The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is liable to Respondent for costs it incurred in removing a drum containing gasoline and water that was located on Petitioner’s property.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner owned a house (Petitioner's property or site), located at 217 20th Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida. The back of Petitioner's property was adjacent to an alley. Next door to Petitioner's property was another house owned by Petitioner. Between September 1995 and December 1995, Petitioner's property was unoccupied and undergoing extensive renovations. Petitioner hired Craig Quirk as the carpenter for the renovation project. Mr. Quirk worked on the project on a full-time basis during the entire period Petitioner's property was being renovated. One morning in late September when Mr. Quirk arrived at Petitioner's property to work, he discovered a wrought-iron stand and a 55-gallon drum in the backyard of Petitioner's property. Prior to that day, the drum had not been on Petitioner's property. Because the stand and drum were in the area where Mr. Quirk usually parked the vehicle, he and a helper dragged the drum and rack to the edge of the yard. The drum had a cap on it and was not leaking. Later that morning, when Petitioner came to the site, Mr. Quirk reported his discovery of the 55-gallon drum on Petitioner's property. At the time renovations were being made to Petitioner's property, Petitioner rented a dumpster which was used as a receptacle for construction debris. Mr. Quirk knew that the house owned by Petitioner and next door to Petitioner's property was on the market. Therefore, during the renovation of Petitioner's property, Mr. Quirk always utilized the dumpster in order to keep Petitioner's property clean. One or two days after learning about and observing the 55-gallon drum on the site, Petitioner telephoned a friend, Anthony Regan, to seek advice about removing the drum from Petitioner's property. At the time of Petitioner's call, Mr. Regan had two-and-a-half years of experience working as a truck driver for a hazardous waste facility. Although Mr. Regan is not a hazardous waste expert, because of his work experience, he is familiar with certain aspects related to hazardous waste and its disposal. Furthermore, Mr. Regan knows individuals within his company who can provide specific information regarding hazardous waste. At Petitioner's request, Mr. Regan went to the site to examine the 55-gallon drum and to assess what should be done with it. After being shown the drum by Petitioner, Mr. Regan temporarily removed the cap from the drum and inserted a stick in it. Based on his observation and assessment, Mr. Regan determined that the 55-gallon drum contained petroleum and water. When Mr. Regan observed the drum, it was not leaking and did not appear to be an environmental hazard. While at the site, Mr. Regan informed Petitioner that county amnesty program might provide assistance in removing the 55-gallon drum from Petitioner's property. Also, Mr. Regan told Petitioner that he would get an estimate from someone at the hazardous waste company for which Mr. Regan worked regarding the cost of removing the drum. Mr. Regan indicated that, after he checked on the county amnesty program and the estimate, he would report his findings to Petitioner. Between eight and ten days after going to Petitioner's property, Mr. Regan shared the results of his inquiries with Petitioner. First, Mr. Regan learned that the county amnesty program would not remove the drum because it did not belong to Petitioner, but had been dumped on Petitioner's property. Second, Mr. Regan reported to Petitioner that the hazardous waste company for which Regan worked could remove the 55-gallon drum from Petitioner's property for $350.00. Mr. Regan offered to look into the matter further, but prior to doing so went out-of-town for four or five weeks. Upon Mr. Regan’s return, Petitioner immediately contacted him to determine if additional information had been obtained concerning removal of the drum. While Mr. Regan had obtained no more additional information regarding removal of the drum, he suggested that Petitioner call the Sheriff’s Office. It was then that Petitioner made calls to several local agencies regarding the removal of the drum. Petitioner first called the police department, which in turn referred him to the county dump. The county dump could not assist Petitioner, but referred him to the Sheriff’s Office. Petitioner then called the Sheriff’s Office and spoke to Bob Aukenbaur, who told Petitioner that it was Petitioner's responsibility to have the drum removed. Because Petitioner was dissatisfied with Mr. Aukenbaur’s response, Petitioner called and attempted to speak to the Sheriff. Although unsuccessful in this regard, Petitioner did speak to an executive assistant, who promised to check into the matter. Approximately two days later, the executive assistant telephoned Petitioner and indicated that he was unable to find an amnesty program that would provide assistance to Petitioner. However, the executive assistant provided Petitioner with the telephone number of the Department of Environmental Protection and suggested that Petitioner call that agency for help. Petitioner then contacted the Department's regional office in Tampa, where he spoke to Jane Donnelly. The focus of Petitioner’s inquiry was whether it was his responsibility to remove the drum that had been “illegally dumped” on his property. After asking Petitioner several questions, Ms. Donnelly promised to get back with him. Several days after Petitioner contacted Department, Leslie Webster, an employee of the Department's regional office in Tampa and a Department trainee, visited the site to investigate the matter. When Ms. Webster arrived at the site, Petitioner and Paul Roney, the project design supervisor, were there. Petitioner showed Ms. Webster where the drum was located and explained to her that the drum had been dumped on his property. After Ms. Webster's on-site investigation, a form entitled "Initial Report of Emergency Response Incident" (Initial Report) was completed and forwarded to the Department's Tallahassee office. Petitioner was not provided with the Initial Report. The form bears the signature of Leslie Webster and is dated November 29, 1995. According to the Initial Report, the date of the incident was two weeks prior and the date the incident was reported to the Bureau of Energy Response was November 27, 1995. These dates do not accurately reflect the date of the incident and the date the incident was first reported. The Initial Report indicates that the incident was reported by Petitioner; that the “type of incident” is identified as “dumping“; that the incident description is noted as “abandoned drum(s)"; that the responsible party is “unknown”, and that the material in the drum is identified as from one to fifty- five gallons of gasoline and water. Also, the Initial Report has a “narrative” section. Nothing in this section indicates that Ms. Webster or anyone in the Department informed Petitioner that he was responsible for having the drum removed from the site. In situations such as this, the Department typically explains to the property owner what his responsibilities are with respect to a nonleaking drum. The property owner is then given a specified amount of time in which to remove the drum. The amount of time given to the property owner to remove the drum from his property varies, depending on the particular circumstances. The Department communicates this information to property owners in person, by telephone, or in writing. However, the Department's preferred manner of providing notice to property owners is to “talk face to face with people and let them know the circumstances they’re under.” When a Department investigator or other staff member visits a site and talks to the property owner about his responsibilities for removing pollutants or hazardous substances, no written notice is provided to the property owner reiterating the substance of the conversation. When Ms. Webster went to investigate the matter related to the drum on Petitioner’s property, there is no evidence that she told the Petitioner that he was responsible for removing the drum and that he was required to do so within a specified time. Likewise, there is no evidence that Ms. Webster told Petitioner that if he failed to remove the drum, the Department would have it removed and assess Petitioner the cost of such removal. Several days after Ms. Webster went to the site to investigate the matter, the drum remained on Petitioner’s property. Concerned that the drum had not been removed, Petitioner again called the Department's regional office in Tampa and spoke to Ms. Donnelly. During this conversation, Petitioner acknowledged that Ms. Webster had been to his property, but he expressed concern that the drum had not yet been removed. Ms. Donnelly then told Petitioner not to worry about it and stated, “I think we’re going to take care of it.” On or about November 29, 1995, the Department of Environmental Protection had the drum removed at a cost of $1,783. By letter dated August 5, 1996, more than eight months after the drum was removed from Petitioner’s property, the Department billed Petitioner $1,873.64 for costs and expenses incurred in removing the drum from Petitioner's property. This amount included administrative and investigative costs of $90.64 and $1,783 for the removal of the drum. Pursuant to the letter, Petitioner was given thirty days from the date of the letter in which to remit the amount due. Petitioner refused to pay the $1,873.64, and on the date of the hearing, the amount remained outstanding. The Department has incurred litigation costs of $2,090.93.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department dismissing the claim against Petitioner, James J. Wooten, and finding that he is not liable to the Department for $3,964.57 in costs. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James J. Wooten, pro se 145 25th Street, South CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of September, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Kathelyn M. Jacques, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection Office of the General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact SJRWMD caused "Request for Qualifications No. 91H157" to be published in the Jacksonville Business Journal on May 3 through 9, 1991. In part, the request stated: Interested firms shall submit a letter of interest (three (3) copies) which contains, but is not limited to, the following: Experience in assessing the environmental fate of pollutants. Familiarity with current and historical agricultural practices employed by vegetable farms in Florida. In particular, knowledge of the storage and application of pesticides and herbicides is required. Ability to perform environmental chemistry and to assess the toxicological, chemical, and physical properties of hazardous materials. Ability to evaluate and/or develop site monitoring plans, industrial hygiene plans, site safety plans, decontamination plans, remediation plans, and abatement measures. Experience in performing environmental audits at potential hazardous waste sites. Staff must have the OSHA required 40 hours Hazardous Waste Site Safety Training pursuant to 29 CFE 1910.120. Documentation of experience in sampling of surface water, ground water, soil, sediment, including installation of temporary and permanent wells and split-spoon borings while following current state and federal approved procedures, and must be capable of preparing and implementing a quality assurance project plan specific to each site assessment. At least $5,000,000 of professional liability insurance. Evaluation of submitted letters of interest will be pursuant to Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. Contracts shall be negotiated pursuant to provisions of Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Halff, Jammal and Geraghty & Miller, Inc. (G & M) among others, responded to the request for qualifications with letters of interest. SJRWMD staff evaluated the letters of interest and ranked the respondents in order: Halff was first; Jammal was second; and G & M was third. Staff recommended beginning negotiations with Halff. After tabling the matter at the first Board meeting at which it came up, the Board discussed the staff recommendation on August 14, 1991, and, it seemed from a tape recording of the meeting in evidence, was unfavorably impressed with the fact that Halff had only one full-time employee in Florida, Robert Barnard. (Three other people are in petitioner's Jacksonville office on "a sub-contract basis." T.50.) Mr. Barnard, who would have had charge of the work for SJRWMD if Halff had been chosen, spoke at the Board meeting. He came up to the podium and answered questions, but did not make a formal presentation. No other contender was represented at the Board meeting. As far as the evidence shows, each Board member had read all letters of intent carefully: The record is silent on the point. The Board voted to rerank Jammal and Halff first and second, respectively, and directed staff to begin negotiations with Jammal.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, recommended that SJRWMD proceed with negotiations with Jammal, Halff and G & M in that order. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 4th day of March, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: William Lon Allworth, Esquire 1301 Gulf Life Drive, Suite 200 Jacksonville, FL 32207 John W. Williams, Esquire P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Wayne Flowers, Executive Director St. Johns River Water Management District P.O. Box 1429 Palatka, FL 32178-1429 Daniel H. Thompson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner is entitled to an on-site sewage disposal system permit or the grant of a variance from the rule by which that permit application was denied so as to be authorized to install an on-site sewage disposal system (septic tank system) for his property near the Suwannee River in Dixie County, Florida within the purview of Section 381.272, Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Desmond Harbroe, owns real property in Dixie County, Florida consisting of a lot described as lot 28 of Riverbend Estates. The lot in Riverbend Estates is located at "Hinton's Landing" on the west bank of the Suwannee River. The lot itself is located approximately 1500 feet west of the shoreline of the Suwannee River on a connected canal. The canal is characterized by high banks at the location of the lot and the lot is one of the highest lots in the subdivision, with overstory vegetation consisting of large pines and live oaks. The lot is gently sloping and characterized by well- drained soil consisting of sand down to a depth of 72 inches (a "slight limited" soil). The lot is approximately one and one quarter acres in size and was purchased May 29, 1976. The Petitioner contemplates constructing a single family residence on the lot and it does not presently contain an OSDS. The proposed residence would consist of a two bedroom dwelling with a heated or cooled area of approximately 1200 square feet. A dwelling of this size and type is equated in the standards in the Department's rules with production of 450 gallons per days (GPD) of sewage flow. Although no specific evidence of expected sewage is of record, there is no dispute regarding that figure. Herbert H. Raker is a registered land surveyor located at Box 626, Cross City, Florida 32628. Mr. Raker surveyed the subject lot and established a benchmark elevation of 13.72 feet above main sea level (MSL). That benchmark is six inches above the actual ground or grade level at the location of the benchmark. The site of the proposed installation itself is at an elevation of 13.22 feet above MSL. The ten-year flood elevation for the subject property is 15 feet above MSL. That elevation was established through data supplied by the Suwannee River Water Management District to the Petitioner and submitted to the Department in the application process. That information and the document upon which it is predicated is hearsay, but was not objected to at hearing and, in any event, constitutes an exception to the hearsay rule in the category of government records, compilations and reports for purposes of Section 90.803(8), Florida Statutes, and is, thus, admissable and accepted by the Hearing Officer. The subject property purchased by the Petitioner was for building a single family residence as described above. On December 12, 1989 the Petitioner received a letter from the Suwannee River Water Management District advising that there was no objection by the District to filling the lot in order to bring the surface grade level of that property to a sufficient height so as to comport with the "two year flood" elevation. The critical elevation in relation to the rules at issue however is the ten-year flood elevation. This advice from the Water Management District does not address the issue of filling the lot to bring it up to a level so that the bottom of the subject drain fill proposed would be above the ten-year flood elevation and thus comport with the rules at issue. In this connection, the property is located within the ten year flood plain based upon the evidence establishing that flood plain level to be at IS feet above MSL. The property is also located within the "regulatory floodway" of the Suwannee River. This is a geographical area closer in proximity to the actual free flowing portion of the river than is the boundary of the ten-year flood elevation demarcated area. The rule cited below provides that mounded systems requiring a placement of fill material, or construction above grade, will not be authorized in the regulatory floodway unless there is certification by registered engineers that the placement of fill or the structure placed would not increase the water surface elevation of the "base flood". That certification must be substantiated by data and the method of calculation used by the engineer must be provided. Here there is only a two and one half foot difference between the grade level of the property involved at the site of the proposed installation and the 15 foot ten-year flood elevation. Thus, as Mr. Harbroe indicates, given the overall size of his lot, it would be possible to fill the property to the proper grade level so that the bottom of the drain field trenches, when installed in the resulting mound, would be above the ten- year flood elevation. The Petitioner however supplied no detailed information about how such an alternative system might be installed and operate and, most particularly, did not supply the requisite engineering certification and information which might show that the installation of such a mounded system would not raise the level of the base flood. This might have been done, for instance, by establishing that a sufficient volume of fill could be removed from his property, elsewhere, to build the requisite mound and thereby not alter the surface elevation of the base flood. Such evidence is lacking in this proceeding however and cannot therefore serve as a basis for a grant of the permit, by means of illustrating an alternative system or approach for treating the sewage effluent which will comport with the rules. Pursuant to the authority of the statutes cited in the conclusions of law below and in related rules, lots platted before 1972 are accorded special consideration in determining whether to grant septic tank system permits (or variances). The Petitioner, however, did not adduce evidence of whether the subdivision known by the name "Riverbend Estates" of which his lot 28 is a part, is a platted subdivision at all, and did not establish that even if it is that it was platted and recorded before 1972. Thus no evidence has been adduced which will justify the special consideration provided for in the authority cited below. The grant of variances from the permitting rules involve the demonstration of hardship as a basic consideration. Hardship involves a demonstration that there is no reasonable means by which an on-site disposal system can be installed which will comply with the permitting rules, that is, impossibility of compliance is the bellwether for demonstration of hardship. It is also provided in the variance statute and rules cited below that the hardship may not be intentionally caused by the action of the applicant for the permit or variance himself. The Petitioner, having the burden of proof here, did not adduce direct evidence to establish that any hardship preventing compliance with the permitting rules was not intentionally caused by the Petitioner. However, the overall tenor of the Petitioner's testimony establishes inferentially, without doubt, that the hardship involving the Petitioner's impossibility of compliance with the permitting rules, given the presently prevailing grade level of his lot and installation site, was caused merely by his purchase of the property. He took no action involving that purchase to place himself in a position where he intentionally could claim a hardship situation and a justification of variance from the permitting rules and thus render himself legally capable of installing the subject system. He merely purchased the lot in good faith with, the intention of using it for a single family dwelling and did not intend by that mere act to place himself in a position to claim a hardship situation and thus circumvent the permitting rules. The similar use of the nearby lots in the subdivision for single family dwellings and which he was aware already had permitted septic tank type on-site disposal systems in place and operating led him to believe he could install a similar system. He was thus an innocent purchaser and did not intentionally create a hardship situation to thereby avoid compliance with permitting rules. In fact, however, the Petitioner has not truly established that he is in a hardship situation, that is, that he can not possibly comply with the permitting rules. This is because, by his own admission, he has sufficient land area on his lot to permit the "mounding" of an on-site disposal system. If this were accomplished it is quite likely that he could comply with the permitting rules and not require a variance, based upon a showing of hardship. The problem with this approach is that the Petitioner's proof fails because he did not adduce the requisite engineering certification and testimony justifying the grant of a permit based upon the building of the lot and mounding of the system. If this were accomplished in the future, it is quite likely that a permit could be granted for this lot. In a like vein, in terms of the variance issue portion of this proceeding, it has not been demonstrated by the Petitioner that no reasonable alternative exists for the treatment of the sewage involved nor has it been demonstrated that the discharge from the Petitioner's proposed sewage disposal system will not adversely affect the health of the applicant or other members of the public or significantly degrade the ground or surface waters. In this last regard, it although soil conditions prevailing at the proposed installation site and water table elevations beneath the surface of the property are appropriate as that relates to the requisite interval of "slight limited" soil between the bottom of drain field absorption beds and the water table elevation, the fact remains that these trenches or beds are beneath the ten-year flood elevation and thus pose the potential to degrade ground or surface testers. Thus the other requisite elements for establishment of entitlement to a variance from the permitting rules have not been made out by the Petitioner's proof. In fact, the Petitioner's proof establishes that a reasonable alternative may indeed exist for the treatment of the sewage involved with mounding of the system, since his grade elevation is only approximately 2.5 feet below the relevant flood elevation and unrefuted evidence shows that he has sufficient area on his lot to permit the mounding of the system with the requisite adjacent "buffer area". This constitutes a reasonable alternative which may comply with the permitting rules. Unfortunately, however, Petitioner's proof did not include the requisite engineering information and certification so that a recommendation for grant of the permit in the regulatory floodway can be made at this time. Having been denied his permit application on December 19, 1989 the Petitioner on March 5, 1989 applied for the subject variance referenced above. On April l9, 1990 the Petitioner was advised by the Respondent that it was useless to proceed with a variance application and that a formal administrative hearing should be sought before Division of Administrative Hearings instead. This is because of Executive Order 90-14 entered by the Governor, which incorporated the "Suwannee River Task Force" recommendation in evidence and, specifically, "recommendation #36." That portion of the report in effect recommended that on-site sewage disposal systems within the ten year flood plain area should be prohibited. The Department interpreted the effect of that executive order, incorporating the recommended prohibition from the task force report, to mean that such variances absolutely could not be granted by the Department, hence, its recommendation to the Petitioner and others similarly situated, that they should immediately seek a formal administrative hearing on the question, rather than expend time and expense pursuing the Department's internal variance procedure. The Department has thus in this in similar cases interpreted that executive order to create, and effect, a conclusive presumption that variances can not be granted in any case in which the installation site for the on- site sewage disposal system is at or beneath the ten-year flood elevation. In effect, therefore, it declines to exercise any discretion when confronted with variance request related to lots or property where the installation site for the proposed system occurs beneath the ten-year flood elevation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact and 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 denying the Petitioner's application for an on-site sewage disposal permit and denying a variance from the statutory and rule requirements related to permitting for the reasons found and concluded above. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administration Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4170 Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted but not directly material to resolution of the issues presented for adjudication. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: (None submitted) COPIES FURNISHED: Desmond Harbroe 4550 N.W. 43rd Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33319 Frances S. Childers, Esquire Asst. District III Legal Counsel 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32609 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Linda Harris, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At final hearing, the parties stipulated to the following facts: The Department of Environmental Regulation is an administrative agency of the State of Florida created by Chapter 75-22, Laws of Florida, and vested with the power and duty to implement and enforce the provisions of the Florida Air and Water Pollution Control Act, Part I, Chapter 403, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to these Acts, the Department is authorized to regulate the construction and operation of solid waste disposal facilities and stationary installations reasonably expected to be sources of pollution. Respondent, City [of North Miami], owns the property on which is located a solid waste facility known as "Munisport Sanitary Landfill" located at 14301 Biscayne Boulevard, North Miami, Dade County, Florida; latitude 25 degrees 54' 9" North, longitude 80 degrees 9' 5" West in Sections 21 and 22, Township 52 South, Range 42 East. Respondent, Munisport, operates a solid waste disposal facility under contract with the City. On March 7, 1977, the Department issued to the City of North Miami permit/certification number 13-31-028GM (hereinafter "dredge and fill permit") which modified and superseded permit/classification number 13-31-0286. The permit was issued under the provisions of Sections 253.123, 253.124, and 403.087, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 17-4, Florida Administrative Code. The permit also provided water quality certification required by Public Law 92-500. The dredge and fill permit was issued for the purpose of constructing a continuous 5,000 foot-long earthen dike with a modified top width of 12 feet aligned waterward of the mean high water line such that the waterward toe of the dike would be on or landward of the property line. Approximately 6,000 cubic yards of material would be dredged from the 63-acre tract located behind the dike and waterward of the mean high water line. Portions of the tract would be excavated to minus 35 feet mean low water to form nontidal lakes. Approximately 1,000,000 cubic yards of fill material would be enplaced as follows: Clean fill to be utilized to produce an elevation of a minimum of two feet above the calculated ground water table, after which fresh refuse and a two-foot final cover of clean fill would be placed. Within a zone of 100 feet from the landward crest of the dike, yard trash and construction debris would be the only types of solid waste acceptable as fill, and A ten-foot wide by three-foot deep circulation canal would be dredged on the outside perimeter of the dike. General condition 13 of the dredge and fill permit provides that the permit does not indicate an endorsement or approval of any other Department permit/approval that may be required for other aspects of the total project. A solid waste operation permit would also be required. On June 8, 1979, the City and Munisport received from the Department Operation Permit No. SWO-13-5152 (hereinafter "solid waste operation permit"). The purpose of the solid waste operation permit was to allow and regulate the placement of solid waste (refuse, yard trash and construction debris) in the area behind the dike described above and on adjacent uplands in order to generate an appropriate elevation for a golf course. General condition number two of the solid waste operation permit states that: This permit is valid only for the specific processes and operations indicated in the attached drawings or exhibits. Any authorized deviation from the approved drawings, exhibits, specifications, or conditions of this permit shall constitute grounds for revocation and enforcement action by the Department (emphasis added). Specific condition number six of the solid waste operations permit provides that the subject facility be operated at all times at the maximum level of efficiency so as to minimize the adverse effect on the environment of contaminated storm water runoff or leachates which cause degradation of surface or ground waters. Specific condition number nine of the solid waste operation permit provides that "no solid waste shall be placed within thirty feet of any existing or future lake". Prior to the issuance of the solid waste operation permit, Respondents' permit application was subjected to a de novo review during a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing requested by the Florida Audubon Society and others. The record of these proceedings explained and expanded upon the application and, therefore, became a part thereof. Respondents' consultant testified in these proceedings as follows: We have an agreement with the Department of Environmental Regulation that goes back several years that we would not dig up any old land fill material nor would we place any land fill material in an area that would eventually become a lake. Testimony of Mr. Thomas Joseph Checca on October 18, 1978; Transcript of proceedings in Florida Audubon Society, et al. v. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation, City of North Miami, Florida and Munisport, Inc., DOAH Case No. 78-316. On October 25, 1979, an inspection of the above-described facility was made by Mr. Scott Quaas, an employee of the Department, who observed that two lakes had been constructed in old waste on the site without the required 30-foot setback as required by the aforementioned permit conditions. A letter of notice was issued by the Department regarding that and other violations on November 16, 1979. On December 18, 1979, a follow-up inspection of the subject facility was made by Mr. Quaas, at which time it was observed that two more lakes had been excavated through waste previously deposited at the site, thereby causing such waste to come in direct contact with the water in the lakes adjacent thereto. It was also observed that no 30-foot setback was provided at the new lakes. Notice of these additional violations was provided to Munisport on January 16, 1980. An on-site meeting regarding the above-described violation was held on January 24, 1980, at which time it was agreed that Respondents would reply by February 1, 1980, as to whether corrective actions would be taken regarding the aforementioned violations. As of the date of final hearing in this cause, corrective action had been taken to eliminate these violations. Specific condition number 13 of the solid waste operation permit requires the posting of a performance bond or other security acceptable to the Department which adequately covers the cost of monitoring and final closing procedures required under the permit and Chapter 17-7, Florida Administrative Code, and procedures listed in the application for permit which may become necessary to correct any pollution detected at the site in violation of Department rules. No such bond or security has been posted with the Department. Extensive discussions between the Department and representatives of the City and Munisport have failed to produce agreement regarding the terms of a performance bond or security. The parties were notified of this violation and were given an opportunity to respond. Leachate (runoff containing pollutants) has been allowed to enter lakes on the site. A leachate plume containing ammonia has been detected beneath the subject sanitary landfill site, which plume has reached ground waters of the State and is being observed to be moving off the site in an east- southeast direction, toward Biscayne Bay. This leachate plume contains total Ammonia-Nitrogen (NH3-N) in amounts which are substantially in excess of the water quality standards of .5 milligrams per litre for Dade county, Florida. See, Chapters 24-11(4), Dade County Code. It was not anticipated when Operation Permit Number SWO-13-5152 was issued that leachate would be allowed to enter the lakes or that a leachate plume would form in the manner which is presently being observed. In addition to being a pollutant, Ammonia-Nitrogen is the first substance generally observed when a leachate plume forms. There exists a significant possibility that other pollutants contained in solid waste deposited at the site will also begin to reach ground waters of the State and the waters of Biscayne Bay. General condition number eight of the solid waste operation permit states that: This permit does not relieve the permittee from liability for harm or injury to human health or welfare, animal, plant, or aquatic life or property and penalties therefore caused by the construction or operation of this permitted source, nor does it allow the permittee to cause pollution in contravention of Florida Statutes and department rules, except where specifically authorized by an order from the department granting a variance or exception from department rules or state statutes. Specific condition number 15 of the solid waste operation permit states that: These permit conditions do not exempt the applicant from complying with pollution control requirements of other Federal, State, Municipal, County or Regional water pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances or codes, nor does it authorize any violation thereof.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered revoking the permits and certification which are the subject of this proceeding in their entirety or such lesser action as may be deemed appropriate by the Department in the exercise of its discretion as the State agency charged with the power and duty to control and prohibit the pollution of air and water under Section 403.061, Florida Statutes, and as the agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the provisions of the Florida Resource Recovery and Management Act which regulates the appropriate disposal of solid waste and landfill operation in this State. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1981, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: William P. White, Jr., Esq. Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 Willard K. Splittstoesser, Esq. 776 N.E. 125th Street North Miami, FL 33161 Marvin P. Sadur, Esq. 2000 L. Street, N.W., Suite 612 Washington, D.C. 20036
The Issue Is Respondent, Watson Construction Company, Inc. (Watson), entitled to a general permit allowing it to operate a construction and demolition debris facility in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida?
Findings Of Fact DEP, in accordance with Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, is responsible for enhancing the beauty and quality of the environment; conservation and recycling of natural resources; prevention of the spread of disease and creation of nuisances; protection of the public health, safety and welfare; and provision for a coordinated statewide solid waste management program. It accomplishes these tasks, in part, by regulatory oversight directed to entities who operate solid waste facilities in Florida. That oversight includes permitting the activities by the facilities subject to compliance with statutory and rule requirements. Watson wishes to operate a solid waste facility in Newberry, Florida. In particular, Watson seeks to operate a C&D facility for off-site disposal of C&D debris to be placed where sand has been mined. Watson would pursue this enterprise by using a general permit, as allowed by DEP. Petitioner, City of Newberry (the City), is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. It opposes Watson's use of a general permit to conduct business as a C&D facility, based upon the belief that Watson has not demonstrated compliance with regulatory provisions that would allow Watson to use a general permit. Petitioner, Citizens for Watermelon Pond, Inc. (Citizens), is a corporation constituted of persons who oppose the use of the general permit for the same reasons expressed by the City. On July 21, 1994, Watson noticed DEP that it intended to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility. On July 29, 1994, a notice was published in the Gainesville Sun, a local newspaper, concerning the pendency of the use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility in Newberry, Florida. On August 12 and 16, 1994, the Petitioners filed petitions seeking an administrative hearing on the use of a general permit by Watson to operate the C & D facility. On August 19, 1994, DEP issued a Notice of Denial of the permission to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. This permit request was under an arrangement between Watson and a co-applicant, Whitehurst. Following the Notice of Denial, no further action being requested by the applicants, DEP issued an order closing its file. In December 1994, in its name only, Watson resubmitted an application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility in question. The level of consideration at that time was as a pre-application review. This was followed by a formal notice by Watson and application to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. The formal application was filed on January 17, 1995. On January 24, 1995, notice was published in the Gainesville Sun concerning the more recent intention to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 6, 1995, Citizens filed a verified petition opposing the use of the general permit contemplated by the January 17, 1995 application. Two days later, the City filed a verified petition in opposition to the most recent request to use a general permit to operate the C&D facility. On February 15, 1995, DEP gave notice that it did not object to Watson's use of a general permit to operate the C&D facility. Watson's most recent request to use a general permit to operate a C&D facility was made on a form provided by DEP in accordance with Rule 62- 701.900(3), Florida Administrative Code. The application to use a general permit was sealed by a professional engineer. The legal description of the property in question is described in the application. It is located in Newberry, Alachua County, Florida. The site location for the proposed C&D facility is one and one-eighth mile south of Southwest 46th Avenue on the east side of County Road 337 in Newberry, Florida. Documentation has been provided which identifies the legal authorization to use the property as a C&D facility. The C&D facility has a planned active life of 50 years. It is intended that the sand that is excavated will be replaced by C&D debris at a similar grade. The mailing address and telephone number of the C&D owner and operator is identified. Watson is the owner/operator. There are 158 acres within the proposed site. Approximately 143 acres would be used in the C&D operation by mining sand as a prelude to recontouring the site by placing the C&D debris. It is intended to excavate tan sand and silty sand to a depth of 20-30 feet. Although Watson anticipates excavating sand to a depth of 30 feet, bore hole data reveals the existence of sand below that depth. Watson does not intend to excavate below 62 feet mean sea level (MSL). In any event, it is not the intention to excavate below the interface of the sand and underlying sandy clays. Once the sand has been excavated, it is anticipated that the bottom of the C&D disposal area will be approximately 15 feet above the piezometric water table associated with the Floridan Aquifer, according to the applicant. The proposed site is located in rolling terrain, whose elevations range from approximately 80 feet MSL to 100 feet MSL. To support the use of a general permit, Watson has provided a site plan with a scale not greater than 200 feet to the inch, which identifies the project location, with proposed disposal areas, total acreage of the site and of the proposed disposal area, and other relevant features that exist on or within 500 feet of the site. The property boundaries are identified. The site would be fenced. Access to the facility would be controlled by a locked gate on County Road 337. The gate would be open during daily operations. The site does not contain surface water. There being no surface water, the C&D facility does not require a surface water management permit from the Suwannee River Water Management District. The site does not present a problem with stormwater runoff. A potable well is located within 500 feet of the property boundary. However, placement of C&D debris would be offset by a 500-foot buffer from the well. Wetlands are located 2,100 feet from the southern edge of the proposed site in the eastern part of the adjacent Whitehurst parcel. Within 3,000 feet of the proposed site is an old phosphate mining pit on the Whitehurst parcel, and 6,200 feet from the proposed site is the northern-most unnamed pond associated with Watermelon Pond. The site is not susceptible to flooding at present. The sand mined at the proposed site would be used to build roads and for foundations for houses and other buildings. Clay removed from the building sites to make room for the sand would be placed in the C&D facility. The material that is removed from building sites and substituted by sand fill is clay with a high shrink and swell factor. That material, together with flint rocks, tree limbs and stumps, would be transported to the C&D facility by Watson's dump trucks. At present, Watson has 20 dump trucks. The dump trucks hold 20 yards each. In addition to those materials removed from Watson job sites by dump trucks, Watson has approximately 36 roll-off dumpsters which hold 20 yards each. Two Watson trucks are available to transport the roll-off dumpsters to the C&D facility. The roll-off dumpsters are placed on construction sites, not exclusively Watson's, and construction materials not used in the building process would be placed in the roll-off dumpsters for disposal at the C&D facility. Approximately 70 percent of the fill material to be placed in the C&D facility would be unsuitable soils, trees, limbs and stumps. The remaining material would be the C&D debris from construction at sites where the dumpsters have been placed. The dump trucks that hold the clay, limbs and stumps would be loaded by Watson employees, who can control what is placed in the trucks. Watson would not control what is placed in the roll-off dumpsters at other construction sites. The Watson dump trucks from job sites directly related to its activities would arrive at the C&D facility and dump their loads for compaction. Those loads would not be spotted for unsuitable fill materials. By contrast, the roll-off dumpsters would be examined at the construction site by the Watson driver. If the driver discovers excessive amounts of material not classified for C&D fill, contact would be made with the Watson office and the material taken to the Alachua County landfill for disposal. If the driver picks up the dumpster at the construction site and there are limited amounts of material not suitable for disposition at the C&D facility, the dumpster would be taken to the C&D facility. The material would be spread out, and a spotter would segregate materials that are not suitable for C&D fill. The unsuitable material would be placed in temporary containers at the disposal site and transported off-site to a permitted landfill or other appropriate facility. Some material brought to the landfill would be recycled. Woods, such as pine or hardwood would be recycled. The limbs and stumps would be placed in the pit as fill. Copper, aluminum, steel, iron, and any other metal would be recycled. The metals would be sold to a scrap-iron facility. An employee at the landfill would keep the money earned from recycling. Metal embedded in broken concrete would be used as fill. The C&D facility would be operated by two persons: one, a loader/operator who loads the dump trucks with the sand that is being excavated; the second individual, a bulldozer operator who pushes the dump truck loads of clay, limbs, and stumps into the fill area and spreads them. He would also spot the roll-off dumpsters and segregate the fill material from unsuitable material. The sorted construction material to be used as fill would be pushed into the working face of the pit, where the tree limbs, stumps and clay would have also been placed. It is anticipated that six to ten roll-off dumpsters with C&D material would be brought to the C&D facility on a daily basis. The amount of unsuitable material that must be sorted from the dumpsters would vary with the individual loads. Watson operates an existing C&D facility in Alachua County, Florida. The proposed C&D facility would be similar in its operation. Based upon the experience in the existing facility, there is no indication that the proposed C&D facility could not be adequately operated by two employees, taking into account the need to segregate unsuitable material before filling. The spotter would receive verbal training concerning his duties. The training provided the spotter is on-site training. He would be reminded once a week of the need to do an adequate job of looking for unsuitable materials. At present, Alachua County inspects the existing C&D facility on a weekly basis and reminds the spotter at that facility what is appropriate for placement and what is not. The expectation is that the same function would be performed at the proposed facility. If sinkholes are encountered in excavating the sand, the equipment operator would contact the Watson office. In turn, Watson would contact its consulting engineer to address the problem, to include placing a plug or cap to repair the breach caused by the sinkhole. In the event that limerock is encountered in the excavation, a clay cap will be placed to prohibit leachate from flowing into the ground water. Areas where limerock is located at higher elevations and not covered by clay present the greatest risk for sinkhole formation. The period between excavation and fill will be approximately two years, leaving the site exposed at the level of excavation before fill is replaced. When the site is closed, the front-end loader operator and bulldozer operator will spread 24 inches of soil as a cap and grade the site in preparation for planting of pine trees. The soil material would be constituted as six inches of top soil suitable for planting pine trees. The remaining 18 inches would contain clay with high shrink/swell properties. The planting of pine trees would be done through a contract forester. The equipment operated at the facility would employ approved muffler systems. Odor generated by the facility is not anticipated to be a problem, in that household garbage, if found, would only be temporarily maintained, pending placement in an appropriate landfill. The site will be examined on a weekly basis to remove blown "litter". Proper provision is made for maintenance of slopes and compaction of fill material as it is placed. Through the application process noticing DEP that Watson intends to use a general permit to operate its C&D facility, DEP has been informed of the location of the proposed site. DEP would have permission to inspect the site during normal business hours. In response to Rule 62-701.420, Florida Administrative Code, Watson conducted a geotechnical investigation and prepared a report to support the application for a general permit. In support of the application Kenneth J. Hill, P.E. investigated the subsurface conditions at the proposed site through drilling activities. The drilling was done at the site and adjacent to the site. In May, 1995, Douglas L. Smith, Ph.D., P.G., conducted an electrical resistivity study (ER) at the site to investigate the subsurface conditions. Thomas H. Patton, Ph.D., P.G. and Charles Swallows, P.E. assisted in the investigation of the subsurface conditions at the site. Ralph E. Eng, P.E., signed and sealed the application for general permit for the proposed C&D facility. In rendering a report following his investigation of the subsurface conditions, Mr. Hill signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation. Likewise, Dr. Smith signed and sealed the report and supporting documentation associated with the ER study, together with Anthony F. Randazzo, Ph.D., P.G. The contribution by Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows to the geotechnical investigation did not include signing and sealing a report and documentation. Nonetheless, Dr. Patton and Mr. Swallows, when testifying concerning the permit request, as with other professional witnesses, were found qualified to offer testimony consistent with their professional credentials and factual knowledge. 1/ A foundation analysis to determine the ability of the foundation to support the loads and stresses imposed by the fill material revealed that the weight of the construction debris was approximately 70 pounds per cubic foot, whereas the weight of the existing sand to be excavated is approximately 100 pounds per cubic foot. Thus, the placement of fill material following excavation would impose less stress on the subsurface than before. No significant settlement of the fill materials is expected to occur, resulting from its weight. The nature and fate of leachate promoted by the placement of fill at the site, in an environmental susceptible to bio-chemical and physical influences in transport through the subsurface, has the potential to adversely impact ground water. Those impacts could possibly cause violations of water- quality standards, ground-water standards, and drinking-water standards. These issues are considered based upon facts associated with the imperatives which must be properly addressed through the geotechnical investigation. That process anticipates gaining an understanding of subsurface conditions, to include the soil stratigraphy and ground-water table conditions. The ground-water table conditions involves estimations of the average and maximum high ground-water table. The geotechnical investigation should also explore the possibility of and address the existence of any sinkholes on the site. No specific testimony was given concerning the degree to which leachate, when present in the ground water at the Floridan Aquifer, might promote water-quality violations. Leachate properties and constituents were described in general terms of water-quality considerations, for example, hardness, nitrates, nitrites, alkalinity, presence of ammonia, chlorides, iron manganese, phenols, barium, arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, zinc, TDS and sulfates, urea formaldehyde, plaster, creosote, glues, and mastic hardeners. The evidence presented concerning the parameters for water quality did include a reference to barium, ranging from .5UG/L to 8UG/L in basically similar circumstances. The fill material can influence the natural PH by creating acidic conditions causing the PH to fall from a neutral 7.0 to 5.5 to 6.5. The process that takes place over time with the fill material also releases gases, such as methane, hydrogensulphide, and carbon dioxide. Rainwater falling on the ground's surface forms the basis for transporting the leachate through the subsurface. Only the Floridan Aquifer is potentially at risk, there being no surface water bodies or surficial aquifer at the site. Taking into account rainfall disposition by evapotranspiration, storm- water runoff, and subsurface infiltration, without certainty as to the amounts in those processes, it can be said that a significant amount of rainfall is available through infiltration to recharge the Floridan Aquifer and to transport leachate promoted by the fill. This is borne out by the absence of surface water bodies and a surficial aquifer on the site. To gain basic information concerning the subsurface conditions, Watson had 14 standard penetration test borings conducted by Mr. Hill and his firm. Those borings were advanced to depths of 35-72 feet. Additionally, three auger borings were performed to a depth of 40-50 feet. The auger borings were at sites A-1, A-2, and A-3, performed on April 17, 1993. In July of 1993, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-1, B-2, B-3, and B-4. In April of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-5, B-6, B-7, and B-8. In September of 1994, standard penetration test borings were performed at sites B-9, B-10, B-11, B-12, B-13, and B-14. The borings that were performed at the proposed site were at B-2, B-5, B-6, B-9, B-10, and B-14, for a total of six borings. The other borings were performed on the adjacent parcel. The borings at the proposed site were widely dispersed over the 143 acres contemplated for excavation and fill. The borings on the adjacent parcel, referred to as the Whitehurst parcel, were widely dispersed over 475 acres. Logs of the soil borings were prepared depicting the findings in the subsurface. The soil stratigraphy found in the borings was varied with sand, clayey sand, sandy clay and limerock present in some but not all borings. The sands that have been described are Aeolian. The sands are remnants of an ancient coastal dune system. Soil permeability tests were conducted on a limited basis at boring B- 9 at a 25-foot sample depth. The tan and orange clayey sand described had a co- efficient for permeability of 1x10-6. That sample and others described were obtained through a split-spoon. At B-12, at 35 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 2.6x10-8. At B-13, at 30 feet, tan and orange clayey sand was found and tested as 2.0x10-8 for the co- efficient for permeability. At B-14, at 30 feet, tan and orange sandy clay was found with a co-efficient for permeability of 9.6x10-9. In describing the soils, sieve analysis was not performed to more precisely classify the sediments encountered. This description of the strata is by appearance and texture. The clayey sand and sandy clay found in the borings retard discharge of the leachate to the ground water in the Floridan Aquifer based upon the permeability in those soils. Generally stated, the tan sands described have a co-efficient for permeability of 10-1 to 10-4. These sands are highly permeable, presenting an easy opportunity to convey the leachate contained in the infiltrating rainwater. Anomalous findings concerning soil permeability are shown at B-4, an off-site location, which portrays only sand in the boring. Also, B-9, which was drilled four to five feet east of a known sinkhole at the site is noteworthy in that the boring log describes tan and orange sandy clay, with trace limerock below 30 feet. This is in contrast to the field notation by the driller of the "p" for push and drilling rod "free fall" from 38 feet BLS to 42.5 feet BLS before encountering limerock, connoting a possible cavity in the 38-foot BLS to 42.5-foot BLS region. The karst feature that is located in the area where boring B-9 was conducted will be surveyed and marked with fence posts prior to excavation. No excavation will be conducted within 200 feet of that site. In addition to the phenomenon at the B-9 boring area, sinkholes at the surface were observed one-half to three-quarters of a mile northeast of the site. Sinkholes can occur when the placement of fill changes the hydraulics and loading in a karst environment. Finally, at B-6, limerock was encountered above the 46.9 feet MSL regional piezometric surface of the Floridan Aquifer. That limerock is considered part of the aquifer system. The head pressure at that location was not sufficient to force the ground water from the Floridan Aquifer. The more typical experience was as shown in B-5, where the surface of the limerock was lower than the regional piezometric surface. In B-5, ground water was not encountered until the clayey layer was breached and water rose in the drill hole. On occasions, such as the experience in B-5, there was an indication that Artesian conditions existed at those places. At the locations where the Artesian conditions were experienced, the Floridan Aquifer is confined. At B-6, where the limestone rises higher than the regional piezometric surface, the Floridan Aquifer is not confined. The bore hole at B-2 was terminated before breaching the clayey layer, and ground water was not encountered. Watson's consultant Hill considered that the ground-water table was found within the Floridan Aquifer at the site whose regional potentiometric surface was 46.9 MSL. He perceived that the findings showed ground water at 45 feet MSL constituting the average for the site. Watson estimated that the "seasonal high" ground-water table at the site was 48 feet MSL. The term "seasonal high" is equated to maximum high. Watson claims that the fluctuation in the ground-water table would be only a few feet. This would mean that the 45 feet MSL from bore hole data would represent not only the average across the site but the average value at the site at any point in time during the year. Watson makes this assertion notwithstanding that the borings were made over two years during different seasons. The basis for the estimate of maximum high ground-water table is not evident. In Dr. Patton's remarks in the application, there is a reference to the fact that the lowest encountered elevation for the Floridan Aquifer was 45 feet MSL and the highest was 55 feet MSL, making the average 50 feet MSL. This runs contrary to the remarks by Hill in which Hill said the elevation in the region was 46.9, the elevation detected was 45, and that the seasonal high would be 48. The only borings that were made in which the log reflects the MSL elevation and the boring depth are borings that were conducted in April 1994. On that date, the boring depth at which ground water was encountered varied from 37-43 feet and the MSL depth varied from 39-47 feet. If only the information for B-5 and B-6 on the site proper is used, those two data points associated with the borings on April 1994 reveal ground water at an excavation depth of 37 feet and between 45-47 feet MSL, respectively. Overall, without reference to MSL, the depths at which the ground water was encountered in the borings varied from 19-44 feet, if encountered. Although it is not shown in the boring log what the relationship is to MSL, at B-9, water was found at a drilling depth of 38 feet; at B-10, at a depth of 36 and one-half feet; at B-2, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 50 feet; at B-14, no water had been encountered at a drilling depth of 35 feet; at B-1, water was encountered at a level of 44 feet; at B-3, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-4, water had not been encountered at the concluding depth of 50 feet; at B-11, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 31 and one-half feet; at B-12, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 19 feet; at B-13, water was encountered at a drilling depth of 21 and one-half feet. Where elevations were measured for the water table in the bore holes, the holes were left open until the drillings had been concluded. Then the measurements were made. In this project, the consultant did not equilibrate the ground-water table by the traditional method of leaving a piezometer in the bore hole to maintain its integrity for a day before making the measurement. Watson has not provided sufficient information and explanation to determine a proper estimate of the average and maximum high ground-water table across the site. Returning to the ER investigation, it involved 39 soundings, which is roughly equivalent to drilling bore holes. The sounding profiles were determined through Wenner-Array Sounding and Lee-Directional Equipment. This technique involves the passing of an electrical current underground and measuring its resistance to flow. The expectation is that earth materials, for example, clay, sand, limestone, and cavities will resist the flow of electrical current differently. Substantially greater contrast in the degree of resistance, anomalies, is used to identify and locate earth materials, as well as the presence and shape of cavities. The sounding measurements reveal two- dimensional detail below the surface at progressively-greater depths. Lee- Directional measurements determine the direction of higher or lower resistivity along the survey line. While in the field, electrodes are placed in the ground at equal distances from one another. After a measurement, this distance is increased in an orderly fashion. The greater distance between the electrodes, the greater the depth of penetration. The ER equipment's electrical current has the capacity to penetrate through clay and into lower features in the subsurface. Subsurface from depths five to 100 feet were examined in this study. Within the 39 groundings surveyed, various soils were encountered. Generally, a thick cover of unconsolidated sand was found overlying clayey sand, with a clay layer varying in thickness and limestone found in some soundings, but not others. Where limestone was detected, it was at deeper levels in the southwestern part of the site. Because ER cannot distinguish between clayey sand and sandy clay, the area where those soils are found is referred to in the report as a thinner clayey sand layer. Also, in some places the upper surface of limestone has suffered weathering or deterioration and may appear as the lower part of the clay unit in terms of its electrical properties. The general portrayal in the ER study concerning the soil stratigraphy, wherein reference is made to dry sand up to 30 feet in thickness overlying a thinner clayey sand layer, approximately 10 feet in thickness, overlying a relatively thick clay layer from 10-60 feet and then limestone, does not coincide with the complexity in the stratigraphy found in the soil borings. In the ER study, at stations 8 and 10, voids were encountered. The nature of those voids is unexplained by this investigative process. At station 8, the void was found at approximately 100 feet deep. At station 10, the voids were at 50 feet and 100 feet deep. At station 14, anomalous findings were explained as the placement of fill and organic material during land-clearing operations. The suggestion in the written report, which summarizes the findings in the ER investigation, that a water table was encountered at approximately 40 feet deep, coinciding with the top of the clay layer, is contrary to the findings in the soil borings. To the extent that finding is intended to suggest that there is a perched water table or surficial aquifer above the clay layer, that view is contrary to other evidence adduced at hearing and is rejected. Like the soil borings, the ER soundings examined very discreet areas, but revealed less discreet information. This investigative process is not designed by itself to resolve disputes concerning the character of the subsurface, taking into account statutory and rule requirements for issuing a general permit. To portray the subsurface conditions, in June 1995, Petitioners undertook another basic study by employing ground-penetrating radar (GPR) to reveal the subsurface conditions. Again, GPR, like ER, affords limited insight into the conditions in the subsurface. More precise information than is revealed in the results from the GPR study would be needed to understand the subsurface conditions. GPR is comprised of several pieces of equipment that are connected with cables and a power source. This equipment is mobile. It uses a transmitter and receiver antenna that essentially glides along the ground surface. A signal is emitted through the transmitter. It perpetrates into the ground. It is reflected off materials of different electrical properties back to the receiving antenna and charted. The record that is made is continuous. Unlike ER, GPR is capable of detecting small anomalies in the subsurface. In employing the equipment in this investigation, Petitioners' consultant was looking for either stratigraphic or water-table reflectors and anomalous conditions. The experience at this site was comparable to the experience at other sites in gaining an understanding of how geologic materials are deposited. The GPR investigation covered approximately 10 percent of the site. Four lines were traversed east to west. Two lines were traversed north to south, and two other lines were traversed on a diagonal. GPR will not significantly penetrate clay. Its ability to penetrate is dependent in some measure upon the nature of the clay unit encountered. However, GPR reveals contrasts in the conductivity of clay, when compared to the overlying sand. The greater the contrast, the greater the reflection event. In this connection, the presence of moisture can slow or prohibit the electromagnetic energy generated by GPR. The GPR study revealed a substantial number of subsurface anomalies that might be indicative of possible access for leachate generated by the placement of fill to enter the Floridan Aquifer. These anomalies might represent sand columns and cover subsidence sinkholes. Any sinkholes on the site would be expected to be "cover subsidence"- type sinkholes. Those sinkholes occur through a process in which overlying strata slowly subsides into the sub-adjacent karst feature, rather than suddenly collapsing. Sinkholes develop rarely, but pose more risk of development in areas where sinkholes have occurred previously. Sinkholes are not always seen at the land surface. Sinkholes can present a risk to ground water in the aquifer in view of solution cavities found in the limestone which is part of the aquifer, thus allowing leachate to flow through the cavities into the ground water. Some anomalies found in the GPR study were more significant. One that was observed in the third traverse was 100 feet wide by 80-90 feet deep. There is an indication that this area might be filled with sands, creating a more ready access to the lower subsurface than would be expected with other soils. Another anomaly discovered was 200-300 feet long and 400-500 feet wide, approximately 50 feet below the surface. Overall subsurface conditions are not readily understood. Watson, through its consultant, suggests that the site is part of the Newberry Sand Hills region of the Brooksville Ridge system. As such, karst activity has proceeded in a slower manner than other places in Alachua County, with no presently active karst conditions. In opposition, Petitioners assert that the site is part of the Brooksville Ridge System, which is an internally-drained area of karst-dominated highly fractured terrain, according to its consultants. If Petitioners are correct, those circumstances lead to solutioning of the limestone and are not indicative of area of continuous impermeable clay layers found at the site as part of the Hawthorne formation that Watson's consultant surmises. The exact nature of the site concerning factors that must be considered in this permit application have not been adequately resolved in this record. While it is sufficiently evident that the Floridan Aquifer is not confined, it is unclear whether the circumstances at the site present unacceptable risks to the ground water, in view of existing subsurface conditions. From the record, the proper manner to resolve the issue would be to perform more soil borings on the site proper to identify the subsurface conditions concerning soil stratigraphy and ground-water location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Watson the use of a general permit to operate the proposed C&D facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 7th day of August, 1996.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the above-named Respondents applied pesticide chemicals to a pre-construction application site for pre-treatment for termites and wood-destroying organisms, which was contrary to label instructions, by not applying the specific amount (volume) and concentration designated by the label in alleged violation of Section 482.051(5), Florida Statutes, and Rule 5E-14.106(6), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents are certified operators and applicators employed by pest control companies in the Panama City area. Stephen W. Daniels holds License No. 43026. Earl G. Pettijohn holds License No. 92006. Mr. Pettijohn is an applicator at Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Mr. Daniels is a certified operator for Environmental Security of Panama City. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure, operations, and practices of pest control operators, applicators, and licensed pest control businesses in the State of Florida. The pre-construction termite treatment in question occurred on October 16, 2001. The treatment or job site was at the new construction of the Northwest Florida Community Hospital at 1360 Brickyard Road, in Chipley, Florida. Two trucks were used on the October 16, 2001, job: one was a truck marked "Killingsworth Environmental," driven by Mr. Pettijohn; the other truck was marked "Atlas" and was driven by Mr. Daniels. The chemical used in the pre-treatment for termites at the job site was a soil pesticide known as "Cyren-TC." The label for Cyren-TC indicates a requirement of 0.50 percent to 1.0 percent concentration, with an aqueous emulsion used for pre-treatment for termites. The laboratory report and analysis of the pesticide sample taken from Mr. Daniels' truck tank, at the hose end, was found to contain 0.38 percent chlorphyrifos (active ingredient), which represents a 24 percent deficiency from the minimal required rate of 0.50 percent per the Cyren-TC label. The Respondents, Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn, were called by the contractor of the job in Chipley on the evening of October 15, 2001, with his request that they perform a pre-treatment termite treatment the next morning for a monolithic slab described as being of an area of 12,000 square feet. The Respondents, therefore, filled their trucks, mixing the pesticide, based upon that measurement on the evening of October 15, 2001. They arrived at the job site the following morning at 7:15 a.m. They did not use the two trucks to treat any other sites between the filling of the trucks and their arrival on the job site in question on the morning of October 16, 2001. Upon inspecting the job site, Mr. Daniels measured the slab and determined the actual square footage to be approximately 9,300 square feet. That figure is not disputed. The truck Mr. Daniels was driving had a tank and spray capacity of 700 gallons. The 700 gallons was represented by a 500-gallon tank and by an additional 200-gallon tank. The truck was completely filled when it arrived on the job site. The truck Mr. Pettijohn was driving contained a capacity of 600 gallons in two tanks of 300 gallons each. It was completely full when it arrived at the job site. Mr. Owens, the Department's field inspector who testified in support of the Administrative Complaint, did not inspect either truck to determine or estimate their total capacities. He was not aware of how much either truck employed on the job in question actually held in total volume. He also did not observe how much chemical was left over still in the tanks in each truck when the first treatment application effort had concluded, on or shortly before 9:00 a.m., on October 16, 2001. The Respondents applied an aqueous emulsion of Cyren-TC to the 9,300 square foot monolithic slab by spraying a volume from each truck. Mr. Daniels' truck pumped five to seven gallons per minute, and Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped seven to nine gallons per minute. Both trucks were fitted with gravity-fed pumps. The pumps on each truck would pump a higher volume, closer to seven gallons per minute or nine gallons per minute respectively, as to Mr. Daniels' and Mr. Pettijohn's trucks when the tanks were more nearly full because of the higher pressure feeding the gravity-fed pump. The volume per minute pumping rate would gradually decrease as the level in the tank became lower. Both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn started pumping at essentially the same time or within one minute of each other. Mr. Daniels testified that he and Mr. Pettijohn applied the pesticide for 73 minutes measured by the digital clock on his radio. Mr. Daniels determined the amount of time necessary to pump the pesticide on the site from both trucks by taking an average of the output volume of the pumps on each truck. He began timing the application when he pulled the hose to the far end of the slab and turned it on. When the treatment application was complete, Mr. Daniels had approximately 50 gallons of chemical remaining in the 500-gallon tank on his truck. He had not yet used any of the 200-gallon tank on his truck. Mr. Pettijohn had approximately 55 to 60 gallons of chemical left from the two tanks totaling 600 gallons on his truck when he started the application. The testimony as to the amount of chemicals left in the tanks after this first application is unrefuted and is accepted. Mr. Daniels established that, although when the tanks were approaching empty (when the calibration was made by Mr. Owens), at which time Mr. Daniels' tank would only pump at a rate of five gallons per minute, that the pumps would pump at a higher rate, approaching seven gallons per minute as to Mr. Daniels' truck and nine gallons per minute as to Mr. Pettijohn's truck, when the tanks were full. Consequently, if one takes an average of the output volume for each truck of slightly over six gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck and slightly over seven gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck, one arrives at an application volume for Mr. Daniels' truck of 438 to 450 gallons of chemical applied. One also arrives at a volume applied for Mr. Pettijohn's truck of approximately 547 gallons if one uses an average application rate of 7.5 gallons per minute. Since the testimony as to the remaining product in the tanks is unrefuted because Mr. Owens did not observe the amount of product left in the tanks on the two trucks, and if one uses an average application rate of 7.5 gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck and six gallons per minute or slightly more for Mr. Daniels' truck, one arrives at a figure of between 50 and 60 gallons of product remaining in Mr. Pettijohn's truck, and approximately 50 to 60 gallons remaining in Mr. Daniels' truck if one uses Mr. Daniels' factor of 73 minutes to multiply times that average application per minute rate. Thus, the approximate amount of product remaining in the tanks of both trucks being unrefuted, it is thus established that Mr. Daniels' figure of 73 minutes as the application time is most nearly correct. While the pre-treatment application was being performed, Investigator Owens was parked at a nearby parking area observing the application procedure and timing it with a stopwatch. Mr. Owens determined that Mr. Daniels had pumped for 45 minutes and 30 seconds and Mr. Pettijohn pumped for 45 minutes. Using Mr. Owens' figure of seven gallons per minute for Mr. Pettijohn's truck and five gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck (the lowest pumping rates) for the entire pumping operation (which for the reasons found above is not accurate), Mr. Owens came up with an approximate application volume for Mr. Daniels' truck of 228 gallons and approximately 315 gallons for Mr. Pettijohn's truck. This figure is not realistic when one considers the amount of product left in the tanks of the two trucks at the end of the first application operation. There certainly was not an excess of 250 gallons of product left in the 500-gallon tank of Mr. Daniels' truck and 285 gallons of product left in the tank of Mr. Pettijohn's truck at the end of that first pumping operation on or before 9:00 a.m., on October 16, 2001. It cannot be determined from the testimony and evidence why there is such a great disparity in the time period Mr. Owens postulated for the treatment operation he observed, versus the most accurate 73-minute period established from Mr. Daniels' testimony. After confirming that the Respondents had completed their application effort, Mr. Owens conducted an inspection with regard to both trucks, obtaining information, and filling out necessary paperwork. Mr. Owens then took a sample from Mr. Daniels' truck only when he completed the calibrations of the trucks. That calibration, as found above, noted an application rate of five gallons per minute for Mr. Daniels' truck at a point when there was only approximately 50 gallons of product left in the 500-gallon tank to feed the gravity-supplied pump on Mr. Daniels' truck. Mr. Owens took a sample of the pesticide from the hose-end of the pump on Mr. Daniels' truck and placed it in a 32-ounce jar covered with a lid. The jar was not pre-labeled with a sample number. Mr. Owens taped the lid of the jar, and initialed it, so that the tape seal could not be broken without disturbing his initials and put the jar in the trunk of his car in an ice chest with ice. As a matter of practice, Mr. Owens does not offer a duplicate sample to an operator unless he asked for one and he did not ask Mr. Daniels to sign the tape on the jar. Mr. Owens did not take a chemical sample from Mr. Pettijohn's truck and there is no evidence as to what concentration of pesticide was in the tank on Mr. Pettijohn's truck. In the two pesticide applications on the morning of October 16, 2001, Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped a total of 600 gallons of product on the site. It is not possible to make a factual determination as to the chemical concentration of the volume of product in Mr. Pettijohn's truck. The water used to mix the chemical for application at the job site was obtained from the water plant in Panama City. It had been, at some point, chemically treated with chlorine. There is no evidence as to any chlorine content in the water, which is chemically treated with chlorine, at least in the potable water stage and possibly in the waste water treatment stage. The sample was collected, as noted above, on October 16, 2001, but was not delivered to the laboratory to be analyzed as to the pesticide concentration until October 26, 2001. There is no indication on the laboratory report of the actual date of processing by the lab, but the final report was issued on November 14, 2001. There was at least a lapse of ten days from collection to analyzation by the laboratory. Testimony was presented concerning a study done by a Clemson University scientist which indicated that chlorine in municipal tap water was enough to degrade pesticides like that involved in this case by a factor of 32 percent in three hours. It has not been established that that occurred here, although logically some chlorine content may have been in the water that was used to mix the chemical. It is also well-known in the pesticide industry that an appropriate reaction and safeguard for a chemical spill of Chlorpyrofos is the application of bleach or chlorine to neutralize or degrade the chemical. It is not clear whether the deficient concentration pumped from the Daniels'-operated truck resulted from only chlorine content in the mix water or by the lapse of time caused by mixing the chemical the evening before it was to be used the following morning (in the interest of arriving at the job site early that morning per the instructions of the contractor). It may have been simply operator error in the proportions of water to chemical which were mixed when the tanks were filled or a combination of these three factors. Moreover, it cannot be determined precisely what concentration was actually deposited on the surface at the job site because Mr. Pettijohn's truck pumped approximately 600 gallons of total volume on the site in two applications and Mr. Daniels' truck pumped approximately 438 to 450 gallons in the first application and approximately 220 gallons in the second application, and the concentration of the chemicals pumped from Mr. Pettijohn's truck is unknown in so far as the evidential record in the case is concerned. Thus, it cannot be definitively determined what concentration of chemical actually was deposited on the surface of the job site. In any event, after Mr. Owens had calibrated the pump on Mr. Daniels' truck and taken his sample, both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn rolled up their hoses, got in their trucks, and left the job site. After they left the job site, Mr. Owens notified the builder that the pre-treatment had been inadequate in terms of the volume of pesticide applied and so the builder requested that Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn return and apply more chemical. They arrived at the job site some 15 to 20 minutes after they had initially left and began spraying the additional chemical in the second application that morning. When Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn returned to the site, Mr. Daniels told Mr. Owens that he disagreed with Mr. Owens' volume calculations. In any event, Mr. Owens directed both Mr. Daniels and Mr. Pettijohn to pump additional volume onto the site. Thus, at Mr. Owens' direction, they pumped the volumes remaining in their trucks onto the site (with the exception of approximately 30 gallons, which was finally remaining in Mr. Daniels' truck), for a total of approximately 1,280 to 1,300 gallons being pumped on the job site. Thus, in light of the above calculations and findings, the site actually received approximately 280 to 300 gallons more than the prescribed labeled rate.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Stephen W. Daniels in the amount of $350.00, and it is further recommended that the Administrative Complaint as to Respondents Earl G. Pettijohn and Environmental Security of Panama City be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert O. Beasley, Esquire Litvak & Beasley, LLP 220 West Garden Street, Suite 205 Post Office Box 13503 Pensacola, Florida 32591-3503 Jack W. Crooks, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Room 520, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda D. Hyatt, Bureau Chief Bureau of License and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mail Stop 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Petitioners and Intervenors challenge the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department) Notice of Intent to Issue Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. 0142476-003 to IMC Phosphates Company (IMC) for proposed mining of phosphate at the Manson Jenkins Property (Property) located in Manatee County, Florida. The ultimate issue is whether IMC has provided reasonable assurance that the applicable requirements of Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and relevant rules promulgated thereunder, have been satisfied justifying entitlement to an ERP.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, IMC, is a general partnership authorized to do business in the State of Florida and is the applicant in these proceedings. IMC has applied for an ERP to mine, reclaim, and conduct associated activities on the Property in Manatee County, Florida. These activities shall be referred to as the "Manson Jenkins Project." The Department administers the ERP program for various activities including phosphate mining and reviewed the ERP application for the Manson Jenkins Project. Petitioner, DCAP, is a not-for-profit corporation. Alan Behrens and Joe Fernandez reside in DeSoto County and joined in the DCAP Petition. Petitioner, Charlotte County, and Intervenors, Sarasota County and Lee County, are political subdivisions of the State of Florida. Intervenor, the Authority, is a regional water supply authority established under Section 373.196, Florida Statutes, and created by interlocal agreement to supply wholesale drinking water to its member governments and to approximately 100,000 residents of Charlotte, DeSoto, and Sarasota counties, most of whom reside in Charlotte County. Intervenors, ECOSWF and Manasota-88, are not-for-profit environmental organizations. IMC and the Department agreed to the standing of the Petitioners and Intervenors to participate in these proceedings. Environmental Resource Application General In 1993, the Legislature directed the Department and the water management districts to combine the Management and Storage of Surface Water (MSSW) program, administered by the water management districts pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and the Dredge and Fill Program, administered by the Department pursuant to Chapter 403, Florida Statutes, into a single permitting program, the ERP Program. The Department and the water management districts worked jointly to merge the two programs. The process was completed in 1995, when the rules implementing the ERP Program took effect. The MSSW permits were issued by the water management districts for construction activities that would significantly alter surface water flow or otherwise affect surface water management systems. The dredge and fill permits were issued by the Department for activities proposed in surface waters and wetlands. The ERPs are now issued by the Department pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, which requires the issuance of an ERP for any construction activities in or seeking to alter certain waters and wetlands. ERP applications for phosphate mining are submitted to, processed and evaluated by, the Department's Bureau of Mine Reclamation (Bureau) pursuant to Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and specific rules. By law and interagency agreement, the Department issues ERPs for proposed phosphate mining operations. The Bureau conducts an initial review and may request additional information. Upon review of the initial application and responses, the Bureau determines whether the application is complete. Unless waived by the applicant, the Bureau has 90 days within which to take agency action, i.e., either grant or deny the application. ERPs are divided into the construction and operation phases. During the construction phase of a phosphate mining operation, an applicant conducts the mining and related activities, including the actual preparation and mining of the land. After mining, an applicant pumps sand tailings back into the mine cuts, re-contours the land and plants the appropriate vegetation, also known as the reclamation process. After reclamation, the Department inspects the site and determines whether on-site wetlands can be properly reconnected to waters of the state. Reconnection typically occurs when the Department determines that the site functions as a self-sustaining natural system, and water quality standards are met. Following reconnection, the operational stage of the ERP begins because the property is then a natural site and self-sustained. Throughout the construction and operation phases, the Department continually inspects the property. A site will not be released from permit requirements until all permit conditions have been met. For ERP permits issued within the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD), the Department incorporated by reference certain sections of Chapters 40D-1, 40D-4, 40D-40, and 40D-45, Florida Administrative Code, and specific provisions of the Basis of Review for Environmental Resource Permit Applications (1995) (ERP BOR), as its permitting criteria. See Rule 62-330.200(3)(a)-(e), Florida Administrative Code. The main permitting criteria followed by the Department in issuing ERP permits for activities within the SWFWMD are contained in Rule 40D-4.301, Florida Administrative Code (Conditions for Issuance of Permits), and Rule 40D-4.302, Florida Administrative Code (Additional Conditions for Issuance of Permits). Both rules became effective in 1995. Prior to the merger of the Department and the water management districts' functions under the Department's regulatory umbrella, the various districts had slightly different conditions for the issuance of permits. The Department and all of the districts developed one version of these rules, which were then adopted by the four districts (without the Northwest Water Management District, which does not implement the program) to promote uniformity. In turn, the Department incorporated the above-mentioned rules by reference. Thus, for example, Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302 are a blending of the previous MSSW rules with the previous dredge and fill rules. In evaluating ERP permit applications, the Department considers the SWFWMD's (as well as other water management districts) historical interpretation of the rules which have been adopted by the Department, although the Department is not bound to adopt former SWFWMD interpretations nor does the Department defer to the SWFWMD's interpretation of these rules. Until this proceeding, the Bureau evaluated adverse water quantity and flow impacts based on a standard that limited post-mining flows and mass volume to 105 percent and 85 percent of the pre-mining flows and volumes, respectively. As a direct result of the filing of a challenge to this policy, the Department will not rely on this policy as a basis for decision in this proceeding. See Charlotte County, Florida, and Peace River/Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority v. Department of Environmental Protection and IMC Phosphates Company, DOAH Case Nos. 01-2399RU and 01-2412RU (Settlement Agreement July 6, 2001). In this de novo proceeding, IMC has the burden to establish reasonable assurances in a variety of contexts. See, e.g., Rules 40D-4.301 and 40D-4.302, Florida Administrative Code. 2. The Manson Jenkins ERP Application Review Process On October 1, 1999, IMC submitted to the Department an application for an ERP for authorization to mine phosphate, reclaim, and conduct associated activities on the Property. The Manson Jenkins Project is an extension of the existing Fort Green Mine, which is contiguous to the Property. The Department reviewed the information contained in the initial application and issued a series of requests for additional information. IMC provided responses to these requests on February 7, June 5, July 15, September 6, and October 11, 2000. Thereafter, the Department determined that the application was complete and issued a Notice of Intent to Issue (NOI) an ERP to IMC on February 8, 2001. This NOI was published in the Bradenton Herald on February 12, 2001. The parties stipulated that "Chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto are the applicable law in this proceeding." However, the parties disagree regarding which specific statutes and rules apply here. 3. Draft Environmental Resource Permit The Department's NOI includes a draft ERP. This permit is issued under the authority of Part IV of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62, Florida Administrative Code. The draft ERP authorizes IMC, in part, "to mine or disturb approximately 361 acres of wetlands for phosphate mining and associated activities . . . . The mitigation/reclamation will consist of approximately 537.8 acres of wetlands . . . . The project will also disturb 1988.1 acres of uplands for phosphate mining and associated activities [and t]he reclamation will consist of 1811.3 acres of uplands . . ." in a variety of land formations. IMC voluntarily agreed to provide a two-phased Conservation Easement consisting of not less than 521 acres, consisting "of [during phase one] not less than 182 acres associated with the no-mine area of the West Fork of Horse Creek, which shall be preserved from mining associated disturbance" and, during phase two, "an additional 339 acres of created wetlands and encompassed stream associated with the West Fork of Horse" Creek. The Conservation Easement is not considered part of the mitigation offered by IMC. The Conservation Easement authorizes the Property owners to use these areas after reclamation and release of the Property. The draft ERP contains general conditions, and specific conditions requiring, in part, monitoring to assure that the proposed mitigation of waters and wetlands is completed in accordance with success criteria contained in the draft ERP; monitoring to assure that groundwater levels are maintained at appropriate levels in areas undisturbed by mining or mining related activities; and numerous other legally enforceable conditions of approval. Phosphate Mining Geological Background and Phosphate Mining Process Millions of years ago, the oceans were rich in phosphorous. At that time, central Florida was under water. Over geological time, certain organisms decayed and settled to the bottom of the ocean. After the waters receded, deposits of phosphate were covered by land. Essentially, phosphate is the product of marine deposits. Although deposits are located in other states, such as Idaho and North Carolina, the largest phosphate rock deposit in the United States is in Central Florida, including the Manson Jenkins Property. The deposits of phosphate-bearing material are referred to as the "matrix," which consists of one-third phosphate, one-third sand, and one-third clay. On the Manson Jenkins Property, the entire matrix or ore body is approximately 15 to 18 feet thick. This phosphate matrix layer is buried under a layer of soils, rocks, sand, and clay, known as the "overburden," which is up to approximately 33 feet thick. There is a layer beneath the matrix which is 150 to 200 feet thick which is a confining layer of dense clay and separates the surficial aquifer from the intermediate aquifer. The phosphate to be mined on the Property is above the bed clay and the top of the intermediate aquifer system. Because the matrix is overlain by the overburden, the only way that it can be accessed and removed is through a surface mining operation. The first step prior to any land disturbance associated with phosphate mining is the installation of a "ditch and berm" system around the proposed mining area. The ditch and berm system is referred to by the Department and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a "best management practice" (BMP). The ditch and berm system for the Property will be designed and installed pursuant to specific criteria. This system is designed to preclude a direct release of impacted water from the mining area to adjacent land, and wetlands or waters, such as streams. The ditch and berm system can be expected to operate appropriately and efficiently if it is constructed, operated, and inspected in accordance with the design criteria described by IMC engineers. A properly designed, constructed, and operated ditch and berm recharge system will effectively maintain water levels outside of the mine areas. A berm is a small embankment which has an inspection roadway on top which is typically 12 to 15 feet wide and has a fairly flat downstream slope. The berm is designed to be flat and stable. The primary purpose of the berm is to prevent water that is collected in the ditch from overflowing into the preserved areas and other undisturbed areas and creating, among other things, potential water quality problems. This system is also designed to prevent water that may be associated with the mining activity from moving off-site to adjacent, undisturbed areas, including wetlands or waters and to protect the ecology of the area outside of the berm. Another function of the system, including the recharge ditches, is to maintain groundwater along the boundaries of the property line so that undisturbed areas outside the mining area will remain at pre-mining conditions. Water levels are actively maintained in the ditches surrounding mining areas to assure that the mining excavations do not drain groundwater from adjacent areas. Preserved areas are also surrounded by ditch and berm and recharge systems that hydrate the area so that, for example, existing wetlands are not degraded. Prior to mining a to-be-disturbed area, the ditch portion of the ditch and berm system acts to collect water and carry it to an area where it is pumped into a recirculation system. The ditch and berm system also typically acts as a recharge system. IMC will design, construct, and operate a recharge system that will maintain the water level in the area immediately adjacent to the mine cuts. The water that is in the recirculation system consists of rainfall, water from the deeper aquifer systems, water from the surficial aquifer system that drains into the mine cuts, and runoff that is captured behind the ditch and berm systems. Prior to mining, IMC will install monitor wells at regular intervals along the recharge ditches, which will be located adjacent to either preserved areas or adjacent to property owned by someone else other than IMC, who would be concerned about drawing the water level down beneath his property. The monitor well gauges will give an indication as to the baseline water levels, the fluctuations of the water level, and the high water levels along the preserved areas. The monitor well gauges can also be read to ensure that the water in the recharge ditch is getting into the ground and maintaining the water table at the same level it was prior to mining. Water can also be drawn from nearby wells which can be used to make up the water that seeps out of the recharge system. IMC currently operates approximately 75 miles of perimeter ditches and berms at various mining operations. IMC has resolved compliance issues relating to recharge ditches (because of dewatering concerns) on the Fort Green Mine. Compliance issues, including the Four Corners Mine, have been reported by IMC to the SWFWMD. Also, IMC has had other unpermitted discharges related to its ditches and berms, which have been resolved by consent orders. Compliance issues regarding the East Fork of the Manatee River have not been resolved completely, as the SWFWMD has not closed its enforcement files. IMC will continue to act to resolve these issues until reclamation is completed around the East Fork. Notwithstanding these compliance issues and the related problems, the weight of the evidence indicates that IMC is capable of designing, constructing, and maintaining the proposed ditch and berm system, including the recharge ditches, on the Property in order to avoid past problems which resulted in, for example, dewatering of property. These problems can be significant and, if left undetected and unremedied, can cause serious consequences. Careful and timely monitoring, and continued self-reporting of non-compliance by IMC is imperative. The SWFWMD has issued a consolidated water use permit for the Property. Under this permit, IMC has reduced its daily permitted pumping by an average of over 50 percent. Prior to mining, an alternate flow way (AFW) will also be constructed to carry water that was previously flowing from the northwestern portion (boundary) of the Property to the preserved area to the south of the Property. The AFW will temporarily replace the conveyance and storage of the portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined. The AFW is likely to be removed in years 5 to 6 of mining. See Findings of Fact 87-94. Once the ditch and berm system is in place, the land is cleared to prepare for mining. The area is mined in strips or rows. After clearing, large electrically powered draglines remove the overburden layer to expose the phosphate-bearing matrix. The overburden is cast into an open adjacent mine cut, exposing the matrix for mining. These same draglines then extract the matrix and place it in depressions created at the mine which are called "slurry wells" or "pits." The matrix is then mixed with water in the pits to form a slurry which is conveyed hydraulically through a series of pipes and pumps to a "beneficiation" plant to remove the phosphate rock product from the matrix. The recovered phosphate matrix contains phosphate rock, clay, and sand. At the beneficiation plant, the phosphate rock, sand, and clay are physically separated. The phosphate rock is stored prior to additional processing required to convert it to fertilizer at off-site facilities. The sand is hydraulically transported back to the mining areas for use in land reclamation. The clays are generated from the beneficiation process and hydraulically transported to a clay settling area (CSA) where they are dewatered prior to reclamation. IMC plans to construct and operate two CSAs on the Property. However, the weight of the evidence indicates that approval of the ERP application at issue here, does not approve these CSAs because they have to be permitted and operated under separate Department regulations. See Findings of Fact 244-247 and 268. CSAs are a repository for the clay material. They are generally built in mined-out areas and built with the overburden material that is dragline cast in the mine cut. CSAs are necessary because, unlike sand which readily drains through water, clay materials are very light; and it takes time for the clays to settle out of the water, so the water can be reused in the re-circulation system. IMC expects that the two CSAs on the Property will ultimately be designed to handle the equivalent amounts of clays that will be mined from the Manson Jenkins Project. There will also be two CSAs immediately to the east of the Property on the Fort Green Mine, which will be operating as a result of the mining on the Property. Specifically, the CSAs proposed for the Property are expected to be constructed in mined-out areas (the northeast portion of the Property) and are expected to be surrounded by engineered dams approximately 40 feet above the surrounding land surface grade. One of the CSAs will encompass approximately 540 acres and the other 520 acres. After the clay is initially settled, specialized equipment will be used to dig drainage ditches and take other steps to expedite the settling process. This will allow a "crust" to form on the top of the clay surface. Thereafter, the dams surrounding the CSA (which are composed of overburden material) will be pushed in to cover a portion of the settled clays. The area will then be primarily uplands with relatively small wetland systems present. Years ago, settling areas would be reclaimed in 10 to 15 years. Today, with special mobile equipment, CSAs can be reclaimed within 3 to 5 years. Reclamation of the CSAs on the Property is expected to be completed within the 15 year timeframe contemplated for mining and reclamation activities. Once the matrix has been removed from a mining area segment, land reclamation commences. IMC expects to use four, different land reclamation techniques, including but not limited to, crustal development reclamation and land and lakes reclamation. These methods were described in detail during the hearing. Manson Jenkins Project Pre-Mining Conditions (Historical and Current Conditions of the Property) The Property encompasses approximately 2,808 acres in northeast Manatee County, Florida, which is largely owned by FP- 1 and FP-2 Corporations. IMC has a lease to mine the Property, having obtained these rights in 1993 when IMC entered into a partnership with Agrico Chemical Company, who, in turn, acquired the mining lease in 1986. The lease prohibits the owners from using the Property during mining, until it is released from reclamation. The owners have the right to use the Property prior to mining and after reclamation. The Parties stipulated that there are no archeological or historical resources located at the Property. The Peace River starts in Polk County, north of Bartow, and flows through Wauchula and Arcadia, and southwesterly to Charlotte Harbor. Horse Creek begins in the southern portion of Polk and Hillsborough Counties and flows south through Hardee County, approximately 40 miles to the confluence of Horse Creek and the Peace River in DeSoto County. The eastern boundary of the Property is the Manatee County-Hardee County boundary line. The Property abuts land to the east that is being mined and reclaimed by IMC as part of its Fort Green Mine, and the Manson Jenkins Project is an extension of that mining operation. According to a 1940 composite aerial, as interpreted, the Property contained wetlands that had not been ditched or drained. At the time, the West Fork of Horse Creek had not been channelized. The aerial indicates that there was a line of wetlands and a series of elongated marshes strung together, like a string of sausages, running south along the West Fork, and a distinct, yet not continuous, channel running southeast toward the southern boundary of the Property. The 1940 aerial, as interpreted, also indicates that the upland areas of pines had been cut. Cattle grazing is also apparent. The upland, however, consisted of very dense and rich undergrowth of range grasses, palmettos, low shrubs, and other assorted species. As of 1950, herbaceous wetlands existed at the north end of the Property and a vegetative cover existed between that wetland and the forested portion of the Property at the southern end. At that time, there was no channelization. As of 1965, the West Fork of Horse Creek, in or around the middle of the Property, had been channelized and heavily ditched. The area in the northeastern portion of the Property had been impacted by agriculture and row crops. The wetlands had been drained and tied into these ditches. The native range had been removed. IMC and its predecessors did not participate in the drainage of the Property for agricultural purposes. The present condition of the Property is very similar to the condition as of 1965. There is an approximately 3-square-mile area north of the Property which drains through a marsh, down to the West Fork of Horse Creek. The West Fork of Horse Creek, which enters the northwest portion of the Property, bisects the entire length of the Property in a north-south direction, and is channelized. The West Fork of Horse Creek is a first order stream because of its location in the watershed. See Findings of Fact 234-236. There is a headwater marsh area which leads into the northwestern portion of the Property and is part of West Fork of Horse Creek. The uppermost portion of the West Fork on the Property, which will be mined, has been referred to as "a channelized or ditch portion" or a "wide ditch." This includes the headwater marsh area. There is a "complex of wetlands" in the northwest corner of the Property which contribute water flow down the West Fork. There is a large ditch in the middle of the headwater marsh which conveys most of the water through the system and down the center of the Property. This portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek does not have the upland vegetation that is usually associated with a stream bank. Its ecological value is less than what is generally found in other first order stream or headwater systems. While the experts diverge on this issue, the weight of the evidence indicates that while the headwater marsh area to the north of the Property and in the northern portion of the Property has hydrological importance, the West Fork of Horse Creek is not a regionally significant stream. The weight of the evidence indicates that the West Fork of Horse Creek is a tributary of Horse Creek which, in turn, is a tributary of the Peace River. However, it is unclear whether the West Fork of Horse Creek is a work of SWFWMD. Assuming that it is, reasonable assurances have been provided that this project will not cause adverse impacts to the West Fork of Horse Creek in light of the mitigation offered by IMC and the proposed reclamation of the area and the reasonable expectation that this area will be improved from its current state. See Finding of Fact 257. There is also an area on the West Fork of Horse Creek and to the southeast of the Property (Section 13) which will be preserved and not mined, which is a combination of a channel system and forested uplands and wetlands. Walker Road runs north and south and is located in the middle and west of the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property. Walker Road follows the proposed AFW. There is also a dirt or shell road which runs west to east across the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property and a spillway structure at this location. The spillway structure was used by the landowner in agricultural practices to control the flow of water to irrigate the crops in the northeastern portion of the Property. The Property is located in the West Fork of Horse Creek, Manatee River, and Myakka River Basins, and in the far western part of the Peace River Basin. IMC's ERP Application contains approximately 300 acres, west of Walker Road (part of Sections 2 and 11) and in the northwestern portion of the Property in the Manatee River Basin. (Approximately 17 acres of wetlands in this area will be mined and will be replaced with approximately 51 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 95-96 and 211.) This area is not part of the Development of Regional Impact approved by Manatee County, although IMC plans to request permission from Manatee County to mine this area, and if approved, IMC would mine less than 200 acres. This portion essentially drains into the Manatee River. Further, IMC has included the southwest triangle of these 300 acres as a preservation area. This area contains, among other land covers, mixed wetland hardwoods and freshwater marshes. There is another portion of the Property in the Myakka River Basin, approximately 32 acres, located in the southwest corner of the site. (There is also a small wetland in this area consisting of approximately 4 acres of wetlands which will be replaced with approximately 12 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 95-96.) This portion drains through a drainage ditch and eventually enters Wingate Creek and the Myakka River. The balance, and by far the largest portion of the Property, is located in the Peace River Basin. After leaving the Property boundary to the south, the West Fork of Horse Creek joins the main branch of Horse Creek approximately 3 to 3.5 miles south of the Property line. Horse Creek then joins the Peace River approximately 30 miles from the Property boundary. The Peace River then empties into Charlotte Harbor approximately 40 miles from the Property. Today, the predominant land use on the Property are improved pasture and agricultural ditches. In order to achieve this cover and use, an extensive surface drainage system was constructed to drain isolated marshes into the West Fork of Horse Creek and to reduce the flood stage elevations within the creek itself. In areas with less extensive ditching, the existing vegetative communities more closely approximate natural systems. The improved pasture has been planted with bahia grass and other exotic pasture grasses. In recent years, a large portion of the pasture area has been converted into a sod farm and the sod has been stripped from that area leaving a large area of bare semi-vegetative soil. The Property is not pristine or close to its original condition, although, as argued by Charlotte County and others, portions of the Property do provide ecological functions. The wetlands on the Property have been subjected to extensive agricultural ditching. The main ditch is quite wide and deep, and there are many side ditches that proceed into smaller wetlands. There are also some lands that have not experienced conversion to improved pasture which, for the most part, are scheduled for preservation. IMC plans to mine, in part, the channelized portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek from north to south to the preserved area where the more heavily vegetated and forested portion of the natural stream channel of the West Fork of Horse Creek is located. This area will be blocked off during mining by a ditch and berm system. IMC will construct an AFW to carry the water that was previously flowing from the northern area (that is not part of this project and is not owned by IMC) around the area to be mined in the stream channel, which will be reconnected into the preserved area to the south. See Findings of Fact 87-94. From a hydrological standpoint, the to-be-mined marsh and channelized stream segment will be replaced with a flow- through marsh and recreated stream segment that connects the area to the north with the preserved portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The uplands will be placed back to the same elevations existing pre-mining and additional wetlands added. The marsh and the vegetative part of the stream will be slightly bigger. Proposed Mining Activities (Mine Sequence for the Property) IMC proposes to mine 2,348 acres of the 2,808 acres on the Property in approximately 6 to 9 years. The mining activities at the Property will follow the general sequence outlined above. Reclamation is expected to begin within 3 to 4 years after the commencement of mining operations, except for the CSAs. The mining and reclamation activities are expected to completed within 15 years. IMC will construct an AFW in year one (and prior to mining) of the mining activities. The AFW should be tied into the preserved area in the southern portion of the Property as soon as feasible in order to minimize the impacts to this area and downstream. The AFW is necessary because IMC intends to mine approximately 1.6 miles of the channelized or ditched marsh and stream portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek located in the northwest to middle portion of the Property. The AFW is designed to temporarily replace the conveyance and storage of the portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined north of the preserved area. The AFW will carry water that was previously flowing from the northwestern boundary of the Property to the preserved areas to the southern portion of the Property. In this manner, if constructed and operated properly, it is expected that the proposed mining and related activities at the project area will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property and will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. Further, the AFW and downstream areas will not be expected to suffer from erosion as a result of the installation of the AFW. The slopes and bottom of the AFW will be a vegetated channel designed to receive surface water runoff from the area north of the Property and convey it southward and then eastward back into that portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property which is part of the area being preserved in the southern portion of the Property. The bottom of the AFW will be vegetated with wetland type vegetation and will provide a habitat for fish and other wildlife. The AFW will not be used until the vegetation has become established. Vegetation is an effective method for minimizing erosion in a flow way or stream as described here. The design recommendations also require that the ends of the access corridor be stabilized so if they are subjected to overflow during the 25-year or 100-year storm event, they will be protected from erosion. Any sharp bends in the AFW will be stabilized prior to being put into service. The size of the AFW (50 feet wide) was revised and adjusted so it could carry the expected flows without backing the water up and causing water elevation to be above that which existed historically. The actual design of the AFW has been modified in accordance with the ERP conditions. The Draft ERP, "Specific Condition 4. c." provides: An alternate flow way shall replace the headwater marsh and wetlands of the West Fork of Horse Creek during site preparation, mining, and until the reclamation is re- connected. The alternate flowway will begin south of the north project boundary and end at the north end of the preserved wetlands, as shown on Figure IV F. The alternate flowway will convey water from areas north of the north project boundary south into the unmined portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The AFW shall be constructed as a trapezoidal channel with a minimum bottom of with [sic] of 50 feet and side slopes no steeper than 3 ft horizontal to 1 foot vertical, (3H to 1V). A recharge ditch and associated berms shall be placed along the entire east side and portions of the west side of the alternate flowway as noted in Figures IV F and IV F(a). To ensure maximum water quality treatment, the flowway will be planted with a variety of herbaceous wetland species such as pickerel weed Peak level recording devices will be placed at the north end, south end, and just north of the half Section line of Section 11. The top of the recording tube and the cross section elevations of the alternate flowway will be surveyed at the time of installation. This data will be submitted with the first monitoring report. Stream flows will be measured in conjunction with the quarterly mine inspection at each peak level station until the reclamation is reconnected to the West Fork unmined area. IMC-Phosphates shall submit monthly flow data and rainfall data to the bureau for review and approval. IMC-Phosphates shall not conduct any activities that result in a violation of Class III water quality standards within the West Fork [of] Horse Creek flowway. If at any time the water quality fails to meet [C]lass III standards, the bureau shall be immediately notified and corrective measures implemented. The reconstructed stream channel, like the AFW, will be vegetated and not placed into service until the vegetation is established. IMC proposes to disturb 361 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on the Property. This acreage comprises approximately 4, 17, and 330 (approximately 351 acres according to Dr. Durbin) acres in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins, respectively. The balance of the Property will be reclaimed as uplands. See Findings of Fact 218-219. IMC will reclaim 538 acres of wetlands for the 361 acres of disturbed wetlands, consisting of approximately 12, 51, 475 acres of wetland mitigation in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins, respectively. IMC proposes to preserve approximately 316 acres (approximately 45 percent of the wetlands on-site) of jurisdictional wetlands on the Property, including over 70 percent of the forested wetlands on-site. By eliminating existing agricultural ditching and providing appropriate mitigation, and by providing upland buffers around the wetlands, the post-reclamation condition of the Property is expected to be better than the current condition of the Property. Conditions for Issuance Water Quantity Impacts Surface Water General During the final hearing, substantial evidence was presented concerning the potential impact of mining on surface water flows across the Property and downstream. Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(a) and (b), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not cause adverse water quantity impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands and will not cause adverse flooding to on-site or off-site property. Dr. Garlanger is an expert in hydrology and hydrologic modeling with special expertise in surface and ground water systems associated with phosphate mining operations and reclaimed mined lands. IMC requested Dr. Garlanger to assess the potential impacts of the proposed mining and reclamation on the hydrology of the Property, and also to assess the potential hydrological or hydrogeological impacts downstream from the site to wetlands or waters of the state. Dr. Garlanger used models to assist him in assessing the nature, scope, and the extent of any future impacts resulting from the phosphate mining. Modeling requires the making of calculations relating one variable to another. Scientists, such as Dr. Garlanger and others who testified during this final hearing, who run comparative water balance models to calculate the differences in daily stream flow leaving a project site at the project boundary, must take into account several factors associated with the hydrological cycle, including the following: 1) the typography of the site; 2) the hydraulic conductivity or permeability of different soil levels; 3) the transmissivity of the different aquifer systems; 4) the geometry of the stream channel; 5) the amount and timing of rainfall on-site; 6) the amount of surface runoff; 7) the amount of evapotranspiration (ET); 8) the amount of deep recharge to the Floridan aquifer system; 9) the amount of groundwater outflow, including that portion of which makes it to the stream and becomes base flow; and 10) the temperature, wind speed, and amount of solar radiation, because they control ET. Each of these issues was reasonably evaluated by Dr. Garlanger. The weight of the evidence supports the accuracy, completeness, and conclusions of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work. Dr. Garlanger has been reviewing hydrological aspects of mining projects since 1974 for phosphate mining projects that require hydrological and hydrogeological analysis reflecting the unique aspects of mining operations. Dr. Garlanger explained how professional judgment was applied in his engineering calculations and how his model input data are reasonable. He also explained that he used reasonable information estimates to conduct this particular modeling work, which are consistent with measured data. Surface water flows are dependent on two sources: rainfall runoff from adjacent areas and groundwater that enters surface water streams and is sometimes referred to as "base flow." The weight of the evidence demonstrated that during mining activities the act of confining mining areas by the ditch and berm system would capture the rainfall runoff on these areas and thus reduce that rainfall runoff contribution to the ditched segment of the West Fork of Horse Creek (prior to the time that it is mined), the AFW during its operation, and the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek (during the time that mining continues to occur in the vicinity). During the active mining and reclamation activities, the ditch and berm system operates to maintain groundwater levels in areas undisturbed by mining at pre-mining conditions. Water levels are actively maintained in the ditches surrounding mining areas to assure that the mining excavations do not drain groundwater from adjacent areas. Thus, during the active mining and reclamation activities, the base flow component of surface water is not likely to be affected. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the base flow contribution to surface water flows through the AFW, when operational, will be somewhat higher than is present in the West Fork of Horse Creek during pre- mining conditions. After mining and reclamation are complete, the ditch and berm systems will no longer be needed and present at the Property, and thus rainfall runoff is not expected to be captured thereby. More wetlands, however, will be present at the Property after reclamation is completed than are now present. These wetlands tend to "use," through ET, more water than a comparably sized upland area. Thus, after reclamation is completed, there will be a reduction in the amount of water contributed from the Property to the flow of water in the reclaimed and preserved portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. The weight of the evidence indicates that the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Property will not cause any adverse impacts on surface water quantity at the Property during active mining and reclamation or thereafter, and that there will be no adverse impacts at downstream locations. 2. Rainfall Predictive modeling was carried out by Dr. Garlanger to assess the potential significance of rainfall runoff capture and base flow reductions anticipated during mining and after reclamation of the Property. The model efforts simulated stream flow conditions on a daily basis, assuming that the Property experienced rainfall of the same frequency and duration as had occurred during a 19-year period from 1980 to 1998 at the Wauchula rainfall gauge. The amount of rainfall drives the hydrological model because it determines the amount of groundwater outflow, the amount of surface water runoff, and basically determines the amount of stream flow. The volume and timing of rainfall are important factors to consider; information regarding the variability of rainfall is a critical input into any model. In mining operations, discharge volumes correspond directly to rainfall. When rainfall volumes increase, mining operations' discharges increase. When rainfall volumes decrease, mining operations' discharges decrease. Thus, rainfall is the primary controlling factor in the volume of water discharge from a phosphate mine. The Property is located in the Peace River Basin. See Finding of Fact 75. Information is available from the National Climatic Data Center (Center), the government archive for climatic data, which indicates the occurrences of annual rainfall in the Peace River Basin between 1933 and 2000. The Center is a reasonable source of rainfall data. From 1933 through 2000, the arithmetic average of the rainfall in the Peace River Basin was 52.3 inches. (The average rainfall was collected from five stations throughout the Peace River Basin and then averaged.) However, within this period, there is significant variation in rainfall between the high and low rainfalls. There have only been four occurrences when the rainfall has been between 51 and 54 inches during this time frame. The record low rainfall of 35.9 inches occurred in 2000 in a significant drought year. The highest rainfalls have been in the 72 to 75-inch range and near 75 inches on two occasions; thus, a model must be based on more than one year of data. Dr. Garlanger examined the daily rainfall for a 19- year period between January 1980 and December 1998. This rainfall was measured at Wauchula, which is a town in the Peace River Basin almost due east of the Property and located on the Peace River. The weather station collects daily rainfall data and the Center is the source of this information. The average rainfall at Wauchula for this 19-year period is 52.17 inches, similar to the 1933 through 2000 period mentioned above, and also indicates that there is significant daily variability of rainfall. The claim that the accuracy of Dr. Garlanger's modeling is questionable because IMC's modeling "only uses rainfall information from the Wauchula rain gauge" is not persuasive. Dr. Garlanger reasonably chose this particular period of time, 1980 to 1998, and the location for several reasons. First, the data was available from the Center and is reliable. Second, the average rainfall that he used in the Peace River Basin is the average from five stations in the Basin, not just from one station. Third, Dr. Garlanger also considered the data from a rain gauging station approximately 3 miles downstream from the Property where Horse Creek crosses State Road 64, and the average rainfall was about 52.2 inches, which is similar to the 19-year period of data for the Peace River Basin. It is also argued that Dr. Garlanger "fabricated certain rainfall data." In rebuttal, Dr. Garlanger agreed that a data gap of approximately 7 months existed in the rainfall record at the Wauchula station, which he used. He described the efforts made by his assistant in supplying data for the missing period of record, which included an examination of the average rainfall for the other 18 years, for a particular day which was missing from the original data set. The weight of the evidence shows the calculations for these missing months out of the entire 19-year record did not adversely affect the overall conclusions of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work, including the predicted impacts. It is also suggested that Dr. Garlanger's modeling work improperly "omits a 3 square mile of the West Fork of Horse Creek watershed . . . that is critical to judging environmental impacts and changes in flow on the Manson Jenkins Property." While the entire Horse Creek watershed exceeds 200 square miles, an area of approximately 10 square miles composes the Horse Creek watershed upstream of the Property. A portion of IMC's Fort Green Mine is located in the West Fork of Horse Creek watershed. This portion of the Fort Green Mine includes approximately 3 square miles of catchment area. While IMC's Fort Green Mine is not currently contributing surface runoff to the West Fork of Horse Creek, the 3 square miles lying in the Fort Green Mine catchment area still comprise part of the overall Horse Creek Basin. In order to properly evaluate any impact on existing flow expected from Manson Jenkins activities, Dr. Garlanger reasonably did not select the 10-square mile historic basin, which would include the 3 square miles of Fort Green Mine catchment area and which, if included in the modeling assumptions as part of the watershed, would produce more favorable, higher flows. Rather, Dr. Garlanger reasonably used the current condition or baseline condition, which is the approximately 10 square miles of the historic basin minus the 3- square mile catchment area of the Fort Green Mine, approximately 6.2 square miles, in order for a valid comparison to be made of the potential effects that Manson Jenkins activities would have on existing flow. Dr. Garlanger's exclusion of this 3-square mile area in his modeling for the project was prudent to predicting what, if any, flow impacts would occur on a daily basis and under existing conditions. Dr. Garlanger's modeling work reasonably predicted both (1) the runoff that would occur on a daily basis over the next twenty years if no mining were to occur and (2) the runoff that would occur given the same rainfall record during mining and post-reclamation conditions at the Property. It was reasonable to use the same rainfall record in comparing these two scenarios in order to get a model comparison that accounted for pre-mining, during-mining, and post-reclamation conditions. 3. Evapotranspiration The reasonableness of Dr. Garlanger's modeling work is illustrated by the predictive accuracy of Dr. Garlanger's ET data as compared to measured data. Dr. Garlanger's model estimated ET on a daily basis, and the same ET values were used by Dr. Garlanger for the same types of vegetation cover. Dr. Garlanger compared the predicted daily ET with the ET calculated on actual, measured stream flow data along with the estimate of the rainfall in the Horse Creek Basin for the period from 1980 through 1998. Dr. Garlanger's predicted ET for the Property was 39.2 inches per year. The ET data from Horse Creek at State Road 64 is 40.3 and at State Road 72 is 39.9. Thus, Dr. Garlanger's predicted ET was within 2 percent or 3 percent of the data from these stations where the stream flow was measured. 4. Flow Impacts Using the reasonable meteorological data assumptions noted above and applying accepted hydrological and other physical laws, Dr. Garlanger used the model to predict anticipated flow conditions at the Property and downstream. The modeling results demonstrate that flow in stream segments which receive rainfall runoff and base flow contribution from the Property would be reduced only during the relatively small percentage of time that the streams would normally exhibit high flow conditions. For example, at the southern Property boundary line, the flow in the West Fork of Horse Creek during active mining and reclamation activities is predicted to be reduced only during the higher flow periods which exist for 10-20 percent of the time during the year. For the remaining 80-90 percent of the year flow reductions are not anticipated. After reclamation is completed, flow in the West Fork of Horse Creek at the Property line is predicted to be reduced only during approximately 5 percent of the time during the year when high flows are experienced in the stream. The only impact of the anticipated flow reductions during high flow periods at the Property boundary will be to reduce the depth of the water within the channel of the stream at that point. At the southern boundary of the West Fork of Horse Creek as it leaves the Property boundary, during the operation of the AFW, there should be no decrease in average stream flow, and there may even be a net increase in stream flow. During years 6 through 13 of the mining/reclamation sequence, or the mine life, Dr. Garlanger calculated there would be a decreased stream flow leaving the Property boundary of approximately 1.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) on an annual average basis as a result of mining activity, assuming the average rainfall during that period is 52 inches and the area has the same rainfall distribution as in Wauchula from 1980-1998. (The 1.4 cfs decrease applies downstream as well, but reflects Dr. Garlanger's worst case assumption.) Dr. Garlanger further testified that the slight decrease in flow in the Horse Creek, corresponding to a decrease in flow depth of a few inches when the flow depth in the Horse Creek is between 7.5 feet and 12.8 feet, will not cause adverse water quantity impacts. Dr. Garlanger compared on a daily basis the predicted reduction in stream flow resulting from mining to the baseline pre-mining condition. This allowed Dr. Garlanger to predict the effect on the depth of water in the stream channel at various points in time during both high flows and low flows. Significantly, Dr. Garlanger's modeling work indicates that during higher rainfall events, that is, high flows, when most of the runoff would occur, the greatest effect as a result of mining occurs. Predictably, during the period when there are no rain events or small rain events, that is, when there is low flow, Dr. Garlanger's calculations show the Manson Jenkins activities have virtually no impact on flow. Consequently, the effects of IMC's proposed mining and reclamation activities are consistent with the permitting rules because IMC's mining activities will reduce rather than cause adverse flooding. Water leaving the Property travels downstream to Horse Creek and the Peace River and ultimately to Charlotte Harbor, about 40 miles downstream from the Property's southern boundary. Dr. Garlanger also assessed the timing and magnitude of flow reduction impacts at several points in these downstream locations. Once again, slight flow reductions during high flow conditions were predicted for downstream segments of Horse Creek and the Peace River with the magnitude of the flow reductions decreasing significantly as one moves farther downstream from the Property. It is expected that such reductions in depth will have no ecological significance. During low flow periods, no flow reduction impacts were predicted at these downstream locations. The flow in the Peace River at Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor over the next 19-year period is not expected to be lower than the measured flow existing during the previous, historic 19-year period, such that any change will have an adverse water quantity impact. Water flowing from the Property ultimately enters the Peace River at a point downstream from the Arcadia gauging station where measurements are taken to control the ability of the Authority to withdraw water for municipal water supply purposes. Accordingly, the predicted reduction in flow during high flow conditions resulting from the permitted activities at the Property cannot be reasonably expected to adversely affect the Authority's legal rights to withdraw such water. See Findings of Fact 248-249. The Authority's water intake structure is located upstream (on the Peace River) of the confluence of Horse Creek and the Peace River. The predicted small reduction in flow during high flow conditions attributed to activities at the property, will have little or no impact on the Authority's capacity to withdraw water at that point. Furthermore, the freshwater-saltwater interface in the Peace River will be well downstream of the intake structure and cannot be expected to be impacted by any reasonably predicted reduction in freshwater flow caused by activities at the Property. The persuasive evidence in the record indicates that the predicted impacts calculated by permit opponents on the Peace River flow resulting from mining were not accurate. For example, pre-mining flow from both the wet season and the dry season is not identical and the calculation of average annual flow does not properly match wet and dry season flows. Additionally, the water quantity calculation errors included using the wrong number of days for both wet and dry season average flows, which overestimated the impact by 50 percent for the dry season and 100 percent for the wet season. Certain assumptions made by permit opponents concerning flow reductions due to industry-wide mining are not reliable. The assumptions concerning the amount of land that would be mined after 2025 exceeded actual available land to be mined by a significant percentage. It was assumed the area to be mined after 2025 is approximately 161,000 acres, when the amount of land that could be added to mining is less than 20,000 acres. (A high-side number might result in another 40,000 acres mined after 2025, which is approximately 25 percent of the estimates.) The overestimate of these assumptions resulted in a 100 percent higher reduction in flow in the Peace River at the Authority's water withdrawal point than would modeling estimates using reasonable assumptions. 5. "No-Flow Days" Analysis The record does not support the claim of an increase in the number of no-flow days in West Fork of Horse Creek at the Property boundary. The record shows there was no accounting (by party opponents) for the fact that flow from direct runoff is actually distributed over a period of time. The model incorrectly had runoff from a storm occur all on the day of the storm, rather than over a period of days. Contributing stream flow from the undisturbed area located upstream of the Property was also not considered. Dr. Garlanger's modeling data was not accurately transferred, and there is evidence that had the correct flow data from Dr. Garlanger's work been used, the increase in no-flow days would not have been calculated as they were and relied upon. Further, in rebuttal, and contrary to permit opponent's suggestion that Dr. Garlanger did not estimate no-flow days, Dr. Garlanger reevaluated his calculations and reconfirmed that, while there is an expected reduction in the flow, there is no increase expected in the number of no-flow days. Dr. Garlanger's modeling work is both professionally competent and reasonable in predicting Manson Jenkins activity flow impacts. 6. Model Calibration It is also argued that Dr. Garlanger's modeling work was "not calibrated." However, this argument is rejected based on the weight of the evidence. Dr. Garlanger explained that the model used for the Manson Jenkins Project was calibrated by the models used at another phosphate mine (the Ona Mine tract) located a few miles east of the Property. He also used the same input parameters for the Farmland-Hydro Mine in Hardee County. In this light, the model provided Dr. Garlanger with a reasonable estimate of both pre-mining or baseline condition and the post-reclamation condition, and also furnished him with a basis to estimate impacts during mining. In Dr. Garlanger's professional judgment, every input parameter used for the project's modeling work was reasonable and is accepted. Additionally, Dr. Garlanger compared the project groundwater outflow for the different sub-basins and found the outflow averaged 7.5 to 7.8 inches per year for all basins. Dr. Garlanger testified the measured groundwater outflows reported by W. Llewellyn, United States Geological Survey, averaged 7.7 to 8.9 inches per year in the Horse Creek Basin. Thus, Dr. Garlanger's modeling work, as to the groundwater component, was reasonably good predictive work. Furthermore, as discussed herein, the ET rate is one of the most important factors in determining the amount of water available to be discharged through the stream system. There is persuasive evidence that Dr. Garlanger calibrated the IMC model for ET. When referring to calibration, Dr. Garlanger referred to estimated ET from the different vegetative types on the Property. In this manner, Dr. Garlanger used the estimate of the average annual ET for the upland and for the upland wetlands. ET cannot be directly measured. Rather, it must be determined indirectly. Thus, estimates of the average annual ET are made by the modeler exercising professional judgment. The average daily ET value used in the modeling was determined based on total ET from the entire 218-square mile Horse Creek Basin down to the gauging site at Arcadia. Dr. Garlanger then determined what portion of the basin was upland, wetlands, or riverine wetlands, and what the ET values were for each of those systems. In disagreeing with Dr. Garlanger's model, permit opponents imply that Dr. Garlanger's ET numbers are unreliable as they "came from information . . . that indirectly measured ET for wetlands in the Everglades." Dr. Garlanger's initial ET used 50 inches per year for both riverine and upland wetlands. However, Dr. Garlanger knew that total ET rates for the system-types on the Property range between 36 and 39 inches per year. Thus, he had discussions with other hydrologic experts about his concern of using 50 inches of ET per year for both riverine and upland wetlands. In order to evaluate the appropriate ET rate for the Property, Dr. Garlanger also reviewed data from a study containing indirectly measured ET for wetlands in the Everglades, which systems can be compared to the wetlands at the Property. The Everglades data was contained in a scientific paper concerning a study performed in the Everglades by ecologists, limnologists, and physicists where they indirectly measured ET under various conditions. The Everglades professional study assisted Dr. Garlanger and other experts in determining, based on their professional judgment, what would be the appropriate and reasonable ET rate to use in the IMC model. 7. The Department's Review of the Models The Department, by and through the Bureau, reviewed the ERP Application for, among other things, comparison of pre- mining with post-mining conditions, the use of the AFW, and the best management practices of IMC, and concluded that reasonable assurances to issue the permit were provided under the permitting rules. Furthermore, the Department will continually evaluate the project's effects by the ongoing monitoring for impacts to site conditions, and the Department will perform quarterly inspections. It is typical for the Department to rely on the models and permit information that is submitted by the permit applicant's professional engineer. While Mr. Partney did not necessarily agree with portions of Dr. Garlanger's model analysis, he stated that "this approach is fine for planning and checking the feasibility of a plan." Mr. Partney maintained that, in his professional opinion, because the reclamation activity would result in a net improvement of the environment on the Property, an approximate 5 percent annual average decline in flow was not a concern. (Dr. Garlanger stated that a 5 percent or greater reduction of annual average flow is significant. However, for the reasons stated herein, Dr. Garlanger felt that the impacts would not be adverse.) Groundwater In the vicinity of the Property, groundwater is present in the unconfined surficial aquifer within the overburden and matrix and in the underlying confined intermediate and Floridan aquifer systems. Surficial groundwater levels in areas not disturbed by mining will be maintained by use of the ditch and berm system. Dr. Garlanger presented credible evidence that after reclamation, groundwater levels return to pre-mining elevations. Credible evidence was presented that in some cases, slightly more groundwater outflow to the streams and preserved areas is expected than to the same areas prior to mining. During active mining operations, there will be a short-term reduction in recharge of groundwater to the deeper aquifer systems in the immediate area of mining. This short- term reduction has no adverse impact upon water supply availability in the underlying aquifer systems and is largely offset by the increase referred to above. Underlying the CSAs, deep groundwater recharge will be increased over that experienced normally during the timeframe that the clays are settling. Once the clays are fully settled, deep recharge in these areas will be within the range that occurs naturally in the vicinity of the Property. Flooding 1. General Modeling submitted by IMC as part of the ERP application demonstrated that off-site flows after mining and reclamation would be in compliance with design requirements set forth in the 1995 SWFWMD Basis of Review adopted by reference by the Department. The AFW is specifically designed to assure that during its operation it had the capacity to carry anticipated flows from the drainage area north of the Property during high peak flow conditions without causing water to back up and flood that area or to cause flooding at downstream locations. After mining and reclamation, the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek will have sufficient capacity to handle anticipated storm events without causing flooding. The increased wetland acreage after reclamation will provide additional storage and attenuation of flood flows and, therefore, may actually reduce the possibility of flooding. It is asserted that IMC "did not evaluate the impact of long-duration flooding events." But, the ERP permitting criteria did not require long-duration flooding analysis of the natural systems as a condition for issuance of the permit. Even if IMC were obligated under the rules to specifically address long-duration flooding, the record shows there are no predicted adverse impacts from Manson Jenkins activities concerning long- duration flooding because the modeling shows any "event flooding" is likely to drain off before an adverse impact to a natural system would occur. 2. Recharge Ditches There is no substantial evidence to support permit opponents' claim that the flood analysis needs to be "redone" because of IMC's failure to account for the effects of seepage from the recharge ditches on the AFW. Dr. Garlanger predicted that the recharge ditches would result in an additional 3.26 cfs of flow in the AFW. Opponents' expert Mr. Zarbock testified that this additional increase was a reasonable calculation. Adding 3.2 cfs to the peak flow in the AFW predicted by the HEC-RAS model for the 100-year storm event results in a relatively small percent increase in the peak flow. This small increase in peak flow is an insignificant increase with no meaningful effect on the flood analysis and on actual water levels either upstream or downstream of the Property. Adding an additional 3.2 cfs of groundwater outflow to the West Fork of Horse Creek’s average annual flow of 5.5 cfs resulted in a 59 percent increase (not 99 percent as asserted by opponents) in the average annual flow, and is not expected to have a detrimental effect on the average flow in West Fork of Horse Creek, Horse Creek, Peace River, or Charlotte Harbor. 3. Integrity of Clay Settling Areas The weight of the evidence indicates that this ERP permit is not intended to address dam construction or to evaluate the sufficiency of dam design, both of which will be considered under other permitting processes. However, the record shows the proposed Manson Jenkins CSAs must be engineered dams designed, built, and operated to achieve full compliance with the stringent requirements of Rule 62-672, Florida Administrative Code, according to exacting standards concerning site investigation, soil testing, cross-section design work, stability analysis, and design safety factors. After construction, the dam will be inspected weekly. The Department does not require flood inundation studies for the type of dam proposed by IMC, although it is characterized by Mr. Partney as a significant hazard dam. These studies are only required by the Department for high-hazard dams, which the IMC dams are not. Additionally, Mr. Partney, Florida’s Dam Safety Engineer, advised that the Department has made recent changes that ensure that construction of the CSAs is improving. See Findings of Fact 244-247. Dr. Dunn admitted that "the probability of failure is low" for a CSA. IMC has been issued its Federal Clean Water Act NPDES Permit which authorizes IMC to conduct its operations, involving the use of water. The NPDES Permit also regulates the discharge of waters to the surface and ground. The NPDES permit has specific conditions to assure the safety of dams that IMC must comply with related to the construction and operation of the CSAs. Surface Water Storage and Conveyance Capabilities General Rule 40D-4.301(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires the applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities. These issues are addressed in the prior section. However, additional issues are addressed below. 2. Depressional Storage Dr. Garlanger provided a reasonable explanation regarding whether an increase in depressional storage can be expected. Dr. Garlanger performed calculations based on the average thickness of phosphate matrix being mined. The removal of the phosphate rock from the matrix generally reduces the depth of the soil profile components by 1.7 feet. The overburden that is removed in order to access the phosphate matrix is "cast" back into the adjacent mine cuts and occupies a greater volume after it is removed for mining than it will prior to mining. In other words, the overburden "swells" after it is removed to expose the phosphate matrix. This "swelling" results in an increase in volume of the overburden somewhere between 10 percent and 15 percent. Thus, based on the measurements of the density of spoil piles performed by Dr. Garlanger, the overburden actually increases in thickness by about 3.3 feet, which would more than make up for the 1.7 feet reduction in thickness of the soil profile components resulting from the removal of the phosphate rock. Additionally, the sand and clay components of the matrix also increase in thickness after having been mined, processed at the beneficiation plant, and through the reclamation processes, which further increase the average thickness of the soil profile components. If there is an increase in the average thickness of the soil profile components, even though most of the increase is associated with the reclaimed clay areas, there cannot be an increase in depressional storage. 3. Reclaimed Land Forms and Reestablishing Hydrologic Regimes The storage and conveyance capabilities provided by the flow-through marsh and the stream segment that are proposed to replace the existing ditched segment will greatly enhance the surface water conveyance and storage capabilities on the Property. Specifically as to the AFW, IMC's engineers and consultants from Ardaman & Associates reasonably designed the AFW to adequately replace the conveyance and storage capabilities of the portion of the West Fork of Horse Creek that will be mined. Also, a Storm Water Management Plan, which is a required document by the Bureau, analyzed surface water discharges under both historic conditions and under post- reclamation conditions and determined sufficient storage and conveyance capabilities will exist during mining and post- reclamation. A primary purpose of the reclamation plan developed by IMC is to create a land use topography on the Property that will allow runoff to occur as it did under the pre-mining condition prior to the ditching that was completed decades ago. Even though land surface on average is higher due to the "swelling" of the materials used in reclamation, the reclamation is contoured so that there is no storage except for the storage that is purposefully left in the recreated wetlands. Party opponents claim that a review of other mine permit applications shows a hydrologic characteristic of "reduced runoff from storm events by approximately 15 percent of the pre-mining condition." However, Mr. Zarbock, in reviewing approved phosphate mine applications, did not see any such phosphate mine applications that showed a 15 percent (not higher than 12 percent) reduction in flow, nor could he identify any mine that experienced the percentage reduction in flow that he assumed in performing his calculations. Water Quality Impacts Surface Water Rule 40D-4.301(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, requires reasonable assurance that the project will not adversely affect the quality of receiving waters such that enumerated water quality standards will be violated. The waters and associated wetlands of the West Fork of Horse Creek located on or downstream from the Property are Class III waters. Downstream from the Property, the West Fork meets Horse Creek and both Creeks continue as Class III waters until Horse Creek becomes Class I waters in DeSoto County. The Myakka River is Class III waters through Manatee County. (Approximately 4 acres of wetlands will be mined on the Property located in the Myakka River Basin, to be replaced with approximately 12 acres of wetlands. See Finding of Fact 77.) The Manatee River to the west of the Property, including the North and East Forks of the Manatee River, are Class I waters. See Rule 62-302.400(12)41, Florida Administrative Code (The Manatee River is a Class I river from "[f]rom Rye Ridge Road to the sources thereof ") The far northwestern portion of the Property is in the Manatee River Basin. (Approximately 17 acres of wetlands in this area are proposed for mining and will be replaced with approximately 51 acres of wetlands. See Findings of Fact 76 and 211.) These wetlands have a ditched connection between the these wetlands and other wetlands, which ultimately lead to the East Fork of the Manatee River. As a limnologist, Dr. Durbin agreed that these existing wetlands, even after reclamation, are part of the water source for the Manatee River watershed. Dr. Dunn stated that if the "[BMPs] operate as designed [he assumed], that there will not be water quality impacts" to the East Fork of the Manatee River during actual mining. Rather, he was concerned about (after mining and reclamation and before release) "potential water quality problems for those areas that contribute flow to the East Fork of the Manatee River," as Class I waters. Dr. Durbin reasonably explained that after mining and reclamation, the existing wetlands will be severed from the Manatee River because the agricultural ditching will be removed, which leads to the reasonable conclusion that the replaced wetlands will not have a surface water discharge into other wetlands which are ultimately tributaries to the East Fork of the Manatee River. Thus, the wetlands will not flow to surface waters that then enter Class I waters. Further, there are no expected measurable decreases in depth of flow to the Manatee and Myakka Rivers resulting from mining and reclamation activity on the Property, which might reasonably be expected to adversely impact the water quality of these rivers. There are no measurable impacts to any Outstanding Florida Waters (OFW)(no OFWs are located on the Property), including aquatic preserves, or to Class I or II waters, which are likely to result from this project. See Findings of Fact 193-195. The ditch and berm system around active mining and reclamation areas will preclude the direct release of waters impacted by mining to surface water bodies on the Property. The system is designed to isolate the unmined areas from surface water runoff that may be present in the mine area and to maintain water levels in undisturbed wetlands. See Findings of Fact 31-42. Waters collected in the ditch and berm system will be reused and recycled by IMC in the mining operations. Some portion of that water will be discharged through permitted discharge outfalls not located on the Property in accordance with IMC's currently valid Department NPDES Permit. Such discharges must comply with discharge water quality criteria set forth in the NPDES Permit. Permitted water discharges from these outfalls is necessary because IMC will need the ability to release water from the mine into nearby waters and streams. The activities on the Property are regulated pursuant to the Fort Green Mine NPDES Permit, and, in particular, outfalls 3 and 4 which discharge water into Horse Creek. (Outfalls number 1 and 2 discharge water into Payne Creek.) Over the past 5 years, in measuring the water quality of the water leaving the permitted outfalls, IMC is unaware of any violations of permit limits, including surface water quality standards at the Fort Green Mine site based on samples taken at the outfalls. In the event there is a concern regarding water quality at an outfall, a gate constructed at the outfall can be quickly closed to stop off-site flows. Water quality data from Payne Creek, where over two- thirds of the watershed has been mined and a good portion reclaimed, demonstrate that phosphate mining has not adversely impacted dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the receiving stream, i.e., the concentrations are comparable to other streams. Payne Creek has had lower nitrogen concentrations in most years than other measured streams, such as Joshua Creek, which has had no mining. Water used to recharge the ditch and berm system and maintain groundwater levels will be of high quality and is not expected to cause or contribute to adverse water quality impacts should they reach area surface waters as a part of base flow. The predicted reductions in stream flow, either during active mining and reclamation or after reclamation is complete, are not expected to have an adverse impact on the water quality of surface waters flowing through the Property or at any point downstream. Freshwater flows have a major role in determining the salinity in an estuary. The small reduction in fresh water flow during high-flow conditions predicted during mining and after reclamation of the Property is not expected to cause adverse impacts to salinity levels in the Charlotte Harbor Estuary. The small predicted impact is of insufficient magnitude to be measurable and, therefore, to warrant a reasonable concern. During active mining and reclamation activities at the Property, off-site drainage entering the Property will be unaffected by mining operations. Augmented base flow will be of high quality and runoff from undisturbed areas that reach surface waters on the Property will be the same as prior to the time mining commenced. Evidence presented at the final hearing demonstrated that, once mining and reclamation activities have been completed and the West Fork of Horse Creek has been reclaimed, surface water bodies on the Property or downstream in the Horse Creek and Myakka River are expected to achieve all applicable Class III surface water quality criteria. The proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Property are not expected to cause or contribute to a violation of Class I standards in the Manatee River. Charlotte County's expert witness, Dr. Janicki, opined that the proposed mining and reclamation project will not cause a violation of any currently applicable numerical water quality standards. Water quality sampling at the Property indicates that DO levels lower than the Class III standards currently occur in the West Fork of Horse Creek and in wetland systems at the Property. This is not an uncommon occurrence in natural systems. The DO levels in reclaimed wetlands at the Property will essentially mimic conditions in naturally occurring wetlands, and it is not anticipated that DO levels in the reclaimed wetlands will be depressed any more than occurs in a natural system. With regard to the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek, the reclaimed stream will be at least equivalent to the current ditched segment with regard to DO levels, and it is likely that DO levels will be improved overall since the design of the system will provide for a meandering channel and for the placement of logs or other obstructions in the channel which should increase aeration and thus potentially elevate DO. Opponents' expert Dr. Dunn agreed the existing water quality in the West Fork of Horse Creek is not as good as it is in the main channel of Horse Creek. Water quality monitoring carried out by IMC on reclaimed areas demonstrates that water leaving the reclaimed areas and entering surface water bodies meets applicable water quality standards. IMC will be required to monitor the quality of water in the reclaimed wetlands areas on the Property and will not be authorized by the Department to connect the reclaimed areas to the surface water system unless monitoring data demonstrate that water quality criteria are met. Under IMC's ERP Application, prior to any reclaimed wetland being reconnected to the off-site surface waters, there is one full year of water quality sampling required in order to demonstrate that water quality standards are met before the wetland is connected to the natural system, which is an extra safeguard not required in non-mining ERP applications. Moreover, there is credible evidence in the record of IMC's historical and successful use of AFWs and their effect on water quality. A study done by the Department in 1994 stated that the water quality indicators in an operational AFW were better than those same indicators at a natural site that did not have alternate flow-way characteristics. The weight of the evidence indicated that the water quality and biological integrity of the AFW will be in full compliance with the permitting requirements and with the state water quality standards. The weight of the evidence in the record does not indicate that the mining and restoration of the West Fork of Horse Creek will result in violations of water quality standards, as the water quality leaving the site during mining and after reclamation will be similar to the water quality that currently exists on-site. There are several reasons why water quality will not be adversely impacted: (1) a substantial portion of the watershed for the West Fork of Horse Creek lies north of the Property, and the water coming from this area will still move through the Property into the preserve area and off- site; (2) IMC will use best management practice berms to keep any runoff from active mine areas or cleared areas from entering the wetlands and streams associated with the flow way over the reclaimed wetlands precluding degradation of the water quality from those areas; and (3) IMC will use clean water in the recharge ditch system which will be seeping into the surrounding wetlands and the stream that is essentially feeding the wetlands with clean water augmenting the flow downstream. Groundwater Groundwater quality monitoring in the vicinity of the phosphate mining operations has demonstrated that such operations will not adversely impact the quality of groundwater in the vertical aquifer adjacent to mining operations or in the deeper intermediate or Florida aquifer systems. Impacts to Wetlands and Other Surface Waters Functions Provided to Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not adversely affect the value of functions provided to fish and wildlife, and listed species including aquatic and wetland dependent species, by wetlands, other surface water, and other water-related resources of SWFWMD. Prior to mining, pedestrian-type surveys of the Property will be conducted of the Property to determine the listed wildlife in order to avoid impacting particular species. Some species, including gopher tortoises, would be relocated to an unmined area. The weight of the evidence shows that IMC will minimize impacts to fish and wildlife through (a) a Conservation Easement, which preserves those areas with an abundance of habitat diversity, (b) through best management practice berms, which protect water quality of adjacent systems, and (c) through the AFW, which will allow continuous movement of fish and wildlife from areas north and south of the Property as well as creation of additional habitats. IMC's efforts to avoid and minimize the potential for impacts to fish and wildlife during mining and reclamation satisfy permitting rule requirements. Fish and wildlife functions in areas to be mined or disturbed at the Manson Jenkins Project will be temporarily impacted. The areas to be impacted typically are of lower ecological value while IMC has agreed to preserve a substantial amount of the higher quality wetlands on the Property together with, in some cases, important adjacent upland habitats. The impacts that do occur will be mitigated by the replacement of the impacted systems by more and higher quality systems than existed prior to mining. This includes the enhancement of the project with the wildlife corridor through the middle of the Property and improvements to the stream system. The Conservation Easement can be expected to protect the "habitat mosaic of the corridor." (The Conservation Easement on the Property includes approximately 521 acres.) Credible evidence also shows that IMC will satisfy permitting rule requirements after mining. Under the reclamation plan there will be diverse, connected habitats instead of the existing pre-mining single ditch and, primarily, agricultural land cover. There is also empirical data in the record concerning reclamation indicating that reclaimed areas were equal to or better for fish and invertebrate use when compared to natural systems, and similar results are also expected for IMC's reclamation. Both state and federal agencies approved the work plan of IMC used to survey wildlife at the Property. IMC's wildlife surveys are reasonable, which enabled the preparation of a comprehensive wildlife management plan. Avoidance and Mitigation Avoidance Phosphate ore underlies the land surface beneath waters and wetlands. Thus, it is not possible to avoid disturbance of these systems and still mine the valuable resource. See generally Section 378.201, Florida Statutes. IMC and the Department evaluated the quality of the waters and wetlands proposed for disturbance at the Property as part of the permit application process. Most of the wetlands systems deemed to be of higher quality through the application of the WRAP (Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure) analysis are being preserved. (The WRAP Procedure is an accepted procedure to evaluate wetland functions and assign a value based on several criteria. The first WRAP was developed by South Florida Water Management District. WRAP scores generally are numerical values that can be assigned on a per-unit-acre basis to wetlands that are an index of their functional value.) For all areas that are not avoided, IMC is required to take steps as part of its land reclamation process to mitigate the unavoidable impacts associated with mining the Property. It was suggested that IMC did not avoid impacts due to IMC's determination to mine approximately 17 acres of wetlands in the Manatee River Basin. This suggestion is not persuasive because over 316 acres of wetlands will be left unmined on the entire Property, which equates to approximately 45 percent of the wetlands on the Property, including over 70 percent of the forested wetlands on the Property. The weight of the evidence shows that IMC was prudent in balancing between avoidance of appropriate environmentally significant areas, such as some wetland systems, and the operational needs to reach the phosphate matrix that is underlying the Property. Also, approximately 3.7 tons of phosphate rock reserves underlie the preserved areas with a projected loss of total income of over $55 million. 2. Mitigation In the ERP Program, the term "mitigation ratio" refers to the wetlands or other surface waters and areas the applicant is proposing to, for example, create, restore, enhance, donate in kind, or preserve, versus the impacted wetlands. For example, a mitigation ratio of two to one means the applicant is proposing to mitigate or recreate two acres of wetlands for every acre that is being disturbed or impacted. Section 373.414(6)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that wetlands reclamation activities for, in part, phosphate mining undertaken "pursuant to chapter 378 shall be considered appropriate mitigation for [Part IV of Chapter 373] if they maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities." See also Section 3.3.1.6., Basis of Review. Mining, reclamation, and revegetation on the Property is expected to be completed within 15 years, including reclamation of the CSAs. The conceptual reclamation plan, which includes the Property, was approved by Department final agency action on March 20, 2001, pursuant to Chapter 378, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 62C-16, Florida Administrative Code. However, this approval does not mean that IMC is not required to prove reasonable assurances regarding its mitigation plan, which is discussed herein. Rule 62C-16.0051(4), Florida Administrative Code, requires the restoration of impacted wetlands on at least an acre-for-acre and type-for-type basis. Compliance with this provision is mandatory for phosphate mines. IMC's mitigation plan satisfies this acre-for-acre, type-for-type mitigation requirement. In addition to satisfying the mitigation guidelines contained in the permitting requirements, other factors such as (a) the low quality of the wetlands that are being disturbed due to historical ditching and draining to accommodate historical agricultural land uses, (b) the significant on-site preservation effort, and (c) the Integrated Habitat Network (IHN) that provides a regional benefit to wildlife and their habitats and to water quality and which represents mitigation beyond applicable requirements, all taken together demonstrate the appropriateness of IMC's mitigation plan. The total cost to IMC for wetlands mitigation at the Property is approximately $3.6 million. The number of acres of wetlands affected by the Manson Jenkins activities in the Myakka, Manatee, and Peace River Basins total approximately 361 acres. See Findings of Fact 76-77 and 95-96. IMC will reclaim 538 acres of wetlands as mitigation for the 361 acres of generally low quality wetlands that will be disturbed at the Property. The reclamation area wetlands will be designed to provide a diversity of habitat and function that does not presently exist at the Property. IMC's reclamation plan adequately mitigates for any impacts by creating approximately 538 total wetland acres distributed among these three basins. Additionally, those wetlands that are created will have associated upland buffers, which the existing wetlands do not, and these newly created buffers will provide additional, enhanced wildlife and water quality benefits at each created wetland. In the reclaimed landscape, a forested buffer is expected which will provide some wildlife and water quality benefits to each wetland. The created wetlands will be hydrated by the groundwater outflow from the recharge system. IMC has had experience in the reclamation of wetland systems in Florida. Since 1975, IMC and its predecessor company, Agrico Chemical Company, have reclaimed approximately 6,850 acres of wetlands. Biologists and reclamation experts Dr. Durbin and Dr. Clewell presented persuasive evidence that IMC is capable of successfully completing the proposed reclamation activity and that the ultimately reclaimed wetlands systems will restore long-term ecological value to the Property and adjacent areas. Nevertheless, restoration and reclamation of wetlands is not a perfect science; mistakes have been made, e.g., Dog Leg Branch, and are documented in this record. To his credit, Dr. Clewell agreed. However, several studies, including Charlotte Exhibits 29 and 31 and others, do not persuasively indicate that IMC's proposed reclamation and restoration proposal for the Manson Jenkins Project will not be successful or that IMC does not have the wherewithal and overall professional expertise to accomplish the desired result. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that IMC can effectively carry out the proposed reclamation plan as set forth in the ERP and that, with regard to waters and wetlands impacted by mining operations at the Property, it will effectively mitigate the unavoidable ecological losses associated with mining those areas. The ERP contains detailed success criteria for the required wetlands reclamation. Extensive monitoring is required and Department personnel carry out regular inspections of reclamation sites. Only after reclamation success criteria are achieved, including attainment of necessary water quality criteria, will the reclaimed wetlands be approved by the Department and reconnected to the natural system. Stated differently, the project will only be deemed to be officially successful after release by the Department. This does not mean, however, that reclaimed wetlands, including wetlands reclaimed by IMC, have not been or are not functional before release. This includes the Big Marsh. (It appears that the existence of nuisance species currently precludes the release of Big Marsh. Dr. Clewell advised that Big Marsh is very close to meeting all criteria for release right now. See Findings of Fact 231 and 265.) 3. Acre-for-Acre/Type-for-Type As noted above, Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, contains an acre-for-acre, type-for-type mitigation strategy for phosphate mining reclamation, and IMC's reclamation plan exceeds the one-to-one mitigation ratio contained in the mine reclamation rules of Chapter 378, Florida Statutes. Substantial evidence in the record exists to support the claim that the ecological value of the wetlands proposed to be reclaimed will be higher than the current ecological value of the wetlands that will be disturbed and are currently existing at the Property. There are two types of reclamation: herbaceous and forested reclamation. IMC has reclamation experience, and based on IMC's experts' evaluation of many reclaimed sites, the average WRAP value assigned to herbaceous systems is .64 and for forested systems is .73. The wetlands proposed to be disturbed at the Property have an average pre-mining score for herbaceous systems of .54 and for forested systems of .51. Once reclamation occurs, the reclaimed herbaceous systems at the Property will score 1.19 times the existing the value, or an approximate 20 percent improvement from the existing wetland systems at the Property. Significant ecological improvement is also evidenced for the Property's reclaimed forested wetlands that will have an improved value of approximately 43 percent. The evidence shows IMC used the WRAP procedure to value wetlands and the functions wetlands provide to fish and wildlife as well as the accompanying water quality and quantity issues at the Property. WRAP was used for the Manson Jenkins Project because it was required by similar permitting under the Clean Water Act for the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Department participated in the evaluation of the methodology used, including auditing the results in the field and on paper. But the Department did not accept or reject the methodology per se. On the other hand, the "King Formula" used by permit opponents' expert Dr. Dunn to critique IMC's reclamation proposal is a "completely different approach" from the regulatory requirement of acre-for-acre, type-for-type that is applicable to this ERP application. Further, the "King Formula" has not been accepted by the Department as an appropriate methodology for ERP evaluations, nor has Dr. Dunn ever before relied on the "King Formula" to support any ERP permit that he assisted in obtaining. There is credible evidence that even if the permit opponents' mitigation calculation (or "King's Formula") is applied, IMC would need 1.15 to 1 replacement for herbaceous systems and 1.27 to 1 replacement for forested systems. The record reflects IMC is required under the proposed ERP permit to have 1.38 to 1 replacement for herbaceous systems and 2.28 to 1 replacement for forested systems. Thus, IMC is committed to a more functionally equivalent mitigation objective than is calculated using the opponents' method for evaluating mitigation ratios. 4. Restoration of the West Fork of Horse Creek and Headwater Marsh The record shows that IMC has a successful history of restoration generally and, specifically, reclaiming headwater marshes as part of their overall mitigation experience. IMC's reclamation efforts have been recognized with both state and federal awards. Two examples of reclamation projects which appear to be functionally successful, although not yet released by the Department, are Big Marsh, which is a 229-acre headwater marsh flowing into Horse Creek, and the approximately 200-acre, P-20 Marsh, which is a headwater of Horse Creek, and next to Big Marsh. Both Big Marsh and P-20 Marsh show comparable features, placement, and functions when compared to their pre-mining condition and their current post-reclamation condition. The restoration efforts at the P-20 Marsh are relevant because it is similar to the Property in that it too was cleared of vegetation and ditched. Testimony shows that the benthic macroinvertebrate organisms, which are important to the successful functioning of a headwater marsh, are reasonably expected to be recolonized in the reclaimed system at the Property in a variety of permit- required habitats, which habitats are ecologically better than the existing habitat conditions on the Property. Further, the benthic invertebrate populations existing in the area north of the Property will be connected to the reclaimed Property enabling recolonization of the reclaimed marsh. IMC presented credible evidence that the excavated portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek will have ongoing, functional value and the reclaimed headwater marsh and stream system will at least maintain, but likely improve the water quality and function of the excavated portions of the West Fork of Horse Creek. IMC's reclamation plan is to recreate West Fork of Horse Creek to more resemble a natural Florida stream with a meandering flow-away with trees that shade the stream and provide improved habitats for fish and wildlife. Moreover, the existing West Fork of Horse Creek, though properly identified as a "first order stream," is a very small system with intermittent flow. The stream ordering system is a method of classifying the size of streams in terms of watershed basins and sub-basins. A "first order stream" is the smallest of the set of streams making up an entire drainage basin and is more a landscape or hydrologic indicator and does not necessarily indicate a stream's ecological value. The West Fork of Horse Creek is not a regionally- significant stream because the existing conditions at the West Fork of Horse Creek are degraded as a result of agricultural ditching, the ecologically poor uplands surrounding the area, and the overall presence of agricultural land. More specifically, the area proposed for mining in the West Fork of Horse Creek is of "very low ecological value, relative to what another first-order or headwater system might be." 5. Temporal Lag It has been asserted that there will be some temporal lag of ecological function at the Property because certain reclaimed systems will take some time to become mature. (Temporal lag is the phrase given to a lag time between the impact to a wetland system and the replacement of the functions once offered by the wetland system. Chapter 62C, Florida Administrative Code, does not require consideration of temporal lag in determining reclamation requirements. The weight of the evidence presented, however, shows that more acres of wetlands will be reclaimed than are being disturbed and the reclaimed systems will be of higher ecological value than the stressed systems proposed for mining. Furthermore, the evidence at hearing demonstrated that the total amount of wetland acreage at the Property is not significantly reduced. Also, fairly early in the mining and reclamation sequence, the total number of wetland acres on the Property are reasonably expected to exceed pre-mining conditions. Even using the worst-case scenario as proposed by opponents to the permit application with longer temporal lag (6 years instead of 3 years for herbaceous systems and 40 years instead of 20 years for forested systems), the resulting calculated required herbaceous system ratio of 1.21 to 1 is still less than the permit's requirement of 1.38 to 1. Similarly, the forested system's worst-case calculated ratio using permit opponents' unwarranted temporal lag assumptions is 1.74 to 1, which is still less than the 2.28 to 1 permit requirement. Further, the evidence shows that doubling the time between the removal of the systems and mitigation, from 4 to 8 years, results in a herbaceous ratio of 1.39 to 1 and a forested ratio of 2.04 to 1, which indicates that even if the time between impacts and mitigation were doubled, IMC's reclamation plan would still be adequately mitigating for any impacts. 6. Iron and Manganese IMC's expert explained the scientific research performed on behalf of the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research involving 11 phosphate mines and more than 40 exploratory wells and borings to evaluate the water quality of mined lands. There were no exceedances of standards with the exception of iron and manganese, which were expected to exceed standards because Florida has high background concentrations of iron manganese oxide in the soil. There is no reason to believe Manson Jenkins’ activities will cause adverse impacts to wetlands due to "groundwater perturbations." 7. "Flocculation" (Iron Bacteria) There is credible evidence that iron bacteria is a naturally-occurring substance and is common in Florida soils. Dr. Durbin testified that iron bacteria is not a reasonable concern for the Manson Jenkins Project. A benefit provided by the proposed reclaimed streams, wetlands, and lakes is that these are natural treatment systems that, in the case of iron bacteria, will remove iron from the water and will not cause any off-site concerns. Secondary Impacts 1. General Rule 40D-4.301(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code, requires an applicant to provide reasonable assurance that the project will not cause adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. IMC presented credible evidence that the proposed mining and reclamation activities at the Project will not cause any adverse secondary impacts to the water resources. 2. Stability of CSA's and Associated Dams Mr. Partney, the Department's dam safety engineer, has been involved with the state of Florida's current dam safety program since its inception approximately six years ago, and has been in charge of the dam safety program since its inception. He testified that no inundation studies are necessary for the clay-settling ponds and their associated dams in this project because these are not high hazard dams. The record does not support permit opponents' statement that the proposed Manson Jenkins CSAs are considered high hazard dams. As a result, inundation studies are not required to be performed to determine the risk and consequences of a discharge. The Department's dam safety program rules are contained in Rule 62-672, Florida Administrative Code, and regulate the construction of the dams surrounding CSAs by specifically requiring soil testing, cross-section design work, and stability analysis, among other design safety factors that incorporate engineering practices employed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers under their dam construction rules. The dam failures that have occurred in the past were dams constructed prior to the implementation of this rule except for one, IMC's Hopewell Mine dam. This dam failure was investigated by a "blue ribbon panel," including Mr. Partney. The cause of the failure was determined, and the problem with that failure corrected in the current version of the rule. The weight of the evidence also supports IMC's commitment to dam safety as evidenced by IMC's response to this dam failure. IMC voluntarily agreed to remove all pre-rule, non-engineered dams from operations, and within one and a-half years, IMC had categorized, inventoried, and taken out of service all non-engineered structures. Also, IMC has a Site Preparedness Plan, otherwise called an emergency plan, that prescribes actions should the signs of a potential failure be detected. Weekly inspections are required and documented. The testimony of permit opponents' expert Dr. Dunn supports the fact that the probability of a failure of a CSA and its associated dam is low. Mr. Partney shares this view, i.e., CSAs are "extremely safe" and there is about a "one in two million chance or so of one of them failing." 3. Authority's Withdrawals from the Peace River The weight of the evidence indicates that the Manson Jenkins Project will not adversely affect the Authority's permitted limits on the withdrawal of water from the Peace River because the activities at the Property will not physically affect the flow of the Peace River, upstream of its confluence with Horse Creek at the Arcadia gauge station, which is the station that determines the Authority's permitted allowance to withdraw water. IMC's expert in environmental hydrodynamics and estuarine physics, credibly testified that the slight potential reduction in freshwater flow due to Manson Jenkins’ activities has little or no potential to negatively impact salinity concerns in downstream water bodies. 4. Ditch and Berm Protection of Wetlands There was credible testimony that the ditch and berm system is a best management practice to ensure the protection of the hydrologic systems adjoining the Property. See Findings of Fact 31-42. IMC's expert, Dr. Garlanger, is one of the co-authors of the criteria used by IMC to engineer these BMPs ditch and berm systems, and the weight of the evidence indicates that the proposed ditch and berm system will protect the water quality of the surrounding wetlands systems as well as maintain the hydrologic regime of the off-site systems. Minimum Flows and Levels Pursuant to Rule 40D-4.301(1)(g), Florida Administrative Code, an ERP applicant must provide reasonable assurance that its proposed activities will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. This subsection references minimum flows and levels. The Department has not established minimum flows and levels. The water management districts establish minimum levels for aquifers and surface waters and minimum flows for surface water courses pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes. The Department is "very involved with the districts in developing those minimum flows and levels as part of [the Department's] supervisory authority." In the case of ERP applications filed with the Department for facilities located within SWFWMD's jurisdiction, it is the minimum flows and levels established by SWFWMD that are protected from adverse impact pursuant to Subsection 40D-4.301(1)(g). However, the weight of the evidence, especially the testimony of Department witnesses, indicates that minimum flow and levels adopted pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, must be established by rule, and not a permit condition that only applies to one permittee, such as the Authority. SWFWMD has not established, by rule, a minimum flow or level pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, for any water body impacted or potentially impacted by the proposed mining or reclamation at the Property, including the Peace River. The proposed mining and reclamation activity, therefore, will not adversely impact the maintenance of any minimum flows and levels established by law. Works of the District Rule 40D-4.301(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, provides that reasonable assurance be given that a project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the district, here SWFWMD, established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statues. The weight of the evidence indicates there will be no adverse impact to any surface water body on or downstream of the Property either from a water quality standpoint or from a water quantity standpoint. Accordingly, there will be no adverse impacts to a "work of the district" established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes. See also Finding of Fact 72. This proceeding is to determine IMC's entitlement to an ERP, not a "work of the district" permit. It has been the practice of the Department, that if an ERP is issued by the Department, the permittee does not need to also obtain a separate "work of the district" permit. However, SWFWMD's "work of the district" rule has not been adopted by the Department. Effective Performance and Function Engineering and Scientific Capability The mining and reclamation activities proposed for the Property are capable, based upon generally acceptable scientific principals, of being effectively performed and functioning as proposed, including the AFW, ditch and berm systems, the reclaimed wetland areas, and the reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek Stream Channel. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(i), Florida Administrative Code. Financial, Legal and Administrative Capability IMC has all necessary legal property rights to mine and reclaim the Property as lessee under a mining lease issued by the Property owners. IMC has demonstrated by the weight of the evidence that it is an entity with financial, legal and administrative capability of ensuring that the activities proposed at the Property will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the ultimately issued ERP, including the additional agreed permit condition referenced below. See Rule 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code. IMC is a large business with assets in excess of $1.6 billion. IMC also presented credible evidence that it has provided Manatee County with a reclamation bond in the amount of $17 million to cover all reclamation liability existing in Manatee County at that time, including the upcoming year that IMC plans to mine. IMC has agreed to provide Manatee County with a general surety bond of $1 million and an environmental risk insurance policy in the amount of $10 million. At hearing, the Department requested and IMC agreed to have the following permit condition added to the ERP upon issuance: At least thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of mining operations, the final version of the financial responsibility mechanism required by Section 3.3.7.6 of the Basis of Review shall be provided to and approved by the Department as required by Rule 40D-4.301(1)(j), Florida Administrative Code (October 1995) and Rule 62-330.200(3), Florida Administrative Code. After reclamation of the Property, IMC has in place a Conservation Easement that places restrictions, such as requiring all regulatory approvals to be obtained, and imposes required management practices in the event that agricultural operations are initiated by a third party. Credible evidence in the record supports IMC's historical efforts in reclaiming wetland systems such as Big Marsh despite suggestions that IMC has not demonstrated the capability to restore marsh systems because, e.g., Big Marsh has not been "released" by the Department. Although this system has not been "released," this system is ecologically valuable. See Findings of Fact 225 and 231. Public Interest Test Several statutory and rule criteria must be considered and balanced to determine whether IMC's proposed activity's on the Property are not contrary to the public interest. See Section 373.414(1), Florida Statutes; Rule 40D- 4.302(1)(a)1-5, and 7, Florida Administrative Code. Public Health Safety or Welfare or the Property of Others As noted elsewhere in this Recommended Order, the proposed project will not cause adverse water quality, water quantity or flooding on the Property or at any point off the Property. The mining and reclamation activities will be carried out within private property subject to security and control by IMC. The CSAs proposed to be constructed at the Property will be designed and constructed in accordance with strict regulatory requirements. A separate Department permit must be applied for and issued before construction of a CSA may commence. The weight of the evidence indicates that the chance of failure of any dam designed and constructed in accordance with current rule provisions is remote, e.g., one in two million according to Mr. Partney. See Findings of Fact 50-57, 161-165, and 244-247. 2. Conservation of Fish and Wildlife The proposed activity at the Property will not cause adverse impacts to natural systems that are not directly subject to disturbance. The ditch and berm system will protect adjacent areas from direct surface water impacts and will maintain groundwater conditions so that preserved wetland systems will continue to function during mining activities. The mining activities will be conducted in a sequence designed to minimize impacts on mobile wildlife species. By mining in the area farthest away from the preserved wetlands in the south and moving in that direction, these wildlife will be able to relocate into the preserved areas. During active mining operations, the mining areas provide value to wildlife. Many bird species use CSAs and active mine cuts during mine activities. Other animals, including raccoons, deer, possums, armadillos, snakes, and frogs use the mine areas while mining is being conducted. IMC has surveyed the Property to identify plant and animal species present at the site and developed a wildlife management plan which was included as part of the application with the ERP. This plan addresses potentially listed threatened or endangered species that could be found on the Property now or in the future and prescribes measures for protecting those listed species. The wildlife management plan comports with good scientific practice. The proposed reclamation will enhance conservation of fish and wildlife values over that currently present at the Property. Currently the site contains several small wetland systems spread out over the site connected by ditches. These wetlands are generally surrounded by pasture. The proposed reclamation plan will consolidate the wetlands into a larger contiguous mass along the West Fork of Horse Creek and will provide for an adjacent upland corridor. The upland corridor will provide additional habitats for species that may use it as a transitional zone between a wetland and an upland. IMC's voluntary establishment of a Conservation Easement over the preserved wetlands in the south portion of the Property and the reclaimed wetland system within and adjacent to the West Fork of Horse Creek in the north provide reasonable assurance that the fish and wildlife values inherent in these areas will be protected. (The Conservation Easement covers approximately 521 acres of wetlands on-site.) In addition, this system upon completion will act as a wildlife corridor of approximately 2.5 miles in length along the West Fork of Horse Creek and will connect to a larger network of habitat corridors known as the IHN. See Finding of Fact 216. IHN is a regional conceptual plan developed by the Department in 1992 for the entire Southern Phosphate District of Florida (1.3 million acres in Polk, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and DeSoto Counties) and is intended to link existing wildlife habitats, thereby allowing wildlife populations the ability to travel throughout reclaimed areas and publicly owned lands. 3. Navigation, Flow or Harmful Erosion or Shoaling The West Fork of Horse Creek on the Property is not a navigable waterway. The AFW will be vegetated before it is put into operation. It is specifically designed to handle high flow stream events, including the 100-year flood event, and will not erode or cause downstream erosion. Any sharp bends in the AFW way will be stabilized prior to use. The reclaimed West Fork of Horse Creek will be reclaimed as a natural system and will be able to manage high flows without experiencing erosion in the reclaimed stream channel or causing erosion downstream. 4. Fishing, Recreational Values or Marine Productivity The Property is privately owned and does not support public recreation or fishing activities. Following completion of mining reclamation activities, fish and wildlife values in the reclaimed wetlands and waters will be enhanced. 5. Temporary or Permanent Nature Phosphate mining, by its very nature, strips and deprives the land of existing resources, and its effects cannot be underestimated. Dr. Dunn characterizes phosphate mining as destroying the land. Nevertheless, phosphate mining is considered a temporary disturbance of the land, see Section 378.201, Florida Statutes, when compared to other types of activities. Unlike other types of activities, such as commercial or residential development, mining is completed within a finite period of time, and land reclamation follows thereafter resulting in the return of the land to other valuable land forms. 6. Current Conditions and Relative Value of Functions Performed by Affected Areas The proposed activity on the Property will not have an adverse effect on the condition and relative value of functions currently being performed at the Property in areas that will not be disturbed by mining. The areas to be disturbed by mining reflect man-induced changes over the years and provide relatively limited ecological value on the whole. Cumulative Impacts General The Department's method for evaluating the potential impacts from individual ERPs satisfies regulatory consideration of cumulative impacts of a project because so long as phosphate mines mitigate in the same drainage basin as the impacts of the proposed activity and meet the statutory and rule requirements, there will be no cumulative impacts. See Section 373.414(8)(b), Florida Statutes. The Department's evaluation includes the conceptual reclamation plan, which is mandated by Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, that describes the complete mining plan and activities for a site as well as the site's reclamation plans and the Integrated Habitat Network plan. Further, the Department's policy of analyzing similar projects (in the case of IMC's permit application that means other phosphate mines) is reasonable because phosphate mining is a temporary activity that reclaims the land to an enhanced natural system. Other types of development, such as residential and industrial, are not temporary in nature. Additionally, the Manson Jenkins Project received regional review and approval as part of IMC's Development of Regional Impact process from the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, which distributed information concerning the Manson Jenkins Project to the Central Florida Regional Planning Council and Manatee County. The weight of the evidence indicates that there will be no adverse water quality impacts on undisturbed areas at the Property or at any downstream location. There are no adverse water quantity impacts on or off the Property. Implementation of the reclamation plan approved by the Department pursuant to Chapter 378, Florida Statutes, and the mitigation which will be provided, as proven in this proceeding, will maintain or improve the water quality and the function of the biological systems present at the site prior to the commencement of mining activities and thus constitute appropriate mitigation. Such mitigation will occur on the Property and will be in the same drainage basins where the activities are proposed. 2. IMC's Cumulative Impact Calculations Although the Department does not require the type of cumulative impact analysis permit opponents suggest is needed, Dr. Garlanger testified that IMC performed an analysis on the Horse Creek Watershed Basin involving the existing Ft. Green and Four Corners Mines and the future Ona Mine. IMC assessed the impact of past, current, and future mining activities in the Peace River Basin on the flow in the Peace River Basin and on Horse Creek on a cumulative basis. The predictive cumulative impact assessment modeling performed by Dr. Garlanger analyzed the future long-term potential impacts on stream flow by determining the capture during previous mining activities as a baseline period and the resulting impact from the reclamation activities for that baseline. This was then compared with the potential decreases in runoff due to the capture in the areas that are planned to be mined and reclaimed in the future. The cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC made a predictive assessment through the year 2020, which includes mining at the Property as well as mining proposed for three new mines (Ona Mine, Pine Level Mine, and Farmland-Hydro Hardee County Mine) that are in the Horse Creek Basin and existing mines that would be mining at times up to the year 2020. In order to ensure a worst-case prediction, Dr. Garlanger in his analysis assumed that all the direct surface runoff from all of the mining areas would be captured within the mine recirculation systems and consumed in the process and not available to contribute to stream flow in the area. The analysis then assumed that to the extent an area was captured, it would reduce stream flow by that amount in the areas that normally would have flowed to the natural surface water systems. A cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC concluded that for approximately 70 to 80 percent of the time there is essentially no impact on the flow in Horse Creek. Further, reduction in flow during high-flow periods, which is approximately 10 percent of the time, would reduce the flow depth from 7.46 feet to approximately 7.18 feet or less than .3 of a foot and for one percent of the time the reduction in the flow would be from 12.8 to 12.6 feet. These are the predicted impacts if all the potential capture for Horse Creek occurred. The changes in the depths of these waters, during high-flow periods, will likely have a positive impact on decreasing the amount of flooding during a high-flow period. During other times there is no adverse impact from decreasing water by just a few inches out of several feet of water. The same type of cumulative analysis was performed for the entire Peace River Basin. The areas mined and the areas reclaimed were determined using the same maximum potential capture and decreased runoff due to reclamation. Calculations were performed as to the potential decreased stream flow in the Peace River above Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor due to past, current, and future mining activities. Similar to the Horse Creek Basin analysis, Dr. Garlanger used the maximum potential capture and maximum decrease in the stream flow resulting from reclamation and calculated the maximum expected decrease in stream flow in the Peace River Basin above Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor for both the baseline condition and the future mining period through the year 2020. This analysis determined that for approximately 80 percent of the time there will be no impact on the Peace River. The only impact is a small increase in flows during high-flow periods at the Arcadia station. Similarly, at the point where the Peace River empties into Charlotte Harbor, the differences in stream flow are practically immeasurable and, if anything, there is predicted a slight increase in flow. The flow will increase slightly because the average area that was captured during the baseline period decreases over time, meaning there is less area for rainfall capture within mining recirculation systems. Though the cumulative impact analysis performed by IMC does show a slight reduction in flow in the Horse Creek, the impact will be a decrease in the stream flow depth of less than 3 or 4 inches in water that is already 7.5 feet and 12.8 feet deep, respectively, which few inches will not cause any adverse impact. Further, the analysis showed that for the same rainfall the overall flow in the Peace River at Arcadia and at Charlotte Harbor through the period 2020 will actually be greater than during the past 19-year period. Furthermore, phosphate mining operations do pump water from the Floridan aquifer system to use in their operations. Deep groundwater pumping can contribute to reduced flow in the Peace River, but phosphate mine operators have substantially reduced their withdrawal of deep well groundwater over the last decade, and it is not anticipated that any substantial increase in use will occur in the future. IMC's withdrawals of groundwater for mining activities conducted at the company's mines, including the Property, have been authorized by the issuance of Water Use Permit No. 20114000 by SWFWMD. 3. Flow Impacts There is significant testimony concerning an analysis of the impacts of phosphate mining and reclamation on a watershed. IMC's expert Peter Schreuder performed an analysis involving the Peace River, Alafia, and Withlacoochee River Basins. Phosphate mining activities take place in the Peace River and Alafia River Basins and no phosphate mining activities taken place in the Withlacoochee River Basin. Each of these watersheds has a gauging station (a place where flows are electronically measured on a continual basis going out of a watershed) maintained by the United States Geological Survey. The analysis performed by IMC's expert compared the pattern of flow in watersheds where no phosphate mining was taking place with flow patterns in watersheds where phosphate mining was occurring. IMC's expert gathered data from the farthest downstream gauging station at each of these three watersheds; the data dated back to nearly 1935. This data provided actual measured flow data, with rainfall as the driving variable. The purpose of the analysis was to determine if phosphate mining was having an influence on flow. It is alleged that phosphate mining reduces flow. If the allegation is correct, the trend would be downward because less flow in the river would be expected. However, the weight of the evidence showed that under normal flow conditions, mined basins have more flow than unmined basins and in storm events the mined basins moderate the runoff to some minor degree by attenuating runoff and allowing for a slower and later release as beneficial, normal, base flow instead of flood flows. 4. Non-Mining Impacts There is convincing evidence in the record that other types of developments expected in the Peace River Basin, which include commercial and residential development as well as agricultural development, do not have the potential to capture surface runoff to the extent of mining activities. Additionally, residential and commercial development, because they result in lower evaporation due to the abundant impervious areas, result in an increased runoff in the basin. Thus, if these types of developments were included in the impact analysis, there would be an additional increase in runoff. G. Specific Conditions The draft ERP sets forth numerous general and specific conditions. Petitioners and Intervenors question the sufficiency of several specific conditions. In particular, Specific Condition 4.c. requires IMC to collect and report flow data from the AFW, but does not identify a reference stream or indicate what the Department is do with the data and how the data is to be evaluated. Mr. Partney convincingly suggested that these issues should be included in Specific Condition 4.c. On this record, it is difficult to conclusively determine which stream should be used as a reference stream. Pursuant to its special expertise, the Department should consider adding supplemental language to clarify these issues. See generally Reedy Creek Improvement District v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 486 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Specific Condition 12.b.i. requires that "[t]he created replacement stream for the West Fork of Horse Creek shall have a similar hydroperiod to the upper reaches of the preserved area of Horse Creek." Mr. Partney suggested that while "there may be some impacts going on," "they're not as significant in terms of the ratio of the impact to the ratio of the project area at that point. There would be--certain to be significant area of watershed that was not experiencing impacts. And a substantial portion of the Horse Creek in this area is preserved. So there is some assurance at that point that there will be sufficient natural conditions to give [the Department] the data [the Department] needs." Nevertheless, the monitoring of flow patterns is critical to the success of this project. In this light, the Department should endeavor to assure itself that the portion of the Horse Creek to be used for comparison is suitable for the purposes reflected in Specific Condition 12.b.i.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that a final order be rendered as follows: Petitioners and Intervenors have standing to challenge the issuance of ERP No. FL 0142476-003; IMC provided reasonable assurance that it has the ability to comply with the conditions of draft ERP No. FL 0142476-003; IMC has complied with all conditions for final issuance of draft ERP No. FL 0142476-003; ERP No. FL 0142476-003 be issued with the following additional permit condition: At least thirty (30) days prior to the initiation of mining operations, the final version of the financial responsibility mechanism required by Section 3.3.7.6 of the Basis of Review shall be provided to and approved by the Department as required by Rule 40D-4.301(l)(j), Florida Administrative Code (October 1995), and Rule 62-330.200(3), Florida Administrative Code. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES A. STAMPELOS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Teri L. Donaldson, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Aliki Moncrief, Esquire Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund Post Office Box 1329 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Edward P. de la Parte, Jr., Esquire Vivian Arenas, Esquire De la Parte & Gilbert, P.A. Post Office Box 2350 Tampa, Florida 33601-2350 Martha Y. Burton, Esquire Charlotte County Attorney's Office 18500 Murdock Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948-1094 Alan Behrens 4070 Southwest Armadillo Trail Arcadia, Florida 34266 Douglas Manson, Esquire David M. Pearce, Esquire Carey, O'Malley, Whitaker & Manson, P.A. 712 South Oregon Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606 John R. Thomas, Esquire Thomas & Associates, P.A. 233 3rd Street, North, Suite 302 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Thomas L. Wright, Esquire Lee County Attorney's Office 2115 Second Street Post Office Box 398 Ft. Myers, Florida 33902 Alan W. Roddy, Esquire Sarasota County Attorney's Office 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Second Floor Sarasota, Florida 34236 Roger W. Sims, Esquire Rory C. Ryan, Esquire Jeff Donner, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 2600 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert L. Rhodes, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, Northwest Washington, DC 20006 Susan L. Stephens, Esquire Holland & Knight LLP 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia A. Petruff, Esquire Dye, Deitrich, Prather, Petruff & St. Paul, P.L. 1111 Third Avenue, Suite 300 Bradenton, Florida 34205 Craig D. Varn, Esquire Doreen Jane Irwin, Esquire 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On November 29, 1988, Respondent, Trans Pac, Inc., (Trans Pac), a development company, filed its initial application for a construction permit to build a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in Escambia County, Florida. Trans Pac's stock is owned by James Dahl of Los Angeles, California. Trans Pac's president is Steven Andrews. Steven Andrews is also president of The Andrews Group, d/b/a Chemical Development Company. Chemical Development Company is in the business of developing hazardous waste facilities. Sometime after filing its application, Trans Pac advertised for interested persons to contact it about the possible sale of the facility. At the time of the hearing, Trans Pac had not had any serious offers for the property and had not finally decided whether it will sell the facility. Trans Pac is seriously considering a joint venture arrangement, although no specifics as to such an arrangement have been formalized or finalized. When consideration is given to the unripe nature of this "proposed sale", it cannot be concluded that the above facts constitute competent and reliable evidence which would support the conclusion that Trans Pac had failed to give such reasonable assurances that the facility would be operated in accordance with Florida law. Too much speculation is required before such a conclusion can be reached. However, Trans Pac has stipulated that it will publish a notice of any sale prior to the closing of that sale if that event should occur. The notice would be published in accordance with the provisions and time periods established in Rule 17-103.15, Florida Administrative Code, and should afford an affected person a reasonable time to challenge the sale before the sale closes. Any contract of sale would incorporate the notice requirements and the sale would be made contingent upon compliance with the above conditions. Such a notice would afford any affected person the opportunity to challenge the ability of the transferee to operate the facility. With the above stipulation made a part of any permit, there is no failure by Trans Pac to provide reasonable assurances that the facility will be operated in accordance with Florida law. Escambia County is within the West Florida Planning Region. The West Florida Planning Region consists of Bay County, Escambia County, Holmes County, Okaloosa County, Santa Rosa County, Walton County and Washington County. The proposed site for the facility is just outside the community of Beulah, on County Road 99, northeast of and adjacent to the Perdido Landfill. The site is not within, but adjacent to the area designated by the West Florida Regional Planning Council as an area on which a hazardous waste temporary storage and transfer facility could be located. 2/ The proposed site is approximately one mile away from the Perdido River, an outstanding Florida water. The area is primarily a rural area. When the proposed location of this facility was announced in the local news, the value of property around the proposed site decreased. One person, who was within a few miles of the proposed site, lost the contract of sale on his property and was advised by the purchasers that no reduction in price would renew their interest. Another individual's property in the same area decreased in value by approximately $10,000. Many people in the Beaulah area had their dreams and the quiet enjoyment of their property threatened by the location of this facility. Some cannot afford to sell their property and relocate. At present there is no mechanism by which any of the property owners in proximity to the proposed site can recoup their losses. Some property owners believe that such a mechanism should include the establishment of some type of independent trust fund funded with enough money to cover an estimate of such losses, and an independent review of any disputed claims of loss. However, there is no provision under Florida law to impose a permit condition which establishes a procedure to cover the pecuniary losses of property owners close to the facility. The proposed facility will be a permanent storage and treatment facility and will have a maximum waste storage capacity of 106,000 gallons and a maximum treatment capacity of 2,000 gallons per day for neutralization, 5,000 gallons per day for organic separation, 2,000 gallons per day for ozonation, and 4,000 gallons per day for solidification. Hazardous waste is a solid waste which exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: a) ignitability, b) corrosivity, c) reactivity, d) EP toxicity. Such waste can be further classified as a toxic waste or as an acute hazardous waste. 3/ An acute hazardous waste is a solid waste which has been found to be fatal to humans in low doses or, has been shown in studies to have an oral, inhalation or dermal toxicity to rats or rabbits at a certain level, or has been shown to significantly contribute to an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness. A toxic waste is any waste containing any one of a number of specified constituents. A "characteristic" of hazardous waste is identified and defined only when a solid waste with a certain type of characteristic may: a) cause or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness, or b) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when it is improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of or otherwise managed, and the characteristic can be: a) measured by an available standardized test, or b) can be reasonably detected by generators of solid waste through their knowledge of their waste. Put simply, hazardous waste is very dangerous to both humans and the environment and will kill or permanently incapacitate living beings and/or make the environment unlivable. Such waste has the potential to create a hazardous waste desert. A solid waste has the characteristic of ignitability if: a) it is a liquid, other than an aqueous solution containing 24 percent alcohol, which has a flashpoint of 60.C (140.F), b) it is not a liquid and is capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of causing fire through friction, absorption of moisture or spontaneous chemical changes and, when ignited burns so vigorously and persistently that it creates a hazard, c) it is an ignitable compressed gas, or d) it is an oxidizer. A solid waste has the characteristic of corrosivity if: a) it is aqueous and has a pH less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12.5 (strong acids or bases), or b) it is a liquid and corrodes steel at a rate greater than 6.35 millimeters (0.250 inch) per year at a test temperature of 55.C (130.F). A solid waste has the characteristic of reactivity if: a) it is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent change without detonating, b) it reacts violently with water, c) it forms potentially explosive mixtures with water, d) when mixed with water, it generates toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment, e) it is a cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, vapors or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment, f) it is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under confinement, g) it is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at standard temperature and pressure, or h) it is a forbidden or Class B explosive as defined in another federal rule. A solid waste has the characteristic of EP toxicity, if, using certain test methods, the extract from a representative sample of the waste contains certain contaminants (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, silver, endrin, lindane, etc.) at a concentration greater than or equal to specified levels for that contaminant. Although the above definitions sound exotic, the wastes which are defined are more often than not the waste generated by routine, normal living. Such waste is the result of almost any type of motor vehicle or machinery maintenance, such as oil and battery changes, metals manufacturing and finishing services, including auto body repair services, transportation services, construction and building repair services, medical and laboratory services, boat building and repair services, dry cleaning, printing of newspapers and 4/ magazines or agriculture, such as gardening. Further, such waste is generated by almost every commercial business category. Almost every person is either directly responsible through use or manufacture, or indirectly responsible through demand for a product or life-style, for the generation of hazardous waste in small quantities. These small individual quantities of hazardous waste add up to a significant portion of all the hazardous waste generated in this state and a significant portion of this waste is not disposed of properly. Improper disposal includes sending the waste to a local landfill or pouring such waste down the drain. Trans Pac's proposed facility will not be permitted for radioactive waste. The types of waste which will be treated and/or stored at the proposed facility are: Singularly or in any combination: D002 Waste --- A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity, but is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261. D003 Waste --- A solid waste that exhibits the characteristic of reactivity, but is not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261. D004 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant arsenic D005 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant barium D006 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant cadmium D007 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant chromium D008 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant lead D010 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant mercury D011 Waste --- EP toxicity, contaminant silver Singularly or in any combination: F001 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent halogenated solvents used in degreasing: tetrachloroethylene trichloroethylene, 1,1, 1-trichloroethane, methylene chloride, carbon tetrachloride, and chlorinated fluorocarbons, all spent solvent mixtures/blends used in degreasing containing, before use, 10 percent or more of one or more of the above halogenated solvents or those listed in F002, F004, or F005; still bottoms from the recovery of these solvents and mixtures F002 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, chlorobenzene, 1, 1, 2-trichlor-1, 2, 2-trifluoroethane, ortho-dichlorobenzene trichlorofluoromethane, 1, 1, 2 - trichloroethane, spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of one of the solvents listed in F001, F004, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F003 Waste --- IGNITABLE -- Spent non-halogenated solvents: xylene, acetone, ethyl acetate, ethyl benzene, ethyl ether, methyl isobutyl ketone, n-butyl alcohol, cyclohexanone, methanol, all spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, one or more of the above non-halogenated solvents and a total of 10 percent or more of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F004, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F004 Waste --- TOXIC -- Spent non-halogenated solvents: creosols and cresylic acid, nitrobenzene, spent solvent mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or the solvents listed in F001, F002, F005; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F005 Waste --- IGNITABLE, TOXIC -- Spent non- halogenated solvents: toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, benzene, 2-ethoxyethanol, 2- nitropropane, spent solvent Mixtures/blends containing, before use, a total of 10 percent or more of the above non-halogenated solvents or those solvents listed in F001, F002, F004; and still bottoms from the recovery of these spent solvents and mixtures F006 Waste ---TOXIC -- Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating from certain specified processes Singularly or in any combination: F007 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cyanide plating bath solutions from electroplating operations F008 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Plating bath residues from the bottom of plating baths from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process F009 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cleaning and stripping bath solutions from electroplating operations where cyanides are used in the process F010 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC --Quenching bath residues from oil baths from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process F011 Waste --- REACTIVE, TOXIC -- Spent cyanide solutions from salt bath pot cleaning from metal heat treating operations F012 Waste --- TOXIC --Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat treating operations where cyanides are used in the process Singularly or in any combination: Petroleum refining: K048 Waste --- TOXIC -- Dissolved air flotation (DAF) float from the petroleum refining industry K049 Waste --- TOXIC -- slop oil emulsion solids from the petroleum refining industry K050 Waste --- TOXIC -- heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge from the petroleum refining industry K051 Waste --- TOXIC -- API separator sludge from the petroleum refining industry K052 Waste --- TOXIC --- tank bottoms (leaded) from the petroleum refining industry Iron and steel: K062 Waste --- CORROSIVE, TOXIC -- spent pickle liquor generated by steel finishing operations of facilities within the iron and steel industry Ink formulation: K086 Waste --- TOXIC -- solvent washes and sludges, caustic washes and sludges, or water washes and sludges from cleaning tubs and equipment used in the formulation of ink from pigments, driers, soaps and stabilizers containing chromium and lead Secondary lead: K100 Waste --- TOXIC -- wastewater leaching solution from acid leaching of emission control dust/sludge from secondary lead smelting The federal law which governs hazardous waste is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its amendments. The RCRA was part of the initial federal effort to manage hazardous waste and expressed a clear preference for the reduction of hazardous waste over managing such wastes at treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The Act required EPA to develop a national plan to manage and regulate hazardous waste and provide states with incentives to develop state hazardous waste management plans. Most of the incentives were based on the availability of federal funds. The federal funds were contingent on the states assuring EPA that a particular disposal site would be available for disposal of any waste generated by a remedial action taken under the Act. In 1980, Congress passed the Comprehensive Emergency Response Liability Act (CERCLA). The Act granted EPA the authority and funds to respond to uncontrolled site cleanup, emergency remedial activities, spills and other incidents due to hazardous waste. 5/ As of November, 1989, five such remedial sites are located in Escambia County. The Act also defines the liability of businesses that generate, transport and dispose of hazardous waste. Generators of hazardous waste, generally, have "cradle to grave" liability for the waste they generate. In 1980, the Florida Legislature enacted the state's first hazardous waste law. The law primarily adopted the federal regulations and guidelines on hazardous waste and established separate procedures for permitting and site selection of hazardous waste facilities. The act also directed DER to develop and implement a state hazardous waste management plan. The portions of the 1980 law relative to site selection (403.723, Florida Statutes) provided a cabinet override of a local decision adverse to the location of a hazardous waste facility. In order to obtain a cabinet override, the facility had to have been issued a permit by DER. Need for a hazardous waste facility was not addressed in either the permitting or site selection processes of the Act. In 1983, the legislature passed the Water Quality Assurance Act. The Act amended 403.723, Florida Statutes, to provide that each county prepare a Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment and "designate areas within the County at which a hazardous waste storage facility could be constructed to meet a demonstrated need." The Act further provided in 403.723, Florida Statutes, that, after the counties had completed their assessments, each regional planning council, likewise, would prepare a regional Hazardous Waste Facility Needs Assessment and "designate sites at which a regional hazardous waste storage or treatment facility could be constructed." The regional Assessment included a determination of the quantities and types of hazardous waste generated in the region, a determination of the hazardous waste management practices in use within the region, a determination of the demand for offsite hazardous waste management services, a determination of existing and proposed offsite management capacity available to hazardous waste generators, a determination of the need for additional offsite hazardous waste facilities within the region, and the development of a plan to manage the hazardous waste generated in the region and/or to provide additional offsite hazardous waste treatment or storage facility needs. As noted earlier, these plans and designations were required to be made part of the county and regional comprehensive plans. The regional Assessment was completed by the West Florida Regional Planning Council in August of 1985. The assessment was based on a survey of suspected hazardous waste generators in the region. An overall response rate of 76.8 percent was received. The study showed that all types of hazardous waste, except for cyanide waste, are generated within the West Florida Planning Region. 6/ The quantity of hazardous waste produced annually within the region was estimated to be 14,245,064 pounds. The estimates for each County were as follows: Escambia County, 4,582,872 pounds; Okaloosa County, 3,203,534 pounds; Bay County, 2,433,343 pounds; Santa Rosa County, 1,866,831 pounds; Holmes County, 381,840 pounds; Walton County, 229,984 pounds; and Washington County, 170,244 pounds. Based on the survey responses, the study estimated that 11,903,738 pounds (83.6%) of hazardous waste generated annually within the region was not being properly treated or disposed of. The vast majority of the waste (78.1%) found to be improperly treated was a combination of waste oils and greases, spent solvents, and lead-acid batteries. Neither the waste oil and greases or lead- acid batteries are wastes which will be managed at the proposed Trans Pac facility. The study found that a recycling or reuse market existed for waste oil and greases, spent solvents and lead-acid batteries; and therefore, there was no need for a transfer/temporary storage facility. The remaining 2,602,630 pounds of hazardous waste not being properly managed was generated by both large and small quantity generators and is subject to a variety of appropriate waste management methods. The management plan adopted by the West Florida Regional Planning Council sought to encourage first waste reduction, second waste recycling, reuse or recovery, third onsite treatment or incineration methods, and fourth transporting wastes to offsite temporary storage facilities. One of the goals of the plan was to discourage, as much as possible, the importation of hazardous waste from outside the region, and particularly, with the close proximity of the Alabama state line, from outside the state. The plan concluded that due to the small quantity of mismanaged hazardous waste in the region there was no need for a permanent treatment and storage facility. The only need found to exist within the region was for a temporary transfer and storage facility. That need has since been met by a temporary transfer and storage facility located in Pensacola, Florida. 7/ However, Escambia County issued a Certificate of Need for a hazardous waste transfer, storage and treatment facility to Trans Pac on February 28, 1989. The Certificate of Need was issued pursuant to County Ordinance Number 85-7. The ordinance provides in relevant part that a Certificate of Need may be issued upon the Board's determination that the service or facility for which the certificate is requested "answers a public need, is necessary for the welfare of the citizens and residents of the county, is consistent with any solid waste management plan adopted pursuant to [this ordinance], and will not impair or infringe on any obligations established by contract, resolution, or ordinance." The ordinance further provides that no Certificate of Need may be denied solely on the basis of the number of such certificates in effect at the time. The issuance of that certificate appears to have been granted on the sole representations of need given by Trans Pac to gain issuance of the certificate and at a time when the Board's attention and consideration of the facility was on matters other than the true need as established in the regional plan or the exact service Trans Pac would actually provide. The evidence suggests that no formal or informal investigation of Trans Pac's representations or on the actual need of the region was conducted by the Board. Such an investigation was informally conducted by some of the Board members after the proposed facility became apparent to members of the public. The members of the public raised a great hue and cry of opposition towards the construction of the facility and prompted a closer look at Trans Pac's representations. The Board members who did conduct the informal investigation found there was no need for the facility within the county or region and discovered that the Certificate of Need had been issued in error. No evidence was presented that the County had ever formally rescinded the issuance of Trans Pac's certificate. However, the evidence did show that there was a de facto rescission of Trans Pac's certificate when the County authorized the filing of this administrative action. 8/ Trans Pac would have the ability to treat and store some of the waste generated in the region and some waste which is not generated in the region. Trans Pac would not treat or store a large part of the waste generated in the region. The small amount of regional waste which Trans Pac would be capable of handling would not be profitable. In order to be profitable, most of Trans Pac's waste would have to come from outside the region and/or the State. In 1986, Congress passed the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). The Act amended CERCLA to provide that, three years after the Act's effective date, a state could not receive any superfund monies unless the state entered into an agreement with the President providing assurance of the availability of hazardous waste treatment or disposal facilities which would have enough capacity for the treatment, disposal or storage of all hazardous waste generated within the state over the next 20 years. SARA was enacted because Congress did not believe that Superfund money should be spent in states that were taking insufficient steps to avoid creation of more superfund sites. Such steps included some provision for the future secure disposal or management of hazardous waste generated within that state. It was feared that certain states, because of public opposition and political pressure, could not create and permit enough hazardous waste facilities within their borders to properly manage, either through disposal or treatment, the hazardous waste generated within those states. Put simply, SARA requires each state to keep its own house clean and be responsible for the hazardous waste generated within its borders. SARA did not require the states to develop or permit hazardous waste facilities. The Act only required that each state provide assurances that the state possessed the capacity to manage or securely dispose of hazardous waste produced in that state over the next 20 years. Such assurances could take the form of developing hazardous waste treatment and storage facilities within that state's borders or by exporting its waste to another state. However, in order to provide adequate assurances of capacity if a state chose to export its hazardous waste, that state must enter into an interstate or regional agreement with the importing state. Such agreements could include contracts to ship hazardous waste to public or private facilities. Other assurances of capacity could be obtained through programs for the reduction of hazardous waste within the state. Whatever method of assurance adopted by a state, the goal of SARA was to force the states to provide assurances that their legislative program for the management of hazardous waste generated within their borders could work and would be used. In October, 1979, Florida entered into a Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP) with the President. The CAP established and implemented the statewide management plan required under the state statutes described earlier and under the SARA. The CAP is made up of four major components and includes a regional agreement between Florida and the other EPA Region IV Southeastern States. The four major components of the CAP are: 1) an assessment of past hazardous waste generation and capacity at facilities within or outside of Florida; 2) documentation of any waste reduction efforts that exist or are proposed for the future; 3) future projections of waste generation and capacity either within or outside of Florida and an assessment of any capacity shortfalls; and 4) descriptions of plans to permit facilities and a description of regulatory, economic, or other barriers which might impede or prevent the creation and permitting of such new facilities. The data gathered for the CAP showed that Florida currently has and will have a shortfall in its capacity to properly manage and dispose of its own hazardous waste. Therefore, Florida must provide and implement a way to increase its capacity for the management and disposal of the waste it now generates and will generate in the future or lose its funding for cleanup of superfund sites. Florida's plan to meet that shortfall consists of the interstate agreement, a commitment to a multistate treatment and storage facility and underfunded and understaffed incentives to reduce the generation of hazardous waste. The interstate agreement between the EPA Region IV Southeastern States is an effort at cooperative planning between these states for the management of hazardous waste. In reality, every state, including Florida, imports some hazardous waste from other states. Florida's imports are predominantly spent solvents and waste which can be burned as fuel. All of the imported waste was treated at recovery facilities located within the state. The majority of these imports came from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Virginia and South Carolina. However, even with these imports, Florida is primarily an exporter of hazardous waste. The main recipients of Florida's exports are Alabama and South Carolina. 9/ The agreement, therefore, includes provisions on applicable interstate waste flow characteristics and quantities and on projected exports and imports between and among the participating states. The agreement provides that hazardous waste facilities presently exist or will be created and permitted to manage such exported waste. Besides the interstate agreement, Florida's plan includes a commitment to permit a multipurpose hazardous waste storage and treatment facility. The site selected for the facility is located in Union County. The permit has not yet been issued for this facility. However, the application for the facility is being processed by DER under the special statutes dealing with the Union County facility. Trans Pac's proposed facility is not required for the state to meet its assurances under the CAP entered into with the President. The hoped for benefit of the commitment to a statewide multipurpose facility is to allow Florida to reduce the amount of waste requiring export, but, at the same time allow enough waste to be exported, in accordance with the interstate agreement, to supply a sufficient waste stream to facilities in other states which need such additional waste in order to stay open. Florida's CAP also includes a waste reduction plan. The waste reduction plan is embodied in its Waste Reduction Assistance Program. The philosophy of the program is that recycling (particularly waste oil) and reduction of hazardous waste will produce greater long term across-the-board cost savings to both business and government, as well as the obvious benefit of having less of this very dangerous pollutant around in the environment. The program is not mandatory and is information-oriented. It consists of technical assistance, limited economic incentives (some of which have not been funded by the legislature), research and development, education and a waste exchange program operated by FSU and the Chamber of Commerce. The waste exchange program puts businesses in touch with other businesses who can use their waste for recycling or recovery. Additionally, in conjunction with Florida's CAP, the legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution #1146. The resolution states in part that, except for the siting of the Union County facility, "the Legislature has not and does not intend to enact barriers to the movement of hazardous waste and the siting of hazardous waste facilities for the storage, treatment, and disposal, other than land disposal, of hazardous waste." As can be seen from an overview of Florida's CAP, Trans Pac's proposed facility, while not being directly a part of the CAP, will have an impact on the implementation of that plan should state need not be a criteria for the issuance of a permit. A few of these potential impacts are listed below. First, a facility the size of Trans Pac's proposed facility has the potential to divert some waste away from the proposed Union County facility and may cause that facility to be unprofitable and inoperable. Second, Trans Pac's proposed facility may enable the State to handle more of its waste within its borders, thereby reducing its exports and Florida's dependency on the good offices of other states. Such reduction may or may not have an adverse impact on the interstate agreement contained in the CAP if Florida cannot meet the amount of waste established for export under that agreement. Third, Trans Pac's proposed facility has the potential to decrease the effectiveness of the State's hazardous waste reduction program by encouraging the use of its facilities instead of reduction, recycling or recovery methods. Such a decrease would be highly dependent on the prices charged by various hazardous waste facilities vis. a vis. reduction, recycling or recovery expenses, the cost of transportation to the various types of facilities, and the ease of use among the various types of facilities and reduction methods. Fourth, not considering at least the needs of the State for a hazardous waste facility allows the state to become a dumping ground for hazardous waste generated in other states. 10/ No evidence was presented on any of these points and because of the conclusions of law such an issue is not ripe for consideration in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Regulation enter a final order granting the application of Trans Pac, Inc., for a permit to construct a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility in Escambia County, Florida subject to a permit condition requiring a pre-sale notice as described in this Recommended Order. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of April, 1990.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent violated Chapters 381 and 386, Florida Statutes, specifically Sections 386.041, 381.0061, 381.065, and 386.03, and Rules 10D-6.043(2) and 10D-6.0571. If the Respondent committed the charged violations, it must be determined whether a fine should be imposed and the amount of any such fine.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the installation and continued maintenance of OSDS's, within the guidelines of the statutes and rules cited below. In the event violations of the rules regarding the safe operation and maintenance of OSDS's are detected, HRS has the authority to require correction of the unsafe, human-health conditions involving such systems and to impose penalties for the failure to adequately correct such unsafe health situations. In order to secure enforcement of the statutes and rules concerning the installation and operation of OSDS's, HRS has the authority to issue Administrative Complaints initiating formal enforcement proceedings such as the one at bar. The Respondent is a citizen of the State of Florida and owns the property located at 835 N.W. 109th Drive in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida. The Respondent owns and operates an OSDS on that property which serves her personal residence for the on-site containment, disposal and treatment of sewage generated by that residence. In the spring of 1992, the Respondent detected problems with the OSDS on her property. The problems were noticed because of a difficulty in flushing the toilets in her home and the unusual greening of the grass in a pattern of rows above the septic tank's drain field. The abnormal greening of grass in this pattern indicates that the OSDS is malfunctioning by allowing incompletely treated sewage effluent (waste water) to escape upward towards the surface of the ground instead of percolating in a downward direction into the underlying soil, for appropriate filtration and treatment, which is the pattern of effluent disposal if such a system is operating correctly. Mr. Ron Meyers of Meyers Septic Tank Company was contacted for correction of the problem by the Respondent. On April 15, 1992, he applied for an OSDS repair permit to the Alachua County Public Health Unit of HRS on behalf of the Respondent. The permit application described that the repairs for which authority was requested would be to the existing system which was a below-ground-level septic tank and drain-field system (conventional system) in the Respondent's front yard. Mr. Dennis Chesky is an environmental specialist with the HRS Health Unit for Alachua County. He conducted a site inspection of the OSDS site on April 16, 1992 and determined that a repair of the existing system would not result in compliance with the applicable standards of Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code cited below. He made a determination that a mounded drain- field system would be required in order to comply with HRS rules. HRS rules require that when repairs are made to an existing OSDS and inspection reveals that proper percolation and other indicia of soil-borne treatment of the effluent will not be adequately performed in accordance with HRS rules, then alterations to the OSDS, including the requirement of a mounded drain-field system, so as to acquire a sufficient treatment zone of appropriate fill soil, can be imposed. Mr. Chesky had noted that a sanitary nuisance existed due to insufficiently treated effluent escaping to the ground surface and pooling on the surface of the ground, rather than percolating downward below the drain field, as a properly operating system would perform. In accordance with the permit application and the results of Mr. Chesky's inspection, a repair permit with specifications requiring a mounded septic tank and drain-field system was issued by Mr. Chesky on April 16, 1992. The permit required the system to be installed in the Respondent's front yard. Because such a mound in the Respondent's front yard would destroy the aesthetic character of the Respondent's property and landscaping, Mr. Meyers requested, on the Respondent's behalf, that the permit be modified to allow installation of the mounded system in the backyard of the Respondent's property. On April 22, 1992, this request was granted by Terry Shipley, Mr. Chesky's supervisor, and the relocation was duly noted on the permit. The permit issued was valid for a period of ninety (90) days. The letter transmitting the permit to the Respondent informed the Respondent, as permittee, that she had ninety (90) days to correct the problem which caused the need for the repair permit. The letter also advised the Respondent that if a sanitary nuisance was present on the property, the problem should be rectified as expeditiously as possible. The permit expired without the repairs having been performed. Mr. Shipley, therefore, directed that a member of his staff visit the Respondent's home to inspect the situation. Mr. Paul Meyers visited the Respondent's home on July 22, 1992 and noted that raw sewage was still existing on the surface of the ground in the form of waste water from the septic tank. Mr. Meyers took photographs of that condition. The photographs were introduced into evidence. One photograph depicted that an area of the ground at the end of the drain field had collapsed or subsided, leaving a hole through which waste water was seeping to the ground surface. Mr. Meyers thereupon issued a notice to abate a sanitary nuisance on July 23, 1992. It was received by the Respondent on August 1, 1992. On August 3, 1992, the problem still existed with effluent being observed on the surface of the site by Mr. Chesky. On August 25, 1992, he returned to the site and observed evidence that a large area of the front yard, over the drain-field location, had been disturbed. He determined that the ground and the grass had been disturbed in such a way that repairs had obviously been made to the existing drain field. This was contrary to the permit that had been issued, which had required that a mounded system be installed as a means of effecting necessary repairs. The repaired area had been covered without notification of the repair to HRS. A notice of intended action was issued on September 16, 1992 and received by the Respondent on September 19, 1992. This notice gave the Respondent three (3) days to take action toward correcting the problem. The Respondent was thus advised that if the problems and violations were not corrected, then an Administrative Complaint seeking imposition of a fine would be issued. Within several days of receipt of that notice, the Respondent's husband called Mr. Shipley and Ms. Wilson of HRS to advise them that repairs had been delayed by the necessity of removing some trees in the backyard of his property where the mounded system would have to be placed. The Petersons were also having difficulty securing the necessary financing to pay for the installation of the mounded system required by HRS during the summer and early fall of 1992. Although Mr. Peterson advised HRS of the delay caused by the necessity to remove some trees with attendant expense, apparently HRS was not advised of the financing problem at that time, although the Respondent's testimony shows it to be the case. During this period of time, on September 22, October 1, and October 22, 1992, inspections by HRS revealed that the problem of effluent escaping on the surface of the ground had not yet been corrected. Since repairs had not been visibly commenced by the time of the last inspection on October 22, 1992, HRS elected to seek imposition of a fine and issued an Administrative Complaint to the Respondent, which was received by the Respondent on November 5, 1992. The Complaint sought a fine in the amount of $200.00 per day dating from the receipt of the Administrative Complaint until the date the violation was corrected. The Respondent obtained a second contractor to begin construction of the required mounded system which was completed on November 10, 1992. The contractor on that day called for an inspection by HRS. The inspection was conducted on November 12, 1992, but final approval could not be issued although all essential work was completed because the required sodding and stabilization measures had not yet been completed on the surface of the mound. Final approval was granted on November 17, 1992 by HRS. Installation of a new below-ground, drain-field system, as originally requested, similar to the one which was already installed and malfunctioning, would have cost approximately $1,000.00. The mounded system required by HRS' permit, pursuant to the relevant rules cited below, cost approximately $5,000.00. In addition to the approximate $5,000.00 expended for the installation of the mounded system, the Respondent had to expend approximately $7,000.00 related to tree removal and re-landscaping of their yard to repair damage caused by installation and the requirement to install a facility to pump sewage from the front yard outlet to the mounded system in the backyard. The Respondent apparently attempted to repair the existing below-ground system after receiving the notice regarding sanitary nuisance in August of 1992 in order to avoid the high costs related to the mounded system. The effluent pooling on the ground surface, as it was on the Respondent's property at times pertinent hereto, can pose a threat to public health. In order to adequately treat sewage effluent, it must filter in a downward direction through at least 24 inches of suitable soil medium in order to be sufficiently decontaminated. Improperly treated effluent on the surface of the ground can cause the transmission of human pathogens to persons who come into contact with the effluent in and near the area of the discharge. There is no evidence to indicate that any such harm came to any specific persons or to the public's health generally, in the subject situation. Ms. Wilson, the supervisor responsible for issuance of the Administrative Complaint, decided to seek a fine of $200.00 per day after considering both the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the statutory authority cited herein, contained in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. HRS has fining authority in the amount of up to $500.00 per day for each of the claimed violations. The unrefuted evidence establishes that the violations occurred and persisted over the period time described in the above Findings of Fact. In fairness to the Respondent, however, it should be pointed out that the Respondent and her husband were not in Florida for most of the summer of 1992 because their work required them to be in Dallas, Texas. Even so, they had secured the services of an OSDS contractor to attempt to alleviate the problem. Due no doubt to the high cost and their reluctance to be encumbered by it, they delayed actual installation of the mounded system, however. It is also true that they had difficulties obtaining financing for such a costly system but ultimately did so and satisfactorily completed the work. They ultimately expended approximately $14,000.00 for all phases of the work involved, including site preparation, re-landscaping and related expenses. They have thus have undergone a severe cost burden to alleviate the inoperable condition of the previous OSDS.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by HRS imposing a fine in the amount of $500.00 against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7376 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-15. Accepted. 16. Rejected, as immaterial in this de novo proceeding. 17-25. Accepted. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, although the evidence does not reveal the bank's posture with regard to ownership of the property. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as to its material import because the repairs and installation were not effected until after the issuance of the Administrative Complaint. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not dispositive of the material issues presented other than as consideration for mitigation of the fine imposed. Accepted, but not materially dispositive of the issues presented. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ralph J. McMurphy, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Robert Peterson 835 Northwest 109th Drive Gainesville, Florida 32606
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's request for variance should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner owns an undeveloped parcel of land in Palm Beach, County which is zoned industrial and on which he intends to construct a storage building to house and repair farm equipment. To provide sewage treatment at the site, Petitioner had designed an on site sewage disposal system and applied for a septic tank permit which was denied as was his variance request. The closest public sewage treatment plant to the property is over five miles from the site, and the closest private treatment is approximately three miles from the subject site. Petitioner has no easement to either site if capacity were available and if he chose to connect. However, the proof did not show capacity at either site. Although Petitioner does not intend to pollute the groundwater, the proof demonstrated that waste disposal into a septic tank from the maintenance and repair of farm equipment could result in the disposition of prohibited hazardous waste into the groundwater. Alternative methods of waste disposal are available which would properly dispose of the waste and, yet, protect the groundwater from contamination by hazardous waste. Such systems include certain aerobic treatment units and package plants. The monetary costs of these systems is greater than the septic tank proposal; however, the proof did not demonstrate that the cost was prohibitive or a hardship. Although the hardship, if any, caused by the denial of the variance was not caused by Petitioner, the proof failed to demonstrate lack of reasonable alternatives of waste disposal and the absence of adverse effect of the operation to the groundwater. Additionally, the proof failed to establish the ameliorating conditions of soil, water table or setback conditions although a survey of the property dated September 3, 1985, indicates that the subject parcel was not platted. Accordingly, the denial of the variance was proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of July 1989. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 July 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee B. Sayler, Esquire 50 South U.S. Highway One Suite 303 Jupiter, Florida 33477 Peggy G. Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 111 Georgia Avenue Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
