse, raw garbage was pushed into the water-filled trenches and then recovered with the old refuse. In 1975, the County Line Land Company filed suit against the Petitioner in the Dade County Circuit Court complaining that the dump constituted a public and private nuisance and was being operated in violation of the county code relating to uncovered garbage, Chapter 10D-12 of the Rules of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services governing disposal of garbage, and Chapter 17-7 of the Department of Pollution Control pertaining to regulation of solid waste. The Circuit Court found that the dump adversely affected the health and welfare of the surrounding area, and that although the facility was being used for revenue purposes by Petitioner, the conditions existing there had not been improved over the years. It therefore enjoined Petitioner from accepting further refuse at the site commencing June 30, 1976, except from within its own boundaries. It further gave Petitioner until August 1, 1976, to show that it had complied with Chapter 17-7 of the rules of Respondent or that it had received a temporary operating permit under the pertinent regulations. The decision was affirmed by the First District of Appeal on January 4, 1977. State regulations in effect since 1962 have required sanitary landfills to dispose of garbage in compacted layers with not less than a daily six inches of cover material and a final covering of two feet of compacted earth unless otherwise approved by the regulating state agency. (Rule 170C-10.07, State Board of Health; Rule 10D-12.07, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services)(Respondent's Exhibits 1-3) On February 4, 1975, the Department of Pollution Control sent Petitioner a Letter of Notice advising that the Surfside Dump was in violation of various provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, by not applying for a temporary operation permit. By letter of March 28, 1975, that Department sent a Warning Notice to Petitioner along the same lines and advising of civil penalties for violation of pollution control laws. On May 3, 1975, Petitioner filed an incomplete application for the temporary operating permit. However, it was not until January 20, 1976, that Petitioner ostensibly furnished the necessary exhibits and public notice of its application. By letter of February 9, 1976, the acting district manager of the Respondent, which had succeeded the Department of Pollution Control, informed Petitioner that the Public Notice which had been published did not meet departmental requirements. (Testimony of Quaas, Respondent's Exhibits 5, 13) On June 1, 1976, the Respondent issued a Notice of Violation to Petitioner which stated that the Surfside Dump was being operated without a valid and current permit in an unsafe and unsanitary manner and thereby had violated various provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7 Florida Administrative Code. The notice included a section entitled "Orders for Corrective Action" which provided that the Petitioner should reimburse the Respondent for expenses, cease to accept any solid material as of September 30, 1976, and implement a specified system of operation and render monthly reports on the same. It also required Petitioner to close the site no later than July 1, 1977, with a final cover of two feet of clean compacted fill with side slopes not to exceed 3:1 slope, and for the entire site to be seeded or planted with grass or other suitable cover vegetation. The orders also required the Petitioner to complete his operating permit application by sending Respondent a compliance schedule and proof of publication of a Public Notice. Subsequently, on January 16, 1977, the parties entered into a "Consent Agreement and Final Department Orders" after having conducted informal negotiations in the matter. The agreement provided that Petitioner waived any right to a hearing under Chapter 120, F.S., and that it would close the site or convert it to a sanitary landfill within the time established in Rule 17-7.07, F.A.C. It required Petitioner to submit plans for closing or converting the site within a certain time period and for implementation of an Operation plan to cover each day's waste and any existing exposed waste with six inches of clean compacted fill. It further required the Petitioner to submit a plan for monitoring ground water for leachate no later than January 30, 1977. Thereafter, on February 25, 1977, Nathaniel M. Zemel, a consulting engineer employed by Petitioner, submitted a "Landfill Closing Plan" to Respondent's West Palm Beach office which provided for a minimum of 24 inches of earth cover over all refuse on the site. Mr. Zemel estimated that between 250 thousand and 300 thousand cubic yards of fill material would be required to complete the covering operation. However, by letter of March 25, 1977, Petitioner advised Respondent that it did not concur in Mr. Zemel's plan and that Dr. Damodar S. Airan would "further refine the plan to reflect new information." The Airan report was submitted to Respondent on October 5, 1977, and essentially concluded that the existing vegetation on the site would be killed and that other harmful effects would result if a final cover of two feet of fill were to be placed over the landfill area. The report therefore recommended that exposed areas of the dump be covered with approximately six inches of clean fill and that corrective measures for surface drainage be accomplished, including sloping, grading, and possible catchment and retention of surface runoff by a drainage canal leading to a small retention basin on the site. A closing plan with drawings to accomplish the report's recommendations was filed with Respondent on November 1, 1977. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibits 6, 7, 14-17) Respondent's staff reviewed the Airan report and closing plan and was of the opinion that the study did not prove the basic premise that six inches of cover over the dump area was adequate. Thereafter, on December 4, 1977, Respondent issued a Final Consent Order for Dump Closing," Order No. 91, which ostensibly permitted the Petitioner time to undertake a soil and vegetation effectiveness study conditioned upon its agreement to implement and adhere to a final closing and cover plan as determined by the Department upon its review of the results of the study. This order obviously had been framed prior to the submission of the Airan report since that report was the "soil and vegetation effectiveness study" referred to in the consent order which was to be submitted not later than October 5, 1977. The order also provided that Respondent's determination of a final closing and cover plan would be made no later than December 1, 1977 and that the final closing would be accomplished no later than March 1, 1978. Again, the terms of the Consent Order provided that the Petitioner waived any right to a hearing or administrative or judicial review of its terms. Respondent's review and determination of Petitioner's aforesaid study was reflected in a letter to Petitioner from its subdistrict manager, Warren G. Strahm, dated January 3, 1978. It stated that Petitioner's study did not provide evidence that six inches of final cover would minimize and control potential water pollution from vertical percolation of surface water, but that Petitioner's own report showed that thirty-two million gallons more of percolation would result from a six inch as opposed to a two foot final cover. The letter therefore directed Petitioner to implement and adhere to a final closing and cover plan that included a final cover of no less than two feet of compacted earth, grading and sloping of the area, seeding or planting the site with grass or suitable cover vegetation, monitoring of ground water for leachate , and compliance with all other requirements of Rule 17-7.07, F.A.C., by March 1, 1978. Petitioner thereafter filed suit against Respondent in the First District Court of Appeal, Case No. 11-447. The suit was dismissed on May 19, 1978, by joint stipulation of the parties wherein it was agreed that Petitioner would seek a Section 120.57, F.S., hearing. On May 25, 1978, Petitioner filed such a petition with Respondent seeking to have that agency declare Petitioner's final cover and closing plan requiring six inches of final cover to be valid, and that final cover only be required on those portions of the Surfside Dump which were actually used on or after October 1, 1974. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibits 8, 18, 19) The Surfside Dump has been closed to the receipt of solid waste since March 1977. Although some clandestine dumping of waste has occurred since that time, it has mostly been confined to an area outside of the fenced portion of the site. There are presently relatively small areas of exposed waste in about fifty per cent of the landfill area. Some waste may be seen at the ground level in vegetated areas. A certain amount of ponding occurs in areas of both sparse and dense vegetation. There is a heavy vegetative growth over approximately 90 to 95 per cent of the dump site, consisting primarily of torpedo grass, para grass, guineagrass, common rag weed, caster bean, and sedge. Torpedo grass is a principal species and is abundant in about two thirds of the vegetated area. (Testimony of Quaas, Conn, Hudson, Stotts, Hussin, Gatewood, Busey, Airan, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4, 5, Respondent's Exhibits 10-12) Ground water or infiltrating surface water moving through solid waste can produce leachate, a solution containing dissolved and finely suspended solid matter and microbial waste products. Leachate may leave a landfill at the ground surface as a spring or percolate through the soil and rock that underlie and surround the waste. However, since the solid waste is of variable composition, it is not possible to accurately predict contaminant quantities. In completed fills, the amount of leachate can be expected to decrease with time. Leachate percolating through soils underlying and surrounding the solid waste is subject to purification of the contaminants in a variety of ways, but is diluted very little in ground water. Although leachate from a landfill can contaminate ground water, it is necessary to determine the quality of ground water and the aquifer's flow rate and direction to assess its results. Grading of the landfill is a means of diminishing surface infiltration by promoting surface water runoff. Vegetation of a landfill helps to stabilize cover material and thus reduce infiltration. It also reduces infiltration by intercepting and evapotranspiring some of the precipitation. The soil cover over a landfill also reduces percolation into the landfill depending upon its permeability. Clayey and silty loams are well suited for final cover, but are not readily available in South Florida. Sandy soils are primarily available in that area, but allow increased infiltration of precipitation. As a landfill ages, the earth cover will be subject to settlement and maintenance may be required to fill in depressions to avoid ponding of rain water. Such a program should provide for repairing cracks in the fill area due to uneven settlement and reseeding and fertilizing as necessary on the repaired areas, to prevent major erosion and surface water ponding. Leachate leaving the bottom of solid waste can be undesirable for drinking water, surface water, industrial water or irrigation water. However, it is most difficult to determine the character and amount of leachate from a particular area due to the many complex factors involved in such an assessment. The most common method for leachate control is to minimize the amount of water infiltrating the site. Ground water monitoring is accomplished by obtaining samples from wells placed at various locations on and near the landfill. It is generally agreed among the expert authorities that a minimum of two feet of compacted soil is required for the final cover when closing a landfill under normal circumstances. It has been the policy of Respondent to apply the sanitary landfill closing requirements of a two foot final cover, as specified in Rule 17- 7.05(3)(m), F.A.C., to the closing of dumps. (Testimony of Quaas, Conn, Hudson, Stotts, Hussin, Busey, Snider, Respondent's Exhibits 21-27) Expert testimony establishes that most of the vegetative cover on the Surfside Dump will be killed if a two foot cover is placed over it. The plants would re-colonize after such disturbance, but it takes almost two years for new plant growth to reach maturity. The present vegetation has been on the site for a number of years. Vegetation normally will grow at a better rate if its roots extend through the cover soil into the solid waste. However, certain gases created from waste material can be deleterious. A six inch final cover over vegetation would permit certain species to survive well, including torpedo grass, which is abundant on the site. In bare areas, it is best to sprig torpedo grass which provides relatively rapid growth, or to plant bahia grass. (Testimony of Hudson, Gatewood, Busey, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The landfill site consists of an undulating terrain with surface drainage going in different directions from high to low level areas, but the overall drainage pattern is in a northerly direction. Two low-lying areas in the center and eastern portions of the landfill are subject to ponding after rainfall. These areas need to be filled, graded and planted in order to provide an overall northward direction of flow, together with grading and sloping on the eastern and southern boundaries of the area. Petitioner proposes to install subsurface drainage pipes, if found necessary, to promote horizontal movement of surface water and to provide catchment and retention of surface runoff diverted from the landfill area. This may include a shallow drainage canal along the northern boundary leading to a small retention basin in the northwest corner. Although these proposals were included in Petitioner's final closing plan submitted to Respondent, they were not considered by the latter's staff in evaluating requirements for the dump closing. Some profile corrections of the site were accomplished during the past year which eliminated ponding in the southwest corner of the landfill and improved drainage in the western portion. When further profile corrections are made to remove the remaining low spots, it is estimated that surface and subsurface runoff would increase and result in less leachate reaching the ground water table. (Testimony of Hudson, Airan, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4) Field and laboratory tests performed to determine the permeability of the soils on the landfill were performed by Petitioner at representative sites and by surface and subsurface soil samples. These tests showed that the infiltration rate at unvegetated locations was lower than that of adjacent vegetated areas, but this was attributed to the fact that in unvegetated areas, the soil is heavily compacted, very rocky, or no fill material is present. When infiltration was measured directly on waste material, it was found to be lower than that for surface soil. Mathematical calculations as a result of the tests showed that a maximum of 32 million gallons more would percolate annually through a six inch soil cover than a two foot cover. However, these calculations did not take into consideration the amount of surface and subsurface runoff. Petitioner's experts estimate that at least half of the percolation would be dissipated in that manner, leaving approximately 16 million gallons annually that would penetrate through the solid waste to the ground water. In considering this fact and the amount of water flowing laterally through the waste material, Petitioner concludes that only approximately one per cent of the total water flowing through the average ten foot waste layer under the water table would consist of vertical percolation. (Testimony of Airan, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4, 6-8, 10-13, Respondent's Exhibit 31-33) The Surfside Dump overlies the Biscayne aquifer. The Snake Creek Canal at the southern boundary of the dump site flows into Biscayne Bay some miles distant. There is a well field approximately one mile south of the dump at Carol City. Upstream of the Snake Creek Canal to the west is the North Dade County Landfill which is still in use. Snake Creek Canal is approximately fifteen feet wide and the bottom of the canal is approximately fifteen feet below original ground level. It is approximately thirty feet below the top of the landfill surface. Ground water flows generally in a southeasternly direction through the landfill. Approximately ten per cent of the ground water flows through the solid waste and the remaining 90 per cent bypasses and goes around the perimeter of the landfill. In May, 1977, a water quality monitoring program was undertaken by Petitioner that utilized nine sampling wells in three clusters of three each located in the northwest corner, center, and southeast corner of the landfill. In each cluster, one well was drilled to about five feet below the solid waste layer, the second ten feet below that point, and the third was ten feet above the waste layer. Water samples were taken in 1977 and in 1978. Tests of the samples showed that water quality generally improved with the depth of the well, and that the center group of wells had the highest level of contaminants because they were drilled in the middle of solid waste layers. In a number of instances, the pollutant levels for various substances were in excess of state standards. One well in the center of the landfill was dry during the rainy season which could indicate that the center of the landfill is less permeable than the outer layers and that a certain amount of water had been subject to subsurface runoff. It is conceded by both parties that the location and method of sampling wells does not provide sufficient definitive information concerning water quality in the area and that further monitoring needs to be undertaken in the future. Testing of Snake Creek Canal from points upstream and downstream of the Surfside Dump show that the surface water quality is most affected by contaminants from upstream. The North Dade County Landfill west of the Surfside Dump is undoubtedly a major influence on the quality of Snake Creek Canal water prior to reaching the Surfside Dump area. Leachate has not been found in canal water samples even though it is sufficiently deep to intercept the same if present. However, it is conceivable that any leachate plume could extend below the bottom of the canal. (Testimony of Stotts, Hussin, Snider, Airan, Patton, Petitioner's Exhibits 1, 4, 9, 12, Respondent's Exhibits 29 a-f) Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, it is further found: The Surfside Dump presently is contributing to contamination of the ground water table in an unknown amount and is a potential source of pollution to the Snake Creek Canal and Biscayne Bay; The amount of pollution caused by leachate can be reduced through the implementation of corrective measures for surface drainage, including the filling of low lying areas, and grading and sloping to permit maximum surface water runoff. Additionally, infiltration of water into the landfill will be reduced by preserving the existing vegetation thereon which is an important factor in stabilizing surface cover and reducing percolation through evapotransportation most of the present vegetation will not survive if a two foot cover of soil is placed over it, and reestablishment of vegetation to its present state will take approximately two years. A surface cover of six inches over the vegetation would permit survival of most existing vegetation.
Recommendation That Respondent issue a final order requiring Petitioner to comply with the requirements set forth in paragraph 6 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law with regard to closing the Surfside Dump. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Silvia M. Alderman, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph C. Jacobs, Esquire Melissa L. Allaman, Esquire Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom and Kitchen Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Stephen Cypen, Esquire 825 Arthur Godfrey Road Miami Beach, Florida ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION TOWN OF SURFSIDE, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1021 STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent. /
The Issue The issues are whether the Consent Order entered into between the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) and Kenneth Acre (Acre) is an appropriate settlement of the violations addressed therein and whether Acre is entitled to construction permit number IC35-190005 for an Industrial Waste Disposal Facility. The Bradys assert that the Consent Order is not a reasonable exercise of DER's enforcement discretion and that the permit should be denied.
Findings Of Fact Background Acre owns and operates an animal research facility in Eustis, Florida. Acre performs research trials on dogs using a USDA approved heartworm medication sold under the brand name of Heartguard, the chemical name of which is ivermectin. Acre is not in the business of testing or manufacturing new drugs. The Consent Order To handle the waste generated by the animals at the facility, Acre initially constructed a conventional septic tank system. Prior to construction, Acre contacted the Lake County health department to inquire about permitting and was told that he did not need a permit for his facility. With that information, he continued with the project. Subsequently, DER became aware of the facility and notified Acre that a DER industrial waste permit was required and that he should cease the discharge into the septic tank until such a permit was obtained. Acre complied with DER's instructions and plugged the septic tanks. Since the time the septic tanks were plugged, the waste has been collected by Roto Rooter on a periodic basis and disposed of offsite. Acre entered into a Consent Order with DER to resolve the alleged past violation for not obtaining a permit and paid of penalty of $600 as required by DER. The Consent Order is a reasonable and appropriate settlement of the violations alleged therein. The Disposal System Acre has applied for a permit to construct and operate an evapotranspiration disposal system to dispose of the waste from his facility on site. The proposed system is essentially a modified septic tank system using a lined drainfield to capture and hold the liquid waste, allowing it to transpire from the grass or otherwise evaporate into the atmosphere and preventing any discharge to groundwater. The waste will be discharged to a series of modified septic tanks which will provide treatment beyond that of a traditional septic tank system and will reduce the amount of total suspended solids. The first septic tank accepts the waste and provides initial treatment through natural settling of solids. The waste then passes through a filter device and travels by gravity flow to the second septic tank. From the second tank it flows through a second filter device and into a dosing tank. The dosing tank is basically a small holding basin with a pump that disperses the waste to the drainfield in incremental amounts. The dosing tank contains several float mechanisms which monitor the level of liquid in the tank. When the water level in the dosing tank reaches a certain level, one such float mechanism turns on the pump to transport the liquid to the drainfield. The waste is then pumped from the dosing tank through a closed pipe to one of two evapotranspiration cells where it is distributed through a number of perforated pipes. The Evapotranspiration Cells The perforated pipes are situated in a gravel bed approximately 24 inches in depth. On top of the gravel bed is a clay soil mix approximately 15 inches deep. The clay soil mix absorbs the liquid waste in the gravel bed by drawing it up through the process of capillarity. Once the liquid is in the upper clay soil layer, it is evaporated. Grass is planted on top of the soil mix as an additional method for dissipation of the waste. The liquid waste is absorbed by the roots of the grass and transpired through the grass leaves. The clay soil mix in the top layer of the system is relatively impervious. The impervious nature of the soil mix along with a three percent surface slope will prevent rain water from entering the evapotranspiration cells and impacting the effective operation of the system. The entire drainfield has a double liner: one PVC plastic liner and a 6" clay layer. These two liners will ensure that no discharge to groundwater will occur from the system. System Capacity It is estimated that the Acre facility will produce approximately 520 gallons per day (GPD) of waste to be handled by the system. The drainfield is designed to handle twice the volume that will be discharged by the Acre facility and is therefore more than adequate to assimilate the waste received into the system. The drainfield is composed of two independent cells so that loading of each cell will be rotated. Once one cell receives its maximum capacity, the loading of that cell will cease in order to allow that cell to assimilate the waste through evapotranspiration. In this manner, the first cell is permitted to "rest" while the second cell receives further loading from the dosing tank. Safety Features Although the proposed disposal system is innovative in design, it incorporates several safety features which will ensure that no overflow of waste will occur. First, a float mechanism in the dosing tank is designed to trigger an alarm in the event the water level in the dosing tank gets too high. If that occurs, the alarm provides a flashing light as well as a horn which will notify the operator of a problem. Once the float reaches this warning level, the system will automatically shut down, thus preventing further waste from entering the system. Second, each evapotranspiration cell is equipped with a similar device which will automatically close off the dosing tanks and prevent further discharge into the cells in the unlikely event the system were to become too saturated to accept further loading. Finally, the double lined drainfield provides an additional safety measure which will prevent any discharge to groundwater. The numerous permit conditions requiring periodic monitoring of water quantity and quality in the system itself as well as the groundwater in the vicinity of the system provide ample assurance that the system will not pose a threat to the state's water resources. Ivermectin Although the proposed system will not discharge to groundwater, DER required the applicant to determine the amount of ivermectin in the wastestream. Ivermectin binds tightly to soil and does not dissolve in water. A sample of the wastestream from the Acre facility was collected by Bionomics Laboratory, Inc., and analyzed by Analytical Development Corporation using the analytical procedure designed by Merck scientists. The results of this analysis show that the concentration of ivermectin in the Acre wastestream ranges from .6 to 6.1 parts per trillion (ppt). The publication submitted to the Department by Acre entitled, Chapter 11, "Environmental Aspects of Ivermectin Usage in Livestock: General Considerations" by Halley, Nessel and Lu, from William C. Campbell, Ivermectin and Abamectin, documents the results of studies designed to determine whether using ivermectin in animals would result in any harmful or undesirable effects on the environment through excretion in the feces. This publication indicates that: Ivermectin is relatively immobile in soil and will not readily translocate into groundwater. Ivermectin is rapidly decomposed by sunlight and therefore will not accumulate in soil when administered to livestock. Ivermectin has no effect on earthworms at a concentration in soil of 12 parts per million (ppm). (This concentration is approximately two million times higher than that of the Acre waste stream.) Aquatic organisms such as water fleas and fish are highly sensitive to ivermectin toxicity. However, ivermectin is not toxic to the most sensitive species, the Daphnia magna, at a concentration of 0.01 parts per billion (ppb). Ivermectin concentrations in cattle feedlot runoff was less than the no-effect level of 0.01 ppb for Daphnia magna and therefore should cause no adverse environmental effects in surface or subsurface waters. The highest concentration of ivermectin found in the Acre waste stream is 6.1 ppt (or .006 ppb), which is less than the 0.01 ppb non-toxic level for the most sensitive aquatic species. Based on the concentration of ivermectin found in the Acre waste stream and the fact that ivermectin binds tightly to soil, the discharge from the Acre facility would not cause any adverse environmental impact, even if it were discharged to groundwater. Bradys' case Bradys submitted no evidence to show that the Consent Order is not an appropriate settlement of the violations alleged therein. They submitted no evidence that the septic tanks were improperly plugged. Brady offered no expert testimony in support of their claim that the facility had caused an adverse impact to groundwater or that the proposed system would cause any threat to groundwater quality. Bradys apparent concern about standing surface water on their property during heavy rainfalls is not relevant to this proceeding. Their concern that the lining of the drainfield could leak is unsupported by competent evidence. Bradys learned immediately prior to hearing that DER had changed its position and intended to issue the permit. Their failure to present any relevant evidence that the Consent Order was insufficient or that the proposed facility would violate any applicable DER rules or criteria and their ill- prepared participation in the hearing was in part the result of DER's late change in position. Bradys' participation in this proceeding was not shown to be frivolous.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a Final Order and therein: Ratify the terms of the Consent Order as reasonable. Grant Acre construction permit number IC35-190005 for an Industrial Waste Disposal Facility, subject to the special conditions set forth in DER Exhibit 1. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NOS. 91-2608, 92-0958 AND 92-0959 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioners, Bradys 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 6 & 7(8) and 15(10). 2. Proposed findings of fact 1-5, 16, 27, 28, 31, 36-42, 44, 46-49, 51, 52, 54, 57-59, 61, and 62 are subordinate to the facts actually found in the Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 8, 10-14, 17, 19-21, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 43, 53, 55, and 56 are irrelevant. Proposed findings of fact 9, 18, 22-25, 45, and 50 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 34 and 60 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondents, Acre and DER Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-44(1-44). Proposed findings of fact 45 and 46 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlyn H. Kowalsky, Attorney at Law Bogin, Munns & Munns 250 North Orange Avenue 11th Floor-P.O. Box 2807 Orlando, FL 32802 Douglas MacLaughlin, Attorney at Law Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Martha Hunter Formella Attorney at Law FOLEY & LARDNER Post Office Box 2193 Orlando, FL 32802-2193 Carol Browner, Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation Twin Towers Office Building 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact This proceeding concerns an application for authority to construct and operate a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and an asbestos municipal solid waste landfill, as well as to close an existing 25.5-acre Class I municipal solid waste landfill located in Holmes County, Florida. This facility would function as a new regional landfill, in part, to replace the existing landfill in Holmes County. The applicant, EPAI, is a Florida corporation formed for the purpose of constructing and operating the proposed facility. EPAI has an option to purchase the site involved from its present owner, which will be accomplished after the facility is permitted, if it is, and all necessary permits for construction and operation have been obtained, then the applicant will sell stock in its corporation to City Management Corporation (City) domiciled in Detroit, Michigan. EPAI will then continue to exist as a wholly-owned subsidiary of City and will proceed to construct and operate the new landfill and initiate and complete all closure operations for the existing landfill. The Department of Environmental Regulation is an agency of the State of Florida subject to the provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17- 701, FAC, as pertinent to this proceeding. It is thus charged with regulating solid waste management facilities, including permitting their construction, operation, and closure. It is charged with reviewing applications for such projects and issuing permits therefor if the statutes and rules it is charged with enforcing are found to have been complied with by a permit applicant. It has performed that function in this case up until the point that jurisdiction of the permit application dispute engendered by the filing of the subject petition resulted in transfer of the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petitioner, CVA, is a group of Holmes County citizens opposing issuance of the landfill permit at issue. Based upon rulings on the motions to dismiss and extant law, CVA was required to present proof of its standing at the final hearing held in this cause. CVA called two witnesses, neither of whom presented evidence relevant to the issue of standing. CVA did not present any evidence, either through testimony or exhibits, to identify its members, to establish that a substantial number of its members would be affected by the issuance of the permit and the construction and operation of the landfill nor evidence which would identify members whose substantial interests will be affected by the construction and operation in a way different from any effect on the interests of the public at large. Project Background Holmes County currently leases a site on which its existing landfill is located. The site consists of 84 acres owned by Stone Container Corporation, the successor in interest to International Paper Company. The existing landfill itself covers approximately 25.5 acres. The proposed facility to be located on the same tract would serve as a new regional landfill to meet the solid waste disposal needs of Holmes County, as well as surrounding counties. The proposed facility would consist of approximately 20 acres divided into Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill facilities. The project will be located on To Shoo Fly Bridge Road, lying approximately 3.3 miles northwest of the City of Bonifay in Holmes County. The northern portion of the present landfill is an unlined cell operated by the county which began receiving waste in 1979 and ceased depositing waste sometime in 1987. The southside cell of the landfill is clay lined with a leachate collection system. That portion of the county facility ceased accepting waste sometime in 1990. Holmes County is unable to properly operate or to close the existing landfill. Consequently, in June of 1989, the county and the Department entered into a consent order whereby the county agreed to meet certain operational, groundwater monitoring, landfill cell design, administrative and other requirements within certain time periods. The county attempted to meet the terms of that consent order but was unable to do so, primarily for financial reasons. In 1990, the county applied to the Department for a permit to close the existing landfill in accordance with the pertinent provisions of Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-7, FAC. The closure permit application was denied by Department order of May 22, 1991. Waste disposal at the Holmes County landfill had ceased in 1990, but it has not been properly closed pursuant to law and Department rules. Currently, it only has a temporary cover of soil and seeded grass in order to stabilize its slopes on the portion of the landfill commonly known as the "highrise". The closure costs for the existing landfill were estimated at approximately $700,000.00, which is beyond the resources of the county. Residents of unincorporated Holmes County currently are disposing of their solid waste by hauling it to the regional landfill in Campbellton in Jackson County nearby or by dumping it in unauthorized disposal areas, such as streams or roadsides. The City of Bonifay disposes its solid waste in the Campbellton landfill, as well. The Campbellton landfill, however, does not accept several solid waste components, such as yard trash. Since the county was unable to obtain the necessary permits to either operate or to close the existing landfill and was unable to meet State-mandated solid waste disposal and recycling requirements, it entered into an agreement with EPAI in May of 1990, whereby that entity assumed financial and legal responsibility for closure of the existing landfill, including obtaining the necessary permits from DER to close it, upon issuance of DER permits necessary to construct and operate a new Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill at the same general site. The May 21, 1990 agreement between EPAI and the county authorized EPAI to so proceed before DER. Once EPAI obtained the permits necessary, the agreement provided that the county would surrender all right, title and interest in the 84-acre site to EPAI, convey all structures, equipment and appurtenances theretofore used by the county for its landfill operation to the corporation and to assign EPAI any legally assignable benefits which the county would receive under the 1988 Solid Waste Management Act, including recycling grants, if applicable. EPAI, the applicant, has an option to purchase the 84-acre site from Stone Container Corporation. After the issuance of any permits for closure and for construction and operation of the new facilities, the option would be exercised and the property would be conveyed by Stone Container Corporation to EPAI. Once it has purchased that property and the county has abandoned its lease on the property, pursuant to the May 21, 1990 agreement, EPAI would then hold fee title ownership and possession rights to the site. Once it obtained the necessary permits for construction and operation of the new landfill, EPAI will sell its stock to City. EPAI would then continue to exist as a wholly- owned subsidiary of City and will construct and operate the new landfill and close the existing landfill. City is a wholly-integrated waste management corporation based in Detroit, Michigan. It has been operating in the solid waste management field since 1961 and has extensive experience in landfill construction, operation and closure. It operates seven regional landfills, approximately ten transfer stations, and 30-40 residential and commercial solid waste collection companies in Michigan. It also operates hazardous waste facilities in Michigan and in Tampa, Florida. Through construction and operation of its regional landfill and hazardous waste facilities, it is familiar with and accustomed to compliance with all pertinent state and federal regulations applicable to such facilities. City holds a DER permit for its hazardous waste facility in the Tampa, Florida, area and has had a history of no major violations of applicable laws and rules. The corporation was shown to be financially sound. EPAI will operate the proposed facility, should it be permitted, as a regional landfill serving neighboring counties between Okaloosa and Jackson Counties, south to the Gulf of Mexico, and north to the Alabama border. The economic feasibility, however, was not shown to depend on interstate transport or disposal of out-of-state wastes in the landfill. Section 17-701.030, FAC, sets forth the permit submittal requirements for solid waste management facilities. CVA stipulated that EPAI met all applicable permit application submittal requirements in this section, except those in Sections 17-701.030(5)(h) & (i) and 17-701.030(7), FAC. EPAI has an option to purchase the landfill site from Stone Container Corporation, the current owner. EPAI has met the ownership requirement in Section 17-701.030(5)(h), FAC. The applicant will establish an escrow account to insure financial responsibility for closing and long-term care and maintenance of the landfill. A specific condition has been agreed to be placed in the permit requiring the applicant to submit written proof of having established financial assurance for closure and long-term care of the entire site 60 days prior to the acceptance of any solid waste at the facility and within 30 days after permit issuance for operations at the existing landfill. City has the financial ability to establish the escrow account and to provide the necessary financial assurance within 30 days after permit issuance. The applicant has thus satisfied the requirements of 17-701.030(5)(i), FAC, with regard to financial responsibility. Section 17-701.030(7), FAC, requires DER to forward a copy of the permit application to the Water Management District within seven days of receipt of the application. The Water Management District would then prepare an advisory report for DER on the landfill's potential impact on water resources with recommendations regarding disposition of the application. The Department sent the application to the Northwest Florida Water Management District, but the District did not prepare an advisory report. The administrator for the waste management program for the Department's northwest district office, who oversees solid waste facility permitting, testified that, as a matter of course, the District does not prepare an advisory report. Moreover, because the reports are advisory only, DER is not required to respond to any comments or follow any recommendations which may be made by the District in such a report. The Department normally issues solid waste facility permits as a matter of policy without having received a water management district report. 1/ Location and Site Requirements An aerial photograph of this area was prepared, as required by Section 17-701.050(4)(a), FAC. It shows the land uses, zoning, dwellings, wells, roads, and other significant features within one mile of the proposed landfill. This map shows several dwellings located within a mile of the site. The closest dwelling, as determined by aerial photograph and performance of a "windshield" survey, is approximately 2,400 feet from the site. The closest potable water well is at the dwelling located approximately 2,400 feet from the site. There are no existing or approved shallow wells within 500 feet of the proposed waste disposal areas at the landfill. Accordingly, the proposed landfill satisfies the condition in Section 17-701.040(2)(c), FAC, that solid waste not be disposed of within 500 feet of an existing or approved shallow water well. The surficial aquifer is located approximately 30 feet from the ground surface at the landfill site. The sediments in the area in which waste is to be disposed of consists of layers of clay and sandy clay having a very low vertical conductivity. The waste disposal cells will not be excavated down to the surficial aquifer. Therefore, waste will not be disposed of in ground water. Waste will not be disposed of in a sinkhole or in a limestone or gravel pit, as prohibited by Sections 17-701.030(2)(a) and 17-701.040(2)(b), FAC. The 100-year flood zone is located at approximately 120 feet national geodetic vertical datum (NGVD). The proposed landfill will be located at approximately 125 feet NGVD elevation and within a perimeter berm system. Therefore, waste will not be disposed of in an area subject to periodic and frequent flooding, as prohibited by Section 17-701.040(2)(e), FAC. The waste disposal areas are over 200 feet from Long Round Bay, the closest water body. Therefore, the 200-foot setback requirement is met. See, Section 17-701.040(2)(g), FAC. To Shoo Fly Bridge Road, on which the landfill is located, is not a major thoroughfare. There are no other major thoroughfares in the vicinity from which the landfill is visible. Accordingly, waste will not be disposed of in an area open to public view from a major thoroughfare. See, Section 17- 701.040(2)(h), FAC. The landfill site is not located on the right-of-way of a public highway, road or alley, and is not located within the bounds of any airport property. The landfill will not be located within a prohibited distance from airports, as proscribed by Section 17-701.040(2)(k), FAC. See also, Sections 17-701.040(2)(j) and (2)(i), FAC. There are no Class I surface waters within 3,000 feet of the landfill site so the setback provisions in Section 17-701.040(7), FAC, are satisfied. No lead-acid batteries, used oil, yard trash, white goods, or whole waste tires will be accepted at the Class I landfill cell. Only trash and yard trash will be accepted at the Class III cell. Therefore, the prohibitions in Section 17- 701.040(8), FAC, are not violated. A ground water monitoring plan has been developed for the landfill site, pursuant to Section 17-28.700(6), FAC, as required by Section 17- 701.050(3)(a), FAC. The original ground water monitoring plan was prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. and submitted as part of the initial permit application. This plan addresses monitoring well placement, monitoring, and monitoring plan requirements. It proposes corrective action, as required by Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. Subsequent modifications to that plan were developed by Dr. Thomas Herbert, an expert in geology, hydrogeology, well installation and water quality monitoring. These modifications particularly address monitoring well location and provide additional assurances that the ground water monitoring plan complies with Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. These proposed modifications were submitted to DER prior to hearing. A site foundation analysis using appropriate ASTM methods to determine stability for disposal of waste, cover material, and structures constructed on site was performed and the results were submitted to DER as part of the initial application. Additional foundation stability information and the results of another field investigation regarding sinkhole development potential at the site was submitted to the Department. The field investigations and reports in evidence provide assurance that the disposal site location will provide adequate support for the landfill, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC. The landfill site is easily accessible by collection vehicles and other types of vehicles required to use the site. The site design provides for all weather roadways to be located throughout the site for ready ingress, egress, and movement around the site. The proposed landfill is located to safeguard against water pollution originating from disposal of solid waste. See Section 17-701.050(3)(c)2., FAC. The bottom of the waste disposal cells will be located at least six feet above the top of the surficial aquifer. To ensure that ground water is not polluted by waste disposal, the Class I cell will be lined with a composite liner system comprised of a lower unit consisting of 24 inches of compacted clay having a maximum permeability of 1 X 10-7 centimeters per second, and an upper synthetic liner unit consisting of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) of 80 mil thickness. Leachate generated by the waste in the landfill will be collected by a leachate collection and removal system. The leachate control system consists of a two- foot thick layer of sand having a minimum permeability of 1 X 10-3 centimeters per second, with a permeable geotextile filter cloth layer and a highly permeable geonet layer to collect and direct the leachate into a drainage system consisting of a collection pipe system to transfer the leachate to a containment lagoon. Once in the leachate lagoon, the leachate will be evaporated, recirculated over the working face of the landfill, or transported off site for treatment at a waste water treatment plant. The waste disposal areas are located at approximately 125 foot NGVD elevation. This is well above the 100- year flood plain and they are not located in water bodies or wetlands. An adequate quantity of acceptable earth cover is available on site. See, Section 17-701.050(3)(c)3., FAC. The soil for cover will be obtained from the northeast portion of the site located across To Shoo Fly Bridge Road from the landfill site. The landfill site was shown to conform to proper zoning, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(c)4., FAC. The 1991 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element for Holmes County designates this site for "public/semi- public/educational" land uses. The "public facilities land uses" designation includes "utilities and other service facilities" of which municipal solid waste landfills are an example. No other land use designation in the Holmes County 1991 Comprehensive Plan expressly includes landfill uses. CVA adduced testimony from Hilton Meadows, its expert witness, as to plant species he observed in the vicinity of the site. He observed plants that he identified as being species that grow on the edge of or in wetlands, but none of these species were shown to exist on the landfill site itself. Mr. Meadows observed them in locations outside the perimeter berms of the landfill site but did not identify their specific locations other than a general direction from the perimeter berms outside of which he observed the plants. He did not quantify the wetland species he observed so as to establish their dominance and did not conduct a jurisdictional wetland survey, as envisioned by Chapter 17- 301, FAC. Landfill Design Requirements As required by Section 17-701.050(4)(a), FAC, an aerial photograph was submitted with the permit drawings. Plot plans were submitted with the permit application, in evidence as EPAI exhibit 1, showing dimensions of the site, location of soil borings, proposed trenching or disposal areas, original elevations, proposed final contours, and previously-filled waste disposal areas. Topographic maps were also submitted with the correct scale and contour intervals required by Section 17-701.050(4)(c), FAC, which show numerous details such as proposed fill areas, borrow areas, access roads, grading, and other details of the design and the site. The design plans also include a report on the current and projected population for the area, the geographic area to be served by the landfill, the anticipated type, quantity and source of the solid waste, the anticipated useful life of the site, and the source and characteristics of cover materials. The landfill will be a regional facility serving the residents of Holmes and surrounding counties. The current population of the area to be served is approximately 63,183 with the projected population for the year 2000 being 76,792. The landfill will receive municipal sanitary solid waste, asbestos, petroleum-contaminated soils, and yard trash. It will not receive used oil, lead-acid batteries, biomedical wastes, hazardous wastes, or septic sludge. The permit application was shown to satisfy all design requirements of Section 17-701.050(4), FAC. Geology, Hydrogeology, and Foundation Stability Dr. Thomas Herbert, a registered professional geologist and licensed well driller in Florida testified of geologic and hydrogeologic investigations and analyses he performed. Mr. Herbert has over 25 years experience in the fields of geology and hydrogeology and was tendered and accepted as an expert in those fields. Dr. Herbert drilled shallow and deep core borings, which were converted into monitor wells to monitor ground water in the surficial and deep aquifers under the landfill site. In addition, he drilled several medium-depth borings along the western boundary of the site to analyze geologic and hydrogeologic conditions in this area, which is the portion of the site closest to Long Round Bay. Dr. Herbert used a hollow stem auger to take the soil borings and install the monitoring wells. This is a device which allows sampling tools to be placed down a hollow drill barrel for more accurate sediment sampling. Dr. Herbert used a continuous sampling system wherein a five-foot core barrel sampled the soil conditions ahead of the turning drill auger. Continuous sampling is preferable to other types of soil sampling equipment because it provides a detailed representative sample of the soil on the site and enables the sampler to precisely determine whether soil materials occur in small thin layers or bands on the site or whether there is a massive deposit of relatively uniform soils. The continuous sampling method also minimizes mixing of soils and creates an undisturbed profile that can be examined once the core barrel is opened. This type of sampling yields a very accurate picture of soil conditions on the site. In addition to the borings taken on the site by Dr. Herbert, other core borings were taken on site by Ardaman & Associates, a geotechnical engineering firm, for the purpose of analyzing the site foundation to determine the site's stability and potential for developing sinkholes. These core boring profiles were analyzed, along with those performed by Dr. Herbert, in determining the site geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. In addition to the core borings, Dr. Herbert reviewed studies on the geology and hydrogeology of the area, as well as the field investigations reported by Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, as part of the original permit application submittal. In order to gather additional information on the geology and hydrogeology of the site, gamma ray logging was performed on the wells installed by Dr. Herbert, as well as on the existing wells at the site. Gamma ray logging measures natural gamma radiation from the sediments and permits identification of soil type based on the amount of gamma radiation coming through the soils. Generally, the higher the clay content, the higher the gamma ray count. Gamma ray logging provides an accurate means for determining clay, sand, or sandy clay soils. By examining gamma ray logs of wells he installed and sampled, as well as for wells already existing on the site, Dr. Herbert was able to obtain extensive information about the subsurface soil conditions at the site. Based on these information sources, the geology of the site was determined. The sediments ranging from the surface of the site down to more than 100 feet below the surface are part of the citronelle formation, which consists of consolidated to partially cemented sand, silt, and clay sediments, called clastics, deposited in the Plio-Pleistocene age, between one and four million years ago. The citronelle formation at the site is predominantly clay, with some thin sand lenses running through the clays. The sand lenses or "stringers" grade laterally into the clays or silts. A surficial aquifer is located between 30 and 40 feet below the land surface at the site and is confined immediately above and below by dense, dry clay layers. The top confining unit is estimated to be approximately 10 feet thick. The lower clay confining unit, down to approximately 100 feet below the land surface, consists of dense, dry clays with thin units of sandy or silty clays or clayey sands. Below the citronelle foundation, at approximately 100 feet below land surface, there is a sequence of weathered carbonate rock or mud, termed "residuum". This material is too fine-grained to yield water in usable quantities. Competent limestone is first encountered below the carbonate "residuum" at approximately 262 feet below the surface. This limestone is likely part of the lisbon- tallahatta formation, which is part of the Claiborne Aquifer. In order to investigate an area in the western portion of the site depicted in the Post, Buckley report as being sandy, Dr. Herbert installed a deep core boring and analyzed the soils in that area. He thus determined that rather than being solid sand, as depicted in the Post, Buckley report, the sediments in this area are actually sands interbedded with clay and silt stringers, which decrease the sediments' horizontal and vertical conductivity. He determined that the area is a sandy channel bounded laterally and below by dense clays. As with the rest of the site, the surficial aquifer also is confined in this area. As part of his ground water monitoring plan recommendations, Dr. Herbert recommended installation of an additional monitor well in this area. The core borings and gamma ray logging allowed accurate determination of the site hydrogeology. Transient surface water, termed "vadose" water, percolates down from the land surface through layers of clay, sand, and silt. Within these sediment layers, there are lenses of clay ranging from a few inches to a foot thick. Vadose water is trapped on top of the clay layers, creating shallow saturated zones called "perched" zones, ranging from one to a few inches thick. The vadose water and perched zones are not connected to any ground water systems. Below these perched zones, dense, dry clay layers create a confining layer above the surficial aquifer. The surficial aquifer occurs in discontinuous sandy layers 30 to 40 feet below the land surface. Beneath the surficial aquifer, dense, dry clay layers form a lower confining unit. These confining clay layers overlying and underlying the surficial aquifer create pressure or hydraulic "head", on the water in the surficial aquifer. When a core boring or well penetrates through the upper clay confining layer, the water in the surficial aquifer rises up the well or core casing, due to the hydraulic head, to a level called the potentiometric surface, which is at a higher elevation than the elevation at which the surficial acquifer is actually located. Based on the confined nature of the surficial aquifer, it was determined that water table elevations reported in the hydrogeologic report initially submitted as part of the application are actually potentiometric surface elevations. This is consistent with the information provided in the additional information submittal as part of the permit application which indicates that the potentiometric surface at the landfill site may be five to seven feet below the bottom of the liner. This was confirmed at hearing by Mike Markey, a professional geologist with the Department, who reviewed the permit application and hydrogeologic report submitted by Dr. Herbert and prepared a memorandum dated September 2, 1992, stating that his "previous concern regarding separation of the 'water table' aquifer and HDPE liner is no longer an issue because the 'water table' aquifer was not found" by Dr. Herbert. The surficial aquifer on the landfill site cannot yield enough water to support long-term use as a potable water source. Due to the high clay content in the aquifer, the water has a high sediment content and low water quality, rendering it unusable for domestic purposes. The overall horizontal conductivity for the surficial aquifer on a site-wide basis is estimated to be low due to the discontinuous sand layers comprising the surficial aquifer on the site. While some zones within the aquifer may have high horizontal conductivity, these zones have limited lateral extent and change rapidly into zones of low horizontal conductivity. The steep hydraulic gradient from the highest to lowest areas of the site further indicates that the surficial aquifer has low horizontal conductivity. If water were rapidly moving through the surficial aquifer across the site, the hydraulic gradient would be much less steep. The presence of the hydraulic gradient across the site indicates that the clay in the surficial aquifer system is so pervasive that the water in that system essentially is stagnant. Based upon his extensive experience and familiarity with the clastic sediments like those found at the landfill site, Dr. Herbert estimated the vertical permeability of the sediments comprising the upper and lower confining layers of the surficial aquifer to be in the range of 1 X 10-6 to 1 X 10-8 centimeters per second. These projected permeability values are very low, thus, very little water is moving vertically through the surficial aquifer to deeper depths. The original hydrogeology report on the site submitted as part of the application indicated that the ground water flow is to the west, southwest, and northwest based upon monitoring well and piezometric data. Dr. Herbert's subsequent field investigations confirmed the ground water flow direction as reported in the permit application. Dr. Herbert estimated that the surficial aquifer will be located between 8 and 15 feet below the finished bottom elevation of the Class I waste disposal cell. The intermediate aquifer system is located beginning 80 or 90 feet below the landfill site and is defined as all strata that lie between and retard the exchange of water between the surficial aquifer and the underlying Floridan aquifer, including the lower clay confining unit directly underlying the surficial aquifer. In this part of west Florida, the intermediate system is estimated to be 50 to 60 feet thick and acts as an "aquatard", which means that it retards the passage of water from the surficial aquifer to lower levels. The standard penetration test (SPT), which is an engineering test of soil density, yielded values of 40 to 50 blows per inch for soils sampled in the top 20 feet of the intermediate system throughout the site. These SPT values indicate the soils in the intermediate system are extremely dense, over-compacted clay materials. Below the clays, the lower portion of the intermediate system consists of a weathered limestone residuum. Due to the extremely fine grain size of the residuum, it will not yield water in quantities sufficient to support a well. The deep core borings taken at the site indicate that the Floridan aquifer limestone underlying the landfill site has undergone paleokarst evolution. The underlying limestone has been dissolved away over a long period of time, creating the limestone residuum detected in the deep core borings. Based on the deep core borings taken at the site, Dr. Herbert concluded there is no competent Floridan aquifer limestone capable of supporting wells underlying the landfill site, and the Floridan aquifer either is not present under the site or exists only as a relict or remnant of the limestone formations that make up the Floridan aquifer system in other parts of Florida. The core borings taken on site indicate that the paleokarst terrain underlying the landfill contains no cavities, large openings, sinkholes or other features in the rock that could cause the landfill foundation to collapse. All karst features in this area are filled in and "healed" by the carbonate residuum overlying the limestone under the landfill. Dr. Herbert also investigated the geologic nature of Long Round Bay. In addition to reviewing literature regarding the geology of west Florida in the vicinity of Holmes County and topographic maps depicting the site, Dr. Herbert took at least one sediment core boring in Long Round Bay and also circumnavigated the perimeter of the Bay. Based on information from these sources, Dr. Herbert opined that Long Round Bay, like many other drainage basins in the area north of Bonifay, is a collapse feature of the paleokarst sequence in the vicinity, and is a topographic depression caused by weathering away of the limestone over time. The sediments underlying Long Round Bay consist of deep citronelle clays washed into the collapse feature. Long Round Bay is relatively flat with poorly defined outlets and receives surface drainage from the surrounding area. Because there are no defined channels connecting Long Round Bay to Wright's Creek, water movement from Long Round Bay into Wright's Creek is extremely slow. Long Round Bay is likely not an aquifer recharge area because there is no direct karst connection between Long Round Bay and any aquifer. Clays have run off the surrounding area and accumulated in Long Round Bay for thousands of years sealing off any connections between it and any underlying aquifer. In addition to Dr. Herbert's determination of the potential for active karst formation under the landfill site, Ardaman & Associates performed the foundation analysis of the site, as required by Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC. The foundation analysis was supervised by William Jordan, a registered professional engineer. He has an extensive education in geotechnical engineering, as well as 11 years of experience in that field. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in geotechnical engineering and materials testing. As part of the foundation analysis, Ardaman & Associates performed two deep core borings to determine the potential for development of sinkholes at the site. Both borings were taken on the western side of the landfill site, closest to Long Round Bay. One of the borings was performed in an area having a relatively high sand content in the soil, as identified in the hydrogeology report submitted in the permit application. The borings were drilled down to approximately 160 feet below the surface, to the top of the weathered limestone horizon. In Mr. Jordan's extensive experience in foundation testing and analysis, presence or potential for sinkhole development is usually evident at the horizon of the limestone or within the top 15 feet of the limestone. The core borings did not reveal any joints, open seams, cavities, or very loose or soft zones at the horizon or on top of the limestone. In addition, the sediments overlying the limestone horizon were determined to consist of medium dense to dense and medium stiff to stiff sediments, which indicate lack of sinkhole activity or potential. No indication of active or imminent sinkhole conditions were found on the site, either through the core borings or from surficial observation. In addition to the deep core borings, Ardaman & Associates, under Mr. Jordan's supervision, also performed four other core borings to a depth of 60 feet below the land surface. These borings indicated the sediments at the site are composed of clayey sands, very clayey sands, "lean" sandy clays, and sandy "fat" clays. The SPT tests performed on the soils indicate the site soils range from medium to high density and are stiff to very stiff and hard. Mr. Jordan performed a settlement analysis of the landfill based on the types of sediments present on site and assuming a compacted unit weight of 37 pounds per cubic foot for the landfill waste. This unit weight is a typical weight value for compacted municipal waste. For settlement analysis, Mr. Jordan used the SMRF elastic compression and consolidation methods, both of which are professionally accepted standard methods for determining settlement of large structures, including landfills. Using these methods, he determined that the total settlement for the landfill over its total life would be between three and five and one-half inches. Based on the uniformity of the subsurface conditions and density of the soils on the site, any settlement would be uniform and thus would not result in tearing or other failure of the landfill liner. Mr. Jordan performed a bearing capacity analysis of the site. Based on the sediments on site, he estimated the safety factor against bearing capacity to be in excess of 10. The minimum acceptable safety factor for large habitable structures, such as buildings, is in the neighborhood of two to three. Thus, the safety factor determined for the landfill site far exceeds the minimum standard for bearing capacity. Mr. Jordan performed an embankment slope stability analysis for the perimeter berm of the landfill. The inside slope of the perimeter berm has a 3:1 slope and the outside slope has a 4:1 slope. Mr. Jordan's stability analysis was performed on the inside slope of the berm which is steeper and, therefore, less stable. Due to the stability of the clay sediments composing the subgrade of the perimeter berm, and based on his extensive experience in slope stability analysis, Mr. Jordan determined there is no danger of deep circular arc failure of the landfill berm. He used a professionally accepted standard slope stability evaluation method called the "infinite slope" method, to analyze the probability for shallow circular arc failure of the berm. He determined a safety factor of 2.0 to 2.4 for the embankment slope, which is between 1.5 and 2.0 times greater than the minimum accepted safety factor of between 1.3 and 1.5 for embankment slopes. Mr. Jordan also performed an analysis of the site subgrade stability for compaction. Mr. Jordan's analysis showed that the stiff or medium dense silty to clayey sands and clays on the site provide a stable base against which compaction over the life of the landfill can safely occur. Based on the foundation analysis performed by Mr. Jordan on the landfill site, it is evident that the landfill will not be located in an open sinkhole or in an area where geologic foundations or subterranean features will not provide adequate support for the landfill. (See Section 17-701.040(2)(a), FAC). The foundation analysis indicates the landfill will be installed upon a base or in a hydrogeologic setting capable of providing support to the liner and resistance to pressure gradients above and below the liner to prevent failure of the liner due to settlement compression, as required by Section 17- 701.050(5)(b)2., FAC. The foundation analysis further indicates the site will provide support for the landfill, including the waste, cover and structures built on the site (See Section 17-701.050(3)(b), FAC). Section 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a, FAC, requires the lower component of the landfill liner to consist of a compacted soil layer having a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 centimeters per second. Mr. Jordan analyzed nine additional core borings to determine if the native soils on the site meet the conductivity standard in the rule or if off-site soils must be blended with on- site soils to achieve the standard. To test whether the on-site soil will meet the conductivity standard, soils were compacted to approximately 95% of the standard maximum for density, which is the industry standard compaction for soil permeability testing. The soils from eight of the nine borings taken at the site exhibited conductivity values of approximately 4.8 X 10-8 centimeters per second. This value is five times less conductive than the value required by the above-cited rule. Only one boring exhibited a conductivity value in excess of the maximum value established in the rule. Based on the conductivity values determined at the site, it is likely the native soils on the landfill site will meet or exceed the maximum conductivity value mandated in the above-cited rule. If the on-site soils do not meet this standard, then bentonite or another material from off site will be blended with the on-site soils to achieve the conductivity standard mandated by the rule. Ground Water Monitoring and Water Quality As required by Section 17-701.050(3)(a), FAC, a ground water monitoring plan for the landfill site was completed in accordance with Section 17-28.700(6), FAC. The original ground water monitoring plan was submitted as part of the application. This plan was incorporated into the notice of intent and the attached draft permit for the landfill, as part of specific condition The ground water monitoring plan subsequently was modified and supplemented by Dr. Herbert to include monitor wells required to be installed by Holmes County on the site, pursuant to the consent order entered into by the county and DER on June 26, 1989, as well as the wells installed by Dr. Herbert as part of his hydrogeologic investigation. DER established a zone of discharge for the landfill site, as required by Rule 17-28.700(4), FAC. The horizontal boundary of the zone of discharge extends to the ground water monitoring compliance wells located at the western, northern, and southern portions of the site and to a line coextensive with the eastern property line for the southeastern portion of the property. The horizontal zone of discharge boundary is located inside the western, northern, and southern property boundaries. The vertical zone of discharge extends from the land surface down to the top of the clay layer underlying the site at approximately +50 to +60 feet NGVD. These zones are established in compliance with Section 17-28.700(4), FAC. The groundwater monitoring plan provides for 15 monitor wells to be located in close proximity to the waste disposal areas and the site boundaries to monitor compliance with all applicable ground water quality standards in Sections 17-3.402, 17-3.404, and 17-550.310, FAC. Four of these wells will be located near the western property boundary to closely monitor water quality to insure contaminants do not seep into Long Round Bay. To detect contamination that may violate applicable surface water quality standards in Sections 17-302.500, 17-302.510, and 17-302.560, FAC, at the edge of and beyond the zone of discharge, the ground water monitoring plan provides for several surface water sampling points on the landfill site near the edge of the zone of discharge. If contaminants are detected in the surface water monitoring system, remediation activities can be implemented to insure the surface water quality standards set forth in the above-cited rules are not violated outside the zone of discharge. As required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)1., FAC, the ground water monitoring plan provides for a well to be located to detect natural, unaffected background quality of the ground water. The monitoring plan also provides for a well to be installed at the edge of the zone of discharge downgradient from the discharge site, as required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)2., FAC, and for installation of two intermediate wells downgradient from the site within the zone of discharge to detect chemical, physical, and microbial characteristics of the discharge plume, in excess of the requirement for one such well contained in Section 17-701.050(6)(g)3., FAC. The location of the other wells in the ground water monitoring plan was determined according to the hydrogeologic complexity of the site to insure adequate reliable monitoring data in generally accepted engineering or hydrogeologic practice, as required by Section 17-28.700(6)(g)4., FAC. Due to the essentially stagnant nature of the ground water in the surficial aquifer system, and given the location of the intermediate monitoring wells, any contamination detected at the site can be remediated through recovery wells before it reaches the edge of the zone of discharge. Moreover, due to the confined nature of the surficial aquifer system, there is very little free water in the aquifer. Accordingly, any contamination could be quickly removed by recovery of ground water and de-watering of the area in which the contamination is detected through remediation wells. Also, given the location of the monitoring wells on the site, the northerly direction of the surficial aquifer ground water flow on the northern portion of the site near the existing landfill, and the essentially stagnant nature of the ground water in the surficial aquifer, contamination emanating from the existing cell could be discerned from that emanating from the new cell and recovery and remediation operations directed accordingly. The DER intent to issue and draft permit specify an extensive list of parameters which must be sampled at the ground water monitoring wells and surface water sampling points on the landfill site, as required by Sections 17- 3.402, 17-302.510, 17-302.560, and 17-550.310, FAC. These parameters must be sampled and reported to DER on a quarterly basis. In addition, annual water quality reports must be submitted to DER for the site. Based on the large amounts of clay content and the low horizontal and vertical conductivity values of the on-site sediments, the stagnant nature of the surficial aquifer system, the virtual absence of the Floridan aquifer under the site, and the location of the monitoring wells, the ground and surface water monitoring program provides reasonable assurance that the applicable water quality standards in the rules cited above will not be violated within and outside the zone of discharge. Liner Design, Performance, Quality Control, and Installation Section 17-701.050(5)(d)1., FAC, requires that a composite liner and leachate collection and removal system be installed in a landfill such as that proposed. Mr. Leo Overmann, is a registered professional engineer specializing in landfill engineering. He has over 10 years experience in landfill engineering, design, and construction and has worked on the design and construction of over 50 landfill facilities and 250 landfill disposal cells. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in liner design, quality control plans, and leachate control systems design and performance. It is thus established that the composite liner will have an initial 24-inch layer of compacted clay having a maximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X 10-7 cm/sec. The 24-inch clay layer proposed by the applicant exceeds the 18- inch minimum thickness provided in the above-cited rule and will be placed in the field in layers or lifts of six inches or less. Each lift will then be treated and compacted to proper specifications in accordance with sound engineering practice in order to insure a tight bond between the clay layers. In the process of placing the clay lifts on the site, any roots, holes, channels, lenses, cracks, pipes, or organic matter in the clay will be broken up and removed, as required by the above-cited rule. In order to insure conductivity of the clay liner component does not exceed the above figure, testing will be done at the site or off-site by constructing a "test pad". A test pad is a site at which the liner construction techniques are tested using the clay material that will comprise the lower liner unit. Once the pad is constructed, the hydraulic conductivity of the clay can be tested to determine the most suitable construction methods in order to meet the above-mentioned conductivity standard and the other design and performance standards in the rule section cited last above. The applicant's liner quality control plan provides for testing of the clay liner hydraulic conductivity and compliance with the other liner design and performance standards in the rule (See Section 17- 701.050(5)(c), FAC). A synthetic geomembrane liner consisting of high density polyethylene (HDPE) will be placed directly on top of and in contact with the clay liner. If the geomembrane should leak, the clay will then retard leachate migration. Although Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a., FAC, only requires a 60-mil thickness liner, the applicant has proposed to use a 80-mil liner. The thicker HDPE liner is less susceptible to stress and wear and tear in the daily landfill operation than is the thinner 60-mil liner required by the rule. The water vapor transmission rate of the 80-mil liner will be approximately 1 X 10-12 cm/sec, which is 10 times less transmissive than the maximum water vapor transmission standard of 1 X 10-11 cm/sec established in Rule 17-701.050(5)(d)1.a., FAC. The design also provides for a drainage layer and primary leachate collection and removal system to be installed above the HDPE liner, as required by the above-cited rule. The drainage layer above the liner consists in ascending order, of a layer of geonet material having an equivalent permeability of approximately three cm/sec; a layer of non-woven, needle-punched geotextile cloth, and a two-foot thick layer of sand. The sand provides a permeable layer which allows liquid to pass through it while protecting the underlying synthetic components of the drainage system and liner. The geotextile cloth component of the drainage layer filters fine particles while allowing liquid to pass through it to the geonet layer. The geonet layer is approximately 3,000 times more conductive than required by Section 17-701.050(5)(f), FAC, so as to allow rapid drainage of leachate off of the HDPE liner. The drainage layer is designed to reduce the leachate head or hydraulic pressure on the liner to one inch within one week following a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. This was determined by use of the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) model. This model is the standard computer model used in the landfill design and construction industry to determine leachate depth over the synthetic liner in lined landfills. The HELP model calculations submitted in the permit application were prepared by Pearce Barrett, the EPAI landfill design engineer, an expert witness. The HELP model analyzes water and rainfall that falls on active waste disposal cells and percolates through the waste, and the model helps determine the amount of leachate that will accumulate on top of the liner. To determine this amount, the HELP model uses several parameters, including rainfall amount, landfill size, and the number of waste and protective cover layers. The HELP model in this instance involved employment of Tallahassee-collected rainfall data because long-term, site-specific data for the landfill site was not available. The Tallahassee rainfall average is greater than the rainfall average for Chipley, which is closer to the landfill site and, therefore, provides a more conservative, "worst-case" rainfall figure for employment in the HELP model calculations. The HELP is itself a very conservative model, generating a worst-case determination of the amount of leachate that will end up on top of the landfill liner. The model's analysis and calculations indicate that the leachate will be reduced to a one-inch depth on the liner within one week after a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. The landfill project design specifications, in the permit application, provide that all materials in direct contact with the liner shall be free of rocks, roots, sharps, or particles larger than 3/8 of an inch. The geonet and geotextile material are in direct contact with the top of the HDPE liner and the clay liner is located directly below the HDPE liner. The project design specifically provides that the clay material comprising the clay liner component will not contain roots, rocks, or other particles in excess of 3/8 of an inch. No waste materials thus will come into contact with the clay liner. The design specifications also provide additional protection for the liner by requiring that the initial waste placed in the landfill be select waste that is monitored and screened for such things as metal objects, wooden posts, automobile frames and parts, and other sharp, heavy objects which could tear the liner. The liner design contained in the application meets the design requirements of Rule 17-701.050(5)(d), FAC. Section 17-701.050(5)(b), FAC, requires that the liner be constructed of materials having appropriate chemical properties and sufficient strength and thickness to prevent failure due to pressure gradients, physical contact with the waste or leachate to which they are exposed, climatic conditions, stress of installation, and daily operations. The liner is constructed of HDPE, which is superior to other types of plastic for use as municipal and hazardous waste landfill liners due to its physical and chemical properties. It is a material composed of long polymeric chain molecules, which are highly resistant to physical failure and to chemical weakening or alteration. The liner is of sufficient strength and thickness to resist punctures, tearing, and bursting. The liner has a safety factor of over seven, which is three and one-half times greater than the minimum acceptable safety factor of two, required in the Department's rules for landfill liners. The liner proposed in this instance will not fail due to pressure gradients, including static head or external hydrogeologic forces. Mr. Overmann evaluated the effects of a hydrologic head of one foot over the HDPE liner and the clay liner component and determined that the protective sand layer will insure the HDPE liner does not fail. Mr. Overmann relied on the testimony of Dr. Herbert with respect to hydrogeologic site characteristics in concluding that hydrogeologic forces will not cause liner failure. The 80-mil liner proposed by EPAI will be more resistant to the stresses of installation and daily operation than will a 60-mil liner. The two-foot sand layer above the drainage layer and the HDPE liner will also help protect the liner from stresses of daily operation. Mr. Overmann analyzed the liner's potential for failure between the point at which it is anchored on the edge of the landfill and the base of the landfill where settlement is greatest due to waste deposition. He determined that the HDPE liner would elongate on the order of one percent of its length. This is far less than 700 to 800 percent elongation required to break the liner material. Based on the site foundation analysis and the proposed liner design for the landfill, the liner will not fail due to hydrogeologic or foundation conditions at the site. The liner meets the performance requirements set forth in Rule 17-701.050(5)(b)2., FAC. The liner meets requirements that it cover all of the earth likely to be in contact with waste or leachate. The liner extends beyond the limits of the waste disposal cells to an anchor trench where the HDPE liner is anchored by soils and other materials to hold it in place during installation and operation. The liner design provides reasonable assurance that the liner performance standards contained in the above rule will be satisfied. There are no site- specific conditions at the Holmes County landfill site that would require extraordinary design measures beyond those specified in the rule cited above. The permit application includes a quality control and assurance plan for the soil and HDPE liner components and for the sand, geotextile, and geonet components of the drainage layer. A quality control plan is one in which the manufacturer or contractor monitors the quality of the product or services; a quality assurance plan is one in which an independent third party monitors the construction methods, procedures, processes, and results to insure they meet project specifications. The quality control/quality assurance plan requires the subgrade below the clay liner to be prepared to insure that it provides a dry, level, firm base on which to place the clay liner. The plan provides that low- permeability clay comprising the liner will be placed in lifts of specified thickness and kneaded with a sheepsfoot roller or other equipment. Low- permeability soil panels will be placed adjacent to the clay liner and scarified and overlapped at the end to achieve a tight bond. Each clay lift will be compacted and tested to insure it meets the specified density requirements and moisture specifications before a subsequent lift is placed. Lined surfaces will be graded and rolled to provide a smooth surface. The surface of the final low- permeability soil layer will be free of rocks, stones, sticks, sharp objects, debris, and other harmful materials. If any cracks should develop in the clay liner, the contractor must re-homogenize, knead, and recompact the liner to the depth of the deepest crack. The liner will be protected from the elements by a temporary protective cover used over areas of the clay liner exposed for more than 24 hours. The plan also provides specifications for visual inspection of the liner, measurement of in-place dry density of the soil, and measurement of hydraulic conductivity on undisturbed samples of the completed liner. These tests will be performed under the supervision of the professional engineer in charge of liner installation to insure that performance standards are met. There will be a quality control plan for installation of the HDPE liner in accordance with the DER approved quality control plan that incorporates the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. The quality assurance and quality control plan calls for the use of numbered or identified rolls of the HDPE liner. The numbering system allows for identification of the manufacturing date and machine location, so that the liner quality can be traced to insure that there are no manufacturing anomalies, such as improper manufactured thickness of the liner. The plan also addresses in detail the installation of the HDPE liner. The liner is installed by unrolling it off spools in sections over the clay liner. As it is unrolled, it is tested for thickness with a micrometer and is visually inspected for flaws or potential flaws along the length of the roll. Flaws detected are marked, coded, and repaired. Records are prepared documenting each flaw. If flaws appear frequently, the HDPE is rejected and removed from the site. As the sheets are installed, they are overlapped and bonded together by heat fusing to create a watertight seam. As the sheets are seamed, they are tested in place by nondestructive testing methods to insure seam continuity and detect any leaks or flaws. If flaws are detected, they are documented and the seam is repaired. The seams are also subject to destructive testing, in which a sample of the seam is removed in the field and tested in the laboratory for shearing or peeling apart of the sheets. If destructive testing reveals seam flaws, additional field and laboratory testing is performed and necessary repairs are made. All tests, repairs, and retests are carefully documented, and a map depicting the location of all repairs is prepared for quality control and performance monitoring. The plan for the installation of the geonet, geotextile, and sand layers provides specifications for storage, installation, inspection, testing, and repair of the geonet and geotextile layers. The liner construction and installation will be in conformance with the methods and procedures contained in EPA publication EPA/600/2-88/052, Lining of Waste Containment and Other Impoundment Facilities, as required by Section 17-701.050(5)(a), FAC. The quality assurance and quality control plan proposed exceeds the requirements contained in Section 17-701.050(5)(c), FAC. Leachate Collection and Removal System The landfill design includes a leachate collection and removal system. See Section 17-701.050(5)(e)&(f), FAC. The leachate collection and removal system meets the requirements in the above rule by providing that the design incorporate at least a 12-inch drainage layer above the liner with a hydraulic conductivity of not less than 1 X 10-3 cm/sec at a slope to promote drainage. The drainage layer consists of a geonet layer, a geotextile layer, and a two- foot sand layer. The geonet has a hydraulic conductivity of two to three cm/sec, many times more permeable than required by the rule; and the sand layer will have a hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1 X 10-3 cm/sec. The leachate collection and removal system meets regulatory requirements contained in the above-cited rule that the design include a drainage tile or pipe collection system of appropriate size and spacing, with sumps and pumps or other means to efficiently remove the leachate. The design provides that the Class I cell will be divided into operating disposal cells. The design includes a piping system consisting of a 6-inch diameter pipe to be placed down the center of each of the operating cells and encased in a granular river rock medium. The HELP model calculations included in the permit application and evidence indicate that the leachate will be removed efficiently and effectively and that the leachate head will be maintained in compliance with the performance standards in the rule. The piping system is on a slope that drains to a central location or sump. Based on a design preference of City, the piping design will be slightly modified in the construction drawings to provide that rather than going through the HDPE liner, the leachate piping will run up the side of the cell wall and leachate will be pumped out of the cell into the leachate lagoon. The leachate collection and removal system design provides for a granular material or synthetic fabric filter overlying or surrounding the leachate collection and removal system to prevent clogging of the system by infiltration of fine sediments from the waste or drainage layer. A layer of non-woven, needle-punched geotextile will be wrapped around the granular river rock material surrounding the piping system to filter out fine particles. The design also provides a method for testing whether the system is clogged and for cleaning the system if it becomes clogged. A clean-out tool can be run through the openings in the leachate collection piping system to monitor and pressure clean the pipes if they become clogged. Thus, the leachate collection and removal system will satisfy the leachate system design requirements of Section 17-701.050(5)(f), FAC. The leachate collection and removal system will meet the performance standards in paragraph (e) of that rule, as well. The leachate collection and removal system will be located immediately above the liner and will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to collect and remove leachate from the landfill. The HELP model analysis and calculations indicate that the leachate depth will not exceed one foot on top of the liner. The leachate collection and removal system will be constructed of materials which are chemically resistant to the waste disposed of in the landfill and leachate expected to be generated. The geonet will be comprised of HDPE, which is chemically resistant to waste and leachate due to its molecular structure. The collection piping system also will be composed of HDPE. The geotextile layer will be composed of a non-woven polyester or polypropylene fabric, which has been determined to be resistant to and compatible with municipal solid waste leachates. The sand layer will consist of non-carbonate materials that are chemically resistant to or compatible with leachate. The evidence shows that the system will be of sufficient strength and thickness to prevent collapse under the pressures exerted by overlying waste, cover materials, and equipment used at the landfill. Geonet drainage layers, HDPE piping, geotextile fabric, and sand layers such as those proposed are routinely and effectively used in landfills, including those that are deeper than the landfill proposed in the instant situation. The leachate collection and removal system meets requirements in paragraph (e) of the above rule, as well, that the system be designed and operated to function without clogging through the active life and closure period of the landfill. The geonet and geotextile layers will prevent the piping system from clogging. If clogging occurs, the system is designed to allow cleaning of the pipes. The collection and removal system will be designed and constructed to provide for removal of the leachate within the drainage system to a central collection point for treatment and disposal. The leachate will drain by gravity from the sump into the leachate lagoon, but will be altered during construction to provide for pumping of leachate out of the system into the lagoon in order to prevent having to penetrate the HDPE liner with piping. Once the leachate is pumped into the lagoon, it will be recirculated over the landfill face, evaporated from the lagoon, or removed off site for treatment and disposal at a waste disposal and treatment plant. Surface Water and Storm Water Management System The storm water management system for the landfill is designed and sized according to local drainage patterns, soil permeability, annual precipitation calculations, area land use, and other characteristics of the surrounding watershed. (See Rule 17-701.050(5)(h), FAC). The engineering expert for the applicant, Mr. Barrett, designed the storm water management system. He considered the presence of dense clay soils on the site which do not provide good percolation because of low permeability, with regard to storm water falling on the site. He also took into account existing drainage patterns, as well as the annual precipitation. The retention and detention ponds and drainage ways designed into the system consist of three detention basins located at the north, southeast, and southwest quadrants of the site and one retention basin located on the western portion of the site. The site is divided into watersheds and is drained by an on-site gravity system consisting of runoff collection pipes to intercept the overland flow and convey the runoff into the retention and detention facilities. Runoff from the northern watershed is treated in detention basin 1, that from the southeast watershed in basin 3, and runoff from the southwest watershed area in detention basin 4. Runoff from the western area or watershed is treated in retention basin 2. A computer model was used by Mr. Barrett in determining the appropriate design for the storm water management system. The model is called the hydrologic engineering center-1 model developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is a model routinely and widely accepted in the storm water engineering design profession and discipline for designing such systems. It has historically been accepted by the Florida Department of Transportation, DER, the Corps of Engineers, and a number of counties and municipalities. A number of parameters, such as total runoff area, watershed characteristics, rainfall amount, time of concentration, lag time, and route description, were put into the model to develop the storm water management system design. Because no actual runoff data was available to calibrate the model, the model was run using data for two hypothetical storm events, the 25-year, 24-hour storm and the 10- year, 24-hour storm. Total rainfall amounts for these events were obtained from rainfall intensity duration-frequency curves developed by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) for this geographical area. The detention basins are wet treatment facilities having permanent pools of water. Wetlands vegetation grows on the littoral slopes of the detention basins and removes pollutants from the storm water by natural uptake of pollutants contained in the water through the roots, stems, and leaves of the plants. Based on the HEC-1 model, the detention basins are designed to store one inch of runoff over the permanent pool control elevation and to retain the first one-half inch of rainfall, as required by Section 17-25.040(5), FAC, for projects having drainage areas of less than 100 acres. Each basin has several pipes to allow outflow when the water level exceeds the one-half retention level. As water rises to the outflow pipe level, it flows out of the basin and eventually discharges off site. The outflow pipes are two to three inches in diameter, allowing discharge of a controlled volume of water at a controlled rate. The discharge structures will be constructed in accordance with construction drawings that will include erosion control devices, such as rip- rap. The basins also have vertical riser pipes that discharge if water reaches a higher set elevation, specified in the permit application. Only if the water level rises to an elevation exceeding the 25-year, 24-hour storm elevation would the water flow over the berm. As required by Section 17-25.025(8), FAC, the storm water management system design provides for skimmers to be installed on discharge structures to skim oil, grease, and debris off water discharged from the basins. No more than one-half of the volume will be discharged in the first 60 hours following a storm event. The detention basin slopes that exceed a four to one slope down to a depth of two feet below control elevation will be fenced for safety purposes. See Rule 17-25.025(6), FAC. The retention basin is designed to retain the first one-half inch of rainfall with filtration of the first one-half inch through a sand filter bed in the bottom of the basin within 72 hours following the storm event. The sand filter bed will consist of clean well-graded sand having a minimum horizontal and vertical conductivity or percolation rate of six inches per hour. The retention basin has vertical risers, as provided in the application. Erosion and sediment control "best management practices" will be used during construction to retain sediment on site, as referenced in Rule 17-25.025(7), FAC. Other best management practices, such as sodding embankments or stabilizing slopes with geomats or sand bags will be used. The system is designed to minimize mixing of the storm water with the leachate. (Rule 17-701.050(5)(h)3., FAC). As waste is placed in the landfill, berms are constructed laterally across the cell face to segregate the waste disposal areas from other areas in the cell not yet receiving waste. Storm water coming into contact with waste flows down through it and eventually is collected and removed from that cell by the leachate collection and removal system described above. Storm water falling in a portion of a cell in which waste has not been deposited is collected by piping and pumped to the storm water management system for treatment of storm water because it does not constitute leachate, not having traversed on or through waste. Storm water will not come into contact with the waste within the system as designed. There are not any pipes connecting the waste disposal cells to the storm water system or basins. The storm water system in the permit application was designed in accordance with the criteria enunciated in the above-cited rule. This fact was established by the unrefuted expert testimony of Mr. Barrett and was independently confirmed by three other engineers, including the storm water program engineer of DER, each of whom reviewed the storm water system design. The storm water program engineer inspected the site and determined that the proposed management system will not pose any risk to downstream property, as required by the statute and rules enforced by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFWMD). CVA adduced the testimony of Mr. Hilton Meadows in an effort to demonstrate that the storm water management system design in EPAI's application, and case-in-chief, does not meet applicable criteria in Chapters 17-701 and 17- 25, FAC, referenced above. Mr. Meadows attempted to demonstrate, by calculations determined using the "rational formula", that storm water will be discharged off the landfill site at a rate of 16.11 acre feet per minute during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. An acre foot of water is a depth of one foot of water covering a surface acre in area. According to Mr. Meadows, all storm water would be thus discharged off site at a single discharge point creating a "blowout" of the storm water management system structure at that point which would flood and erode Long Round Bay off the site. In rebuttal, however, Mr. Barrett explained that Mr. Meadows' calculations merely determined the total amount of water that would fall on the landfill site during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event and failed to consider the time-volume reduction of storm water off the site over a 24-hour time period. Mr. Barrett clearly established that 16.11 acre feet of water would not be discharged per minute off the site during the 25-year, 24-hour storm event. It was further demonstrated that Mr. Meadows did not perform any computer modeling in analyzing site-specific compliance of the proposed storm water management system design against the framework of the applicable design and performance standards in Chapters 17-25 and 17-701, FAC. CVA did not adduce any preponderant evidence which would demonstrate that the storm water management system proposed will not meet the design performance standards contained in the rules and rule chapters referenced above. In view of the more extensive background, education, knowledge, and training acquired both through education and experience; in view of the more extensive and detailed investigation and calculations underlying his design, including the computer modeling effort referenced above; and in view of his corroboration by three other witnesses within the storm water engineering discipline, the opinions of Mr. Barrett, and the witnesses corroborating his testimony, are accepted over that of Mr. Meadows. Gas Control System The gas control system for the landfill will meet the design requirements contained in Rule 17-701.050(5)(j), FAC. It will be a passive system, meaning that no mechanical methods are necessary to withdraw gas from the landfill. A ventilation system will be installed as the final cap is placed on the landfill and will consist of perforated PVC pipes placed vertically down through the soil cover layers, to reach the solid waste disposal areas. The pipes are wrapped in geotextile fabric in order to prevent them from being infiltrated by fine soil particles which could cause clogging of the system. The pipes will run laterally across the top of the waste disposal areas to transfer gas to the vertical vents which vent the gases to the atmosphere. If gas production should exceed the capacity of the passive ventilation system, vegetation will be damaged and odor will become objectionable. If that occurs, a pump can be connected to the system to extract gases mechanically and vent them into the atmosphere or flame them off as a more positive control method. The proposed gas system is typical for landfills of this size and has been well tested for efficiency at other such facilities. The gas control system will not interfere with or cause failure of the liner or the leachate control systems. The gas control system is designed to prevent explosion and fires due to methane accumulation, damage to vegetation on the final cover of the closed portions of the landfill or vegetation beyond the perimeter of the property. It will control any objectionable odors migrating off site. The system, as proposed and proven in this case, meets the design requirements contained in the above-cited rule. Landfill Operation Paul Sgriccia, vice president of City, is a registered professional engineer specializing in landfill design, operation, and management. He has extensive professional experience in (and supervises a 20-person staff) designing landfills, obtaining permitting, and overseeing daily operation, environmental regulation compliance, compliance monitoring, hydrogeology, and groundwater monitoring with regard to landfill projects proposed, being constructed, or operated by City. Additionally, he is trained as an engineer. He was tendered and accepted as an expert in the fields of landfill operations and landfill management. The above-cited rule chapter requires landfills to have a ground water monitoring system that complies with monitor well location, construction, and sampling requirements of Sections 17-3.401, 17-4.26, and 17-28.700, FAC, and ground water sampling and testing in accordance with those sections, as well as Section 17-22, Parts III and IV, FAC. Mr. Sgriccia's testimony shows that the ground water monitoring plan proposed and considered in conjunction with the hydrogeologic investigation and ground water monitoring recommendations made by Dr. Herbert will meet these regulatory requirements. The recommendations made by Dr. Herbert concerning ground water monitoring should be incorporated as conditions on issuance of the permit. The applicant has voluntarily agreed to notify DER one year in advance of its ground water monitoring schedule so that DER can be present to collect "split samples", as referenced in Rule 17- 701.050(6)(a)3., FAC. Any grant of a permit should also be conditioned on this policy being strictly followed. The application also contains an operation plan, as required by the above-cited rule at paragraph (6)(b). The operation plan provides that EPAI will be the entity responsible for the operation and maintenance of the landfill. The plan provides that in the event of a natural disaster or equipment failure that would prevent waste from being deposited at the landfill, the waste will be disposed of at the Springhill landfill in adjacent Jackson County, pursuant to an agreement between EPAI and Waste Management, Inc., the operator of that landfill. The operation plan contains detailed procedures to control the type of waste received at the facility. Hazardous waste, biomedical waste, lead-acid batteries, white goods, used oil, and waste tires will not be accepted for disposal at the proposed landfill. Asbestos will only be accepted if it is in the proper regulatory approved containers. The operation plan specifies inspection procedures and procedures to be followed if prohibited wastes are discovered. All vehicles hauling waste to the landfill will be weighed and inspected by the operator or appointed attendants at the entry to the landfill. A load inspection will be performed to determine if the waste conforms to the approved waste description before the waste can be disposed. Paperwork, checks, controls, and records maintenance will be performed, as well as random load inspections for municipal solid waste generated by households. Spotters will observe the actual unloading of each vehicle at the active cells. Unacceptable waste will be rejected and cannot be disposed of at the site. Unacceptable waste that is already unloaded inadvertently at the site will be required to be removed immediately. DER will be notified of attempts to dispose of unacceptable waste at the landfill site. The operation plan provides for weighing and measuring of incoming waste and vehicle traffic control and unloading control. All these vehicles will be weighed and inspected before proceeding to disposal cells. The operation plan provides a method and sequence for filling waste into the disposal cells. Waste disposal will begin in the southwest corner of cell one and waste will be disposed in that cell up to an established final grade and the final capping process will be commenced before beginning disposal in another cell. Waste will be compacted on a daily basis when a load is received. Compaction equipment operates continuously over disposed waste loads to obtain maximum compaction. A daily cover of six inches of clean soil will be applied at the end of the day unless more waste will be disposed on the working face within 18 hours. Daily cover helps reduce disease-vectors, such as flies and rodents, as well as to reduce windborne litter. The gas control system will be maintained to insure that riser pipe vents are not dislodged and will be monitored to insure that explosive limits of methane are not reached. When leachate levels in the lagoon reach a certain level, the leachate will be withdrawn and recirculated back over the working face of the disposal area or else hauled off site to a waste water treatment facility for treatment and disposal. Leachate recirculation is becoming an accepted treatment method by regulatory agencies and is considered an effective industry standard treatment method. Leachate is recirculated by application to the active working face of the disposal cell by a watering truck and is dropped on the cell through a distribution bar or open valve pipe at the back of the truck. Leachate will not be applied during rainfall nor will it be aerially sprayed on the cell. Municipal solid waste has significant absorption capacity, so that large quantities of recirculated leachate are absorbed by the waste. The leachate that does eventually run through the waste is collected in the leachate collection and removal system and does not mix with runoff going into the storm water management system. The leachate lagoon is surrounded by a containment dike area with a loading station inside the dike for removal of leachate by truck for off-site treatment at a waste water treatment plant. A hose is hooked to a tank truck and leachate is pumped into the truck. Any spills during the loading process will be contained by the dike and will flow back into the leachate lagoon. The storm water management system will be operated to insure that there is no mingling of leachate with storm water runoff. The design provides for three diversion berms running the length of the Class I disposal cell which divide the cell into four smaller working cells. Any rainwater falling in the clean, unused cells will be removed to the storm water management system. The rain coming into contact with the working face is leachate and is collected and removed from the cell by the leachate control system. The operation plan addresses and satisfies each requirement of Section 17-701.050(6)(b), FAC. Rule 17-701.050(6)(c), FAC, requires certain operational design features to be incorporated in the landfill. Thus, the entire site will be enclosed by a minimum four-foot high fence with a gate that will be locked during off hours. To Shoo Fly Bridge Road is a county-maintained, all-weather road that provides main access to the landfill site. In addition, the roads on the site will be stabilized, all-weather roads. The operation plan provides for signs indicating the name of the operating authority, traffic flow, hours of operation, and any disposal charges, as well as scales for weighing the waste loads received at the site. Dust will be controlled by water spraying to avoid contaminated runoff due to chemical sprays and oils. Dust will be further minimized by use of paved roads, minimizing the areas of disturbed soil, vegetating stockpiles as soon as possible, and vegetating final and intermediate cover areas. Daily cover, use of portable fences, and cleaning operations by operating personnel will provide litter control. Firefighting equipment and facilities adequate to insure the safety of employees will be located on site. Daily cover will be used to minimize the potential for fire and fire extinguishers and water will be used to fight fires. If a fire is too large to effectively fight with on-site equipment, the Holmes County Fire Department will be called to assist. The operation plan for the landfill meets the requirements depicted in the above-cited rule at paragraph (d) in terms of personnel and facilities requirements. A certified attendant will be on site during all hours of operation and a telephone will be located on site. Equipment requirements are contained in the above-cited rule at paragraph (e). The applicant will thus maintain and operate a large bulldozer, soil scraper, front-end loader, water truck, motor-grader for cleaning roads, and portable pumps for storm water management and leachate management. In the event of an equipment breakdown, the plan provides for an agreement between the operator and a local heavy-equipment company to provide a compactor and other essential equipment within 24 hours. The equipment will have protective roll bars or roll cages, fire extinguishers on board, and windshields. The operation plan otherwise provides for protective devices and gear for heavy equipment and for personnel themselves, such as dust masks and hearing protection devices, hygienic facilities in the maintenance building and office, potable water, electric power, emergency first aid facilities and the like. Employees will be hired locally and trained in appropriate safety procedures and practices. In accordance with the provisions of Section 17-701.050(6)(j), FAC, the operation plan calls for solid waste in the Class I cell to be spread in layers of approximately two-feet in thickness and compacted to approximately one-foot thickness before the next layer is applied. Weekly compaction of the waste will be accomplished by heavy equipment at the Class III cell. The compostible materials and the yard trash at the Class III cell will be removed and composted on site. Bulky materials that are not easily compacted will be worked into the other waste materials to the extent practicable. As required by paragraph (k) of the above-cited rule, the compacted solid waste material will be formed into cells with the working face and side grades above surface at a slope of no greater than 30 degrees. The cell depth will be determined by the area in operation, daily volume of waste, width of the working face, and good safety practices. Waste will be placed into the cell beginning at the southwest corner and spread northward, eventually reaching grade level. As elevation of the cell approaches final grade, intermediate and final cover is applied to the cell. The final slope grade will be approximately 4:1 and will be terraced. The operation plan meets the requirements contained in paragraph (6)(1) of the above-cited rule that the cell working face be only wide enough to accommodate vehicles discharging waste and to minimize the exposed area and use of unnecessary cover material. The waste will not be spread across the entire cell immediately but instead will be spread on a small working face. The typical working area may be 50 feet by 50 feet or slightly larger, and will become larger as more loads of waste are received. Waste is deposited on the working face and compacted until final grade is reached, working across the face of the active cell in a terraced effect. Intermediate and final cover are applied to the portions of the cell that have reached design dimensions. The working face is kept as small as possible to minimize leachate generation, disease-vector problems, and the need for daily cover. The landfill operation meets the requirements contained in paragraph (6)(m) of the above-cited rule to the effect that initial cover will be applied to enclose each working cell except the working face, which may be left uncovered if solid waste will be placed on the working face within 18 hours. If there are adverse environmental impacts or problems with disease-vectors, initial cover will be placed on the working face at the end of each day for the Class I landfill cell and once a week for the Class III cell. The operation plan provides that an intermediate cover of one foot of compacted soil will be applied in addition to the six-inch daily cover within seven days of completion of the cell if final cover or an additional lift is not to be applied within 180 days of cell completion, as required by paragraph (6)(n) of the above-cited rule. The landfill will be closed in accordance with Sections 17-701.050(4) and 17-701.070-.076, FAC. The operation plan further provides that daily cover will control disease-vectors, such as flies, rather than employing use of pesticides. Uncontrolled or unauthorized scavenging will not be permitted at the landfill and will be controlled by fences and on-site personnel. Class III Cell The proposed Class III cell will be located over the old Class I cell last used by Holmes County. This area has a recompacted clay liner and a leachate collection system in place. Only yard trash will be deposited in the Class III cell, however. Based upon the Class III cell design and operating plan that will permit only yard trash disposal in it, any leachate generated from the Class III cell will not pose any threat to or violate applicable water quality standards in or outside the zone of discharge. Asbestos disposal is proposed at the landfill site. A separate asbestos disposal cell is proposed. The operation plan will provide that the asbestos be covered daily with a proper dust suppressant or six inches of non- asbestos material or will be disposed of in an area where proper warning signs, fences and barriers are present. Asbestos accepted for disposal at the landfill will be bagged and accompanied by shipping documents as required by EPA rules appearing in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulation. Persons working around asbestos will be specifically trained in its handling and must use appropriate protective equipment, as required by the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants set forth at 40 CFR 61.25 and other applicable federal regulations. The applicant proposes to dispose of petroleum contaminated soils at the landfill, as well. These soils will be mixed in with the waste on the working face. The soils will not be used as an intermediate cover or come into contact with surface water that will be conveyed to and treated in the storm water management system. Landfill Closure The application includes general plans and schedules for closure of the new and existing landfills. Once final grade is reached, an intermediate cover is applied over the daily cover if the working face will not receive any more waste or will receive final cover within 180 days. The gas control system will then be installed and the final cover consisting of an impermeable synthetic cap will be applied. The final cover will be a plastic cap constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC), HDPE, or some other synthetic material and covered by one foot of protective soil, topped by six inches of topsoil to promote vegetation growth. Soils for the closure effort will be obtained on site and will not be obtained by dredging in any jurisdictional wetlands. The final design provides for a terraced landfill profile for the new Class I cell. The waste levels will not exceed 10 feet in height and will be terraced at a 4:1 slope. The terraces will slope back against the cell wall and will be underlain by a subdrain to collect runoff and convey it to the storm water management system. This will prevent erosion of the final cover, waste exposure, and thus, additional leachate generation. The application contains a closure plan containing a general landfill information report and various other plans, investigations, and reports addressing all criteria and factors required to be addressed by Section 17- 701.073(6)(a)-(i), FAC. All such plans, reports and investigations were certified by Pearce Barrett, a registered professional engineer, expert witness and landfill designer for the applicant. The application contains a detailed estimate of closure costs and a monitoring and long-term care plan for the landfill meeting the requirements of Sections 17-701.075 and 17-701.076, FAC. An interest-bearing escrow account will be established for the landfill within 30 days of permanent issuance to cover the closure costs. Funds for closure, monitoring and long-term care of the landfill will be set aside as tipping fees are paid. As portions of the landfill are closed, funds in the escrow account will be available to pay for closure. This type of landfill closure and closure funding is termed "close as you go". This insures that available funds to close the landfill will be present so that funding problems such as those associated with the existing landfill will not arise. The long-term care plan provided for in the permit application and in the applicant's evidence provides for monitoring and maintenance of the landfill for a 20-year period after closure is complete. The storm water management system will be maintained and ground water monitored as part of this long-term care plan.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation dismissing the petition filed in opposition to the permit application and approving EPAI's application for the permit at issue, authorizing construction and operation of a 20-acre Class I, Class III, and asbestos landfill, as well as authority to close the existing 25.5-acre Class I landfill in Holmes County, Florida, in the manner and under the conditions delineated in the application, as amended, the Intent to Issue and draft permit and the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. It is further RECOMMENDED that the motion for attorney's fees and cost be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 6th day of April, 1993.
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent Oculina Bank is entitled to a Consolidated Environmental Resource Permit and Sovereign Submerged Lands Authorization to construct three single-family homes, an access drive, surface water management system, and three single-family docks in Indian River County.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner Pelican Island Audubon Society has more than 25 members residing in Indian River County, was in existence for more than a year before Oculina Bank filed its application for the Permit, and was formed for the purpose of protecting the environment, fish, and wildlife resources. Petitioners Carolyn Stutt and Garrett Bewkes live approximately one mile north of the proposed project site, on John's Island, which is on the opposite side of the Indian River Lagoon from the proposed project site. Petitioner Carolyn Stutt uses the Lagoon for boating, nature observation, nature photography, and sketching. Petitioner Garrett Bewkes uses the Lagoon for boating and fishing. Petitioners Orin Smith and Stephanie Smith did not testify at the final hearing nor present other evidence to show they have substantial interests that could be affected by the proposed project. Respondents did not stipulate to any facts that would establish the Smiths’ substantial interests. Respondent Oculina Bank has an undivided ownership interest in the project site and is the applicant for the Permit that is the subject of this proceeding. DEP is the state agency responsible for regulating construction activities in waters of the State. DEP also has authority to process applications for authorization from the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund ("Board of Trustees") to use sovereignty submerged lands for structures and activities that will preempt their use by the general public. The Project Site The project site is 15.47 acres and located along 45th Street/Gifford Dock Road in Vero Beach. It is on the western shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. The Lagoon in this area is part of the Indian River- Malabar to Vero Beach Aquatic Preserve. It is an Outstanding Florida Water. The Lagoon is an estuary, but it is almost non-tidal in this area. There is a seasonal rise in sea level that occurs from August to November and it is during this season that waters of the Lagoon flood into adjacent wetlands. The wetlands may be inundated at other times as a result of large storms. The wetlands along the western shore of the Lagoon play a role in regional tarpon and snook fisheries. Wetlands provide essential refuges for early-stage tarpon and snook. When the wetlands are inundated, larval tarpon and snook can move into the wetlands and seek out shallow areas to avoid predation by larger fish. The project site is dominated by salt marsh wetlands. In order to control salt marsh mosquitoes, the site was impounded by the Indian River Mosquito Control District sometime in the 1950s by excavating ditches and building earthen berms or dikes along the boundaries of the site. The mean high water line of the Lagoon in this area is 0.78 feet. The berms were constructed to an elevation of about five feet, but there are now lower elevations in some places. The wetlands on the site are isolated for much of the year because the waters of the Lagoon cannot enter the wetlands unless the waters rise above the lowest berm elevations. This connection only occurs in unusually high water conditions. The impoundment berms have decreased the frequency and duration of the project site’s inundation by waters from the Lagoon. There are almost 14 acres of wetlands impounded by the berms. The impounded wetlands are dominated by salt grass. There are also mangroves, mostly white mangroves, along the side slopes of the berms. Most of the upland areas are dominated by Brazilian pepper trees and Australian pine trees, which are non- native, invasive vegetation. Within the wetlands are three ponds. Before the project site was impounded for mosquito control, it had "high marsh" vegetation such as saltwort and glasswort, as well as black and red mangroves. The impoundment resulted in the reduction of these species. There is now reduced nutrient export from the impounded wetlands to the Lagoon. The project site still provides nesting, denning, and foraging habitat for birds and other wildlife. However, the environmental health and productivity of the wetlands on the site have been reduced by the impoundment berms. The adverse effects of impounding wetlands for mosquito control are widely understood by environmental scientists. Therefore, reconnecting impounded wetlands along the Indian River Lagoon has been a local and state governmental objective. North and south of the project site are salt marsh wetlands that have been restored. To the north is a portion of the mitigation area for a development called Grand Harbor. To the south is the CGW Mitigation Bank. Both adjacent wetland areas were restored by reconnecting them to the Lagoon and removing exotic vegetation. The restored wetlands to the north and south now contain a dominance of saltwort and glasswort. They also have more black and red mangroves. These environmental improvements, as well as an increase in species diversity, are typical for former mosquito control impoundments that have been restored. In the offshore area where the three proposed docks would be constructed, there are scattered seagrasses which are found as close as 25 feet offshore and far as 100 feet offshore. They include Manatee grass, Cuban shoal grass, and Johnson’s seagrass. The Proposed Project The proposed home sites are on separate, recorded lots ranging in size from 4.5 acres to 6.5 acres. The home sites would have 6,000 square feet of "footprint." The houses would be constructed on stilts. There would be a single access driveway to the home sites, ending in a cul-de-sac. The displacement of wetlands that would have been required for the side slopes of the access drive and cul-de-sac was reduced by proposing a vertical retaining wall on the western or interior side of the drive. Each home site has a dry retention pond to store and treat stormwater runoff. The ability of these retention ponds to protect water quality is not disputed by Petitioners. The home sites and access drive would be constructed on the frontal berm that runs parallel to the shoreline. However, these project elements would require a broader and higher base than the existing berm. The total developed area would be about three acres, 1.85 acres of which is now mangrove swamp and salt marsh and 0.87 acres is ditches. One of the onsite ponds would be eliminated by the construction. The houses would be connected to public water and sewer lines. Oculina Bank would grant a perpetual conservation easement over 11.69 acres of onsite salt marsh wetlands. It would remove Brazilian Pepper trees, a non-native plant, from the site. Petitioners' original objection to the proposed project and their decision to file a petition for hearing appears to have been caused by Oculina Bank's proposal to build docks over 500 feet in length. The dock lengths in the final revision to the project vary in length from 212 to 286 feet. The docks do not extend out more than 20 percent of the width of the waterbody. The docks do not extend into the publicly maintained navigation channel of the Lagoon. Because the docks meet the length limit specified in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 18-21, they are presumed not to create a navigation hazard. To reduce shading of sea grasses, the decking material for the docks would be grated to allow sunlight to pass through the decking. There are no seagrasses at the waterward end of the docks where the terminal platforms would be located and where boats would usually be moored. The dock pilings will be wrapped with an impervious membrane to prevent the treatment chemicals from leaching into the water. In Oculina I, the Administrative Law Judge determined that the condition for vessels moored at the proposed docks should be stated as a maximum permissible draft. The Permit imposes a maximum draft for boats using the docks. Fish Survey Oculina Bank conducted a fish sampling survey in 2014 to obtain additional information about the presence of tarpon, snook, rivulus, and other fish on the project site. Twenty-three sampling stations were established and sampled from January 16, 2014 to February 16, 2014. The survey was conducted during a period of seasonal high water in order to catalog the highest number of fish that might migrate in and out of the site during high water. Oculina Bank collected five species of fish that are typically found in impounded areas. No tarpon or snook were found. Oculina Bank did not find Florida Gar or Least Killifish during the fish survey, but Dr. Taylor observed these two species on his site inspection in 2015. He also saw three to five juvenile tarpon. No testimony about snook was presented at the final hearing nor was this fish mentioned in Petitioners’ Proposed Recommended Order. Mangrove Rivulus Rivulus marmoratus, or mangrove rivulus, is designated a species of special concern by the FWC. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-27.005(2)(b). Species of special concern are those species for which there are concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to list the species as endangered or threatened. Some research indicates rivulus are more common than originally believed. Certain populations of rivulus in Florida are healthy and thriving. A team of scientists who participated in a biological status review of the rivulus for the FWC recommended that the rivulus be delisted. The team included Dr. Taylor and Dr. Wilcox. In Oculina I, Dr. Gilmore did not find any rivulus on the project site, but he expressed the opinion that the site had rivulus habitat and they were probably on the site. In his more recent visits to the project site in conjunction with the current proceeding, Dr. Gilmore did not observe any rivulus. Oculina Bank did not find any rivulus during its fish survey. Dr. Taylor sampled for rivulus on the site on five different days in 2015 and found five rivulus in a ditch outside (waterward) of the impoundment berm. Dr. Taylor sampled “extensively” for rivulus in the interior of the project site, but found none there. Still, he believes there are probably some in the interior. The area where the rivulus were found outside the impoundment berm would not be changed by the proposed project. However, Oculina Bank’s proposal to scrape down the impoundment berm would eliminate many crab burrows, which are habitat for the rivulus. Dr. Taylor and Dr. Wilcox agreed that rivulus are more likely to be found in areas that are tidally connected. The preponderance of the evidence does not support Petitioners’ claim that the proposed project would, on balance, adversely affect the mangrove rivulus. However, the recommended permit modifications should benefit the species. Tarpon In Oculina I, Dr. Gilmore testified that the project site was “one of the critical habitats maintaining regional tarpon fisheries.” However, he only observed one “post larval” tarpon in 2012 and none in 2014. Dr. Gilmore stated that a small mesh seine is the best method to sample for these nursery phase tarpon, but he never used such a seine to sample for them on the project site, nor did anyone else. Extensive evidence regarding on-site investigations and literature related to tarpon was presented at the final hearing. Sometimes the testimony failed to distinguish between early stage (larval) tarpon and later stage (juvenile) tarpon, whose habitat needs are not the same. The nursery and refuge functions of the wetlands on the project site relate primarily to larval tarpon, not juvenile tarpon. The shallow ponds on the project site are an important habitat type that can be used by larval tarpon when related hydrologic conditions are compatible. The preponderance of the evidence does not support the characterization of the wetlands on the project site as “critical habitat” for tarpon in the region. The current hydrologic conditions diminish the value of the nursery and refuge functions provided by the wetlands. Improving the connection between the wetlands and the Lagoon can enhance the tarpon nursery function if the improved connection is made without giving predators of larval tarpon access to the interior ponds. Dr. Gilmore stated, “you don’t have to take down the entire dike, you can create low spots.” By low spots, he means areas like the one that currently exists in the southern impoundment berm that is at about elevation 2.0 feet. The preponderance of the evidence shows the proposed project would not adversely affect the nursery function of the wetlands for tarpon if the recommended modifications are made to the Permit to improve the connection to the Lagoon while keeping the interior ponds isolated from the Lagoon for most of the year. Mitigation DEP conducted a Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (“UMAM”) analysis for the proposed project that assumed direct impacts to 2.72 acres of mangrove swamp. It did not account for secondary impacts that could be caused by the proposed project. DEP’s UMAM analysis determined there would be a functional loss of 1.269 units. It further determined that these losses would be offset by the creation of 0.88 acres of salt marsh and the enhancement of 10.81 acres of mangrove swamp, resulting in a net functional gain of 2.342 units. DEP concluded that, if functional losses caused by secondary impacts were included, there would be a functional loss of 2.350 units, which still results in a net gain of 3.056 units. Because DEP determined there would be a net gain in functional value, it did not require Oculina Bank to provide additional on-site mitigation or to purchase mitigation credits from an off-site mitigation bank. The UMAM analysis performed by DEP did not adequately account for the lost tarpon nursery function and the proposed mitigation could further diminish the nursery function. The purchase of mitigation bank credits would not offset the lost nursery function because the mitigation bank was not shown to provide a nursery function.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection issue Permit No. 31-0294393-003-EI, with the following modifications: The impoundment berm will not be scraped down to mean sea level, but, instead, two new low spots will be created in the impoundment berm at an elevation of approximately 2.0 feet. A new isolated pond will be created to replace the one that will be eliminated by the construction, similar in size to the one that will be eliminated. Internal ditches and other channels will be filled as needed to eliminate predator access to the ponds. If these modifications are not made, it is recommended that the Permit be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 June, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Marcy I. LaHart, Esquire Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 4804 Southwest 45th Street Gainesville, Florida 32608-4922 (eServed) Glenn Wallace Rininger, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Nicholas M. Gieseler, Esquire Steven Gieseler, Esquire Gieseler and Gieseler, P.A. 789 South Federal Highway, Suite 301 Stuart, Florida 34994 (eServed) Jonathan P. Steverson, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Craig Varn, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Douglas Building, Mail Stop 35 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing installation of an OSDS on property which Petitioner owns near the Suwanee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with Section 8l.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an owner, by joint tenancy, of real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as part of Government Lot 1, Section 4, Township 11 South, Range 13 East; closely proximate to the Suwanee River at a location generally known as "New Pine Landing". The surrounding property is characterized by homes and mobile home,;, which have OSDS's installed and operating. The subject property has no improvements constructed thereon, although the Petitioner intends the placement of a 12X60 foot mobile home, containing two bedrooms and one bathroom. There is no OSDS of any type installed on the property at the present time. The subject property is approximately 18.5 acres in size. It was purchased on January 17, 1990, but the property in question has never been platted. On March 20, 1990, the Petitioner made application for an OSDS permit for the aforesaid property, which was denied by the Respondent's letter of denial dated April 23, 1990. The Petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to pursue an informal variance application through the variance procedure set up by the statute and rules cited hereinbelow. Rather, the Respondent, in its denial letter, indicated that, because of the perceived effect of the Governor's Executive Order, discussed hereinbelow, no variances were being granted and the variance procedure would be "bypassed" in favor of affording the Petitioner a formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings concerning the permit denial. The Petitioner testified generally concerning the character of the property in question and the general nature of the terrain and vegetation. The property is characterized by a wetland or swampy area at one end of the property and, in the area of the proposed installation site, the ground elevation is higher, with a benchmark elevation of 8.8 feet above mean sea level ("MSL"), as established by Herbert H. Raker, certified land surveyor, and depicted by Petitioner's Exhibit 2 in evidence. The Petitioner offered no testimony concerning the ground water levels, other than to say that at one point in time, he dug a three-foot-deep hole on the subject property near the septic tank installation site and observed no water in the hole. His testimony did not indicate at what season of the year the observation was made nor whether conditions were wet or dry at the time. The only concrete evidence concerning ground water level at this installation site was that offered by the Respondent, which indicates that the ground water level at the time of the site evaluation was 42 inches below the surface of the property in question at the proposed installation site and, through observation of "mottling1, of the soil, indicating the presence of dampness, that the wet season water table is 12 inches below the surface of the property. Likewise, the Petitioner professed to have no knowledge of the ten-year flood elevation for the property. The Respondent's evidence, derived from materials submitted by the Petitioner in furtherance of the application, consisting of a report from the Suwanee River Water Management District, establishes that the ten-year flood elevation is 14 feet above MSL for Suwanee River Mile 29, which corresponds to the location of the subject property. The property is also located within the regulatory floodway administered by the Suwanee River Water Management District. Rule 10D-6.047, Florida Administrative Code, mandates that before a mounded system for on-site sewage disposal can be installed, a certification by a registered engineer would be necessary to determine that installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the "base flood". No such engineering testimony or evidence has been offered in this proceeding, however. The Petitioner further testified in a general sense that it would be a hardship not to be able to) install the OSDS on the property, given the money paid to purchase the property and the intent by the Petitioner to use it for a residence. The Petitioner has no use for the property without being able to use it for a residence. The Petitioner, however, did not offer any testimony or evidence concerning alternatives to installing the proposed OSDS, nor did the Petitioner establish that installation of such a system or an alternative system would pose no adverse health effects on the Petitioner or members of the general public nor that it would pose no degradation to the surface or ground waters involved for purposes of the Petitioner establishing entitlement to a permit or a variance It should be remembered, however, that the Petitioners were not accorded the opportunity to avail themselves of the variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90-14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances, or permits for OSDS within the ten-year flood elevation. This leads to its advising the Petitioner that to apply for a variance in this instance would be futile. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwanee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such system; beneath the ten-year flood elevation was entered on January 17 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit without prejudice to the Petitioner applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting, for the reasons found and concluded above; and without prejudice to pursuing an OSDS permit application at a later time should the Petitioner become able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question can feasibly be performed within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on- site sewage disposal permitting. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3120 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-9. Accepted. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: None filed. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Mary Ann White and Inman White P.O. Box 756 Old Town, Florida 32680 Frances Childers, Esquire Assistant District Legal Counsel HRS District 3 Legal Office 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609
Findings Of Fact On February 1, 1977, DER issued an operation permit to Respondent Hillsborough County for the operation of a solid waste disposal facility (sanitary landfill) with an area of 42 acres, located at Taylor Road and Sligh Avenue in the northeast portion of Hillsborough County. The permit was effective for a period of two years and contained various conditions which required the permittee to abide by applicable rules of the DER. The conditions also specified that water samples from monitoring wells and from any waters discharged from the site should be taken and analyzed to determine water quality and such analysis submitted to the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission (HCEPC) acting as the agent for DER within Hillsborough County. The conditions further prohibited open burning at the site without prior approval, control of any objectionable odors, provision for sufficient equipment, and controlled access to the site. (Exhibit 22) In December 1978, Hillsborough County applied for renewal of its operation permit until February 1, 1980. The application and accompanying letter showed that the county wished to operate the site as a "high rise land fill" due to the fact that dirt accumulated from trench excavation had raised the ground level approximately ten feet. In July, 1979, after submission of requested additional information to DER during the preceding months, the county director of solid wastes submitted closeout plans for the landfill to DER and advised that they were filing a permit application for a new landfill to the east of the current site, utilizing a borrow pit area which had been transferred to the county by the State Department of Transportation. Thereafter, by letter of October 23, 1979, the Hillsborough County Administrator requested that DER consider the previous application for renewal of its operating permit to be withdrawn and that the application be viewed as one for a temporary operating permit. (Exhibit 1) During the month of August 1979, several inspections of the existing landfill were made by DER, HCEPC, and Regional EPA personnel. A series of memos prepared by the agency personnel reflected that various violations of DER rules governing landfills had been found during the course of the inspections. These included uncontrolled ponding of water in low areas on the site, failure to control the runoff of surface water, lack of adequate control to prevent unauthorized access to the site, failure to provide the requisite six inches of daily cover over the compacted waste, lack of proper ground water monitoring, and destruction of several wells by heavy equipment, and frequent breakdown of equipment used at the site. Residents living nearby or adjacent to the landfill have observed ponding, uncontrolled runoff, and unauthorized personnel on the site. They have experienced a high incidence of rats, birds and flies on their property and have seen septic tank waste trucks at the landfill. They further have noted uncovered garbage and have seen waste flow from the landfill into the area of Interstate Highway 4 which borders the south portion of the site. The State Department of Transportation has also made complaints to the county concerning dirt and debris on the interstate right-of-way. In a letter to DER, dated October 2, 1979, the county director of public utilities and safety responded to the various complaints and alleged violations. He acknowledged the validity of a number of the problems and indicated the corrective action that had or would be taken to prevent recurrence. (Testimony of Brantner, Warner, Smoot, Exhibit 8, supplemented Exhibits 10-15, 20, 23) By letter of October 23, 1979, DER's Southwest District manager issued Notice of Intent to issue a temporary operation permit for the high-rise landfill pursuant to Section 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Sections 17-4.07, Florida Administrative Code, with an expiration date of February 1, 1980. The stated reasons for the proposed issuance of the permit were because the facility did not qualify for an operation permit, but the applicant was making bona fide efforts to provide an acceptable alternate waste disposal system, and that the permit would allow time to establish a five-year monitoring program to ensure that the site had stabilized and was not a significant water pollution source. Conditions attached to the proposed permit were such as to reasonably preclude the recurrence of past violations with regard to daily cover, controlling access to the site, establishment of a gas monitoring program, and installation of additional monitoring wells for periodic sampling as to water quality. A compliance schedule was stated which required the submission of plans to accomplish the requirements of the permit and such schedule called for the cessation of all filling operations by February 1, 1980 and commencement of the closeout operation on March 1, 1980. The petitions for hearing herein were thereafter filed with DER and referred to this Division on November 15, 1979. (Exhibit 3) In December, 19.79, DER received notification from the regional office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency that volatile organic analysis on well supply samples from private residences in the vicinity of the landfill indicated a potential health risk and that the agency had therefore advised the well owners not to drink the water. Inspections of the landfill in mid-January 1980 by DER and HCEPC personnel showed that solid waste was not being adequately covered on a daily basis and that ponding of water in various areas was observed. The county attributed the ponding to heavy rainfall during the period, but claimed that the waste had been covered on a daily basis although the heavy equipment had scattered paper and other debris through the cover soil in view of the sticky nature of the clayey soil. (Exhibits 6, 16-18) After Hillsborough County officials became aware of the EPA well tests, a private consulting firm of ground water hydrologists and geologists was employed by the county to undertake a water quality analysis of the round water in and around the landfill. The program commenced in late December 1979, and a preliminary assessment of ground water quality was submitted in February 1980. Water samples were taken from private wells adjoining the landfill and from a well within the landfill itself. Analysis of the samples led to preliminary conclusions that organic and inorganic constituents of samples from within the landfill correlated well with those wells adjacent to the landfill, thereby suggesting landfill leachate as a source of contaminants. However, the consultants are of the opinion that several wells which exhibited traces of organic but no discernible inorganic contaminants may be affected by sources of contamination not related to landfill leachate, such as petroleum products, septic tank cleaners, and other household products. It was found that inadequate regional and site specific hydrogeologic data was available upon which to base a complete statistical analysis. It was further found that the wells used in the study were "uncontrolled" and therefore did not represent a valid basis for determining the origin of their contamination. Further study is planned which will involve testing of samples from twenty new monitoring wells designed to determine the rate of movement and attenuation of leachate. The results of such study will be available within five or six months. Although it is generally agreed that ground water flows in a southwesterly direction at the site, more information is required to ascertain the precise direction of flow. At the present time surface water falling on the landfill flows toward a county owned borrow pit to the southwest of the landfill. (Testimony of Schreuder, Becker, Bush, Exhibits 7, 19) The closing plans for the landfill site provide for surface water to be channeled away from the area and directed through swales to travel in the natural direction to the west. A final two-foot cover of soil will be place over completed cells and a three and one-half foot cover of compacted soil will be placed on side slopes of the landfill. Such final cover and grading of the area is designed to preclude infiltration of surface water. Trees will be planted around the periphery of the area and trenches will be dug to force any gases upward to a high point where an exhaust will be placed. Soil borings show that there is an extensive layer of clay at the bottom of the landfill but the permeability of this material is unknown. The solid waste cells are at a maximum of 40 feet below the ground surface and the average height of the compacted waste above ground surface is approximately 28 feet. The county permanently ceased accepting solid waste at the landfill on February 11, 1980, and has commenced closing operation to a minimal degree. As a result of the fact that solid waste is no longer being accepted, the intended elevation to be reached in the southern portion of the site will not take place and accordingly the closing plan will have to be revised in that respect. It is estimated that closing will take approximately one year to accomplish. Upon final closing with vegetative cover and proper grading, it is anticipated that pending and vector problems will be resolved. At the present time, inadequate fencing exists around the boundaries of the landfill. (Testimony of Bush, Becker, Exhibits 2- 21) In recognition of the fact that Hillsborough County ceased using the landfill for disposal of solid waste, the county and DER entered into a written stipulation, dated February 25, 1980, confirming this fact and revising special conditions to the proposed temporary operating permit. These conditions included a proviso that the proposed permit would expire three years from the date of issuance to permit a long-term monitoring and surveillance program to be conducted until the site has stabilized and is not a significant water pollution source. The conditions also call for the county to establish an acceptable program for monitoring gases at different points within the landfill, to control access to the site, and to complete the study to determine the extent and source of any infiltration of foreign substances into the ground water from the site. In addition, the conditions would require the county to submit an acceptable plan for long-term monitoring of ground water, including the installation of additional monitoring wells if required. It also provides that the final closeout of the site shall be completed within one year from the date of the final order and that such closeout shall be completed in accordance with applicable law and in accordance with previous closeout plans to the extent made possible by final elevations. (Exhibit 4)
Recommendation That the applicant Hillsborough County be issued a temporary operating permit for the closing of the landfill specified in the application. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Jacob Varn Morris W. Milton, Esquire Secretary, Department of Douglas A. Mulligan, Esquire Environmental Regulation Post Office Box 13517 2600 Blair Stone Road St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Vincent L. Nuccio, Jr., Esquire Department of Environmental Post Office Box 1110 Regulation Tampa, Florida 35601 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gene T. Hall, Esquire Elliot Dunn, Esquire 209 East Robertson Street Post Office Box 1110 Brandon, Florida 33511 Tampa, Florida 33601 Richard S. Smoot Ronald Frink, President Post Office Box 682 Florida Water Well Association Seffner, Florida 33584 Post Office Box 11648 Tampa, Florida 33680
The Issue The issues considered at final hearing were those issues set out in Petitioners' Amended Petition For A Formal Hearing. At the conclusion of the final hearing the parties were given an opportunity to file a proposed recommended order and memorandum in support thereof. Such memorandum and proposed recommended order was received by the Hearing Officer from the Department of Environmental Regulation on November 10, 1976, from Leon County on November 12, 1976, and from the Citizens' Committee to Preserve Lake Lafayette on November 15, 1976. Having fully considered the matters presented herein, the Hearing Officer enters the following:
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Leon County, Florida, has applied for a construction permit to construct a sanitary landfill in Sections 4 and 5, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, Leon County, Florida. The proposed site consists of 79.9 acres off of U.S. Highway 27 South. The application is in proper form and contains all information required by the Department of Environmental Regulation. The area to be served by the proposed sanitary landfill is Leon County, Florida, with a projected average population of 155,200. The responsible operating authority as set forth in the application is Leon County. The evidence presented did not establish that the proposed sanitary landfill will attract high concentrations of rodents, insects, or birds which would do serious damage to the land and crops surrounding the site or which would adversely affect the health and welfare of the residents near the site. The application proposes a program for the extermination of any rats discovered on site and further proposes that the working faces of the landfill area will be kept as small as possible with all exposed waste materials covered as frequently as practical to minimize the problem of flies and insects during hot, humid periods. Evidence was presented indicating that construction of the proposed sanitary landfill site could adversely affect surrounding property value. However, the evidence was not sufficient to conclusively establish the extent of this affect nor the time at which it would occur or for which it would endure. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill would not cause any solid waste to be disposed of by being placed in or within 200 feet of any natural or artificial body of water or on the watershed of any surface water supply. Lake Lafayette is hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed sanitary landfill site is located at least 500 feet from the flood prone area of Lake Lafayette and 1,000 feet from Lake Lafayette proper. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not cause any solid waste to be disposed of by being placed in a sink hole or in the immediate area thereof. Solid waste will be disposed of by being placed in a trench and covered over with successive lifts similarly covered. There are no active sink holes on or in the immediate area of, the proposed sanitary landfill site. Three ponds exist in the immediate vicinity of the site, one of which is to be used for surface water runoff. These ponds were probably formed by past sink hole activity but from the site topography and water elevations it appears that the ponds are now stable and are probably not hydraulically connected with the Floridan Aquifer. No limestone or gravel pits exist on site. The entire proposed site is well above the +50' MSL contour line below which are found flood prone areas in the vicinity of the site. The water table of the site is more than 5 feet below normal ground surface. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not require the disposal of solid waste in an area immediately adjacent to or within the cone of influence of a public water supply. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will not require the disposal of solid waste within 200 feet of any habitation or place of business served by a public water supply system or within 1,000 feet of any habitation or place of business served by an individual potable shallow water supply well with the following exceptions. There are three wells located on the property which would be owned by Leon County that may be within 1,000 feet of the disposal site for solid waste. Of these three wells one has been abandoned and will be sealed. A second is located south of the proposed site at an existing house and will be used as a source of non-potable water and for monitoring the potable aquifer. The third well is located on the northwest portion of the county property and will be maintained as a standby source of potable water. There are two other wells located on the property to be owned by Leon County which are more than 1,000 feet from the proposed disposal site for solid waste and could be used to monitor the Floridan Aquifer. There is a well which serves a private residence and farm located plus or minus 1,200 feet west of the proposed site for the disposal of solid waste. No solid waste shall be disposed of in any area open to public view from any major thoroughfare. The proposed site in not on any public highway, road, alley or the right-of-way thereof. The Lake Lafayette drainage basin is approximately six miles long elongated in a west-northwest, east-southeast direction. The width varies between one-quarter to one-half mile. The western end of the basin contains many sink holes which probably have open connections to the underlying bedrock. The eastern end of the basin, near the proposed landfill site, is swampy and contains many cypress trees. The Lake Lafayette drainage basin appears to be an area of recharge to the Floridan Aquifer. The proposed sanitary landfill site is not located in the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. The engineering firm of Ardaman & Associates, Inc., conducted a subsurface investigation of the hydrologic and soil conditions at the site of the proposed sanitary landfill. As part of their investigation they performed ten soil borings and installed seven deep ground water monitoring wells. The results of the investigation of Ardaman & Associates, Inc., indicates a low probability of sink hole occurrence. In the course of their investigation, Ardaman & Associates, Inc., discovered a depression in the ground water level at Test Hole No. 9. The significance of this ground water low is that it may be a localized area of recharge. However, as shown by the testimony of the engineers who conducted the investigation for Ardaman & Associates, Inc., as well as by the report of their investigation, this depression creates no realistic danger with regard to the introduction of pollutants into the aquifer or ground water supply, so long as no putrescible wastes are placed within a distance of 1,000 feet of Test Hole No. 9. The hydro-geologist testifying on behalf of the Petitioners stated that he believed the radius of influence of the depression at Test Hole No. 9 may actually be less than 1,000 feet and that maintaining 1,000 feet distance from Test Hole No. 9 is a conservative distance. As designed, the proposed sanitary landfill will not dispose of any solid waste or other putrescible waste within 1,000 feet of Test Hole No. 9. The soils found on the proposed sanitary landfill site are of low permeability and suitable for a sanitary landfill. The low permeability of the soils will limit both the lateral and vertical seepage of leachate. The vertical flow of potential leachate to the Floridan Aquifer has been estimated at a rate of 1.0 to 1.5 feet per year. The lateral flow rate of such leachate through the soils overlying the bedrock in the Lafayette drainage basin has been estimated at the rate of 2 feet per year. As has been noted above, the proposed sanitary landfill site is located approximately 1,000 feet from Lake Lafayette, and 500 feet from the +50' MSL contour line which has been used to describe the perimeter of the flood prone area of the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. At the estimated flow rate it would therefore take several hundred years for any leachate produced by the sanitary landfill to reach the Lake Lafayette drainage basin. The Floridan Aquifer underlies all of Leon County at depths of 100 to 500 feet. As designed the proposed sanitary landfill will have test wells constructed throughout the site to provide a means of detecting any lateral migration of contaminants from the landfill operation should such occur. Periodic samples will be taken from these test wells and analyzed. The monitoring wells will be set up in such a manner that regardless of the direction of flow of subsurface water they will pick up and detect any pollutants that may be passing from the landfill. Some of these test wells will be placed in close proximity to the proposed sanitary landfill site to give early warning of the existence of any leachate flow. If there is any problem with the flow of leachate from the proposed site it will be detected easily within the first five years of operation. Since it would take several hundred years to reach the Lake Lafayette drainage basin at the estimated flow rates this should provide adequate warning and reaction time for the alleviation of any potential pollution problem. A significant flow of leachate is not expected. The existing pond which will receive the surface runoff from the sanitary landfill site is likely of sink hole origin but after a reasonable investigation it appears that the pond is now stable and not hydraulically connected to the Floridan Aquifer. It is estimated that the pond can contain at least a 25 year storm rainfall though there might be some flooding from the pond in a 100 year storm rainfall. As designed, no significant amount of leachate, if any, will reach the surface water runoff retention pond. Petitioners' hydro-geologist did not state that the site is unsuitable for a sanitary landfill. Rather he testified that on the information he had reviewed, which information was that available to the Department of Environmental Regulation, it was his opinion that the Department of Environmental Regulation lacks sufficient information to determine if the proposed site is suitable from a water quality standpoint. Based upon all the testimony and evidence it appears as a matter of fact that the information available to the Department of Environmental Regulation is reasonably sufficient to determine the suitability of the proposed site. There has been no showing of a necessity for alining the proposed trenches which will receive the solid waste. The Planning Director for the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, in a letter to the Department of Environmental Regulation stated that the use of the proposed site for landfill purposes is not inconsistent with the land use plan. He further stated his concern for traffic on U.S. Highway 27, the possible adverse aesthetic impact which he felt could be minimized and his concern that Lake Lafayette be protected from landfill leachate through engineering design. In their Amended Petition Petitioners raised the question of the present zoning of the proposed site. No evidence was presented by Petitioners to show that the site is not properly zoned. Based upon the testimony and evidence presented there appears little possibility that the proposed sanitary landfill will pollute or seriously damage Lake Lafayette, the Floridan Aquifer or any other source of public or private water supply. The proposed sanitary landfill as designed is not likely to cause any significant water pollution or to degrade water quality below those standards set by the Department of Environmental Regulation. None of the prohibitions set out in Section 17-7.04, F.A.C, exist so as to require the denial of the application for a construction permit for a sanitary landfill by Respondent, Leon County. The sanitary landfill criteria set out in Section 17-7.05, F.A.C., have been met by Respondent, Leon County.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system ("OSDS") permit authorizing the installation of an OSDS on property which he owns near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in Dixie County, Florida, more particularly described as part of Section 30, Township 10 South, Range 14 East. The property is approximately 8.5 acres in size. The Petitioner purchased the property some ten-years ago, and the lot in question has never been platted. The petitioner purchased the property for purposes of constructing a residence for himself and his family. At the time that the Petitioner purchased the property, and since, there have been occupied homes on either side of the property served by septic tank and drain-field sewage disposal systems. There came a time when the Petitioner elected to construct a home on his property and applied to the Respondent for an OSDS permit on January 19, 1990. On April 20, 1990, after having its personnel make on-site inspections of the property, the Respondent determined that the propert, according to Suwannee River Water Management District calculations, lay beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Respondent, therefore, denied the permit application. Pursuant to information obtained from a registered land surveyor, the benchmark elevation of the surface of the Petitioner's property is 14.56 feet above mean sea level ("MSL") The actual surface elevation is 6 inches lower than that or approximately 14 feet. The ten-year flood elevation level for the Petitioner's property, at the Suwannee River mile involved, is 17 feet above MSL. Thus, the surface of the Petitioner's property is some three feet beneath the ten-year flood elevation and were a drain-field system installed on the property, the bottom of the drain-field trench or absorption bed would be a greater distance beneath the ten-year flood elevation. A "mounded" septic tank and drain-field system might be feasible for the subject property because of the property's adequate size, although such a mounding might have to be approximately five feet or greater in height over the present grade level of the property. The Petitioner, however, did not adduce any testimony or evidence concerning the feasibility of such a mounded disposal system, including details of how it would be constructed and operated and whether there is adequate room on his property to build such a mounded system, including the required undisturbed land area around such a system. The Petitioner did not adduce testimony or evidence in support of the feasibility of any other alternative sewage treatment and disposal system for the subject property. In fact, the property is located within the regulatory floodway of the Suwannee River. Because of this, the rule cited hereinbelow would require that a registered engineer certify and adequately explain the manner and method by which such a mounded system could be built on this property within the regulatory floodway, without altering the level of the "base flood", as, for instance, by excavating an equal volume of fill from another location within the regulatory floodway. However, such engineering testimony and evidence was not offered by the Petitioner; therefore, it has not been established that such a mounded system is a feasible alternative nor has it been established that any other type of treatment and disposal system is a feasible alternative because of the dearth of such evidence. The Petitioner did not apply for a variance. In any event, however, although the Petitioner clearly has been placed at a hardship because of not being able to construct the retirement residence he has desired for years on the subject property, because of the inability, thus fail at least, to obtain an OSDS permit, the Petitioner has not established- with regard to the below- referenced variance criteria that no reasonable alternative exists to the installation of the subject proposed system beneath the present surface of the lot which would be beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The Petitioner has not offered evidence to establish that the installation of the proposed system will not adversely affect public health and will not degrade the surface and ground waters involved in the immediate area. Thus, the standards for the grant of a variance have not been established by the Petitioner's proof, although it is understood that the Petitioner did not leek a variance, at least as yet. In that connection, the Respondent asserts that the Petitioner was not accorded the opportunity to avail himself of the Department's variance procedure because of the Respondent's interpretation of the Governor's Executive Order 90- 14, which it opines precludes it from granting any variances or permits for OSDS's within the ten-year flood elevation. The Governor's Executive Order, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation to preclude such systems beneath the ten-year flood elevation, was entered on January 17, 1990. The Respondent has, in effect, interpreted that Executive Order as precluding it from exercising its discretion to entertain and grant or deny variance applications. The Petitioner's proof and, indeed, Respondent's Exhibit NO. 2 establishes that this property is relatively high in elevation, is well-drained, and not subject to frequent flooding, although it does lie beneath the ten-year flood elevation. The soil profile indicates that fine sand exists from the surface down to 72 inches. This type of soil promotes very good percolation of water and, thus, would result in adequate operation of a septic tank and drain field if all other appropriate standards and conditions necessary for such adequate operation were met. In fact, the wet season water table is some 36 inches beneath the surface; and, in general, this property has been shown to be well-suited to the installation of a septic tank and drain-field system, but for the ten-year flood elevation circumstance delineated above.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for an OSDS permit, without prejudice to the Petitioner applying for and seeking a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above, and without prejudice to applying and pursuing an OSDS permit application at a later time, should the Petitioner become able to demonstrate that alternative methods of treatment and disposal of the sewage effluent in question can feasibly be performed, within the bounds of the standards enunciated in the above-cited statutes and rules concerning on-site sewage disposal permitting. DONE AND ENTERED this of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 21st day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-3339 The Petitioner filed no proposed findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. Rejected, as incomplete and, therefore, not shown to be material. Accepted. Rejected, as not necessary to resolution of material issues and as immaterial. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esq. General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Donald D. Kersey Route 2, Box 187 Chiefland, FL 32626 Frances S. Childers, Esq. Assistant District III Legal Counsel Department of HRS 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609
Findings Of Fact The Parties The Applicant, Trail Ridge Landfill, Inc. (Trail Ridge), is a corporation formed in 1989 for the purpose of developing a landfill project and providing waste disposal capacity for the City of Jacksonville. Trail Ridge Landfill, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management of North America, Inc. Its operating division is involved in the waste collection, recycling and disposal business. Waste Management of North America, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waste Management, Inc., which is involved in all facets of solid waste collection and disposal nationally. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of regulating solid waste management facilities and with permitting their initial construction and operation. It is charged with reviewing applications for permits for construction of such facilities, for reviewing applications for dredge and fill permits in wetlands or waters of the State and, as pertinent to the project involved in this proceeding, for storm water management and storage of surface water and the regulation thereof through its permitting and enforcement authority contained in Chapters 403 and 373, Florida Statutes, and Titles 40C and 17, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioners are Coastal Environmental Society, Inc. (CESI), a not- for-profit Florida corporation established for the purpose of protecting natural resources. St. Johns Preservation Association, Inc. (SJPA), also a not-for- profit Florida corporation established for the purpose of protecting the community, including environmental concerns; Baldwin-Maxville Coalition, Inc., also a not-for-profit corporation established to promote the health and welfare of its community, including environmental concerns; William McCranie, a resident of Jacksonville, Florida; Darryl Sperry, a resident and citizen who lives 1 1/4 miles from the proposed landfill site in Baker County. All Petitioners have been established to be substantially affected by the proposed permitting and the projects related thereto and all have met pertinent standing requirements as a matter of fact and law. The Respondents do not contest the standing of the Petitioners. Background and Purpose of the Project The purpose of the proposed landfill facility is to address the solid waste disposal needs of the City of Jacksonville and Duval County (the City). The City currently disposes of solid waste at two landfills. One is on the east side of Jacksonville on Gervin Road, and the other is located in the north area of Jacksonville on Island Road. The presently used, east landfill is an unlined landfill currently operated pursuant to a DER Consent Order, in connection with which closure of that landfill is planned. The north landfill consists of three unlined cells and one lined cell. The City currently has unused landfill capacity at these two landfills which will last approximately one more year, but has also sought approval for expansion of the north landfill which would provide about two more additional years of capacity, if approved. The proposed landfill project, if approved, constructed and operated, would meet these solid waste disposal needs for approximately 20 to 25 years. The project at hand began when the City issued a Request For Proposal for private companies to submit bids to the City for construction of additional landfill capacity somewhere to the northwest of Jacksonville in Duval County. Two companies that met qualifying requirements submitted proposals in response to the request for proposals. Trail Ridge was one of those two qualifying bidders. The City selected the Applicant for contract award and then entered into a contract. The Applicant has an option to purchase the proposed landfill site from Gilman Timber and Land Company (Gilman, Gilman Paper Company). After issuance of the permits to the Applicant, the option would be exercised. Thereafter the property would be immediately conveyed to the City from the Applicant. Thus the site of the proposed facility will ultimately be owned and controlled by the City, although the Applicant will operate the landfill under its contract with the City. Gilman presently uses the 1,288 acre site and several thousand surrounding acres for growing timber, principally pine trees, in a pine plantation-type operation grown for use as pulp wood. Much of the site and surrounding Gilman land is characterized by pine trees grown to an age of 20 years or less and then harvested. A great deal of the site property has recently been cut, chopped, plowed re-bedded and re-planted with pine trees. Although some of the site is characterized by mature timber, much of the timber has been recently planted or is otherwise timber not yet mature enough for harvest. The option agreement provides that Trail Ridge will purchase the property from Gilman for $10,000 per acre. The City will then purchase the 1,288 acres from the Applicant for $2,600 per acre, which the Applicant maintains is the current, fair-market-value for the land as it is currently used as pine plantation for growing pulp wood. These terms and conditions are a part of the City's Request For Proposals. In addition to paying the Applicant $2,600 per acre for the 1,288 acre site, the City will pay the Applicant a fee over the life of the operation of the proposed landfill. The fee, amortized over the 20- year span of the agreement, will make up the difference between the Applicant's $10,000 per acre purchase price paid to Gilman and the City's $2,600 per acre initial purchase price paid to the Applicant. The City will thus ultimately re- pay Trail Ridge the $10,000 per acre for the purchase price for the property. The Applicant corporation will operate the landfill over its entire useful life and then close it. Thus, the Applicant's own figures show the land is valued at $3,348,800. The record does not reflect the reason for the purchase price paid to Gilman being $12,880,000, of which the City will repay $9,000,000 to the Applicant in the form of the operation fee, over and above the initial payment to the Applicant of $3,348,800. In any event, the utilities payment to the Applicant of the $12,880,000 for the land and the operation of the landfill only represents the recompense to the Applicant for the purchase funds expended for it to buy the site from Gilman. Additionally, the Applicant, through its option agreement with Gilman, is required to pay Gilman a $60,000 per month option fee. $15,000 per month of that must be paid during the pendency of the option, with the remainder of the $45,000 monthly fees due upon closing of the purchase. The portion of the operation fee paid by the City over and above the $2,600 per acre initial purchase price, attributable to the land appraisal itself, will be paid by the City on the basis of a certain dollar fee-per-ton of solid waste handled and disposed of in the landfill by the Applicant. Testimony indicates this will be approximately $8.00-$15.09 per ton, although the evidence as to which amount is indefinite. The testimony of Applicant's witness Allen, in any event, references these amounts as applicable to the City's solid waste "stream" handled by Trail Ridge at the proposed facility. Its contact with the City assures the Applicant of a minimum of 569,000 tons of waste per year to which the fee would apply. The City currently generates approximately 750,000 tons of waste per year. There is no evidence of what the construction or other capital costs or operation expenses related to the proposed facility will be over the useful life of the facility for the Applicant or related corporations. Site and Design The proposed site is 1,288 acres in size, located in southwestern Duval County, approximately three miles south of Interstate Highway 10, 1.5 miles west of U.S. Highway 301 and 1.14 miles north of State Road 228. The site is located in a sparsely populated area approximately 4 to 6 miles from the City of Baldwin, 5 miles from the City of Macclenny and 2 miles from the City of Maxville. A substantial portion of the proposed site will be left undisturbed and used as a buffer area to separate it from any surrounding development. There are water supply wells within fairly close proximity to the site. One well is within a mile of the site and three are approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the site. The proposed facility will include both a Class I and Class III solid waste disposal area. The Class I area will be approximately 148 acres in size, and the Class III area, 28 acres. The Class III disposal area will only be used for non- household refuse such as construction debris, tree and shrubbery clippings and the like, which will not generate deleterious substances in liquid or gaseous form, as will the Class I landfill. The remainder of the 1,288 acres will be used for buffer zones, dirt borrow areas, storm water management facilities and ancillary facilities necessary to the day to day operation of the landfill. No part of the Class III disposal area will be located within 200 feet of jurisdictional wetlands, which are the closest bodies of water. The project will be located on "Trail Ridge," which is a relatively elevated geographic feature, extending generally in a north-south direction in western Duval County. Geologically, it is an ancient sand dune. There is a substantial decline in elevation of this portion of the ridge from west to east, which produces surface water drainage patterns in a west to east direction at the site, also accompanied by surface water drainage patterns in a southerly- northerly direction into wetlands which occur on the south and north verge of the site, because the site is a prong or easterly extension of Trail Ridge lying between wetlands which occur on the northerly, southerly and easterly boundaries of the Class I disposal site. The 1,288 acres, including the landfill sites themselves, have been used for silvi-culture practices since 1948 or earlier, and are currently managed primarily as a slash pine plantation grown for pulp wood purposes. The present owner of the site, Gilman Paper Company, plans to continue this use of the site should the landfill project not be approved and constructed. Since 1948, the entire site, including much of the wetlands thereon, have been logged, some portions of it as many as three times. The silvi-culture practices at the site include clear- cutting, chopping, burning, harrowing, tilling and bedding of the soil, and planting of pine trees. The pine trees are grown to be harvested on a 20-year cycle or less. Due to these intensive silvi-cultural practices, the natural conditions of the site have been significantly altered and much natural vegetation, such as bottom-land hardwoods, has been replaced by planted pine trees. The area has been extensively ditched for drainage purposes and logging roads have been constructed throughout the site. The design of the Class I disposal area of the landfill includes three major components: a liner system, which includes a permanent leachate collection and removal system, a cap and closure system and a gas control system. The Class I disposal area is designed to be 140 feet high when the landfill is completed and closed in approximately 20-25 years. It will have typical landfill refuse "lifts," of approximately 8 to 12 feet in height, with a side slope grade of three horizontal feet to one vertical foot of elevation gain. This is the maximum grade steepness allowed by DER rules. The Class III landfill, in which no household garbage, chemicals, oils and greases or other deleterious substances will be deposited, will include only a cap and closure system. In order to carry out Department regulatory requirements designed to contain waste permanently in a well- defined area and to minimize the amount of leachate produced within a landfill, as well as to collect and remove leachate that is produced, the landfill will have, in effect, a double liner system. The liner system is designed to contain the leachate produced when rain water contacts waste in the landfill and to cause that leachate to percolate vertically downward through the landfill, capture it in the liner system, prevent it from contacting groundwater and to remove it and treat it. Leachate from the Class I disposal area will be contained by the liner system and removed by a leachate collection and removal system. The liner system, starting from the bottom and proceeding upward, will consist of a 6 inch thick layer of compacted, subgrade soil. Over that layer, a prefabricated "bentonite" clay-like material will be deposited. Directly over the bentonite layer will be a high density polyethylene liner (the secondary liner) called a "geomembrane." The bentonite material has the characteristic of swelling when contacted by a liquid so that, if the geomembrane leaks, the bentonite will swell and plug the hole in the liner above it. On top of the bentonite layer and the geomembrane layer, is a synthetic drainage material called "geonet." Geonet has a very high transmissivity rate and therefore has great capacity to conduct water within its own plane. Lying immediately above the geonet material is a geotextile filter designed to keep sand out of the pores or interstices of the geonet. Above that geotextile filter is a second geomembrane (the primary liner). Above the second geomembrane is another geonet layer, as well as another geotextile filter layer. Then to protect the entire liner system from damage, two feet of clean sand will be placed above the uppermost geotextile filter layer. The two feet of sand also acts as a drainage layer for the uppermost geonet. The leachate that percolates down through the waste and the sand will contact the geonet and then be carried down slope on top of the geomembrane. This constitutes the leachate collection system. The bottom geonet is called the "leak detection system." This is because, if a hole develops in the primary liner, any leachate coming through the hole will be quickly drained away through the bottom geonet. The bottom geonet thus operates as a backup leachate collection system, since any leachate reaching the bottom geonet will also be discharged into the leachate removal system. If a leak should develop in the secondary liner, the bentonite material would quickly plug the leak, swelling and absorbing that liquid. The Petitioners have stipulated that the Applicant has proposed a liner system and leachate collection system for the Class I disposal area which meets all criteria of Chapter 17-701, Florida Administrative Code, except as to the requirements of Rule 17-701.050(5)(c), (e)3. and 4. and (f)3., Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant demonstrated that the liner system and leachate collection system will meet the criteria of Rule 17- 701.050(5)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The liner system will be installed in accordance with a quality assurance plan. A specific condition already agreed upon will require the Applicant to submit for approval a revised quality control and assurance plan for installing the Class I synthetic liner system, after selection of the liner manufacturer and prior to the liner's installation. The liner system is designed so that it will be protected from puncture by waste materials or landfill operation equipment. In addition to the two feet of sand placed on top of the entire liner system to protect it, when initial waste disposal begins, the first lift of waste across the entire area of the liner system, as it is installed in phases, will be composed of 6-8 feet of "select waste" to protect the liner from puncture. Select waste is waste containing no pipes, roots or other potentially puncturing objects which could penetrate the sand layer to damage the liner system. A quality assurance engineer will be on site full-time supervising the initial placement of the select waste until that phase of the landfill operation is completed. A grant of the permit should be so conditioned. The Applicant has established that the liner system and leachate collection system will meet the criteria of Rule 17-701.050(5)(e), Florida Administrative Code. The leachate depth on top of the primary and secondary liners will not exceed a foot because the geonet has the capacity to quickly remove leachate from the liner. The actual hydraulic head of leachate on the primary liner will be only approximately 1/4 inch. The depth on the secondary liner was shown to be even less. The liner system and leachate collection system will meet the criteria of Rule 17-701.050(5)(e)3. and (f)3., Florida Administrative Code. The design of the collection system, including the geotextile filter, will prevent clogging of the system throughout the active life and closure period of the landfill, primarily by placing a gravel aggregate around the collection pipe so as to prevent debris from entering the system. A pilot line will also be installed in each collection pipe to facilitate access for mechanical cleaning, should it be necessary. In the unlikely event of an obstruction in the system, the leachate would simply bypass that area and continue down-grade to the next downstream leachate collection pipe and be removed from the landfill for treatment by that means. The liner system and leachate collection system will also meet the criteria of Rule 17-701.050(5)(e)4., Florida Administrative Code. The leachate collected will be carried downhill to pipes at the east end of the landfill. The leachate will then be pumped from the pipes into storage tanks. Trucks will then be filled with leachate to be transported to the City's Buckman Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, owned and operated by the City, for treatment and disposal. Unrefuted evidence shows that this plant has adequate capacity and treatment capability to safely treat and handle the leachate. The truck loading areas will be equipped with berms and other means of protecting the surrounding wetlands, surface and groundwaters from leachate spills during the truck filling process. The Applicant's evidence does not demonstrate, however, that the tanks themselves and the area surrounding them will have protective measures for containing leachate spills. In order to comply with the above rule, the totality of the evidence concerning the leachate collection, disposal system and treatment method demonstrates that the tanks should be accompanied by a surrounding containment system (walls or berms) which will have the capability of containing the entire capacity of a tank should failure of a leachate collection tank or related piping or valving occur. Any grant of the permit should be so conditioned. The Petitioners have stipulated, and the Department agrees, that the Class III disposal area is exempt from the liner system and leachate collection system requirements of the above-cited rule provisions. Covering and Closure System Both the Class I and Class III landfills are designed with a composite soil covering system to minimize the amount of rainfall which can come into contact with the solid waste so as to minimize the creation of leachate. During the day to day landfill operations, a 6 inch initial cover will be applied to enclose each Class I landfill disposal cell on a daily basis, except for the working face itself, where waste is currently being deposited. The working face may be left uncovered, so long as solid waste is scheduled to be placed on it within an 18 hour period. A 6 inch initial cover will also be applied once every week to enclose each Class III landfill disposal cell. Thereafter, an intermediate cover of one foot of compacted earth will be applied on top of the initial cover within seven days of initial completion, if a final cover or additional lift on top of that completed cell is not to be applied within 180 days of cell completion. The initial cover will consist of sandy soil, over which will come the intermediate cover of one foot of compacted earth. The final cover will be applied to those portions of the landfill which have been filled with waste to the extent of designed dimensions at the time those portions have been filled. The final cover, to be placed on the sides of the landfill and ultimately upon the top at the end of its useful life, will be placed on top of the 12 inches of intermediate soil layer and will consist of 12 inches of compacted clay with a permeability of 1 X 10/-7 cm/sec. Next will come a layer of 12 inches of compacted soil and then a final layer of 12 inches of top soil, upon which the Applicant will plant grass for erosion control. Erosion of the cover layers on the side slopes is designed to be minimized by closing areas of the landfill as they are filled, an operational procedure commonly referred to as "close as you go." The final cover layers placed on the landfill outside of the clay cap are designed to allow the establishment of a planted grass cover as soon as possible to minimize erosion of the cover material and the side slopes. In addition, the intermediate cover placed on top of and between each cell, beneath the clay layer surrounding the outside perimeter of the landfill, has a high permeability, thereby acting as a drainage layer to direct rainfall and leachate vertically downward to the leachate collection system, as well as to collect runoff so as to retard erosion. Erosion is also retarded, as is the runoff of storm water/leachate over the side slopes of the landfill, by containing storm water which comes into contact with the working face of the landfill cells. This will be accomplished by minimizing the size of the working face to approximately 42 feet width. This will serve to reduce the potential for storm water to contact waste. Additionally, berms will be constructed around the working faces of each active cell which will cause any runoff or storm water which gets inside the working face of the cell to remain there and to percolate through the land fill to eventually be collected as leachate by the collection system. If enough rain falls on the working face of a cell to cause an overflow of storm water over the berms, additional berms placed on the interior slopes of the landfill will catch the overflow and divert it back through the landfill and the leachate collection system. The Applicant contends that normal maintenance equipment and personnel will be able to maintain the exterior side slopes of the landfill and thus minimize erosion. However, if erosion should become a problem, the Applicant proposes to install interceptor berms constructed on the side slopes, accompanied by various geotextural fabrics or synthetic materials proposed to be imbedded on the side slopes to help anchor the interceptor berms. These berms, however, have been demonstrated by Petitioner's witness, Mr. Peavy, to be inadequate to retard erosion. In fact, they may promote erosion because they would be insufficiently anchored to the side slope (as designed with 3:1 slope) and the downhill slope of the berms themselves is considerably steeper than a 3:1 ratio, which will actually promote erosion. The erosion problem will be discussed in further detail infra, but the proposed "optional" berm system, consisting of two proposed berms down the length of the 450 foot side slope will have to be redesigned in order to serve the purpose of retarding side slope erosion. The cap or cover for the exterior side slopes of the landfill will consist of a relatively impermeable clay layer overlain by a sand layer, as well as a top soil layer. Mr. Lithman, an expert in geotechnical engineering testifying for the Applicant, established that as a result of the side slope stability analysis he conducted of the clay layer for the Class I disposal area, that the clay layer would be stable, with a safety factor of 2.9-3, which is more than adequate for a slope as designed for the Class I disposal area (3:1). Mr. Evander Peavy, testifying for the Petitioners and accepted as an expert witness in the fields of civil engineering, soil mechanics, surface water hydrology and hydraulics, agreed that there was an adequate safety factor in the clay cap layer itself and that no plane of failure would likely occur in that layer. The problem, however, lies in the sand layer immediately predetermined or potential plane of failure will occur at the interface between the sand layer and clay layer. This is where the side slope of the landfill is most likely to fail. Failure means that the weight of the sand and soil layers on the outside of the clay layer would exceed the resisting forces, holding them back on the slope of the landfill, which would result in a deformation, slumping or break in the sand layer. If this slumping or break occurs in the sand layer and is not immediately repaired, rain water can erode the clay layer, which is highly erodible if exposed to rainfall. If not redressed soon, this could result in exposure of the waste of the landfill to rain water with the result that leachate could seep out of the side slopes of the landfill and enter surface waters of the State through the functioning of the storm water system. The most likely layers a civil engineer would analyze to determine the stability of the side slope would be the sand and soil layers above the clay layer because they are the weaker layers in terms of adhesion, shearing and resistance to downward movement under stress. However, Mr. Lithman, Trail Ridge's expert who conducted a side-slope stability analysis, only analyzed failure in the clay layer initially, until he was called on rebuttal to address findings of Mr. Peavy. The DER rule provision that allows 3:1 ratio side slopes for the sides of such landfills only serves as a guideline or maximum steepness criteria for design engineers. It does not relieve an engineer from analyzing slope stability in accord with good engineering practices. Analyzing side slope stability must be done in terms of establishing "safety factors." An acceptable safety factor for a landfill is 1.5 because, if failure occurs, solid waste can quickly be uncovered which can cause leachate contamination to surface waters of the State. A safety factor of 1.5 is the commonly accepted factor for earthen dam design because of the risks posed by failure of such slopes or embankments. Mr. Peavy is extensively experienced in the design of earthen dams and similar earth works, including extensive analysis of slope constituents and design for stability under shear forces and other failure-inducing factors, as well as for resistance to erosive forces. He was engaged in such phases of engineering work for approximately 26 years, during which period he designed and oversaw construction of numerous dams, revetments and other earthen embankments and works of many types. Because of this, and because of the commonly accepted engineering methods and calculations he used in analyzing the stability and integrity of the side slopes of the landfill, involving plane of failure analysis and erosion damage analysis, his testimony is credited over that of the other witnesses testifying on the subject matters involving side slope integrity of the landfill. Because of this, a safety factor was established for the side slopes of the landfill, for the sand and soil layers of 1.5. Safety factors of 1.25 are indeed commonly used for highway embankments, but highway embankments are not designed with predetermined or potential planes of failure, such as is involved at this landfill (as presently designed) between the sand-soil layers and the clay layer. Trail Ridge's expert witness in this area, Mr. Lithman, had testified that a safety factor of 1.25 would be adequate because it was typical of DOT earthen embankments for roadways. Mr. Niehoff testified that a 1.3 safety factor was sufficient. In fact, however, Mr. Peavy, testifying for the Petitioners, calculated the safety factor of the side slopes of the landfill to actually be 0.85, using his initial assumption of a weight for a cubic foot of the sand-soil layer of approximately 100 pounds. Mr. Niehoff testifying for Trail Ridge found no basic fault with Mr. Peavy's analysis of the safety factor and alleged that his analysis was done with accepted engineering procedures, but only with use of slightly different assumptions. He testified that if he had used the same assumptions as Mr. Peavy, he would have reached the same conclusions. Mr. Peavy also calculated his safety factor again by employing the same equation used by Trail Ridge's expert, Mr. Lithman, and assumed instead that the unit of sand-soil layers was 125 pounds per cubic foot, as did Mr. Lithman. This assumption coupled with the internal angle of friction of 35 degrees used by Mr. Peavy, which was shown to be a conservative assumption, resulted in a calculated safety factor of 1.05, which is still unacceptable, even under Mr. Lithman's analysis, because Mr. Lithman opined that the safety factor should be 1.25. Using Mr. Peavy's equation, but his own assumptions as to angle of friction and weight per cubic foot of the sand-soil layer, Mr. Niehoff, testifying for the Applicant, calculated a safety factor of 1.3. This safety factor also is unacceptable because it is less than the 1.5 safety factor established as proper by Mr. Peavy's testimony and, indeed, if Mr. Lithman's safety factor of 1.25 could be deemed acceptable, the 1.3 figure would result only in a marginal safety factor at best. The major difference between the safety factor calculations of Mr. Peavy and Mr. Niehoff is that Mr. Peavy assumed that the sand-soil layer above the clay layer would be saturated, while Mr. Niehoff assumed that only 19 inches of the 24 inch sand-soil cover layer would be saturated by rainfall. However, Trail Ridge's own experts, Mr. Lithman and Mr. Niehoff, offered conflicting testimony between themselves on the amount of saturation to be expected. Like Mr. Peavy, Mr. Lithman did his analysis on the basis that the sand-soil layers would be saturated completely, contrary to Mr. Niehoff's subsequent testimony that this would not happen beyond a 19 inch depth in the layer. Mr. Niehoff's conclusions that the sand-soil layer would not become saturated or valid only if there is a complete grass cover over the entire side slopes of the landfill. He admitted that if the sand-soil layer became saturated, the safety factor would only be 1.1 or less according to his own calculations. Trail Ridge offered no preponderant evidence to establish that an adequate grass cover could be established so as to prevent saturation of the sand-soil layer during the design 25-year, 24-hour storm event (approximately 8- 9 inches rainfall in 24 hours). The evidence indicates, rather, that establishing and maintaining a grass cover on the side slopes of the landfill will be very difficult to achieve on a uniform, completely grassed basis. This is because of erosion and because of the damage by equipment necessary to repeatedly repair erosion damage and because of the fact that much of the side slopes of the landfill will be, in effect, under construction until the landfill is completely built out and completed at the end of approximately 20 years. Even if the lower several lifts of the landfill, when covered on the "cover as you go" basis can achieve them, more recently deposited, will not have a complete grass cover. Thus, there is a substantial likelihood of saturation of the sand-soil layer, during storm events of the type for which the landfill is designed. Further, the volume of water that would saturate into the sand-soil layer, even if the landfill was completely grassed, will still be sufficient to totally saturate the lower 90 feet of the landfill side slopes above the clay layer in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. If the sand-soil layers become saturated, sloughing or failure of those layers will occur at the toe of the landfill. If that occurs, then the clay layer, protective cap can be quickly eroded by subsequent rainfall and surface runoff. This will cause the waste within the landfill to be exposed to rainfall, generating leachate which can migrate to the surface of the landfill and thence to the storm water system and ultimately to the surface waters of the State. No provisions have been made in the design to remove water from the sand-soil layers once it reaches the area near the toe of the landfill to prevent sand-soil layer failure. The impermeability of the clay layer would prevent the rainfall from migrating through the clay layer and continuing to the interior bottom of the landfill to be collected properly as leachate because the clay layer properly should be an impermeable barrier to storm water. Thus, a saturated condition of the sand-soil layers would be most likely to cause their sloughing and failure near the toe of the landfill, with resulting damage by erosion or cracking to the clay layer with the effect of allowing leachate to escape to surface waters of the State. Although the Applicant's expert, Mr. Lithman, opined that side slope stability had not been a problem with the 3:1 ratio slopes at the City's Rosemary Hill Landfill, he admittedly was unaware of the height or length of the side slopes of that landfill. The longer the side slopes and the higher the landfill, the more likely it is that the sand-soil layers will become saturated and fail during design storm events or shortly thereafter, especially as the landfill, in its later years is built both longer and higher toward its final configuration. Further, Mr. Lithman and the Applicant's evidence does not reveal the composition of the side slopes of the Rosemary Hill Landfill, in terms of whether or not the clay and sand-soil layers designed in the proposed landfill are present. Due to the height of the proposed landfill, the lengths of its side slopes and the absence of design features such as terraces and benches, failure of the side slopes, especially in the later years of the landfill's life and, indeed, after closure (closed landfills can generate leachate) is likely to occur, based upon the facts established through Mr. Peavy's testimony. The likely side slope failure is a result of the design flaw and is not a problem which can be cured by normal operation and maintenance activities. Indeed those activities may aggravate the problem through their deleterious effect on the establishment of a uniform, complete grass cover. Because of the height of the proposed landfill, the length and slopes of its sides and the lack of design features such as benches or terraces, it is likely to experience significant side slope erosion due to storm water. The volume of rain water that would accumulate and flow down the sides of the landfill will achieve velocities which would destroy even a well established grass cover, especially in the later years of the landfill's life when the sides have reached significant length and height. Storm water would thus gain sufficient velocity to destroy a grass cover and to particularly attack those portions where the grass cover is incomplete, thinned or possessed of an insufficient root mat to hold the soil. Once erosion starts, small rills will form which will soon develop into deeper gullies, ultimately penetrating the sand-soil layer. It can then quickly erode away the resulting exposed clay cap layer, exposing the waste to storm water. Leachate could thus leak from the landfill. Because of the present design of the Class I landfill, the only way to repair erosion damage is to push material from the bottom with heavy machinery, such as bulldozers. These erosion maintenance activities themselves would prevent the establishment of a uniform solid grass cover. The presently operated East Landfill in Duval County exhibits both side slope failure and erosion damage due to rainfall on its 3:1 slopes, including damage to the grass cover. Erosion damage to the slope layers due to erosion maintenance activities of the type which would be necessary to repair damage at the proposed landfill has occurred. Both erosion and side slope failure will ultimately result in exposure of solid waste to rainfall runoff and assure side slope seepage of leachate. The material eroded or sloughed away from the side slopes can obstruct the drainage conveyance system surrounding the landfill, rendering the MSSW/storm water system inoperative. Because of the presently proposed design of the landfill, it would be impossible to effectively correct side slope erosion or failure, due especially to maintenance activities. Even if a uniform grass cover could be established in the last years of landfill operation and after closure, the great length and slope of sides of the landfill by that time would result in erosion even if the grass cover were initially uniform and solid on the entire slope of the landfill. A change in the design of the landfill, however, whereby 15 foot wide benches or terraces would be incorporated into the sides of the landfill every 20 or so vertical feet, would likely prevent the side slope erosion and failure established to be likely by Mr. Peavy. In fact, benches or terraces similar to those found to be required by Mr. Peavy have had to be recently installed at the East Landfill in Duval County in order to resolve side slope erosion and failure problems on those 3:1 slopes. The mere installation of interceptor berms, as depicted in TRL Exhibit 28, would not alleviate side slope failure and erosion problems, but rather would aggravate them and would reduce the safety factor of the side slopes to 0.5. Consequently, in order to grant the permit, it should be conditioned on the landfill being re-designed and constructed so as to incorporate benches or terraces at approximately 20 foot intervals on the slope of the landfill from bottom to top. Although this may potentially reduce the volume of space within the landfill, depending on how it is accomplished, it has been established that, without the use of the bench or terrace system, pollutant leachate cannot be reasonably assured to be prevented from entering State waters and wetlands. Leachate Control Leachate is any water coming in contact with solid waste. The chemical constituents of leachate which are present and will be present in the Duval County solid waste stream, to be disposed of at the proposed landfill, include chlorobenzene, volatile organics of various types, benzene, acetone, phenolic compounds, gasoline constituents, chloroform, methylethylketone, methylene chloride, toluene, xylene, ethylbenzene, total organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus and metals such as aluminum, chromium and zinc. Leachate thus contains toxic, hazardous and priority pollutants which will be disposed of in the landfill. The breakdown and degradation of solid waste can also generate additional toxic or hazardous compounds and substances. Leachate can potentially be discharged in a proposed landfill into groundwater and surface waters in a number of ways, including leakage from the bottom of the landfill liner into groundwaters, including into the Class I storm water pond and surface waters of the State through discharge from the groundwater into the storm water pond system. It could also be deposited into the storm water system through spillage of leachate where tanker trucks are loaded, through seepage of leachate through the side slopes of the proposed landfill by damage to the integrity of those side slopes as found above. The Petitioners maintain that side slope seepage of leachate will occur because the permeability of the intermediate cover layers surrounding the cells of the landfill is significantly less than the permeability of solid waste. This will have the result, according to Petitioners, that leachate will migrate horizontally through the intermediate cover layers to the sides of the landfill. Once there it arguably would migrate to the surface of the landfill side slopes through erosion of the outer cover, and fissures in the clay due to drying from exposure to the sun and through erosion. Additionally, the Petitioners maintain that leachate will migrate downward through the peripheral intermediate cover layer under the clay and contact the impermeable clay anchor cap, build up hydraulic head pressure and thus seep out through landfill sides near the toe of the landfill. The Petitioners maintain that Trail Ridge's policy and proposal to punch holes in the intermediate cover layers atop the cells of the landfill to encourage downward migration of leachate and discourage horizontal migration of leachate through the intermediate cover layers will be ineffective because the intermediate cover is more permeable than the solid waste itself so that punching holes in the intermediate cover to allow the leachate to migrate down through solid waste will actually not occur. Additionally the Petitioners contend that the filter system and the storm water pond will not treat the dissolved chemical components of the leachate specified in Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and that these dissolved components will move through the sand filters into waters of the State. Contrary to Petitioner's contentions, however, the Applicant has demonstrated that leachate will not avoid capture by the leachate collection system by seeping horizontally through the cover or cap and out the sides of the landfill, provided that the side slope failure and erosion prevention measures found to be necessary in the above Findings of Fact are instituted in the design, construction and operation of the landfill. The design of the cap and closure system is basically a side slope seepage prevention system, except for the absence of terraces or benches. The intermediate soil cover beneath the clay cap and surrounding each cell of the landfill acts as a drainage medium. It will channel any seepage of leachate from the cells of solid waste through the permeable, intermediate soil cover, generally in a downward direction, both in and between the cells of the landfill throughout its cross-section, as well as downward through the intermediate soil cover lining immediately beneath the clay cap around the periphery of the landfill. This system, if the above design deficiency is corrected, will tend to force the leachate downward into the collection system, as opposed to horizontally out the cover or the sides of the landfill. The reason this system will work in this manner is because the intermediate cover soil is more permeable than the solid waste itself. The permeability of the intermediate cover will promote vertical movement of the leachate because, as the leachate migrates across each cell, it will encounter the vertical, intermediate soil cover layer at the side of each cell and that will promote its moving downward toward the collection system. The water in the landfill will thus follow the path of least resistance, so that the vertical portions of the intermediate cover layers surrounding each cell and surrounding the sides of the landfill beneath the clay cap, coupled with the force of gravity, will provide a preferential path downward toward the leachate collection system. This finding includes consideration of the Petitioners' contention that leachate will migrate downward and contact the impermeable clay anchor cap and build up head pressure so that it will seep out of the sides at the toe of the landfill. The intermediate cover layer underlying the sides of the landfill beneath the clay anchor cap is connected with the leachate collection system underlying the bottom of the landfill. Thus, a continuous conduction of leachate down through the intermediate cover, permeable layer will allow the leachate to seep downward all the way to the leachate collection system rather than pooling behind the impermeable clay anchor cap. This condition will be enhanced by the fact that surrounding each cell is the approximately vertical, permeable intermediate cover layer, throughout the entire cross-section of the landfill, such that much of the leachate will migrate downward in the interior of the landfill. Because of the ready conductance of leachate in a downward direction by the intermediate cover layers, Trail Ridge's policy of punching holes in the intermediate cover layer on the top of each cell in order to seek to prevent side slope seepage of leachate will be ineffective because the intermediate cover is more permeable than the solid waste. Thus, this procedure is unnecessary and, in fact, could become counter-productive to the extent that punching holes in the intermediate cover would allow rain water mixed with leachate to contact more of the solid waste contents of the landfill as it migrates down through the interior of each solid waste cell. This would result in a more highly concentrated form of leachate, which could pose more deleterious threats to ground and surface waters should it escape to ground and surface waters. Therefore, any grant of the permit should be conditioned on a prohibition of the Applicant thus violating the integrity of the intermediate cover layer overlying each cell as the landfill is built up in lifts. Gas Control System The Class I disposal area is designed with a gas control system which will prevent explosions and fires caused by the accumulation of methane gas due to decomposition of the waste in the landfill. The gas control system will prevent damage to the vegetation on the final cover of the closed portions of the landfill or vegetation beyond the perimeter of the property. It will prevent objectionable odors off site. The Petitioners have stipulated that the Applicants' gas control system will be designed in accordance with Rule 17- 701.050(5)(j), Florida Administrative Code. Although the Petitioners presented testimony of various persons who live in close proximity to other landfills, which were at one time operated by Waste Management subsidiary companies, neither the persons who testified of odor problems at those landfills, nor other witnesses presented testimony to show whether any of the landfills utilized a gas control system or one of equivalent design to that proposed for the subject facility. No evidence was presented to support a finding that the proposed landfill facility would produce objectionable odors to any significant degree. The Petitioners have further stipulated that the Class III disposal area is exempt from the gas control system requirements set forth in Rule 17- 701.050(5)(i) and (j) and (6)(i), Florida Administrative Code, and the Department agrees. Hydrogeology and Ground Water Monitoring The Applicant filed as part of its application, and placed in evidence, a hydrogeological survey and groundwater monitoring plan, contained in TRL Exhibit 51. The hydrology of the proposed landfill site may fairly be characterized as complex because it contains many different features such as recharge and discharge areas, varying zones of conductivity, a sand component to the surficial aquifer as well as a rock aquifer component and multi-directional groundwater flows. Additionally, wetland systems occur down-gradient from the higher levels of the surficial aquifer on the north, east and south sides of the proposed Class I disposal area. From the surface grade down to a depth of approximately 100 feet lies the surficial aquifer, which primarily consists of a coarse sand medium. Lying below the sand aquifer is a confining unit (relatively impermeable) identified as the Hawthorn Group, which consists of denser marls, dolomites and silver clays. Beneath the Hawthorn layer, at a depth of approximately 300-400 feet, is the Floridan aquifer, which serves as the principal deep water supply source for this part of Florida. Additionally, immediately above the Hawthorn layer in the deep zone of the surficial aquifer, a "rock aquifer" exists under a portion of the landfill site, generally the eastern-most portion. It was not shown to be continuous throughout the site. The rock aquifer is connected to the sand surficial aquifer lying above it. Zones of varying higher and lower permeability occur at various places within the surficial aquifer. Generally, groundwater at the site flows down-gradient in an easterly direction, caused by rain or surface water recharging the surficial aquifer on the higher portions of Trail Ridge, including the western side of the landfill Class I disposal site. The surficial aquifer then discharges this groundwater to the land surface and the wetlands lying on the eastern side of the site. Additionally, some northward and southward flow of groundwater occurs from recharge areas to the wetlands lying on the northerly and southerly boundaries of the Class I disposal site in the wetlands. The specific condition 19 contained in the Department's Notice of Intent to issue permit and draft permit requires the Applicant to periodically (quarterly) sample monitoring wells to ensure that water quality standards are not exceeded at the boundary of a zone of discharge established by that specific condition and authorized by Rule 17-28.700(4)(a), Florida Administrative Code. A groundwater monitoring plan has been developed by the Applicant, with accompanying hydrogeological survey as mandated by Rule 17-28.700, Florida Administrative Code. The proposed groundwater monitoring system consists of 42 monitoring wells in and around the area of the proposed Class I and Class III landfill sites. The system is designed to monitor upgradient and downgradient flows in wells constructed to sample from the shallow and intermediate zone and from the deep zone (to some extent) on the east boundary of the Class I disposal site. Specific condition number 18 of the Notice of Intent to grant the permit and draft permit, to which the Applicant has agreed, requires that a detailed chemical characterization of a representative sample of leachate be performed, so as to allow for any necessary modifications to the list of chemical substances to be analyzed in water samples drawn from the monitoring wells on a quarterly basis. Although there are up-gradient monitoring wells for the shallow and intermediate portions of the surficial aquifer, there are no upgradient monitoring wells for the deep zone of the surficial aquifer. There are no upgradient monitoring wells on the west side of the landfill in the deep zone. The deep zone of the surficial aquifer is the zone between the intermediate zone and the top of the Hawthorn confining bed. The rock aquifer is present beneath the proposed landfill site and was encountered at well locations B-7, B-8, B-12 and B-14. That rock aquifer is hydrologically connected to and part of the deep zone, which is hydrogeologically connected throughout the site to the uppermost portions of the surficial aquifer lying beneath the landfill. The rock aquifer is a significant source of drinking water in Duval County and the surrounding northeast Florida area and is used as a supply source for domestic and commercial wells within one and one-half miles of the landfill Class I site. "Sinkers" are immiscible liquids contained in landfill leachate that are denser than water. When released from the landfill they would sink to the first low permeability unit in the surficial aquifer. This would be at the bottom of the surficial aquifer at the rock unit. Once they encountered a lower permeability unit or strata, sinkers would then move in a more lateral direction downgradient in undetermined directions. The silty clay layer depicted on Figure 9 of TRL Exhibit 51 would intercept those sinkers and cause them to tend to move in a direction toward the silty clay layer intercepted by well B-1. At that point the sinkers would then have a tendency to move in a north or south direction on top of the confining zone. The direction those sinkers would move, following a gradient, cannot be determined at present from the groundwater monitoring plan because no deep wells are proposed in either of those areas which could detect sinkers. The groundwater monitoring plan is thus not adequate for the deep zone or to detect pollutants that could migrate off site in the rock aquifer because there are no monitoring wells in the deep zone on the west, north and south sides of the Class I landfill area. Monitoring for sinker compounds in the deep zones is thus insufficient and water supply wells nearby in the deep zone would be at risk because there is no way to detect pollutants between those water supply wells and the source of the pollutants at the landfill. The groundwater monitoring plan is inadequate because there is insufficient information to determine the direction of water flow in the deep zone. Sufficient upgradient monitoring wells in the deep zone are necessary in order to determine the direction of water flow in the deep zone which will in turn indicate where additional deep zone monitoring wells should be located to detect contaminants migrating off site. Leachates also contain contaminant constituents or compounds called "floaters." Floaters are immiscible liquids which are lighter or less dense than water. They tend to float on top of the groundwater table. The hydrologic information depicted with the application and the Applicant's evidence is not sufficient to determine where floaters might migrate. The shallow monitoring wells referenced in TRL Exhibit 42 would not adequately detect floaters at or near the water table surface. Due to the lower lying stream or wetland systems on the north and south side of the Class I landfill on Trail Ridge, groundwater flows in the vicinity of those areas are likely moving northward and southward to some extent. Thus, TRL Exhibit 51, and particularly Figure 14 of that exhibit, is insufficient to support a determination of where monitoring wells should be located because it does not include the impact of the stream or wetland systems on the north and south sides of the landfill. Groundwater contours bend into the stream areas on the north and south sides of the landfill which would indicate groundwater flow to the south and the north instead of just from west to east. The general shape of these contour lines would resemble the contour lines depicted in Figure 16 of TRL Exhibit 51. These contour lines bend back to the east and the west on the north and south sides of the Class I landfill. Since there is groundwater flow to the north and to the south from the Class I landfill, intermediate and deep monitoring wells in addition to shallow wells, should be located along the west, north and south sides of the landfill. Because they are not in the groundwater monitoring plan thus far, the plan is inadequate. A grant of the permits should be conditioned on such additional wells being installed and made a part of the monitoring program, in accordance with the above findings. A zone of discharge for the proposed landfill has been established pursuant to Rule 17-28.700(4)(a)2., Florida Administrative Code, which is intended to extend vertically from the base of the surficial aquifer and horizontally 100 feet beyond the footprint of the landfill or to the compliance groundwater monitoring wells, whichever is less. (See pages 611- 618 of the transcript.) Therefore, even if the groundwater monitoring wells are closer than 100 feet to the footprint of the landfill, they are to be used for monitoring for compliance with applicable water quality standards, including the primary and secondary drinking water standards for G-II groundwater, as contained in Rules 17-550.310 and 17-550.320, Florida Administrative Code. The Applicant has agreed to this location of the wells, their spatial relationship to the footprint of the landfill, to the zone of discharge and to their use for compliance purposes. Storm Water and Surface Water Management System The Applicant proposes as part of its permit application a storm water discharge and surface water management system. The application for permitting for that system was submitted to the DER which reviewed it using the Water Management District's permitting criteria set forth in Chapters 40C-4 and 40C- 42, Florida Administrative Code. Pursuant to its independent permitting authority set forth in Section 373.413, Florida Statutes, the DER noticed its intent to issue the MSSW permit to the Applicant, based upon its opinion that the project will comply with applicable rules. The proposed storm water discharge/surface water management system (MSSW system) will utilize roadside swales, perimeter ditches, catch basins, culverts, detention ponds and pump stations to manage storm water in compliance with Chapters 17-25, 40C-4 and 40C-42, Florida Administrative Code. The solid waste disposal areas will operate as watersheds, routing storm water in to the MSSW system. The retention areas have been designed to handle the retention treatment requirements of a 25-year, 24-hour "design storm" runoff, resulting from approximately eight to nine inches of rainfall. The system is comprised of three independent parts; the Class I landfill system, the Class III landfill system and the separate roadway surface water management system. The Class I system will use temporary berms to intercept storm water runoff from the cap cover system of the landfill, on top of the solid waste disposal area. These top berms will divert the storm water runoff to regularly spaced pipes which will convey the storm water into the perimeter swale located at the foot of the landfill side slopes. The runoff will then be diverted through a culvert into a concrete-lined perimeter ditch which will convey it to the pond. The top berms of the landfill also operate as erosion control features, capturing and channelling some storm water runoff away from the side slopes of the landfill, thereby assisting in erosion control. The Class I retention pond covers an area of approximately ten acres and will contain approximately 43 million gallons of water at design water levels. The peak flow of storm water runoff from a design 25-year, 24-hour storm can be accumulated and released at predetermined rates. The runoff from the first one inch of rainfall in a 72 hour period is retained and stored in the pond. No discharge will be allowed to the pond's outfall system, rather all the outfall from the runoff from the first inch of rainfall will be routed through the sand filter system prior to discharge. When storm water runoff enters the pond, it will mix with the water already in the pond and become part of the total water column. When a rainfall event then produces greater than one inch of rainfall, some water will have to be discharged from the pond by passing it through the sand filter and then discharging through the outfall structure. The water discharged is water which was already resident in the pond before the rainfall event, mixed with the current rainfall runoff from that hypothetical rainfall event. The volume of the pond is so large that storm water runoff will constitute a very small fraction of the actual water volume in the pond at any given time. On the average, it will take 33 days for a given molecule of storm water runoff to travel through the pond, the sand filter and then be discharged through the outfall system. the sand filter system operates on a water level trigger device involving floats in wet wells attached to electrical switching mechanisms. When a certain water elevation in the wet wells, reflective of the elevation in the pond, is reached, the pumps automatically start and pump water into the filter chambers, causing the water to flow over a filtering sand. The filter will be maintained periodically by lowering of the water level to permit removal and replacement of the top six inches of sand in the filter. The Class III storm water pond is similar in design to the Class I pond except that it will not use a top berm. Rather, a perimeter swale will function similarly to the Class I landfill top berm, intercepting storm water runoff from the top and side slopes of the Class III landfill. The Class III storm water pond is equipped with the same type of filtration and pumping system as the Class I pond. The Class III system is designed also to retain the first inch of storm water runoff from a "design storm" rainfall in a 72 hour period. All of that runoff from the first inch of rainfall will likewise be routed through sand filtering prior to discharge. The roadway storm water system utilizes grassed roadside swales to act as a retention structure to filter the storm water runoff. The runoff retained in the swales will be conveyed by pipe to a smaller detention and dispersion pond located between the Class I and Class III disposal areas and built with the same design constraints as the Class I pond. The roadway system will not use a pumping system to operate, but rather discharge will occur through natural action of gravity through the dispersion pond. The filtered storm water runoff from the Class I and Class III disposal areas will be discharged into adjacent wetlands after it leaves the ponds. The discharge will be performed by a wetland irrigation system. The irrigation system will discharge the filtered storm water through conveyance pipes to the wetland boundaries. There a series of perforated pipes will extend outward from the conveyance pipes themselves and serve as a means of gradually releasing the filtered storm water into the wet land area as a means of wetland replenishment and mitigation. Concerning the issue of surface water quality, it has been established that the sand filtering systems on the Class I and Class III storm water ponds are capable of providing 100 percent of the treatment required by State water quality standards when considered in conjunction with the treatment capability of the ponds themselves as natural lake systems. The individual sand filters each provide twice the capacity for treatment necessary which equates to a safety factor of 2. With both filters operating, there is a combined safety factor of 4. Although the Class I and Class III retention ponds are designed with filtration systems, the primary pollution removal system will be the ponds themselves operating as natural lakes. Once storm water enters the ponds, the average residence time is adequate to allow the biological processes of uptake and assimilation to function to remove the bulk of the pollutants, including those derived from any spillage of leachate into the storm water management system and ultimately deposited into the ponds. The volatile organic compounds which can occur in the leachate can largely be removed simply by the process of evaporation, due to the adequate retention time of any leachate- containing storm water which reaches the ponds. It has been established that, due to the storm water pond's natural treatment mechanisms, especially the long retention time, the size and volume of the ponds, as well as the vegetated sides of the ponds, that, considering also the operation of the filter system, the water discharging from the Class I and Class III storm water treatment facility will have very low concentrations of total nitrogen, phosphorous, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids and heavy metals. The Applicant's expert witness on water quality and water chemistry, Dr. Harper, also assumed that the Class I retention pond would have some leachate migration into the pond through groundwater influx. Worst case scenarios were used to estimate this possible influx and the results established a maximum deposition of 2.46 gallons of leachate into the pond over a 65 day period. This amount would be diluted by a factor of 14 million solely by new storm water runoff and rain normally expected under average rainfall conditions during such a 65 day period, without even considering the considerable dilution by the existing water volume of approximately 43 million gallons already in the pond in such a period. Dr. Harper's testimony is accepted. It is unlikely that any runoff can enter the retention pond on one day and then exit within one day's time through the outfall overflow device. Even assuming that runoff occurs in excess of the designed one inch, that runoff would dilute with the large volume of water already present in the storm water pond. Thus, the new storm water would be mixed, diluted and subject to natural biological processes and the process of evaporation (of volatile organic compounds), operative in the pond before it can be released through the outfall structure. The runoff will enter the pond at the west end and discharge through the opposite or east end of the pond. The majority of water caused to be discharged through the outfall because of a larger-than-design storm event runoff would thus actually be water already present in the pond as opposed to incoming runoff from the recent rain event being deposited in the west end of the pond where the storm water system discharges from the Class I disposal area. Even a rainfall event producing twice the designed-for volume would produce no effect on the water quality of the discharge. Further, along with the filter systems and the natural processes of biological uptake, assimilation as well as evaporation in the natural lake system which would operate in the pond, the side slopes of both ponds will be vegetated so as to further assist in uptake and removal of any pollutants present in the runoff, further mitigating any potential for water quality impacts. It has been established that the surface water management system is designed to segregate surface water from leachate by minimizing the size of the landfill working face and reducing the potential for storm water to contact waste and become leachate. Further, a berm will be constructed around each working face which will encompass the entire active cell of the landfill, causing any runoff water entering the working face to remain there and percolate through the landfill to the leachate collection system, rather than entering the storm water system. If a severe rainfall event could cause leachate to overflow those berms, the design includes additional berms on the interior slopes of the landfill to catch that overflow and divert it back through the leachate collection system. The berms are relocated as the working face of the landfill changes, so they will continue to fulfill these functions on an ongoing basis. In terms of a worst case event, the Applicant has also established that the estimated impact of runoff from approximately one acre of exposed solid waste entering the retention pond would still cause no water quality impacts. Further assurance of leachate segregation from surface waters is provided in a spillage control plan which would be activated in the event of leachate spillage from a tanker truck. In connection with this, any grant of the permit should be conditioned upon an adequate berm system surrounding the tank truck leachate filling device in order to contain any such spill to prevent the leachate from entering the storm water retention facilities and surface waters. Such a system should also be characterized by (and the permit conditioned upon) retention berms or other forms of containment being placed around each leachate storage tank, designed to retain the full capacity of such a leachate storage tank in the event of a catastrophic tank valve, piping or other failure. It has been demonstrated, moreover, that if the leachate-storm water separation and control system were to fail in some way so that leachate directly entered the retention pond, the volume of leachate entering the pond would have to exceed approximately 150,000 gallons to cause any water quality violation in the storm water retention pond, even assuming the high concentration of contaminants in the leachate envisioned in the opinion of Dr. Robert Livingston, the Petitioners' aquatic ecologist and toxicologist. He raised concerns that pollution of the head water systems of the St. Johns and St. Mary's Rivers might result from the operation of the project. The Applicant has rebutted the concerns expressed by Dr. Livingston and Dr. Parks and established reasonable assurances that toxins and contaminants occurring in leachate will not deposit in surface waters of the State in any significant or rule-violative amounts for the reasons expressed in the above Findings of Fact. Draw-Down Effects The Petitioners contend that there will be a draw-down of groundwater levels in surrounding wetlands caused by these storm water ponds and associated pumping, in violation of the Water Management District's rules and policy embodied in MSSW Handbook Section 10.6.3. This section presumes an adverse impact on wetlands will result if the system causes the groundwater table to be lowered more than five feet lower than the average dry season low water table. The Petitioners' expert in this area, Dr. Motz, estimated that a measurable draw-down of groundwater of one to two feet in the wetlands water table would extend outward as far as maybe 1,000 feet in all directions from each of the storm water ponds. Dr. Motz used a large error convergence factor in his calculations, however, and also used a model for a confined aquifer, which was not shown to exist at the subject site. He did not use a model which should be appropriate for unconfined or semiconfined aquifers which the evidence reveals is the more appropriate hydrogeology which would be employed in groundwater modeling for the subject site. Dr. Motz' use of a large error convergence factor can potentially result in an answer which is far from the actual appropriate draw-down figure. Numerical models are approximations of reality and the smaller the error convergence factor, then the closer to the real number of the cone of depression, or draw-down level, the model will give. Consequently, the use of an analytical groundwater, cone of depression model was shown by the Applicants' witnesses to give a more accurate result, especially in view of the large error convergence factor employed by Dr. Motz in his numerical model. It was not shown that Dr. Motz had actually "calibrated" the groundwater model he employed. The Applicants' hydrogeology expert, Don Miller, used three analytical and two empirical methods to determine radius of influence or draw-down from the storm water ponds and calibrated the models he used. Validating the data or calibrating the model is a way of making sure the model actually represents the situation intended. Calibration is performed in this instance by inputting some data and then seeing if the model itself could accurately predict the remainder of the data of interest. Using these various methods, Dr. Miller arrived at a range of radius of influence likely to occur from the Class I storm water pond of 167 feet to 184 feet at the western end of the pond and approximately 40 feet at the eastern end. The maximum radius of influence for the Class III storm water pond was shown to be approximately 160 feet at the western end and 0 at the northeastern corner. The other hydrogeology expert for the Applicant, Dr. Leve, performed a separate analytical analysis of draw-down using the Southwest Florida Water Management District's "KOCH" model to produce a projected radius of influence of approximately 167 feet, which is comparable to the projections of Dr. Miller. In conjunction with this, it was shown that Dr. Motz' use of a small value for groundwater infiltration and the large error convergence factor served to increase his predicted radius of influence in an inaccurate way. Dr. Motz also used a higher value for transmissivity or hydraulic conductivity ("K"). The Applicant's experts relied on the average of the actual permeability test results obtained for the site. A different figure for transmissivity or hydraulic conductivity results from Dr. Motz taking into account two test wells in which hydraulic conductivity could not be measured because the well water level rose too quickly to obtain a measurement. Consequently, he predicted or assumed that that factor might affect the hydraulic conductivity at the site by a whole order of magnitude, which resulted in his 1,000 foot prediction for draw-down cone of influence. The problem here is that the evidence does not demonstrate clearly that this much- greater hydraulic conductivity factor with regard to these two wells, which was an isolated incident compared to all other wells tested, is not some mechanical or human error in the installation or evaluation of the wells. Further, even if one predicts the hydraulic conductivity of the unmeasured, apparently highly conductive wells at the geometric mean of all the hydraulic conductivity measurements for the water table zone (except for the marl zone) at 3.0 X 10 cm/sec or three times greater than the value used by the Applicant, it would result in a cone of influence of 265 feet instead of 184 feet. If one also assumed a value for the two ignored wells, as data points, by assuming that they had a hydraulic conductivity value of 3.5 x 10/-3 cm/sec, the highest reported well conductivity value, and then employed that in the empirical formula used by Donald Miller, it would still not greatly exceed the 265 foot cone of depression number. No evidence was adduced to demonstrate that a cone of depression of that magnitude would have any adverse affect on the wetlands, especially in view of the recharging of the wetlands through the storm water pumping and irrigation system. In summary, the totality of the evidence in the Applicant's case, especially on rebuttal, demonstrates that Dr. Motz' methodology significantly overestimated the radius of influence for draw-down at both storm water ponds. The parties agree that the maximum draw-down of 16 feet would occur within the Class I storm water pond, where a "seepage face" would be formed where the pond would cut into the water table through earth borrowing activities. The maximum draw-down inside the Class III storm water pond, where a seepage face would be formed by the excavation into the water table to construct the pond, will be 14 feet. The lowered groundwater within the storm water ponds is due in part to the natural sloping land surface of that area and the concurrent natural slope of the water level before the ponds are even excavated. The slope of draw-down will decrease rapidly, that is, much of the 14 foot or 16 foot apparent draw-down amount will be the result of the relatively sheer seepage face formed by the pond excavation. At the top of that seepage face, the groundwater cone of depression will flatten out considerably and very rapidly so that, as the slope of the draw-down decreases rapidly in the immediate vicinity of the pond, the groundwater outside the ponds themselves will actually be lowered less than five feet. The groundwater levels used in the application were based upon seasonal high water level for the site, rather than "average dry season low" water levels, as referenced in Section 10.6.3 of the Water Management District's Applicant's handbook. Therefore, the projected draw-downs are very conservative and would overestimate the actual draw-down for dry season low water table groundwater levels. Consequently, the weight of the evidence supports the Applicant's predictions on the effects of draw-down. The evidence demonstrates that draw-down from the storm water ponds associated with both landfills will have either no impact or minimal impact on wetland species, either transitional or submerged, in the surrounding wetlands. Silvi-culture activities on the site have considerably altered the area and lowered the natural water table through the construction of drainage structures by the timber company in the past. In general, the wetland jurisdictional lines from the storm water ponds are based on United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) wetland criteria and thus do not contain species generally considered to be wetland species for purposes of DER dredge and fill or Water Management District MSSW jurisdictional purposes. Many species used by the Corps in determining jurisdiction, such as slash pine, can grow both in uplands or wetlands. The edges of the areas delineated as jurisdictional wetlands are dominated by transitional and upland plant species such as slash pine, gallberry, palmetto, grapevine and huckleberry, which can tolerate dry conditions. It is only as one's investigation proceeds waterward or toward the center of the delineated wetlands, (in which area the land surface slopes down- gradient at the same area where the draw-down cone of influence rapidly diminishes to an insignificant level), that the plant species change to those species adapted to regular and periodic inundation for purposes of the State agencies' wetlands jurisdiction. The draw-down maximum for any wetland location using the maximum projected radius from Dr. Miller's efforts of 184 feet, (17 feet beyond the projection based upon the Water Management District's model), is on the southwest edge of the Class I pond. Maximum draw-down there will be 24' inches at the wetland boundary line, that is, the Corps jurisdictional boundary line where the dominant plant species are transitional or upland plants such as slash pine, gallberry and bay trees. Pine trees at this point exhibit tall and vigorous growth which indicates that the water table, before installation of the ponds, is already well below the surface, otherwise these upland trees would lack sufficient oxygen to grow if water levels were closer to the surface. The potential draw-down here would thus have little effect on this vegetation. There will be essentially no draw-down effect further down-gradient beyond the DER Water Management District jurisdictional boundary, where the pines are already of diminished stature because of water existing close to the land's surface and where DER wetland jurisdictionally-listed plants predominate. The draw-down at the wetland boundary line on the southeastern part of the Class I pond will be 9 2/3 inches. Wetland species which could be affected are found 50-60 feet beyond that radius of influence at this point. The radius of influence on the northern side of the Class I pond will not cross any wetland boundary until it widens at the northwestern corner. The maximum draw-down at the wet land line near the northwestern corner of the pond would be approximately 15 1/2 inches. Here again the predominant plant species are the upland species of slash pine and gallberry and thus the draw-down will have little effect on those species for reasons mentioned above. On the western edge of the Class III pond is an isolated wetland for purposes of the Water Management District MSSW and Corps jurisdiction only. The edge of that wetland is dominated by slash pine and gallberry. The estimated draw-down on the boundary line of that land in the area dominated by slash pine and gallberry is six inches. There will be no draw-down from that Class III borrow pond area in any wetland dominated by transitional or submerged species. In addition to the above considerations and factual findings concerning the effect of the draw-down, the Applicant is proposing an irrigation systems as delineated above, which will deliver water to the wetlands to mitigate and replenish any minimal impacts of groundwater draw-down. The irrigation system will increase the degree and duration of saturation of the soils at the wetlands' boundary. This will mitigate any minimal effect of draw- down and may actually have the effect of enhancing the health and quality of the wetlands over time, from the wetlands' boundary waterward. In order that the irrigation system will pose the maximum benefit and most closely imitate the natural systems, the irrigation system will be designed for flexible operation. A wetlands ecologist will review the wetlands quarterly and adjust the irrigation system as necessary, as to location and operational regime, in order to properly maintain the health, including water levels and hydro-periods in the wetlands. The Applicant has agreed that the grant of the permit be conditioned to allow for this ongoing quarterly investigation and adjustment. Dr. Motz indicated in his testimony his belief that, to a large extent, the water pumped to the wetlands through the irrigation system would simply immediately migrate to the groundwater and immediately back to the storm water pond, through the effects of the draw-down, and not serve the purpose of replenishing the wetlands. He admitted, however, that he did not know whether the proposed irrigation system would work or not. The Applicant's expert witness in this regard, Dr. Leve, established that the irrigation system would effectively distribute water into the wetlands and saturate the surface due to the "mound effect" of water at the irrigation systems' discharge point at the wetland boundary. He used a standard, generally-accepted "mounding model" to predict the effects of the mounding for the irrigation system. Mounding is a hydrogeological phenomenon whereby water will mound up and create a zone of saturation in the soil at the point of discharge to the ground surface. Mr. Leve ran that model for a cross-section of each of the storm water pumps. He also ran the model for two different values of groundwater inputs into the ponds. A figure of 28,800 gallons of groundwater infiltration into the pond per day, as predicted by the Applicant's expert witnesses, and the 100,000 gallon per day groundwater input predicted by Dr. Motz was used. For both cross- section locations examined by Dr. Leve, the discharge of 28,000 gallons per day at the wetland boundary would raise groundwater levels by approximately three inches. The discharge of 100,000 gallons per day at the same locations through the irrigation system would increase water levels by approximately nine inches. These calculations ware based upon the discharge of the groundwater inputs into the storm water pond only. Discharge additionally of the inputs from storm water runoff from the surface of the landfill into the pond and then through the irrigation system would also be delivered into the wetlands as warranted. Additionally, a berm system will prevent surface water runoff from entering the north dirt borrow area. A berm will be constructed at the eastern boundary of the north borrow area to maintain an interior water elevation of 125 feet or one foot above the natural ground, whichever is higher. Water levels will thus be maintained at the north borrow area so that there will be no lowering or de-watering of the groundwater table. Additionally, storm water will be diverted by berms along the west end of both the Class I and Class III landfills upgradient and into the wetlands, so that the adjoining wetlands receive significant surface water recharge that previously did not flow into those wetlands. Mitigation A mitigation plan was proposed for purposes of both the dredge and fill permit application and, in the solid waste landfill application, for the MSSW permitting. It was incorporated into the draft dredge and fill permit and draft landfill permit incorporated in the Department's Notice of Intent to issue. The mitigation plan and other measures will offset the impacts from filling and other activities caused by the project in both the dredge and fill and MSSW jurisdictional wetlands on the site. The proposed mitigation measures include the creation of 4.76 acres of new wetlands; the irrigation of the wetlands surrounding the Class I and Class III storm water ponds, as delineated above, and the diversion of surface water around the landfills into the wetlands to aid in their recharge. A high quality, forested wetland will be created utilizing the reliable method of mulching and, an extensive hardwood planting program which will include red maple, sweetgum, cypress and tupelo trees. The created wetland will contain deep water and transitional zones. The area will be monitored to insure 80 percent survival of the trees planted and routine maintenance will be performed. Approval of this mitigation plan and any issuance of the permits should include the requirement that rapid replanting be done to replace any dead trees and such approval should also be conditioned on the use of the largest trees possible to be planted, by appropriate tree planting equipment, so that the beneficial uptake and filtering functions, as well as wildlife habitat functions of such hardwood wetlands can begin operating as a mitigatory factor as soon as possible. The created wetland area will replace lost wetlands with a wetland type of higher quality and potentially higher habitat function, depending upon the maturity of the trees planted (see above condition). The wetland replacement ratio attendant to the creation of this wetland area is proposed to be 2.8:1 and the permit should be conditioned on at least that ratio being observed in the mitigation wetland installation plan. Although there was some testimony critical of the wetland creation proposal because it would alter 4.76 acres of uplands which might be of significance to the wildlife in the area, in fact the site of the mitigation area is currently pine plantation which has been greatly altered from its natural state. It does not currently provide high quality upland wildlife habitat. Additionally, only 30-40 percent of the uplands on the entire tract will be altered by the entire project construction proposed. This leaves a majority of the uplands presently on the site in their current condition to the extent that it serves as wildlife habitat at the present time. A conversion of the subject area into a high quality hardwood forest wetland, which would remain bordered by upland on one side in any event, will not have any significant impact on the present value of the mitigation areas as habitat. Wetlands Assessment and Impacts Through the use of consultant personnel skilled in the fields of surveying, biology and botany, the Applicant established jurisdictional lines demarcating the boundaries of DER jurisdiction for dredge and fill permitting purposes and MSSW permitting purposes in the field and adduced evidence of those boundaries at the hearing. The jurisdictional lines established were conservative in the sense that they reflect the jurisdictional standards of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is generally landward of the lines which would be established by the plant communities characteristic of DER dredge and fill and Water Management District MSSW jurisdiction. The locations of the flags as placed by the biology-botany consultant were then professionally surveyed and plotted by a trained surveyor such that the jurisdictional line was signed and sealed as a "specific purpose of survey." Further, a biologist met with the surveyors weekly to review the plotted line to ensure accuracy. That survey was submitted to the Department in connection with the applications herein. The Department supports that jurisdictional determination in this proceeding. The Department's own jurisdictional determination staff members were on the sites of the jurisdictional determinations for approximately eight days. The location of the wetland jurisdictional line for purposes of MSSW permitting has not been challenged by Petitioners, and no evidence regarding MSSW jurisdiction has been presented by Petitioners in this proceeding. The wetlands jurisdictional survey prepared by the Petitioners, however, showed "new" DER jurisdictional wetlands which would represent, if accepted, an alteration of the DER jurisdictional wetland boundary. Additionally, the challenge to the DER. jurisdictional determination is restricted by the Petitioners to the area around the Class I landfill footprint and its associated storm water pond. No evidence has been presented regarding the jurisdictional determination for the remainder of the site and project, including the access road. Witness Don Garlic has a degree in marine biology with additional coursework and training in the field of botany, including field training in wetland species. He visited the site for seven days for the purpose of critiquing the dredge and fill DER jurisdictional line established by the Applicant and offered as proof by the Applicant in this proceeding. In the 2-3 mile segment of the jurisdictional line around the Class I landfill and associated storm water pond, Mr. Garlick opined that there were three gaps 18-20 feet wide where he did not agree with the dredge and fill jurisdictional line determination. These areas represented by the gaps, if the gaps were determined to be jurisdictional, would add rather long, linear features of putative wetlands to the jurisdictional wetlands already encompassed by the proposed Class I portion of the project. They would add approximately 1/2 acre of additional DER jurisdictional wetlands impacted by the project. The Petitioners, however, did not establish the duration of water flow at any of the areas in which dredge and fill jurisdiction was contested. Mr. Garlick stated that water was flowing each of the seven days he was on the site, from March 28 to May 8, 1991, but stated that it was raining when he was there on April 23. He did not review rainfall data to determine whether it had rained prior to any of his visits. Likewise, he was not shown to have reviewed any groundwater data or to have performed any tests to ascertain groundwater levels in relation to claiming jurisdiction over the disputed Areas A, B, C and D depicted on Petitioners' Exhibit 8. This site has not experienced a prolonged drought. For the period 1988 through the hearing, only the latter portion of 1990 reflected a significant lack of rainfall based on rainfall data obtained from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office (NOAA) at the U.S. Navy's nearby Cecil Field, as well as the Jacksonville International Airport. Nineteen eighty-eight, in fact, had above-average rainfall of 61 inches. The Class I landfill area was originally "flagged" in September and early October 1989. July, August and September 1989 were months of above average rainfall. September 1989 had 14 inches of rain, twice the normal rainfall. Nineteen ninety had slightly less than half of its average rainfall for the year, although it started out with normal rainfall and became dry in the fall months. There has since been twice the normal rainfall for the few months of 1991 prior to the hearing. A drought of the type and duration experienced in the latter part of 1990 would have had no significant effect on the plants at the sites in question (sites A, B, C and D). They are perennial plants that remain year-round and therefore are adapted to drought and flood conditions. (T-2047) 1/ The Applicant's jurisdictional determination based upon dominant plant species, established by its consultant in evidence was based upon perennial plant species. Therefore, the hydrological conditions on the site were normal ones when these areas were originally reviewed in 1989 and the jurisdictional delineations established and the conditions found at the site shortly prior to the hearing in March through early May 1991 by Mr. Garlick were unusually wet conditions and do not reflect the normal conditions prevailing at the site. Mr. Byron Peacock was accepted as an expert in wetlands ecology and botany with a B.S. degree in each of those disciplines, with emphasis on Florida wetland species, especially with regard to Florida fresh water wetlands. Mr. Peacock is quite familiar with the site, having been to the site "dozens of times" since September 1989, almost every month for a 21-month period. Mr. Godley, another of Applicant's expert witnesses, also visited the areas put into contention by Mr. Garlick in his testimony for purposes of testifying in rebuttal and also concluded that these areas were not jurisdictional for purposes of the DER's dredge and fill jurisdiction. Mr. Mike Eaton of DER visited at least one of the areas or sites in contention and was of the same opinion. Mr. Garlick had relied on flowing water being present and the plants present to determine that Area A, a ditch along Hells Bay Road, was a jurisdictional wetland area. The areas on both sides are upland. Mr. Garlick testified that there were breaks in the vegetation in Area A and that the vegetation was sufficient to establish a connection. Area A does not contain sufficient water to support a dominance of listed wetland species under either the "a or b tests," as provided in Rule 17-301.400(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code. There is upland vegetation growing all the way across the ditch on both sides at its connecting point and point of discharge to dredge and fill wetlands. If the ditch held water it would be wettest at this point of discharge into the jurisdictional wetlands, but the ditch does not contain water on a regular and periodic basis, as established by the testimony of Mr. Peacock. Therefore, the water observed in the ditch by Mr. Garlick would have been surface water runoff from the recent high rainfall. Concerning Area B in the Class I storm water pond footprint, Mr. Garlick indicated that he relied on herbaceous wetland plants as a basis for his finding of that as a jurisdictional area. He used the "b test" vegetation method of at least 80 percent transitional plants, less than 10 percent submerged or upland species, as well as the presence of "other indicators" of regular and periodic inundation for that Area B for purposes of the rule cited last above. Area B is a logging road and lies between upland stands of planted pines. It has been used as a road within the past year and there are "rutted- out" or gouged areas in the road caused by vehicular traffic which have puddled water, but between the puddles are areas dominated by upland vegetation. There is also a clear vegetative break in jurisdiction at the point where Area B connects to the jurisdictional line at Area B's southern end. The vegetation at that connecting point is a mixture of red. root, a transitional plant and many upland species, the dominant one being amphicarpum muhlenbergianum, which looks similar to red root in the field. Mr. Garlick testified that red root was the predominant plant in Area B. Mr. Garlick may have mistaken amphicarpum muhlenberqianum for red root. He was not familiar with that upland species and did not know if it was found at the site. A review of photographs from the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s showed that Area B had historically always been uplands. The evidence shows that this area holds water only in limited areas following rainfall and that there is no hydrological, "a or b test" vegetative connection between these areas and jurisdictional waters of the State. Area C, located on the west side of the present West Fiftone Road, also contains part of an old road bed, as well as a ditch. Area C was determined to be within MSSW jurisdiction by the Applicant, but was also claimed as a dredge and fill jurisdictional area by Mr. Garlick for the Petitioner. Mr. Garlick indicated in his testimony that plants in Area C were mixed transitional and submerged species, but were sufficient to make out the area as within DER jurisdiction, based upon those plants. He also testified that different parts of Area C met the "a test" or the "b test." The ditch on the eastern side of Area C is dominated by upland vegetation, including amphicarpum grass, slash pine and goldenrod. The slash pines growing in the ditch, as shown by a photograph in evidence, were several years old. This ditch was dry on all of Mr. Peacock's visits to the site except recently during heavy rains. The remainder of Area C is characterized by a canopy of slash pines, a subcanopy of titi shrub of an upland type, with less than ten percent of the vegetation being characterized by bay and tupelos. There is a ground cover over most of that area consisting of upland species such as chokeberry, gallberry and reindeer moss. This area was determined to be jurisdictional for MSSW purposes because of a wet area in the middle containing fetter bush and sweet gallberry, which are both transitional species for jurisdictional purposes. The entire Area C was delineated as MSSW in the permit application, even though it may not all be jurisdictional, simply for ease of delineation and survey. The MSSW wetland areas within Area C, however, have no vegetative or hydrologic connection to the dredge and fill jurisdictional wetlands. Area C thus does not contain sufficient water or vegetation under either the A or B test connected with other jurisdictional areas to be considered jurisdictional for purposes of the DER's dredge and fill jurisdiction. Area D consists of a rutted trail-road used on a regular basis by persons visiting the tract. There is an upland pine plantation on either side of the roadway. Mr. Garlick contended there was a "flow way" in Area D, but that the vegetation was spotty or sporadic. During the past 21 months, Area D was dry every time Mr. Peacock was on the site, except recently after prolonged, heavy rains. At the eastern end of Area D near its connection to Area C, there is a patch of upland amphicarpum grass, growing all the way across the ditch and road. There is also the presence of beak rush, an upland plant which looks similar to submerged rush. There is insufficient water or wetland vegetation under either the a or b test to establish that this Area D is jurisdictional. The evidence thus did not support the Petitioner's contention that additional dredge and fill wetlands would be impacted by the project. The areas claimed by the Petitioners as additional jurisdictional wetlands did not contain sufficient water to be determined jurisdictional, pursuant to DER Rule 17-301, Florida Administrative Code. These areas held water only at certain times of the year in direct response to heavy or frequent rainfall and were normally influenced, that is, fed, by surface water rather than groundwater. Likewise, these areas did not contain sufficient plant species in the canopy, subcanopy or ground cover to be considered jurisdictional pursuant to vegetation indices and procedures delineated in Rule 17- 301.400(1)(a) or (b), Florida Administrative Code. Mr. Mike Eaton of DER testified and established a 1990 DER policy embodied in a memorandum admitted into evidence explaining how the Department employs the above-cited rule for purposes of using hydric soils in making dredge and fill jurisdictional determinations. Both Mr. Eaton and the DER policy in evidence established that hydric soils are not used by the Department except as an indicator of regular and periodic inundation once "b test" vegetation has been determined to be present for purposes of the above rule. Mr. Garlick testified that he used hydric soils as a "back up" to jurisdictional determinations based upon hydrology and plants. He did not identify any area where his jurisdictional determination was based on soils alone. The Department policy memorandum in evidence emphasizes the importance, in jurisdictional determinations with hydric soils as an aid, of not merely determining whether the soil in question is hydric, but also of investigating the specific characteristics of the soil profile, which the Department maintains must be performed by a soils scientist. Mr. Carlisle, a soil scientist, visited the site and took samples of the areas indicated by Mr. Garlick. These locations were located in an approximate fashion by Mr. Garlick on Petitioner's Exhibit 8 at the hearing. Thirty-four of the 35 samples taken were determined to be hydiric by Dr. Carlisle. There are, however, breaks of up to approximately 525 feet between the hydric soils test findings in Areas A, B and D and yet the distance between one hydric and non-hydric soil test finding was shown to be approximately 50 feet. No soil samples were taken by Dr. Carlisle in Area C. These samples are found to provide an insufficient basis for determining the presence of hydric soils throughout Areas A-D. Additionally, Areas A-D did not contain areas of "b test" vegetation contiguous to other jurisdictional areas. Therefore, even if hydric soils had been present throughout these areas, these soils standing alone, without supporting "b test" vegetation, are insufficient to establish jurisdiction in the areas maintained to be so by Mr. Garlick. General Wetland Impacts This project will impact wetlands subject to the DER jurisdiction and which are jurisdictional for MSSW purposes under Chapter 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code, the rules of the St. Johns River Water Management District. Thus, a dredge and fill permit is required pursuant to Section 403.91 et seq., Florida Statutes, and DER Rule 17-312, Florida Administrative Code. Areas subject to DER dredge and fill jurisdiction and MSSW permitting jurisdiction are considered pursuant to DER Rules 17- 301 and 40C-4, Florida Administrative Code. The 1,288 acre site contains approximately 550 acres of wetland, much of which contains planted pines as well as some naturally occurring pines, as well as hardwood swamp, cypress and gum swamp, seepage slope, ditches and swales. Virtually all of the wetlands have been adversely affected in some way by the forestry practices which have occurred and are still occurring on the site. Most of the sloughs and natural flow-ways have been channelized. Ditching has drained the adjacent wetlands and significantly altered the hydrology of the entire wetland system on the site. The wetland known as Hells Bay Swamp, immediately east of the landfills, is currently being clear cut by the Gilman Paper Company. The 550 acres of wetlands are jurisdictional for either dredge and fill or MSSW purposes or both. Some 3.17 acres of MSSW wetlands will be impacted by project construction; 1.61 acres of these are also dredge and fill wetlands. The 1.61 acres of the impacted dredge and fill and MSSW wetlands consist of roadside ditches along the Hells Bay Road and a road on the north side of the Class I landfill. These roads are currently subject to logging traffic, which decreases the usage of the roadways and ditches by wildlife. Consequently, the master of species present and using these ditches is limited. In addition to the 1.61 acres of ditches, the impacted MSSW wetlands also include 0.16 acres of wetland ditches along the entrance road in proximity to dredge and fill wetlands, a 0.80 acre isolated cypress head wetland located within the footprint of the Class I landfill and a 0.60 acre wetland located along West Fiftone Road extending into the south border of the Class I landfill footprint. The 0.80 acre cypress head has already been impacted by a logging road or fire break, and ditches have been constructed through the interior of it. The larger cypresses have been logged, and the remaining vegetation is sparse, rendering it of little quality as habitat for fish and wildlife. The 0.60 acre wetland extending into the south border of the Class I landfill is an old road bed with evidence of ruts from vehicular traffic depicted on photographs in evidence. This area has a slash pine canopy and is dominated by titi shrubs, with a few black gum and traditional wetland plant species such as fetter bush and gallberry in disconnected areas. It is a low quality wetland of scant value as habitat for fish or wildlife. Prior to and during construction, as a condition on a grant of the permits, all wetlands on the site will be protected from erosion, siltation, scouring or excessive deposition of turbidity, de-watering or other construction and operationally-related impacts by the installation and use of siltation barriers placed at wetland boundaries. Because of the significant possibility of the impacts mentioned above, especially siltation and turbidity, to the wetlands during the construction phase of the facilities and attendant to ultimate operation of the landfill itself, grant of the permit should be conditioned on acceptance of monthly inspections by DER enforcement personnel once construction has begun. Wildlife and Archaeological Resource Impacts Wildlife surveys were conducted by expert witness Isaac Rhodes Robinson and members of his staff, as well as by Biological Research Associates, Inc. in the months preceding the hearing. Mr. Robinson and the biologists on his staff spent approximately 1,000 man hours surveying the site, and Mr. Robinson, accepted as an expert in wildlife ecology and wetland ecology, testified on behalf of the Applicant in this proceeding. Assessments of the site were performed by reviewing relevant literature as well as conducting field surveys for both upland and wetland species. No evidence was found of any threatened or endangered species on the site. Mr. Robinson and his staff conducted surveys in 1990 and in early 1991 and biologists from Mr. Robinson's staff were present on the site at various times from September 1989 through the time of the hearing. Surveys performed by Mr. Robinson and his personnel were conducted in accordance with Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (FGFWFC) guidelines and exceeded that agency's guidelines by surveying 100 percent of the upland areas. No testimony of any witness in this proceeding indicated any physical evidence of use of the site by any endangered or threatened species. Wildlife surveys revealed a shall colony of gopher tortoises, listed as a species of special concern by the FGFWFC in a marginal habitat zone on the extreme western boundary of the Class I disposal area. The colony consists of less than ten individuals and there will not be a significant impact to the tortoises because the individuals will be trapped and relocated to a more suitable habitat on another area of he Applicant's tract, which will be undisturbed by the landfill or its operations, or else to a suitable habitat area off-site, as directed by the FGFWFC. Jay Stephen Godley was accepted as an expert in wildlife ecology and wetlands ecology. He directed an independent assessment of the site and project's impacts. The assessment included reviewing permitting documents, aerial photographs and literature pertaining to wildlife use of the site, as well as over 90 man hours spent at the site. He confirmed that the small population of gopher tortoises was the only significant species on the site and that the project would not significantly impact any listed wildlife species. Extensive trapping and investigation of gopher tortoise and armadillo burrows reveal no evidence of listed "commensal" species, or those species commonly found in association with gopher tortoises, such as Florida mice, gopher frogs, Florida pine snakes, or Eastern indigo snakes. In additions the isolated cypress head in the Class I landfill footprint was sampled for gopher frog tadpoles, and none were found. Florida pine snakes prefer scrub or sand hill habitats, neither of which are found on the site. Pine flatwoods environments, without the presence of either sand hill or scrub habitat, like this site, are not good indigo snake habitat. No indigo snakes' shed skins or other evidence of indigo snake frequency were observed on the site. Indigo snakes are large black snakes which are active during daylight hours and easy to observe in the course of extensive surveys such as those that were conducted for purposes of this project. Considering the amount of time spent by the various biologists on the site, it is quite likely that indigo snakes would have been observed if they frequented this site. The project will have no significant impact on wading birds. All wetlands were surveyed for listed bird species for a minimum of five days using FGFWFC guidelines. No wading birds were observed on the site during the 21 month period of review by Mr. Robinson's firm. The existence of the wood stork, bald eagle or Florida sand hill crane was not established on this site and is considered unlikely by the expert witnesses, whose opinions are accepted. No eagle nests were observed and, since the tree cover provides very limited extent of open water, the site is less than satisfactory as habitat for the little blue heron, snowy egret and Louisiana heron. The only wading bird observed by the Petitioner's expert witness on wildlife issues was a little blue heron observed in a wetland area east of the site, which is off the site being purchased by the Applicant and which was recently clear-cut by the Gilman Paper Company. The project will have no significant adverse impact on the Florida black bear's habitat. The black bear is a threatened species, but black bears do not use the site. No evidence was presented that black bears have ever been present on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. No witness, including Mr. Goodowns, an employee of Gilman Paper Company who has frequently visited and worked on this site over many years, has ever observed a black bear or any sign of a black bear present on the site. Bee hives have been kept at the site since at least 1969 and, although these are very attractive to black bears, they have never been known to have disturbed the hives, nor has it ever been necessary for bee keepers to erect electric fences or other devices to protect the hives from bears. The site presently is not far isolated from human activity, which fact deters the use of it as a habitat or an occasional travel way for black bears. It is located in an area completely enclosed by I-10, State Roads 228 and U.S. Highway 301, all heavily traveled public highways, as well as in close proximity to the town of Maxville, approximately two miles away, and Macclenny, approximately five miles away. Highways with high traffic volumes are significant barriers to movements of black bears, rendering it even less likely that black bears have or will frequent the site. The only evidence of potential black bear presence anywhere near the site presented by the Petitioners was the site's position near the Osceola Black Bear Range, as interpreted from one published article, as well as indication of three bear road kills from six to 15 miles away from the site, and supposed black bear movements recorded by the FGFWFC, all represented on a hand-drawn map, only admitted a corroborative hearsay pursuant to Section 120.58, Florida Statutes. The map exhibit contained the expert's own redrawing of his interpretation of the extent of the Osceola Black Bear Range from the article he referenced, which itself was not offered into evidence. Bear movements depicted on the map really consisted of those of a bear apprehended by the FGFWF and released in the area. The map did not show any roads, therefore making location and distances to the reported road kills speculative at best. Because black bears do not use this site and because of its encirclement by significant human activity, the site is not significant as a bear dispersal corridor or travelway between the Osceola Forest bear population and the Ocala Forest population. No direct evidence by radio-telemetry data or otherwise was offered to show that black bears actually move between the Osceola and Ocala Forest populations, nor particularly that they move through the area in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Construction of the landfill would not prevent the movement or foraging of black bears through the site. Neither fencing nor presence of traffic on the landfill access roads only during daylight hours would prevent such movement. It is also unlikely that bears would likely be hit by traffic on the roads because the noisy trucks which will use the road would provide ample warning to bear's of any danger from traffic so they would avoid it. If the landfill were constructed on this site, less than one-half of 5/100 of one percent of the 3,800 square- mile area of the Osceola Black Bear Range, referenced by the Petitioners' expert witness, would be impacted. The site itself does not provide high quality black bear' foraging or denning habitat. Even the Petitioners' expert characterized it as "good" or "better than average" habitat. All but 3.17 acres of the area to be impacted by the project is upland, consisting primarily of pine flatwoods. Authoritative studies show that flatwoods are not heavily utilized by bears, which spend 70 percent of their time in swamp or wetland habitat. The 550 acres of wetlands, including approximately 280 acres of swamps, which will be left undisturbed on the site, will provide habitat and travel corridors for the black bears should any ever frequent the site. Additionally, the 4.76 acres of hardwood wetlands to be created as mitigation, would add high quality wetland habitat for black bears. Therefore, due to the extremely small area involved, the unlikelihood of use by black bears and the mitigation proposed, the landfill will have virtually no impact on black bear habitat, travelways or populations. The evidence thus established that the project will not have an adverse impact on endangered or threatened species or their habitats. Because the site has been under extensive commercial forest management and harvest operations for over forty years, the density of plant and animal life has been reduced, thus making the site as a whole, low quality wildlife habitat.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Department of Environmental Regulation approving Trail Ridge Landfill, Inc.'s applications for the above-referenced permits for the proposed solid waste management facility, including a solid waste management facility permit, a storm water/management and storage of surface waters permit and a dredge and fill permit, provided those mandatory conditions specified in the Notices of Intent to issue such permits, as well as those conditions found to be necessary in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are made mandatory conditions of permitting and subsequent facility operations. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of September 1991.
