h !,{r, ,.i .(,,
. 'ir"
,r1i APPLICATION FOR CltrtffiE
rsNG Kgr srxrrlny LoilIXE , LOI{G NEY, r[{n&A
flcT 0'8 1gg3 il (&r9$l D.LR, t*aratho&
flt|gmd fon
lfionru C{q#y }md sf Cotffif Comfocms Cdt of Monme Key Wt*" f|ffi tl0{0 ilEffilYED " ocT 16 1992
D.E.ll. $JUrfi uurfirUl
htfsr€d bf
FOSr' Bucril,gr, SCff[Ig & Jm!$IGAr{, INC. Comr$ry Dqdt'latrr nd fhmc f5ff Orrryr Aaffir STb m0 Witrer nut, ffoddr f,l?P I STATE OF FLORIDA I DEPARTM ENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL TION
tot Gn^xav I COVE FNOF ?wlN rotryEFs oFFtcE SulLO|NG 2FOO 6LAIF STONE NOAO TOera J. I TAL LAHASSEE. FLORT OA 3230I.82'I secnETAev"SCHlNx€L A??LtCAtt0r f0l ?tlrll l0 I I s0L lD fAslE tEs0ulcE lEcofElt ArD ;rrrSErtxl fACtLlrl GEXEiA! nteUlltrErrs AEOEiUES
I Solid testc ierourcc Rccovcry rnd ll.nrgrnat Feiliti.t.ttt_bG pcrrittcd ggtlumt.to nnT .t n {nna Scctisr 4Ot.m7.- Florida Strtutcc. Scparrt- pcreit rppliertimc fc creh tlpc 9f frcillty' U[, I I b lyU6 ttr cooiG! crch. rhcrld bc ruboittcd to thc Otrtrlct officg of the Drg|rtra! of for tho t-n"tioi"-tit-nbutitiar. Caplctc rssroprlrtc retlsrr of thr ppltcrtiar ,* Ul$lllilI I frciiltty involvctt. %.f.n. SgUtH Applicrnt hre the rcrpogibility to provi& cetri of thc gpltcrttcr to rPPrQrlrtr city, fbunty sr6/ot rcaimil po.llrni6n coirtrol rgrncicr, ottrblirhcd puranrrt to Sctist a!r:i82, Flbrfdr Strtula. Aipllcrnt rhrll rtro-rubrtt thr rppllcrlfcr lhrcrgh pprogrlrtc t lctl pirnning qrlciol . Cairintr frc rny ths thccr qarclcl rbtl bc fornrdcd rith thc Tplicrtiat to thc Dcputtatt. lhc penlt rpplicetlcr rhrll lnclu
I nant Lrndorrer (if dlffcrcnt thrn eppllcant ): Same Addrrcr of Lrndo*rcr: Same I zr9 Protecing Florido ond l'our Qttdity oi Life I 0ER roF,t u-I.205(r0) [ffcctivc .]ly l, 1985- pegc I of ! I I TABLE OF CONTEI,{TS 1. GENERAL LANDFILL INFORMATION REPORT I A. tandfill Identification 1 I B. Primary Contact I C. Consultant I D. Landfill Owner - Operator I I E. Incation 2 F. Total Acreage . . . 2 G. Irgal Description 2 I H. IandfiU History 2 I. Types of Waste Disposed 3
I 2. AREA INFORMATION REPORT 4 A. Topography 4 B. Hydrology 4 I C. Geology 4 D. Hydrogeology 5 E. Ground and Surface Water Quality 5 I Groundwater Quality 5 Surface Water Quality 5 I F. Iand Use Information 6 I 3. Groundwater Monitoring Plan 8 4. Gas Mieration Investieation . 8 I 5. Assessment of the Effectiveness of Existing Landfill Design and Ooeration 9 A. Effectiveness and Results of Groundwater Investigation . 9 I B. Effects of Surface Water Runoff, Dminage Patterns and Existing Storm Water Conffols 9 C. Extent and Effects of Methane Gas Migration 9 I D. Type and Condition of Existing Cover and Effectiveness as I*actwtp Control Mechanism 10 I E. Nature and Characteristics of Wastes Disposed of at the Landfill 10 Closure Design Plan 1l A. Closure Plans 11 I B. Existing Topography and Proposed Final Grades ll C. Final Cover Installation Plans 12 D. Proposed Method of I-eachate t6 I E. Compliance with Groundwater Protection Requirements of l7 4.245 and 17-4.246. F.A.C r6 F. Proposed Method of Gas( and Odor Control 16 I G. Proposed Method of Stormwater Control l7 H. Proposed Method of Access Control t7 I I. Proposed Final Use of tandfill Property 18 I I
Closure Operation Plan 18 17. A. Landfill Closure Activities 18 B. Time Schedule 18 C. Financial Responsibility 18 I D. Equipment and Personnel Needs 18 l8 Requirelnents for Iong Term Care 20 I 9. Requirements for Proof of Finance Responsibili8 22 I I I t I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF APPEI\IDICES
1. Appendix A - Ground / Surface water Monitoring Results
2. Appendix B - Environmental Assessment
3. AppendixC-HELPModel
4. Appendix D - Cost Estimate
5. Appendix E - TCLP Test Results
6. Appendix F - ESC Septic Storage Permit
7. Appendix G - 25-year 7}-hour Storm Calculations I I 1. GEiTIERAL LAI\DFILL hIFORMATION REFORT t A. Landfill Identification The Monroe County Inng Key Sanitary hndfill is located north of U.S. I Highway 1, between mile markers 67 and 68. I B. Primary Contact Monroe County Municipal Service District Public Service Building I Wing II-B Stock Island t Key West, Florida 33040 Att: Barry Boldissar, Director of Environmental I Management Services (305) 292-4441 I C. Consultant I Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. 1400 Centrepark Boulevard, Suite 200 I West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Att: Mr. Raymond Schauer, Program Manager I (407) 689-727s I D. Landfill Owner - Operator Monroe County Municipal Service District Public Service Building I Wing II-B Stock Island I Key West, Florida 33040 Att: Barry Boldissar, Director of Environmental Management Services t (305) 292-444r I I I I I Location The main entrurce is located in Sction 4+5, Township 65 S, Range 35 E, I Iatitude 24%8'30N*, Iongitude 8048'06'. I F. Total Acreage hndfill property = 30 acres I Disposal area : 13 acres I G. Legal Description A tract of land in a part of Government Int 2, Section 4, Township 65 South, Range 35 East, and a part of Government l.ot 3, Section 33, Township 64 South, I Range 35 East, Monroe County, Florida and being more particularly described in Official Records Book 445, Pages 7741775 of the Public Records of said I Monroe County, Florida. Excepting from the above description, all lands owned by Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Company, as recorded in Official Records Book 281, I Pages 5381539 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida. t H. Landfill History I The l,ong Key Sanitary landfill Facility has been operational since 1975 and accepting wasle from the Middle and Upper Keys, including Islamorada Key, Matecumbe Key, lnng Key, Duck Key, Grassy Key and Marathon Key. As of I January 1990, the facility ceased disposing waste in the landfill. The facility was operated in conjunction with a volume reduction incinerator for processing the t waste. The facility has two distinct unlined disposal sites, which have a combind footprint of approximately thirteen (13) acres. These trvo disposal sites are I delineated as I^andfill Mound No. I and Landfill Mound No. 2. Currently kndfill Mound No. t has peaked at an elevation of 54.0 feet NGVD. IJndfill Mound No. 2 has reached an elevation of nearly 22 fer;t NGVD. Both mounds I were constructed directly over the local and very hard limestone. At the time of construction, neither disposal areas received a bottom liner or a leachate collection system. During the opemtion of the facility, a borrow pit was I excavated between the two mounds. The excavated limerock was used as cover material.
I As part of the overall closure plan, the borrow pit will be enclosed with a perimeter berm and used as a detention pond. Stormwater runoff from the I I I
mounds and on-site will be collected in swales and conveyed toward the pond. I Once in the pond, the stormwater will be detained and discharged at a control rate into the Bay of Florida.
I Because of the absence of a bottom liner or a leachate collection system, the l.ong Key Facility will be closed in accordance with F.A.C. Rule 17-701 and Consent I Order OGC 89-0446. I I I. Types of Waste Disposed Waste entering the Iong Key facility and disposed in the landfill is mainly I classified as "garbage" or "trash" as defined in F.A.C. Rule 17-701.020. The waste is typically incinerated and the remaining ash disposed of in the landfill disposal area. Non-combustible waste and ffash that cannot be processed and by- I pass waste (during periods of incinerator down time) are disposed of in the I landfill. The source of waste is combined residential and commercial. In addition to solid waste(s), the landfill also accepts heated wastewater treatment plant sludges, I package plant sludges and untreated septic tank sludges. I I I I I I I I I I
I 2. AREA INFORMATION REFORT
I A. Topography
The natural elevations in the vicinity of the Inng Key Sanitary Landfill range I from I foot NGVD to 5 feet NGVD. Cunently peak existing elevations for I^andfill Mound No. 1 and No. 2 tnve reached 54.1 and 21.9, respectively. Existing sideslopes on both mounds are irregular and vary from 5 ( horizontal) I to 1 (vertical) to 2 (horizontat) to 1 (vertical).
As part of the final grading plan, waste will be moved from I-andfill Mound No. I 1 to tandfill Mound No. 2. The final proposed elevations for mound No.l will be reduced to 47.0 NGVD with uniform sideslopes of 3 (h) to 1 (v). Landfill I Mound No. 2 will be raised to an elevation of 32.0 NGVD and have the same uniform sideslopes as Landfill Mound No. 1. t In the attached drawings, the existing grades for Landfill Mound No. 1 and No. 2 are shown on sheets 3 and 4 of 13, respectively. I B. Hydrology I The land surrounding the landfill is virtuatly impervious. Infiltration is slow and the majority of the surface waters pond or flow into the surrounding mangroves. Stormwater runoff from the mounds is collected in the perimeter swales and I diverted toward the pond. Groundwater elevations vary according to tidal conditions and yearly rainfalls.
I As part of the post-closure plan, the majority of the runoff will be collected and channeled toward the pond. Runoff from the landfill mounds will be collectd in the perimeter swales and will be channeled toward the pond. On-site runoff from I the transfer facility will be collected and diverted !o the ditch southeast of Landfill Mound No. 1 were it will be channeled toward the pond.
I c. Geology
Boring data indicates that up to 100 feet of medium hard to very hard Inng Key I formation limestone exists in the landfill area. The top 20 to 25 fer;t of the limestone is hard to very hard and is moderately weathered. The upper weathered limestone is underlain by a dense, less friable formation with cords. I Hard calcareous sandstone was found from borings between 35 and 50 feet, and again below 83 feet. I
I 4 I I
Collapsed sinkfioles are not prevalent in the landfill area. This information is I based on historical daa and exploratory drilling which did not detect large cavities. I D. Hydrogeology
I The water table in the landfill area varies from I to 3 feet below existing ground surface. Typical of a coastal site, the water depths are approximately at elevations just above mean sea level. In response to the bay tide, the water table I at the site fluctuates several inches.
The Long Key Facility is approximately 2,000 feet long by 500 feet wide. As I seen in Sheets 3 and 4 of 13, in the attached drawings, the facility is located on the shoreline. The landfill mounds vary from 35 to 300 feet from the approximate mean high water line of the Bay of Florida. The mean high water liner was I established by visual observations of the PBS&J survey crews.
Long Key I-ake is located southeast of the facility across U.S. Highway No. l. I The landfill mounds vary from 500 to 800 feet from the edge of the shoreline of Long Key Lake.
I Ground and Surface Water Quality I 1) Groundwater Ouality A groundwater monitoring system is in effect for the Long Key landfill and is in compliance with the conditions specified in Consent Order No. I 89-0446. Details of the groundwater monitoring plan can be found in I Section 3 of this report. The groundwater at the site is classified as Class III water and typically brackish in nature. The groundwater is influenced by tidal action and thus I the quality of the groundwater fluctuates accordingly. A copy of the latest quart€rly groundwater monitoring report can be found in Appendix A. The locations of the monitoring wells can be found on Sheets 7 and 8 of I 13, in the attached Drawings.
I 2\ Surface Water Ouality
The receiving surface water is the Florida Bay. The quality of this water I is typical of saltwater throughout the Keys.
As a requirement of FDER and SFWMD, surface water samples will be I taken in conjunction with the groundwater samples. The current surface water monitoring program will test for the following parameters: I I I
1. Toal Dissolved Solids I 2. Total Suspended Solids 3. Toal Organic Carbons 4. Total Niftogen t 5. Total Phosphorus 6. pH 7. Chromium I 8. Cadmium 9. Mercury T 10. Nickel 11. L€ad t2. Zinc I 13. Nitrite/Nitrat€ 14. Specific Conductance I 15. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen A copy of the latest quarterly surface water monitoring report can be I found in Appendix A.
I Iand Use Information
The existing land use of the site is a landfill and transfer facility. The Monroe I County Planning Department has stated that a landfiIl use is considered appropriate within the site's existing zoning classification of Industrial (I).
I Information regarding zoning and adjacent landowners can be found on Sheet 2 of 13, in the attached Drawings. A memorandum regarding the site's zoning and I land use from the County Planning Department is attached. Vehicle access to the facility is limited to the gate at the main entrance located off of U.S. Highway No. 1. Dense mangroves and the Bay of Florida provide I natural barriers to limit access. The right-of-way for U.S. I is approximately 50 feet from the facility property lines. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company owns a small parcel of land which is located approximately 40 feet I from Landfill Mound No. 1. I I I
I 6 t iSigyES:;i i : I ME!,tORANDUM Bm t DATE: December L2, 1988 TO: Charles Director, MuniciPal Services
FROM: Donald tant County Administrator for Growth I Manageme I RE: Long Key Land Fill I ifhe land fill on Long Key Ls located !n an area deslgnated industriaf (I) on lfre iountyts Land Use Dlstrlct l{aPi. - tl-lthln tnia district,-treaW industrial-uses are pennltted Provided tbat: I a.- All outside storage areas are screened frd! adjacent uses by a solid fence, wall or hedge at I Ielst six (6) feet ln helght; and b. The parcel proposed for develognent l.-s separatel from' any 6stllttsnea residential use_by a class F bufferyaid. (Dtonroe County Code Section I ' 9.5-249(c)31. In that tbe landfill on Long Key meets these requlrenents, the I lindfill is properly zoned for operation as a }andfill. I I t I
T I I I I I I
I Groundrqater Monitoring Plan
Groundwater is being monitored according to the conditions specifid in Consent Order t No. 89-0446. This monitoring plan calls for quarterly monitoring at three different monitoring well locations on the landfill site for the following paxameters: t 1. Total Dissolved Solids 2. I-ead 3. Mercury I 4. Chromium 5. Cadmium 6. Zinc I 7. Total Nitrogen 8. Total Organic Carbon 9. Nickel I 10. pH 11. Total Suspended Solids 12. Nitrite / Nitate I 13. Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 14. Total Phosphorus t 15. Specific Conductance The groundwater monitoring parameters will be adjusted, if required, !o reflect the final I changes in F.A.C. Rule 17-701. Because of heavy siltation in the wells, the three (3) existing groundwater wells were I abandoned. The three (3) new wells, marked as LK No. 1, 2, and 3, were placed 7 fer:t 5 inches, 29 ferlt 7 inches, and 39 feet of their respective locations. These monitoring wells were installed in accordance with the current FDER requirements. Details on the I construction of these wells are shown on Sheet 11 of 13. The location of these groundwater monitoring wells are shown on Sheets 7 and 8 of 13 in the attached I Drawings. I Gas Migration Investigation Because the content of the landfill is primarily ash, and little methane producing material is disposed of within the fill area, migration of methane gas which would create any t danger of explosion or objectionable odors is not anticipated. Furthermore, there should be no physical damage to the existing vegetation due to any methane gas migration. To insure that no gas migration occurs off-site in the future, and that no danger of explosion I exists, gas monitoring will be performed on-site on a specified basis.
A LFG management system utilizing thirteen (13) vertical passive vents, gas conveyance I trenches, and six (6) gas monitoring wells is proposed for installation within the long Key Sanitary Landfill disposal area. The gas conveyance trenches are spaced at an I I I
average of 150-feet apart. The spacing will minimize the gas pressure within the gas I syst€m. The primary function of the LFG management system is to conhol subsurface LFG migration offsite. The landfill gas vents, monitoring wells and conveyance trench construction layout and details are shown on Sheets 5, 6, and t2 of 13. The six (6) LFG I monitoring wells will be located between the landfill and its property line, and are designed to detect if methane gas is migrating away from the landfill through subsurface T soils.
I Assessment of the Effectiveness of Existing Landfitl Design and Operation A. Effectiveness and Results of Groundwater Investigation
I A groundwater monitoring sysem is in effect for the Inng Key landfill and is in compliance with groundwater protection requirements of F.A.C . L7-4.245 and 17- 4.246. Quarterly sampling events and the testinglanalysis of three monitoring I wells per specific conditions found in Consent Order 89-0446. Groundwater sampling and analysis is performed by PBS&J, krc. on behalf of the Monroe I County MSD. Details of the monitoring panmeters, ild the latest quarterly report can be found in Appendix A. I The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on Sheets 7 and 8 of 13 in attached Drawings. I Effects of Surface Water Runoff, Drainage Patterns and Bristing Storn t Water Controls Surface wat€r runoff from the landfill is controlled by a perimeter berm/access road and swale. The berm/access road creates a swale in conjunction with the I toe of the slope of the landfill. The swale intercepts surface water runoff from the landfill, allowing percolation and detention time and flow to the culrent borrow pit area. Water will be allowed to pond in this borrow area then slowly I discharge from a control structure through a spreader swale before discharging into the Florida Bay,. This surface water management system is designed o I accommodate a25 year,3 day storm event. I c. Extent and Effects of Methane Gas Migration At present, there is no visible damage to the existing vegetation due to any methane gas migration. No objectionable odors have been noted, apparently since I the incinerator residue does not generate significant quantities landfill gas.
As stated in Section 4, gas monitoring will be performed on-site on a specified I basis to insure that no gas migration occurs off-site. I I t
I D. Type and Condition of Frdsting Cover and Effectiveness as Lechate Control Mechanism
I The existing 12 inch thick intermediate cover materiat used at the landfill consists of incinerator residue (ash) provided by the on-site incinerators, ild a coarse grade limerock. Below the intermediate cover is a 6 inch layer of daily cover t also consisting of a limerock and ash mixture. The intermediate cover is compacted for protection against erosion and wind dispersal of ash. Although the intermediate cover is not designed as a leachate control mechanism, it should be I acceptable to minimize infittration until the final cap is in place. The final cap witl be a more effective barrier to prohibit leachate generation.
I The final cover will consist of (from bottom to top): I 1) 6" compacted Liner Bedding 2) 30 MIL PVC Liner t 3) I 4) Geotextile 5) 12" Limerock
I 6) 6" Topsoil, seeded and mulched I Details of the final cover are shown on Sheets 7,8 and 12 of 13.
I Nature and Characteristics of Wastes Disposed of at the Landfitl Waste entering the long Key facility is mainly classified as 'garbage" or "hash" t as defined by F.A.C. Rule 17-701.020. Other wastes accepted at the site are construction debris and non-combustibles, treated and untreated sludges. I The appropriate wastes were incinerated on site and the ash residue landfilled.
See the Environmental Assessment in Appendix B for information regarding the I effects of the characteristics of the wastes disposed in the cells. I I
I 10 I t I 6. Closure Design Plan I A. Closurc Plans Closure of the Iong Key Sanitary Landfill will not be phased. Upon completion of the construction plans and issuance of the Closure Permit, the entire landfill I will be closed.
Monroe County has entered into a conhact with Waste Management, Inc. to I construct and operate a trusfer facility on the long Key Sanitary kndfill Sit€ at the incinerator location. Accordingly, waste will still be received on-site but t hauled off-site for disposal. No waste will be dispod of on-site. In addition to the operation of the fransfer facility, Environmenal Science Corporation (ESC) will operate a temporary septic storage area. The bermed I septic storage area will contain any spills and conaminates will not be allowed I to flow over the site. The Environmental Assessment Report (see Appendix B), conducted for Monroe County by PBS&J, has found a small depressed area (pond) to the west of Iandfill Mound No. 2. The pond contains water whose level is influenced by the I tide. The sediments from the pond have been found to contain heavy metals, possibly from ash material blown from the landfill. PBSdLI is concerned about I the possible uptake of heavy metals by the local plants and animals. To determine the hazardous characteristics of the sediment material, TCLP tests were conducted on four samples on October 30, 1991. The TCLP tests showed the l heavy metals concentration to be lower than required to be classification as a hazardous waste. (See Appendix E) I As part of the closure plan, the sediment will be removed from the pond by a vacuum truck and deposited within the limits of the proposed landfill cap. The I sediment material will form part of a 6-inch liner bedding mat€rial located below the 30 mil PVC geomembrane. The geomembrane will minimize infiltration into I the waste cells. Closure activities will also include drainage feature improvements, final grading, construction of drainage culverts and control structures, installation of the capping I system, placement of final cover and the establishment of vegetative @ver.
I B. Existing Topography and hoposed Ftnll Grades
In the accompanying Drawings, the existing topography can be seen on Sheet 3 I of 13 for landfill Mound No. 1., and on Sheet 4 of 13 for landfill Mound No. 2.
I 1l I I
As part of the closure plan, Iamdfill Mound No. 1 will be reduced in height from I 54.1 to 47.0 ferlt (NGVD). The gmding plan is shown on Sheet 7 of 13 in the atached drawings. The height was rcduced in order to achieve an operable working area on the top of the mound for maintenance vehicles. Conshaints I caused by the necessity for perimeter stormwater swales and 3@orizontal) to l(vertical) sideslopes also placed limits on the final elevation of the mound. To minimize the financial impact, such as transportation and disposal costs, upon I Monroe County , the excavated waste from kndfill Mound No. 1 witl be redeposited into Iandfill Mound No.2. t Landfill Mound No. 2 is currently at an elevation of approximately 20 fex;t (NGVD). The same constraints that governed the design of Landfill Mound No. 1 were also placd upon the design of Landfill Mound No. 2. Excavatod material I will be placed into the limits of the closure cap. With the additional material, the I final elevation of landfill Mound No. 2 will rise to 32.0 feet (NGVD). The long Key Sanitary Landfilt has operated a incinerator to process solid waste entering the landfill. Only ash residue, as defined in F.A.C. Rule 17-702.2W(l), I will be transported from Iandfill Mound No. 1 to Iandfill Mound No. 2. During transport the amount of dust or ash blown from the vehicles will be minimized I by slower operating speeds, water to control dust, or covers over the vehicles. In addition, the excess waste material from the Cudjoe Key Landfill will be transported to the Iong Key Landfill, to minimize the financial impact on Monroe I County. The transport waste will be comprised of ash residue from the operation of the incinerator located at Cudjoe Key. The ash residue will be ransported by covered vehicles to minimize the amount of ash blown out of vehicles. Upon t arrival at Iong Key the waste will be deposited within the limits of Iandfill Mound No. 2. The final grades for I-andfill Mound No. 2 can be found on Sheet 8 of 13, in the atached Drawings. T I c. Final Cover Installation Plans The Lnng Key Sanitary landfill will no longer accept any waste. Since the final waste elevations have been reached, the waste is presently covered with daily and I intermediate covers. This occuned on an ongoing basis as part of operations. The surface of the intermediate cover will need to be graded to achieve the same slopes as those of the final cover shown on Sheet 7 of t3, for Landfill Mound t No. 1, and Sheet 8 of 13, for landfill Mound No. 2.
Iandfill gas (LFG) conveyance trenches will be constructed for the collection of t methane gas from the decomposing waste. The collection pipes will be wrap@ to prevent fine material from clogging the prpes. Gas trenches will then lead toward the top of the landfill were the gases will be vented out to the atmosphere t through gas vents. The gas system will then be covered and final subgrade grading will be accomplished.
I t2 I t
Once the mounds have been graded, a 6 inch layer of clean limerock liner t bedding and a 30 mil PVC geomembrane liner will be placed over both mounds. Geonet and geotextile will be placed on top of the liner next to form a drainage I layer and provide slope sability. Monroe County will install LFG monitoring wells in various locations around the existing landfill disposal area. Drainage and erosion control features, including I swales and energy dissipators, will be installed after the final cap is in place.
Closure Cap Design: The Long Key Sanitary Iandfill will be closed and secured t with a final cap designed to accomplish the following goals:
o Reduce or minimize infiltration of precipiation through the top surface of t the landfill (the primary goal of the frnal cap). I o Minimize amount of maintenance. I o Control landfrll decomposition by-products (e.g., leachate, LFG). o Promote efficient drainage while preventing excess erosion of the final I cover. o Allow for settling and subsidence while maintaining the integrity of the t cap system. o Control vectors (e.g., rats, birds). I o Provide an aesthetic view for the closed landfrll. Sheet 12 of 13, in the attached Drawings illustrates the layers included in the t proposed closure cap and their associated thicknesses. Cover slopes and final elevations, as well as overall dimensions, are also shown. Each layer and its I function(s) is described below, from the top to the bottom: . Vegetative Cover - Consisting of a combination of quick-cover, drought resistant vegetation which can be easily mainained in the local soils I encountered and climate conditions typical of the Keys. It is expected that these species should assist in mainaining the closure of the landfill under extremely harsh conditions of a tropical storm. At this point, it cannot be I assumed that damage to the closure will not occur from a hurricane type force. However, this landfrll has been exposed to several severe tropical storms during its operation. The impact to the adjacent areas have been I very limited to date. Actual seed mixtures, nutrients, and lime requirements will be based on results from testing the soil for such characteristics as pH and nutrients, as well as on recommendations of I local soil conservation service personnel or local landscape architects.
I 13 I I
The spies which are expected to eventually become a part of the ; vegetative cover consist of the following:
Grasses and Vines t - Sporobolus virginicus - Panicum amarum - Paspalum vaginatum I - Ipomoea Des-caDrire - Cynodon dactylon - Pappalum notatum I Shrub/Tree - Amyris elemifera t Many of these plant speies already grow on or adjacent to the one or more of the County's landfills. These plants can either be transplanted or allowed to encroach onto the landfill facility. The shrub is of I particular local importance since its leaves supply the food for an endangered butterfly in the area. This shrub already grows adjacent to the long Key Facility and will be allowed to encroach up the perimeter I road. I It is fortunate that these species require little maintenance and probably add a greater degree of protection to the closure. t Topsoil and Protective Soil layer - The topsoil layer will consist of 6 inches of soil capable of supporting the local species of grasses, vines, I and shrubs. The protective layer above the geomembrane will consist of t2 inches of limerock. Florida Rock and Sand, INC is one source for the I overburden material. The quarry is located in Tavernier. The limerock will be processed to remove any foreign objects that may damage the geomembrane. This protective layer will serve an additional purpose I by providing moisture storage and soil depth required to support vegetation growing in the topsoil layer. I The geotextile layer will minimize the amount of material entering the geonet drainage layer. The material, if allowed to ent€r the geonet, could clog or reduce the ability of the geonet to act as an effective I drainage layer.
The geonet layer's primary function is to provide an avenue for the I collection and removal of surface water that has infiltrat€d through the topsoil and protective layers. The collection and removal of the moisture in the above layers will provide a stable final capping system t over the landfill. In addition to providing a drainage layer, the geonet
I l4 t I
serves to increase the sAbility of the cap by increasing the friction I between the soil layers and the geomembrane.
o The geomembrane layer - This layer will consist of a 30 mil PVC t synthetic liner. The liner will significantly reduce the amount of infiltration passrng through the topsoil and protective soil layer and into the waste materid. The reduction in the amount of infilration through I the waste will ultimately reduce the amount of leachate enkring the surrounding environment. t The PVC gmmembrane has the ability to stretch and deform, and still provide an effective barrier, should the landfill subside. t o Bedding Iayer - This layer witl provide a stable base for ttre overlying capping syslem layers. This layer will also collect any LFG that would seep or migrate through the daily and intermediate covers. The LFG I will travel up to the top of the landfitl where it is vented. This layer will consist of 6 inches of cover material and will be compacted to at T least 95 percent of maximum density (ASTM D-1557 Modified Proctor). I Sheets 7 and 8 of 13, depicts the final topographic contours of the closed landfill. Construction sequencing will start from the bedding layer and move up to the vegetative cover layer. The minimum top slopes of the cover will I be 2 percent and the maximum side slopes will be 3 horizontal to I vertical. The sodded areas, shown on Sheet 7 and 8 of 13, are an intricate part of the I final capping system. The sodded areas will minimize the amount of erosion caused by stormwater runoff and thus are essential to the stability of the capping system. The seeded areas are in locations were the erosion potentials t are lower. To insure the proper growth and stability of the cap, the sodded and seeded areas will be watered in accordance with the recommendations of I local nurseries and growers. The effectiveness of the cap in preventing surface water infi.ltration was estimated using the Hydrological Evaluation of landfitl Performance (HELP) I computer model, which can be found in Appendix C.
After the final cap is placed and vegetation is established over the entire cap, I future maintenance will be required only if post-closure inspections indicatd the presence of ponding, erosion, cap deformation resulting from subsidence, or any other problems. Corrective action will be taken as soon as practicable I after a problem is noted.
The Lnng Key Facility will continue to be saffed by County personnel baause I of other on-going operations, i.e. transfer facility operations and temporary septic storage. This ability to have staff on-site six days a week should greatly
I t5 I I
increase the County's efficiency to observe problems which might occur during t the landfill's closure period. The County has the equipment and is fully capable of repairing any erosion which may occur. There is a privately ownd quarry in Tavernier, Florida, which is capable of supplying the needed I mat€rial to filI in areas of subsidence or depression or repair the berms. The County will also maintain the vegetative growth during the closure period. It is expected that all maintenance and repair will be performed by County I personnel. t D. Proposed Method of kachate Control
kachate control for the tandfill is achieved through a series of I passive/preventive design steps. The ash residues deposited have low permeability and are not conducive to leachate generation. Additionally, the incorporation of the 30 MIL PVC Cap Liner in the closure design will I minimize leachate generation. t Compliance with Groundwater Protection Requirements of l7-4.A5 and t t74.246, F.A.C. As stated in Section 5A of this report, quarterly sampling events and the I testing/analysis of three monitoring wells, performed by PBS&J, Inc. on behalf of the Monroe County MSD, is on-going. This monitoring plan, outlined in Section 3 of this re,port, was established in compliance with the specific I conditions of Consent Order 89-A446, as well as the groundwater protection requirements of F.A.C. Rule 17-4.245 and 174.246. lt is anticipatd that this quarterly well water monitoring system will continue as part of the closure I plan. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on Sheets 7 and 8 of 13, in I the attached Drawings.
I Proposed Method of Gas and Odor Control Since the material landfilled at this site is primarily incinerator ash, it is not I expected that any gas or odor control plans will have to be implemented. Around the perimeter of the l,ong Key SaniAry kndfiU, permanent LFG t monitoring wells will be installed in order to detect if methane gas is migrating I away from the landfill through subsurface soils(se Sheets 5 and 6 of 13).
I 16 I I
Throughout the post-closure period, these LFG monitoring wells will be I checked on a quarterly basis to determine the presence of methane and any subsurface pressure-vacuums.
I Should an odor or gas problem arise in the future, a control plan will be submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for review I and approval. t G. Proposed Method of Stormwater Control The stormwater management system is designed to address the storm events as required by the South Florida Water Management Disnict. As a naturally I occurring event, tropical storms and hurricanes will include high winds and significant rainfall. As proposed, closure of the landfill does not include above I grade structures, and therefore no damage to facilities on the landfill would be expected. Structures located on the property but not on the landfill may be impacted by rising water, rainfall, or high winds. Any impacts to the landfill I will be repaired by the County as a component of the clean-up after the storm event. I In summary, the stormwater control system will include: o Stormwater collection plpes to collet runoff from top of landfill I and convey it off to minimize erosion. I o Energy dissipators o Perimeter swales. t o Culverts and control structure systems.
o Detention areas and swales to provide stormwater detention and I sediment control.
Details of the pipes, energy dissipators, swales, culverts and control systems I and detention ponds are shown on Sheets 7,8, 11, and 12, respectively, of 13.
I H. hoposed Method of Access Control
Fences and gates will be maintained to prevent access of the general public to I protect and to maintain the integrity of the closed landfilt. A gate and fence are currently used to provide an effective barrier for the existing landfill. The gate is located on the entrance road off of U.S. Highway 1. A fence extends I on both sides of the gate to meet the natural barrier of existing vegetation.
I t7
T t I Proposed ltinal Use of landfill Proper{y The landfill area will be grassed and landscaped to near natural conditions. The balance of the site will be utilized as a solid waste transfer facility and t temporary septic storage arca.
I 7. Closure Operation Plan t A. Landfiil Closure Activities The closure plan has been developed for closing the tandfill in a manner that will minimize the need for further maintenance. Closure will also minimize I threats to human health and the environment from waste constituents or wast€ I by-products, such as leachate and landfilt gas (LFG). Closure activities shall include drainage feature improvements, final grading, construction of drainage culverts and control structures, insallation of a I capping system, placement of final @ver and the establishment of vegetative cover. I The County currently has a contract for the temporary storage of septage within the landfill property limits. The septage is stored in portable trailers. A containment berm and/or structure, to be erected and maintained by the t Contractor, will surround each storage area, and be utilized for storage and prevent possible spillage from spreading throughout the site. The County will be responsible for maintaining proper access routes to and from the storage I area. Any spills will be contained and properly cleaned up by the Contractor. The ultimate final responsibility for the maintenance of the landfill sile will fall t upon the County. B. Time Schedule I Closure activities will be completed approximately 12 months after issuance of the Closure Permit. [ong term care will continue for twenty (20) years. I C. Financial Responsibility Monroe County is currently formalizing the financing plan for long term I monitoring and maintenance, utilizing bond funds previously set aside for incinerator repair and replacement.
I D. Equipment and Personnel Needs
Closure activities will be completed by a qualified contractor or by County I forces. The Contractor will be selected by competitive bid process and will be required to supply all equipment and personnel for the closure construction.
I 18 I I
The post-closure activities for the Iong Key Sanitary Landfill will inctude site I inspections, LFG maintenance, groundwater and surface water monitoring, maintenanceof allwaste containmentsystems, andsitesecurity(e.g., fencing). These activities will continue for a period of 20 years after closure is I completed.
Inspection of the closed facility will be performed by Monroe County to ensure t that post-closure all requirements are met. The following activities wiU be t included in the post-closure inspection program: o The final cap will be inspected and mainaind to remediate any effects of settlement, subsidence, and erosion.
I o LFG migration control and monitoring and groundwater monitoring systems will be inspected and maintained to properly monitor the t facility in accordance with the closure plan. o Drainage structures will be inspected and maintained to prevent I settlement and erosion, and to maintain the designed drainage. o Sedimentation ponds will be cleaned, as necessary, to remove silt that I accumulates during the closure perid. It is anticipated that yearty cleaning will occur until the site is stabilized. Cleaning will then be I scheduled as needed. o Permanent survey benchmarks will be protected and mainained.
I o The security (i.e., fencing) of the site will be inspected and maintained.
To ensure that the above activities are conducted in their entirety, a scheduled t site inspection will be performed. The site inspections will be performed by qualified Monroe County personnel assigned to inqpect the items and systems noted above. The inspections will be performed at least monthly until a full I stand of vegetation has been provided over the closed area. Once vegetation has been established, inspections will be performed quarterly. Additional inspections will be scheduled after periods of extremely wet or dry weather I and after major storm events. Where possible, the area should be mowed just before the inspection to allow better visual inspetion of the surface area. Monroe County is committed to maintain this facility to the highest standards. I The inspection findings will be recorded, ild copies of all Post-Closure Inspection Reports will be mainained on file in a location suitable for review, I upon request, by the regulatory agencies. It is expected that all maintenance and repair will be performed by County I personnel. These repair and maintenance items should include: o security fence repair or replacement,
I 19 I I
o improve bare spots in vegetation, I o baclfill areas of soil loss or de,pressions, o repair of cracls or fissures, o clearing debris from and repair of drainage structures, I o dredging sedimentation ponds, and o repair/replace damaged monitoring wells. I O maintenancr of perimeter and access roads I After a2-year period has passed with littleor no requird landfill maintenance, the frequency of the inspections will be decreased to semi-annual. These semi- annual inspections should occur in the early spring and in the late summer. t The semi-annual inspections will continue for the remainder of the 20-year post-closure care period, unless conditions noted betrpeen or during the semi- annual inspections indicate that more frequent inspections and maintenanoe are I required. Post-closure security, monitoring, inspection, and maintenance will be the T responsibility of the Monroe County Municipal Service District. Monroe County will provide personnel that are trained to meet the requirements of I post-closure activities. The Monroe County Environmental Management Division employs personnel with specialties in the fields of management, engineering, technical support, I maintenance, and others. Position descriptions and qualifications are on file with Monroe County. If deemed necessary, Monroe County will hire consultants to provide the qualifred personnel to perform certain post-closure I activities. I E. Requirements for Inng Term Care The Iong Key Sanitary hndfill is owned and operated by Monroe County. In accordance with F.A.C. Rule l7-701.W6 the County will be furnishing financial I assurance documentation requirements.
Monroe County evaluated different funding mechanisms for the long term care. The I County is proposing to fund the long term care as a yearly operating expense and utilize funds from the frscal budget. It is understood that all funding must be approved by FDER representatives in Tallahassee and must be in place at the time of I closure. Monroe County is fully aware of the imporance of financial assurances for post closure care of a facility of this type. A letter certifying the County's acceptance I of responsibility for the long term care of this facility is attached. I
I 20 I I EOIRD * OOrI{TY Cilrc|oiEns ln IiAYOR Wtrcrmr li^,ty. lHld I Maror Ro Tcm.Hr Lsdcf th 2 yslffE Do.d.! Jqt.|. tbct 3 r(I b.g$'.:/ A gsrlChal.Olticla \r-z-- Jorn 5 3f,= =€- sqmqr. tHGl Thomas l{. Brown County Adninistration Offlce t 5100 College Road, Key l{est, Florida 33040 I t May 22, 1992 South Florida t{ater Management District 3301 Gun Club Road I West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
I RE: Landfill Post Closure Responsibilities Dear Sir: t This }etter is to certify tbat Monroe County will accept responsibility for maintenance and operation of the Key Largo, Cudjoe Key, and Long Key Sani.tary Landfills I after final closure If you require additional lnformation or have any t questions, please do not hesitate to contact either uyself l or Barry Boldissar (3051 292-4432. I . Brown I County Adninistrator I T1{Bldcl cc: Barry ltl. Boldissar - Bnvironmental tr4anagement S5.JiHrcXt - Post, Buckley, Schub & Jernigan I File
I RECE IV E D I ilAY e s 1992 Posl tuollel, $chuh & Jern'rgm I @ ililTEi Fmt RECYCLEO PAPER I I I 9. Requirements for Proof of Flnance Resoonsibility The cost estimates presented in this document are budgetary estimates. These costs are based on a variety of information including quotes from suppliers in the area, I generic unit costs, vendor information, conventional cost-estimating guides (i.e., Building and Constnrction Cost Data, 1990 Means), and prior experience. The actual costs of the closure and post-closure witl depend on true labor and material costs, I actual site conditions, competitive market conditions, final scope of the project, the implementation schedule, and other variable factors.
I An estimate of the cost of closure in 1992 dollars is presented in Appendix D. It is assumed that closure would start by mrd-lgg2pending approval of thii plan by FDER. The area to be closed at the facility is approximately thirteen (13) acres. The closure I activities to be performed at the landfill are drainage feature improvements, final grading, construction of drainage culverts and control structures, installation of the final capping system, placement of final cover and the establishment of vegetative I cover. I I t I I I t I I I
I 22 I GROUND / SUFACE WATER TNOHffORII'IG FESULTS
APPEND]X A t FOST. BIITCXTEY, sclfuH L I ftRNlGAll.ll.fc t April 10, 1992 I Mr. Willian Krumbbolz I neeartnent of Environmenal Regulations t2@ hy Street I Ft. Myers, Florida 33901 Re: Quer{erty &nPltng 8nd Anetysls of Grcundweter rt I Monroe CounfY Lsndfllb FebruerT' 1991 t Dear Mr. Knrmbbolz
Encloscd for your rwiew are two copics of the field notcs eod analytical laboratory data frr thc I February, 1992 sanpling of Monrc County's landfll nonitodng sglb.
Tle fietd notcs for Kcy lango, Irqg fsy and Ardja Key rrc iocltdod in Am,hncat A" lb I L5gfatot anatysis of ibe tioito ars iLefiachmeot B. Attachmcat C $tmnadze3 6c drtr itr bbrt ;td g,"phio fqm. A brief descripion of thc onplcr geacsabd SrapU b rl$ I presented in .lttacnneot C to facilihtc &c intcrprcatio of tbc gfqhl" Key hrgo Well Number I (I I Itc Group B parancrcrs in the loog Key landfill well continms b bc elevzlod. Tb lcad concentration in L6g Key Welt Nuniber i ttXtl rcnains abovc daocio t€reb 0r{ n84). (tK3) ror the first time in lwo yean tlre mrnrry level in r'ong Key wdl-Numbcr 3 b !h! I 2 the derection levet (<0.0002 mgn). Td nickel concaratoo in Inng Key_lVell Nunbcr Crcl remains abovt tbo detecdon level (0.060 gg/l), :tc loal nibogeo(IN) oomraims iot lrc remains hig[ compfi€d to the results foi txt aod LK2. Ttc rcmaining GtutP A I pwittur sanplc sveot!. Frameten did not slow any significant cianges frrom the paramclcrr. I The Iong Key surfaoe water samptes shorvod no significant c,hanges in thc Gtwp B preseot rlttre pond dr|in8 The pH ioO fSS values indicate itrat elevated levels of algae TEy E the iampling evenl Tte remaining Grurp A paramaers shoctod no mtabte changer fron t previous levels. sollD wAmnrsotlRct IICOWTY Dn'6|Ot{ wNlIrPArr ruU?A |56oo*ANGt slx'!, ?@' ll,sfi[r,P^rr x'19 I ? '|oREA fiL Q7 t(,,7'7?jt3'^vU{,t. t* m n,p{'u I I Mr. Willian lhmbholz I April 10, 1992 Page Tno I The tobt nitrogen (IN) and total phoqphorous CIP) levels d*r€ascd from tbe prior saryh ct'cnt at Key targo Well Number 2 (Knr, and rcmainod oqrsistcnt wittr prwiors er,€nB fc Key I krgo Well Number 3 (KI3). The otal organic carbo GOC) lwel docreasod significatttly from the previors sampling event. There were no significant changes in thc Gnry B paramaers I for the Key krgo wells. The Key krgo surface water sample showed no significant changes in theGrwp B pannAcrs. Tbe pH and bal suqpended solids CfSS) values indicatc tbat higl oonceotrationr of dgr may I bave been pr€seot in the pond during the sampling er,€at" Tbc remaining Group A pararctcrs showed rc notable changes ftom prwior hr?&. I There wer€ no significant changes noted in &e Cudjc Kcy hndfill monioriqg wcfb Tte Cudjoe Key surfacc water samplc sbowed no sigaificant claryes fq tbc Crulp A and B I parameten. I Please contact me should you have any guestions or reguire ftn t* informatioo. I Sincerely, Robert E lvlacLey, P I Projet Lfanager Solid lVastc Divisioo I e: B. Boldier, Monroe County I. Iulian, Monroe County I L Gordan, DER, Marathon R. Schauer, PBS&J B. TIiItM, PBSIIJ I S. L€vin, PBS&J REl"l/cla/9 I l1-253.1O3.0 I I I I I I I I I I I I yoryROE COIIMV r |j^m, e I cRou^nw lER riotfl?rnnrc I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TTlcrwglt' I slwPt wG voRI( SHpF's I I I I I I I I I I oArE 2 /tt /72 /' fitt. lvllill Eotx lttt LXNI 3 ?, S, !,'clnct /Yt t TOC LEyEL Wrfitr I?DL IENP WRLN9 EL.tfl.) mflE&Ul t.E|H-nlst rilff\l n (t al g LK IIE 1 tl! g.o r o,sl 9.6 6.9? )3 A 7'39 LK f,lE a.4b 3,42 0.6 r 7,5 2l 7 ta t € 6,gJ 2 3,-t LKI!,3 6,/-7 6'I O o,o LONG KEY LANDFILL TTICHtrIF*rt P p',TrqLl, FOws QU REporyT I PATATEIST XONITOEIf,C II?ORI I (Rule L7-3.402, 17'3.404 - 17-3.406) o{s t Sanple Datc 2/LV92 I t{onltorlng llell I Tcll T1rye: I Background I Sltc BotudarY tfcll Nane LKIl I Internedlacs I VI Coqllancc Classiflcatlon of Grounduacer b -F Ground lfater Elevatl'on t tlell Developed* Prlor to ) ? Sanplc Collectlon (Yesfio, Yts (above t{ ;t) Q'S'f et. I I Storet Analysls Flltered/ Co& Result Unftltered Cadoltn Grab EPA 200.7 <0.01 D$/L U to pE I *Wc1l developnent ls the process of punplng the nell prlor to sanpllng ln order to obcala r representattve ground uater sanple. 17-1.2L6(2, DF.h For:n f:\tenp\nnr4lkl.292 I Effectlve Januaty 1, 1983 I I PAn^IIETET, HONITOTIXC IIFOII I (Rule L7.3.402, 17'3.404' 17'3.406) ct{$ t serplc D*cW t l{onltorlng Uell I Ucl1 tlpc: IlBackgramd [ ] Slte lamderY lfell Naoe tx#2 I I Interrdhtc I p'(l GonPllencc Classlflcatlon of Groundw acet 'fr -O gtter T 9el.l DeveloPed* Prlor to Ground Blevatlon (above fc. Sapple Colllctlon (Yeslxo) Y e S tl:tL) -&t- I I Storet Paraneter Analysls Flltered/ vetlves Addsd Code l{onltored Result Unflltered Grab EPA 200.7 <0.01 rg;lL U to pH(l I 01027, Cadnlun plldl 01034 Ctrronlurn Grab EPA 200.7 <0.04 tt/r u to Grab EPA 245.1 <0.0002 DT/L U to glk2 71900 l{ercur5l pH4 01067 Nlckel Grab EPA 200.7 0.071 DT/L U to I as u to 40C 00615 Nltrlte Grab EPA 353.2 0.05 ngll Grab EPA 353.2 4.02 l€,lll cs u to pH obcaln e I *llell developnenc ts the process of puroplng the uell prlor to sanPllng ln order to representatlve ground ueter sanple. DER Forn 17'1.2L6(2, f :\teup\grrilk2.292 I Ef,fectlve JanuarY 1, 1983 I I PA8rlllll ronllotlxc ltFom I (RuIe 17 -3.402, L7'3.4O4 - 17-3.406) I cl{st Sarplc Deto 2tLLr92 t{onlcorlng Well I 9e11 $pc: I I Background [ ] Sltc lounderY Internedhtc Hell Nane IXTI3 [ | I Xl Corpltencc cldsslflcatlon of Groundwatet 6 4 I Developed* Prlor to Ground lfater Elevatlon uell (abovc ft. Saople Collectton (Yes/t{o) Ye S tlSL) -Q:22- I vrtlvet I Stdret Add.d Gode to ptl(l Cadnlun Grab EPA 200.7 <0.01 ,t/L u I 01027 u to plKl 01034 Chronlun Grab EPA 200.7 <0.04 D,t/L U to ptk2 71900 l{ercury Grab EPA 245.1 0.0003 stlL U to pll(l 01067 Nlckel Grab EPA 200.7 <0.06 tt/L I as U to AoC 00615 Nltrlte Grab EPA 353.2 0.02 nglL gPA as U to p[ obtaln a I *Well developnent ls the process of prroplng the nell prlor to sanpllng ln order to representattve ground sater sa-nple. 17'1.2L6(2, DER. Fon f I Effectlve JanuarY 1, 1983 :\tenp\nnrhll3.292 T lTT Flni'Fttt c +Gr.'GRITrft GQ|P]'1 DESCRI':?tory oc cowtFt I An' r 4c I To rsbr in inatprcdns ud ctrturdnj rcqrarlrtod drn rad to bcttct vi$diz3 prranctcr tctrcg rt brvc dql$ l- rcporr^r'tLi b acods in 'lbc .qryrrircd ;n*ba roporr oogriscs r lct ol Edlbf nticb 3bil tbc Purocc.r larcb I recordcd i! stl ernplij3 aaotf rd vhid rrc rplrrrcd into tro jrqp b crcb rooiroi*e[ (A .iC 5f Mcralr rrc plrcd la- hnrncar 9-.pr B .I o$cr pnr.r.t n rraplaccd in Gmrp A Thb lcpndoo Dt ody fin,b mrc T*ltbc lt b still I tdil., U,ri ii db anom tbc pirunctct! tobc groupcd mrdiry-o -F ;a*t t" iguodd scaf bcon t() toc pnncen b tb3 9t*p A irrPb s sbo-. ii rlc Ebdbcbu, .llotriry ur to Pfsvidc tbc tG$tB in r morc uniform I tr8nncr. PARATTEIEN GROIPING ATID t sYums usED I GR(N]P Prraoctar Sytrbol Ulcd SFnbol &cd I Nenc Is-$Ug 9n CrTlh Watcr Etcvetion Wrtcr EL Et I Totel Dlsotvcd Solid' TDS TIXT Totrl Oryrnic Clrbon" TOC 10c Totd Mtro3cn" TN fi pH I P[l pH Totel Suspcndcd Soli&' TSS l',ls I fiROIP n ZiE Zr+ Zl I btn l"cfi fb Mcrouy Mcrory tll Cbronfun Cfroufun (r t Crddun Cedniuo Cd M*d Ni&cl Ni rcnrd I . Tbc relucs rcad frorn tbc fnp! mrst bc nultiplicd by t,ffi !o obtsi! vrlueg I .. Thc vatucs rcad from tbc g$tr mrst bc nultiplied bt l0 to obtain aetud I valucg t I I I I I I = I s o d Fi E Pa t 93' oa Jf- 3E iJ I a, i t*l riF Id E; I I F EEd F 6# ! oe iH , gI tI 3 9 I o 0 . G 3 z ! 0 o ;! I IT T I = rl E I i E3 z6 T E I F ! iE a I T I EI 6 .T e ti E t s6!i 4 ft 8i gt gi I rt E E EI 2 EF E. ;ittl EE I B !t 8E o q6 E ii I .ld t I I MONROE CO. MONITORING PROGRA'I'I WEIL #Ilril - PARAMETERGROT'PA 14 B', t 910 EI 38 fr6 X2 0 un- EBo ?lgt EBl 11I|9 -' 5p0 11/90 5l9l lwl MOI{TI{/YEAR . EL . TDS . TOC -.-TN +PH r TSS MONROE CO. MONTTORNG PROGRAM WELL # LKl - PARAIvCIER GROI''P B 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 D05 H 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 ?JN 8/90 ?Jgr &91 11189 5/90 fifm 5l9r rrl9r MO}{[H/}IEAR i-kr . Pb *Hg -s-Cr o Cd +Ni I I I I = I 6 o E F P I o 23' I I t t i **t g Id B ? I I i EEd I E I 8E t t I g[ 3 9 t j I - o t 3 tr o T I 2 t 6 t o I ! = I i z6 I I ! I ! i F I ? Io I E 6 .I I e ti T I E g I ;1 I s I e !i I t E 0 E E; . 2 EF T E t P E3 B I e i? a E 5v I .l dd I t I MOI.TROE CO. MON]TORING PROGMII WELL # IlK| - PARAI{ETER GROI.IP A 30 € t2s C) ,g ;20 $rJ & r4 hro %s FI 0 ?JN EBO ?JgI EBl ?JYz 11189 5/90 1180 5l9r l1u91 MOMFI/YEAR . EL o TDS r TOC -s-TN -o-PH ^ TSS MONROE CO. MONTTOruNG PROGRA,i' WELL # T.K2- PARAI{ETER GROI.'P B 0.15 E E 0.1 2ln 8p0 wr EBl 11/89 5N 1L90 sler twt MOT{TI{/YEAR q-Zn o Pb *Hg -s-Ct {-ql +Ni t I I I I 6 o= E a1 ?e I 2fr aa I i **: E;li, ! t F EEd 8E urG I e oz I = I I I I I I I E I I I I MONROE CO. MON]TOflNG PROGRA'iI WELL #Il(3 - PAMMETERGROI,JPA I 10 98 I o g6g) I sl34 I &2 Fl t go I !-z -4 ?Jm Epo ?ter EBl w2 1189 5N rt90 5/91 r1./9t I MOI$ffi/YEAR I . EL o TDS -.-TOC +-TN -e-PH r TSS MONROE CO. MONITORING PROGRAIII I WELL #TlK3 - PARAMETERGROI.'PB I 0.25 I a2 t p o.rs I 0.1 t 0.05 0 I --z/n EBo wt ver w2 11/tt9 5/90 11P0 5Br rWr MOI{TTI/YEAR I +-7a . Pb --Hg +Cl o @ +Ni I t I t I I t I I I t 'nqt a a{)}J?(oP COIlnflv ' I ilIJN' 'v qFA I t'''lttolryG I I t I I I I I I t @ s$IfPt NG WOQK stfiFs'tr OXe z,/tt / tZ /' finJ. Ereqt L.i/ill tt& LK-5.W * TOC TEVEL WA]ER TUIIL ('C'f WELLN9 ef.itu) rng*roclef qliELtrlstl:==.:rL-- D@Tlftrl Fr a 7.67 /q LK.5YI - - LONG KEY LANDFILL ENVIRONM ENTAL AS$E$$I||EHT APFEHDD(.8 EIIVIROtrTTAL ASSESSETT OF IHE IilTIROE COTTY LATDFILL SYSIEI JAruARY 1991 i I I EIWIRONI.{ENTAL ASSESSMENT I OF THE I I.IONROE COI'NTY I,ANDFILL SYSTEI'! I I KEY I.ARGO LONG KEY I CUDJOE KEY t I,ANDFILLS j I JA}IUARY 1991 I Prepared For I MONROE COUNTY BOARD OT COI'NTY COI-{MTSSIONERS I I Prepared BY t POST, BUCKLEY, SCHITH & JERNIGNI, INC. Consulting Engineers and Planners 1550 Orange Avenue, Suite 7O0 I Winter Park, Florida 32789 I 22-506.20 I I T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! LIST OF TABLES I TABLE 1 - Watgr Samples - Kgy Largo . o...... o o...... 22 I TABLE 2 - Watgr Sanples - Long Key ...... ro 24 TABLE 3 Soil Sarnples - Long Key o...... o.... o o. o...... 27 I TABLE 4 - Vegetation Sarnples - Long Key ...... o...... 29 TABLE 5 - Aninal Sanples - Long Key ...... 32 I TABLE 6 - Water Samples - Cudjoe Key ...... r.... o. o..... 33 l TABLE 7 Soil Sarnples - Cudjoe Key ...... o...... 35 I TABLE I - Vegetation Sanples - Cudjoe Key .... o...... o o... 37 T T I t T I I I I I I LIST OF FIGURES FIGTIRE a a a a a a a aa a aaoa a a aoooaa a a a aaaaa L4 FIGURE a a a a a a r a a a a a a a a a a a a aa a a a a o a aa a a a a a a a a a a a 16 FTGURE a a a a a a a a a a a a a a oa a a a at a a a a a o a o o a a a o a t7 FIGT'RE 19 FIGURE 20 I I EIWIRONUENTAL ASSESSI,IENT OF TEE I l,tOtmOE COI'NTy ITAIIDrILL SygTElt + I t INIRODUCTION I Xf the 1960rs and 70rs were the age of environmental enlightenment, then the 1980rs could be described as the height of environmental regulation. Regulations protecting surface waters and ground waters t have become more stringent over the past ten years. One of the greatest regulatory changes was the shift from perrnits that just t set water quality standards, to perurits that recognized the need to protect biological systems. The two most obvious public services affected by these rule changes were the wastewater treatment facilities and the solid waste facilities. Both have been cited as being resposible for causing eutrophic and toxic impacts to receiving waters and their associated biotic systerns. Monroe County operates three landfills in the Florida Keys located on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe Key. Each of these landfill sites uses, oF in the past has used, incinerators to reduce the i.ncorning solid wastes to an ash residue. The ash rnounds were constructed in unlined areas of the landfill sites, and typically I ltere not covered using clean fill on a regular basis. fhe County does not operate a regional wastewater treatnent facility, and nany of the private homesites and business operate I htith septic tank systems. The three Landfill sites have been used by the County for the final disposal site of septage. Septage I collect,ed by private haulers was deposited in tenporary pits on top of the landfill mounds. These pits were rotated around the top of T I I : I ; the rnound depending on the location of the active fill areas. t ; The Countyts landfill operations potentialty can cause two direct I lmpacts to surrounding natural environment. One irnpact is the : the leachate that results frorn the percolation of rainfall through the I rnoundsr oE from the deposition of septage on top of the mounds can ; seeping directly into underlying groundwaters. The permeability of - I the linestone underlying the landfill sites can allow lateral seepage of these waters to contiguous groundwaters or into adjacent gurface water. The second inpact is the deposition of uncovered ash i on the landfills increasing the opportunity for wind transportion - of ash residue. The height of the mounds decreases the ability of I - the surrounding vegetation to act as a wind barrier. : I There also are several indirect irnpacts that the landfills can have 3 on the surrounding natural communities. The cleared areas of the I landfill sites that are not part of the active landfill operations provide colonization sites for exotic or nuisance species such as Brazilian pepper(Schinus terebinthifolius), feral cats and dogs. i These species are then able to invade off-site systerns that - Otherwise would not have been susceptable to invasion. In areas I Euch as the Keys, these irnpacts are anplified by the relatively $maL1 size of the natural conmunities, and their degree of i lsolation. The overall long term irnpact of this type succession is J often underestirnated because it does not threaten human health. I I,flhen exotic species are recognized as a problem they rnost often already have significantly altered the functional values of the naturaL communities. The other indirect irnpacts the landfills nay I have on surrounding natural systems is the loss of wildlife Corridors and significant edge disturbance to adjacent harnmock or I wetland communities. The purpose of this study was to investigate the existing iurpacts the landfitls have on Iocal surface water, plant, and anirnal tresources. The discharge of nutrients, hearry netals, or other I 2 I I pollutants can cause specific local eutrophic or toxic inpactsr or I the same pararneters can be assinilated into the soils or lower elements of the food chain and then progressively pass through I: Upper trophic levels. The rate of spread between trophic levels and i.ts. significance will depend on the concentration of pollutants I being discharged frorn the landfill sites and the devel.opment (or number of trophic leve1s) within the receiving conmunities. This I gtudy $ras designed to evaluate the distribution of pollutants around the Landfill sites and to reconmend operational procedures that could be irnplenented to ruiniurize future pollutant loadings, I and to identify potential areas that may require clean up actions. SITE DESCRIPTION I- I Kev Larqo I The Key Largo landfiII lies within a tropical. hardwood hammock, with several snall depressional wetlands within, or contiguous to, the northwest corner of the site. Mangrove wetlands associated with I Barnes Sound Iie to the northwest of the 1andfill site. These nangrove wetlands are rrbufferedrr by the tropical hanmock that Furrounds the landfill. These hanmock and mangrove comnunities are the most functionallv intact (or valuable) natural systems lying in close proxinity to any of the Countyts three landfill sites. This is the only location where upland comrnunities transition into wetlands through undisturbed ecotones. These communities forn a wildlife corridor along County Road C-905 frorn the north side to I the south side of the site. fhe harunock communities forrn an uninterrupted closed canopy in the I Areas surrounding the site. The soils within the harnmock range from srnall patches of exposed Linestone to deep organic soils forrned fron decaying plant litter. These hamnock comnunities are composed of a diverse assemblage of hammock species that includes: gunbo- linbo (Bursera simaruba), Spanish stopper (Eugenia foetida), white stopper (Euqenia axillaris), pigeon-plun (Coccoloba diversifolia), strangler-fig (Ficus aurea), buttonwood (Conocarpus erectus), bJ.o1Iy (Guapira discolor), saffron-plum (Bunelia celastrina), I poisonwood (Metopiun toxiferun), black-ironwood (Krugiodendron ferreurn) , blackbead (Pithecellobiun cruadalupense), wild coffee T (Colubrina arborescens), and catrs claw (Pithecellobiurn uncruis- cati). This harnmock has the highest recorded occurrences of T federaLly listed endangered species adjacent to a County landfill. A small pond exists in the northwest corner of the site with an I open water area of about 200 square feet. This wetland has been inundated with approxinately L.25 feet of water during each sanple I event. The bottom sediments are composed of loose, silty organic matter that is easily suspended when disturbed. The perimeter of the pond is vegetated by 10 foot to L2 foot buttonwood and white t nangrove (LaguncuLaria racenosa) trees. There were no submergent or emergent wetland plant species growing in the areas of the pond t that were regularly inundated. Tracks along the edge of the pond indicate that this area is used on a frequent basis by uredium to I, large sized wading birds. No srnall marunal tracks were recorded in the same areas around the pond. Fish and large invertebrate species ! also were not recorded in the pond during saurpling events. l Lonq Key Historically, the Long Key landfill site probably was vegetated by I tropical harnmock, coastal scrub, nangrove wetlands, snall herbaceous wetlands, salt narsh, and coastal rock barren I cornmunities. The development of the LandfiLl site between U.S. Highway 1 and Florida Bay has resulted in the loss of most of these I communities on-site. The geologic surface features in and around the site include smalI, shallow ponds interspersed in an exposed I limerock matrix. These ponds are seasonally inundated with several inches up to 1.5 feet of water. The limerock is covered by a humic I litter soil of varying depths within the areas dominated by hanmock I I vegetation. The landfill is bound to therreastn by U.S. Highway l with a narrohr I stand of vegetation between the roadway and the active area of the landfill. This strip of vegetation is conposed of tropical hannock t species, buttonwood, and Brazilian pepper. The Long Key State Park is located to the east of the roadway. This park is owned and operated by the Florida Departnent of Natural Resources (FDNR) and t is open to the general public. I the narrow strip of vegetation between the landfill and Florida Bay is composed of a fringing mangrove community to the southwest, and t salt marsh species along the northeast section of the site. The vegetation in this band of vegetation along the bay includes black I mangrove (Avicennia gerninans), buttonwood, seagrape (Cogcoloba uvifera), Brazilian pepper, Christmas-berry (Crossooetalurn I ilicifoliun), white mangrove, saltwort (Batis naritina), sea-daisy : (Borrichia frutescens), sea-purslane (Sesuvium portulacastrurn), jointgrass (Paspalum distichurn), crowfoot grass (Dactvlocteniun I aecryptiun) , beach norning glory (Inomoea sp. ) , and sea blite (Sueda linearis). There are several open water pools inland of and T eontiguous with the coastal vegetation that appear to be Continuously inundated. These pools are surrounded by dense I buttonwood/white mangrove conmunities and have deep sediments qonposed of decaying litter and fine. organic silts. The color of I the surficial soil horizon is brown-red brown and contains large Ieaf and twig fragrments. The soils underlying the upper soil layer are composed of finer clayey sediments that generally are brown to I grey-b1ack. Some of the fine soils in this zone appear to have the 6ame texture as the ash in the landfill areas. These pool sites are I used frequently by several species of herons, egrets, ibis, and by the roseate spoonbill (Aiaia aiaia), a federally listed species. No I lnollusk or fish species were observed within the pools during the sanpling events. I I I The offshore areas are characterized by sea grass beds, and patches of sponges and coraLs. The water depth offshore ranges from 0.5 feet adjacent the intertidal zone up to 6 feet approxinately 150 I feet from shore. Wooden lobster traps are placed along the entire length of .landfill site starting approximately 75 feet offshore. i The vegetative cornrnunity within the of fshore stations can be generalized as a diverse sea grass/algae cornmunity. There are I infrequent occurrences of hard and soft corals as well as individual sponge colonies throughout the grass beds. The doninate species within the sea grass cornnunities include star grass, shoal I grass, and turtle grass. The form of the marine algaes appear uniformily distributed within the grass beds and are dominated by i Acetabularia sp., Halimeda spp., Penicillus spp., and Rhipocephalus I sp. A dense tropical hamrnock lies along the northeast property I boundary. The canopy within this hanmock is dourinated by Janaica dogwood (Piscidia piscipula), poisonwood, gumbo-linbo, butttonwood, pigeon-pIum, and Spanish stopper. These species form a dense, but t discontinuous canopy that limits light penetration to ground level except in breaks in the canopy where shrub and groundcover species I form dense patches of vegetation. There are few signs of disturbance in this hammock that rnay be attributed to the landfilL I operation. t The most controversial natural features associated with this Iandfil1. site lie along the southwest property line. Much of this area has been disturbed by past clearing activities, with the natural vegetation being replaced by Brazilian pepper in many areas. This area also supports the coastal rock barren and rockLand hanmock that contain several endangered plant species. These species include thatch palns (Thrin"ax nrorrisii and T. radieta) , junping cactus (Onuntia triacantha), joewood (Jacouinia kevensis), and wild cotton (Gossvpiun hirsutum). The FDNR and Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) biologists have clairned that the coastal I I - :- rock barren conmunities should be protected since they represent - globally threatened pJ.ant communities. This corumunity is described by FNAI as a continuun between narine consolidated substrate and I - rockland hammock that are sparsely vegetated with stunted, xeric and halophytic shrubs, cacti, and herbaceous species. On-site these pepper, sandspur (Kranreria I conmunities also included Brazilian sp. ) , finger grass (Eustochvs petraea) , crowfoot grass, and wild Fage (Lantana involucrata). The ruderal nature of nany areas within - the coastal rock barren cornmunities resembled that of infrequently f traveLed roads in the southwest areas of the site. - The wetlands along the southwest areas of the site are lirnited to i the small depressional or solution basins and the fringing mangrove :. conmunities. The srnaLl basins apparentl.y are the only potential I source of fresh surface water in the areas around the landfill :j available to wildlife. The basins are composed prinarily of exposed t l.imestone with 2 to 4 inches of litter along the bottom. Most of the basins are located within the rockland hannock communities and I I to a lesser extent within the coastal rock barren communities. Dense grass/herbaceous wetland vegetation was not commonly observed in the small depressional. basins within the coastal rock barrens or I the rockland hanmocks. This was in part attributed to the lack of prol-onged periods of standing surface waters, and also may be due to dense stands of buttonwood and hanmock species around the basins. The status of the harnmock comnunities ranges from intact areas with no observable disturbance to areas that have been cornpletely I overgrown by Brazilian pepper. A total of 180 plant species have been recorded in and around the hanrmock areas, of which 20 species I are considered I'rnrlnerable to extinction or extirpation from the United Statesrr by one of several private or governrnent agencies. I Bhe canopy is dominated by Jamaica dogwood, gumbo-Iimbo, poisonwood, buttonwood, Brazilian pepper, and pigeon plun. The I midstory and shrub components are dorninated by crabwood (Ateramnus I I I I lucidus), Spanish stopper, (Cereus qracilis), I dildo cactus saffron- pJ.um, thatch palm, and white stopper. This vegetation within this site forms a diverse community of tropical trees and shrubs but has I a questionable functional value because of the extensive ; distribution of Brazilian pepper. There are no reLiable records I that can be used to assess the successional status of the Brazilian .4 pepper communities, i.e. whether the Brazilian pepper represents an I internediate or clinax comnunity type. . Several species of wildlife rrere observed in the harnmock areas I during the sanpling events. The species observed during the fiel.d 'j surveys included Peromyscus sn., raccoons (Procyon lotor), feral I cats, green anole (Anolis carolinensis), Zebra butterfly, unknown I warbler, unknown pigeon, and a marsh hawk (Circus cvaneus). One background station was established on Long Key along the I extrerne northeastern end of the island. A zone of Linestone rubble : and coraI, prirnarily extended from the shoreline waterward about 25 feet. A sea grass bed that was doninated by Thalassia testudinurn I extended about 40 feet beyond the edge of the linestone rubble. The I Areas beyond the sea grass conrnunities were coruprised of course I grain sedinents with occassional depressions with fine organic si1ts. Individual patches of T. testudinurn, sponge/soft coral t communities extend into deeper waters from the edge of the sea grass communities. The water depths at this station ranged from 0.5 I feet along shore to 15 feet about 150 feet offshore. A current of about 2 knots was flowing toward the east parallel to the shore during the sampling events. Cudioe Kev A pineland cornmunity exists east of the Cudjoe landfill site that historically may have extended through the landfill site. Recent burns and land clearing activities have altered the natural I vegetative communities around the landfill site. The rockland I I comnunity type is characterized by an overstory doninated by slash I pine (Pinus elliottii), with sparse understory vegetation comprised Af a variety of palns and tropical hardwoods. Wetlands forned in I Ehallow solution basins are scattered throughout this cornmunity type. Generally these wetland connunities are doninated by sa$t I grass (Cladiurn iamaicense), buttonwood, and potato-trees (Solanun sp. ) . There is one cattail (Tvpha sp. ) wetland located along tbe $outhwest corner of the landfilL site. The pine rockland cornrounity I is a fire adapted conrnunity that is naintained by periodic burning. If the community does not burn periodically then tropical hardwoods I will eventually replace the pines as the doninate canopy species, ahanging the general character of the comnunity from an open canopy I system with a weLl developed groundcover component to a dense closed canopy restricting light penetration to ground level. A distruption of the fire cycle of the pine conmunity can led to hot, I or catastrophic burn that will destroy the existing vegetative cover. This can result in the replaeenent of pines with ruderal I species which are eventually replaced by tropical hardwoods such as I poison wood. $eedling and young slash pine are sparsely distributed throughout I the tropical hanmock along the north side of the entrance road between the landfill and the front gate to the landfill. The canopy I of this hammock area is dominated by gumbo-Iimbo, poisonwood, pigeon-plum, strangler fig, and Jauraica-dogwood. The understory is cornposed of prinarily of Eusenia spp., and crabwood. There are I $everal seasonally flooded depressions within this area that are characterized by buttonwood canopies with a sparse coverage of I several species of orchids and ferns. The original extent of this hammock appears to have included some areas south of the entrance I road I The hanmock areas south of the road are forned by a narrow band of trees along the road. There are a few rnore mature slash pine trees I in the south hamrnock area than for the north area. Wetlands are I I loeated south of the harnnock and between the landfill site and the T front gate. The wetlands are characterized by a narrow band of red trnangroves (Rhizophora rnanqle) 'along the edge of the landfill that T transitions to a sahr grass/buttonwood wetland about 6O feet east of the eastern property line. The depressional area now occupied by I the mangroves was probably created by past clearing activities associated with the landfill operations, with the red mangrroves repJ.acing the original vegetation. Historically the nangrove area j.n this wetland may have been an extension of the coastal scrub comrnunity currently lying just south of the mangroves, or could I have represented the western extent of the saw grass/buttonwood i wetland. The saw grass/buttonwood wetland can be characterized as a shallow I narsh community where water levels fluctuate from just below the ground surface during the dry season to several inches deep in the I wet season. The substrate within the wetland is prinarily exposed rock with nany srnall solution holes that average 8 inches to L2 i"nches in diameter. Wetland nacrophytic vegetation is generally I confined to these solution holes with the exposed rock being covered by filanentous algae during the wet season. Scattered stands of buttonwood from a sparse shrub or canopy component within this wetland, with the groundcover cornponent being composed I primarily of saw grass and potato-trees. Minnow sized fish have beeh observed in the wetland during one sanple event in the summer I of 1988, however, none vJere captured in subsequent trapping efforts. otherwise no other vertebrate or macroinvertebrate species I have been observed in this wetrand during sarnpring events. The vegetative cornmunities lying south of the landfil1 site I transition from a red mangrove stand al.ong eastern half of the south property line, to a salr grass/buttonwood wetland, and t ultinately to a high hannock connunity. A backwater area of Florida tsay lies beyond the harnmock eommunity. The two wetland communities I extend from the southeast corner of the landfill site to about the I 10 I I tnid point of the southern property line. The wetlands are replaced by the high hanmock community beyond the nid point. As above, the hangroves are found in an area previously cleared of vegetation by t Iandfill activities, and probably were not part the original vegetative cornmunity. Where present, the red Dangroves have forned I a closed canopy that tinits the distribution of other wetland species. A wetland grass/herbaceous component does not occur down I gradient of the areas dorninated by buttonwood. The hydroperiod in both mangrove conmunities was characterized by prolonged periods of I standing water ranging in depth from saturated soils to L2 inches and also controLled the distribution of grass/herbaceous within the nangrove canopy. No fish or other animal species hrere observed in I the wetlands along the south property line. I The cornposition of the hanmock community differs from the hammock communities along the entrance road by the repJ.acement of taller I canopy species such as Jamaica-doguood and gumbo-lirnbo by a more dense shrub component cornprised of Pithecellobium spp., strong-bark I (Bourreria sp. ) , wild dilly (Manilkara baharnensis) , &d.e-gpp*, Bunelia spp., irnmature poisonwood, and wild linre (Zanthoxvlun Faqara). Areas of the hanmock contiguous with the landfiLl that I have been cleared are in the earJ.y phase of secondary succession and are doninated by chain fern (Woodwardia sp.)and sparse I occurrences of seedling poisonwood, gurnbo-limbo, and I Pithecellobiurn. A narrow band of red and white mangroves extends along the west I property line from the southwest corner to the north property line. A small cattail stand lies alond the south side of this mangrove comnrunity. once again the mangrove area appears to have been I altered by past landfilt activities, by clearing of the natural vegetation and a lowering of the pre-existing gradient. The red I lnangrove trees form a dense canopy that has linited the development of groundcover species. Water leveIs recorded during sanpling I events in this wetland area have fluctuated between about 6 inches I 11 I ! below ground surface elevations to depths of 1G inches. Raccoons I appear to occur f,requently within the wetland but other species such as fish and nacroinvertebrates were not encountered during any I sample event. i The rnangrove conrnunity extends about 100 feet west of the perineter & road around the landfill expansion area and is then replaced to the $test by a remnant hammock conmunity. The hannock conmunity extends I about 60 feet west of the edge of the mangroves and is then severed by the access road to the radio tower adjacent the northwest corner of portion t:. the landfill site. The of the hannock J.ying west of this : access road has been devastated by a recent fire. ALt of the canopy r f,nd shrub level vegetation was lost during the fire and has been ; fepLaced by a dense stand of chain fern. There are seedling tree I $pecies beginning to re-invade this area that include gurnbo-limbo, poisonwood, Jamaica-dogiwood, and pithecellobiurn spp, . = t t: The areas north of the landfill site can be classified as a j backwater area of Florida Bay. This area is forned by shallow very I $parse seagrass beds with interspersed with srna1l colonies of marins algaes and tunicates. The seagrass beds are formed prirnarily I by shoal grass and turtl.e grass that have a cornbined,dense of about 4 stems/m2 offshore of the landfill site. Srnall mangrove islands are located throughout this backwater area. I{ater levels between the property line and the first mangrove island north of the ehoreLine ranged frorn 0.5 feet to 2.9 feet in depth. The substrate $as forrned by linestone rock overlain by 2 inches to 18 inches of sediments'. The course sedirnents hrere cornprised of shell fragments I and the calcarious remains of rnarine algaes, intermixed by fine organic silts. The fine sedinents hrere divided between brown I organic sil-ts and a grey-black fine sedinent sirnilar in texture to the ash deposits in the landfilI. The brown organic silts generally I forn the upper 0.5 inch to 1 inch of the sediment profile, with the grey-black sedirnents appearing to be equally distributed from the t organic layer to the underlying rock. Benthic macroinvertebrates L2 Qbservedduringthesanp1ingeventsinc1uded@and several species of lirnpets. I One background station was established at the extreme north end of cudjoe Key which lies approximately 2 uriles north of the landfill gite. The vegetative communities within the background station were I dorninated by Thalassia teqtudinurn, ' EaLgllllg w.rishtii, and the rnarine algae Penicillis sp.. The grass beds were I interspersed with several scleractian and alcyurian coral species, Eponges, and tunicates. t{ater depths at the background station I ranged from 2 feet to 3.5 feet. :1 I I{ETBODS I Water quality stations were set up around each landfill site within adjacent wetland areas or in Florida Bay. The intent of the study was to sarnple each site at least once during the wet and dry I seasons. The samples were to be analyzed for the same heavy metal and nutrient parameters as typically reported for the groundwater i samples collected from the monitoring wells. Nutrient parameters were dropped frorn the open ocean stations if the original sanples I $howed low concentrations. Water samples were not collected fron any station where water depth prevented the collection of samples I Irithout stirring bottorn sedinents. Each sanple coLlected during this study was preserved by acid treatnent and stored on ice until i being turned into the laboratory for analysis. KEY I.ARGO lFhere was one wetland systern Located within 1OO feet of the Key I Largo landfill (Figure 1). This pond has been inundated during the past three years groundwater sample events and during the course of I this study. PLant and soil sanples were not collected from this station since the water guality samples did not indicate elevated hearry metal concentrations Lrere present in the pond. 13 I I t I I J J I l!- I zo J I c I Ez I a o o I G I J ul I Y I I I I I I I LONG KEY Four water quality stations were established around the Long Key landfill (Figures 2 and 3). Station 1 was located in the borrow I pond located in the center of the site. The sanples were collected about 10 feet from the edge of the pond in the northeast corner of I the pond. Station 2 was located within the a hannock conmunity along the southwest section of the site. This wetland site was forned by a srnall solution basin with an approximate surface area of 3Oo fic2. The substrate within the basin was composed from exposed Limestone I with 1 to 2 inches of leaf litter along the bottom of the basin. There hras no vegetation within the basin but the perineter of the I basin was surrounded by a dense stand of buttonwood. Station 3 was established in a srnalL pond lying between the I southernmost landfill mound and Florida Bay. The surface area of the pond was about 950 ft2 and it was separated from the bay by the I nanltrove fringe and the landfill by the peri.meter road. There was no vegetation in the flooded areas of the pond, but it htas I surrounded by a dense nangrove conmunity that included buttonwood, white mangrove, and black mangrove. Tracks within the pond indicated the pond was frequently visited by several bird species. I Water guality samples from the pond were supplemented by the collection of sediment sanples, and plant sanples that incLuded a I composite of leaves, seeds, and braches collected fron buttonwood I and white mangrove trees. A fourth station included a transect that was oriented I perpendicular to the shoreline was established in Florida Bay adjacent the northwest corner of the borrow pond. Two stations were I located along the transect about 50 feet and 150 feet frorn shore. I 15 I I I I J c :o I ..3o I c o I o ! I o t -1- I \ I 151., !:, I l. ; :' I LONG KEY . \ SANITARY LANDFILL I a I Ij t i6r I 4 I '''. I i..'l. I I I f'C. I ! GENERAL SITE LOCI I a t"'t rJ.5. uwY LONG KEY SANI" .ARY LANDFILL t !{id depth water samples were collected at each station. Plant I sanpl.es colLected at each station included turtle grass and Penicillis sp. a1gae. The plant sanples included the collection of I above and below ground structures. Conposite sponge samples also were coLlected at each station that included taking sections from I at least three different species growing in a 16.5 foot radius of the center of the station. I CUDJOE KEY t S4rnpling locations at the Cudjoe Key landfill were set up along four transects, each with four sampLe stations at 50 foot interval.s I along the transect (Figures 4 and 5). Transect A ran due east fron the southeast corner of the landfilL mound. The four stations along I ttransect A srere located at the toe of the landfiLl mound, the mangrove community, the saw grass community, and the sast grass/buttonwood community, respectively. The substrate at each I station was composed of exposed limestone, with the exception of the mangrove station that had a well developed organic layer I derived frorn red nangrove leaf litter. Plant samples were coLlected fron each station that included a composite of the doninate species t at each station. There were no aninal species available to sample during the terrn of this study I Triansect B ran due south of the southeast corner of the landfill mound. The four stations along this transect were located in the I north edge of the mangrove connunity, the south edge of the mangrove iommunity, a saw grass/buttonwood conmunity, and a snall I solution basin doninated by saw ltrass, respectively. The substrate at the latter two stations was primarily exposed limestone, and a I srel] developed organic soil at the former two stations. Plant sdrnples vrere collected from the forner two stations and included I composite sarnples of Leaf and seed materiaL. Sediment samples also hrere collected from a point between the first two stations since I they hrere part of the sane hydric unit. I 18 I ''4,1j.'i,. "*i:'li a '*jl, ' $ iie,,iil[ti:d t .:i nt F'LJo rn ) ,s 6 o b t, cF t 1 ll !t ll o It ? lr lr lr I 3 I iiSt ,?I g * I 2 o ,8M 8 1 -u ! t;6 GENERAL SITE L( ; I i6 dr,,.f v?1" t 3 it Y1 {P q !*' f t, *?7 '. fi INDETINIIE *#( - '..i l'.# {: r"'Diii 1li\n Tniilc ,P*li { l.r ll ti I t' I I J t J l!- I zo I J I E zb T a I UJv I oul o? 3 t o l I I t I I llransect C was located due west of the western periureter road about I 50 feet north of the southwest corner of the proposed landfill rnound. The first station on this transect ltas located in a I cattail/saw grass community contiguous to east Eide of the perirneter road. this station was elirninated by landfill activities l, between the second and third sample events. The remaining three stations were located in the mangrove connunityr i snall depression I doninated by savJ grass, and a srnall solution basin devoid of vegetation. The substrate at each station was exposed J.imestone, except at the nangrove station that had a peat soil formed frorn red t nangrove leaf litter. Plant and soil sanples were collected fron I the mangrove station. Transect D was located due north of the incinerator unit and I extented into Florida Bay. A11 for stations were located in sinilar type marine cornmunities with varying densities of grass species. I The substrate depth at these stations ranged from about 6 inches adjacent the shoreline to about 20 inches at the third station. The plant samples collected at each station included cornposite sampl-es t of above and below ground structures for sea grass and algae I species. t REgUL,TS Kev Larcro I The results of surface water quality sanpling at the Key Largo landfill are shown in Table 1. This data includes the results of I surface water sampling conducted as part of the continuing FDER I groundwater rnonitoring progran. The table indicates the I I I 2L I gF sr3888R888;G)00(\tlo(oFr!) l= Fg RgF6RS\E:N ESPTgRRS9R zEr= utr",.qtdduicdctctct l'" FE F e999gRb89R gE u;*cOddutqiddsi t trg F l= (It(4larO@OltON-Q Ct) sSEEEEqqEq NE-E oOcjooooOOo v (to l' Ir lf,,lf,rt' |orOlOlDlOlOlO 9E,= o66oogoooo > trE 93V999V999 YUJ t FCN I t! uJ 5g) rrtttttttt d)L E vvv999999V t_ 3F U) NATNN(\IATNo|qJEI CE = t- trj rEg,b sEgEggEggg 3 9999999999 sE- tttttttStt l_ "E eee99?eeee EX3 qqqeqsee99FFFFFT'FFFF l' oE 9999999999 l_ zF t. lll * UJ qEfi:qgfiIqg t t 22 I I I concentration of the six metals sanrpled at Station t have not I exceeded FDER drinking water standards during the past 2.5 years. The total nitrogen concentrations observed for the sane tine period I were sufficiently high to cause eutrophic inpacts to the pond such as nuisance algal blooms. Station 1 is located in an isolated pond l' that does not discharge to off-site wetlands and therefore, nutrient irnpacts to surface waters were linited to this one on-site pond. There lrere no obvious changes to the vegetative connunities l' adjacent the pond that could be attributed to the eLevated nitrogen I concentrations, such as increased occurrences of weedy species. The prirnary irnpact of the Key Largo landfill on contiguous natural l' cornmunities is attributed to the dispersal of ash and dust along the edge of the hamrnock communities. The trees and shrubs along the north property line appeared stressed during the first two sample ev€nts. Many of the leaves on the trees and the apical ends of their branches were dead. There was some evidence the dead leaves would be replaced by leave buds, however, subsequent inspections indieated these trees had a decreasing canopy area. The area of disturbance was lirnited to a 10 foot band along the edge of the harnmock. Sinilar tree species beyond this zone did not exhibit the same characteristics as those along the edge. Shrub species, especially wild coffee and wild Lime, gro$ring in the same zone hrere showing the same signs of stress. These species ltere not regenerating visible above ground growth and eventually lost all above ground structures. The duration of this study was too short I' to determine whether the edge of the hanmock hras stable or receding. It is clear the landfill is exerting an edge effect on t' the hammock corununity by negatively influencing the prinary productivity in the areas adjacent the property line. I' Lonq Kev I The water quality results for the Long Key landfitl- site are shown I in Table 2, A review of this data indicates the six heavlg metals 23 I I t l sanpled during this study did not exceed the FDER Chapter 17-3 FAC I standards, with the exception of Station 35' This sample uas collected in the pond adjacent the mangrove fringe and was frequently used by wading birds. This sarnpLe event was designed to I': test the effect of wading birds on the pond sedinents by collecting l- a sampLe frorn the pond after the sediroents vere disturbed by .,; walking across the pond. The data predicts that mercury, Iead, and zinc are present in the sedirnents in concentrations higher than I would be expected for undisturbed sites. The observed concentrations for all three parameters are below the freshwater I the u.s. Environnental Protection ; and saltwater lirnits set by Agency. Reports prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the I (USFWS) also indicates the observed concentrations are below LC-50 lirnits established for marine and freshwater test organisuts' 35 to l The discharge of water sirnilar to that generated for sample Florida Bay would technically violate State water quality standards in r and also is sufficiently high to influence rnetal concentrations . nearby vegetation. I The results of the nitrogen analyses show TotaL Kjeldahl Nitrogen l- (TKN) concentrations are very high for the three stations located in ponds around the landfill site. Station 2 represented the l- outermost station from the landfill mound and had the I'owest TKN concentration. This provides some evidence that leachate fron the landfill mound is being significantly reduced by the time it reaches the northwest property line. Unfortunately the water levels at Station 2, or similar ponds adjacent the station, never were I sufficient to collect more ttran one sample during this study' The nitrogen concentrations in the borrow pond represented by Station I 1 were causing a phytopLankton bloorn that limited the Secchi depth in that pond to a visibility of less than 3 feet. Algae also were occurring at Station 3 during each sarnple event and the Secchi I depths for this pond were 3 inches during events L, 2, and 4, and I 8 inches durint the third sarnple event. The TKN concentrations at 25 I I I stations 1 and 3 were sufficient to cause eutrophic inpacts the I' near shore marine conmunities if they were discharged directly to the ocean, and consequently would violate FDER water guality l- Etandards. l The offshore samples collected from Station 4 do not indicate excessive Levels of nitrogen are present in the Bay waters contiguous with the northwest property line. Previous water quality studies conducted by FDER around Marathon indicates that offshore tKN concentration general.ly averaged about O'41 n9/1 in their I controL area. The two control samples collected as part of this study were not statistically higher than the FDER values, when I Compared using the Studentrs T-test (p = O.O5) ' Another offshore water quality study has been cond.ucted by the Florida Keys tand And l'' Sea Trust but these results were reported in units not comparible to those for this study or State sponsored studies' The water quality samples col-lected at station 4 were not statisticall'y I different from the background stations' I The results of the sediment sarnpling program are shown in Table 3' Fediment samples were not collected frorn stations 1 and 2 because t sufficient loose materials were not available at tbese sites' The samples collected at Station 3 indicated that elevated I goncentrations of chromiun, nercury, lead, and zinc were present in the pond sediments. There is reas.on to believe the observed sediment concentrations for these four netals do exceed expected I background concentrations. The USrWS reports lead concentrations of 3.0 tng/kg in carbonate narls of coastal Florida' mercury I concentrations of less than 1.O urg/kg for uncontaminated sediments, chromium concentrations of 50 urg/kg to 54 ng/kg in control marsh I rsediments and the zinc concentrations were significantly higher than those report by the FDER Marathon study' recogtnizing the latter results were for marine sediments. The guestion is do these I elevated sediment concentrations result from leachate, ash t deposits, or a cornbination of the two. The coloration of sedinent 26 I I I I I l,, TABLE 3 SOIL SAMPLES-LONG KEY l= STAT]ON EVENT Cd Cr Hg Ni Pb Zn I ## (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) 2 l: 3 <8.0 .rr.o .ro .ro.o .r0., 506.00 4 <1.0 4.60 J02 <6.0 6.6 101.00 3B 3 <1.0 4.95 <0.1 <6.0 <5.0 12.55 <0.1 <5.0 22.70 I' 4A 2 <1.0 <4.0 <6.0 4 <1.0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 5.47 4B 2 <1.0 <4.0 <0.1 <6.0 <5.0 10.70 l_ 4 <1.0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 5.37 BK1 2 <1.0 <4.0 0.11 <6.0 <5.0 8.00 4 <1.0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 1.59 <.02 <5.0 1.56 I' 4 <1.0 <4.0 <6.0 r-j I - l' t l- I T I I 27 I t l t l= TABLE 3 SOIL SAMPLES-LONG KEY l= STATION EVENT Cd Cr Hg Ni Pb 7n I ## (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) l' <8.0 <33.0 <.80 <50.0 <80.2 506.00 <1.0 4.60 .102 <6.0 6.6 101.00 3B <1.0 4.95 <0.1 <6.0 <5.0 12.55 4A <1.0 <4.0 <0.1 <6.0 <5.0 22.70 <1.0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 5.47 4B <1.0 <4.0 <0.1 <6.0 <5.0 10.70 <1.0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 5.37 BK1 <1.0 <4.0 0.11 <6.0 <5.0 8.00 <1.0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 1.59 BKz <1,0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 1.56 I I I I 27 I samples collected at Station 3 was sinilar to the ash deposits in the landfill nounds. ft does, therefore, seem reasonable to assume the metals concentrations observed at Station 3 are nore l. attributable to ash deposition than to leachate seepage. l The results for Station 4 do not indicate a heaw rnetal build up has occurred in the offshore sedinents. The concentrations for lead l are^ significantly lower than the values reported by FDER for the Marathon study, and are approach the background concentrations reported by USFWS. A study by FDER at Boot Key that included heavy r metal testing indicated the rrarnbient controlrr concentrations for chrornium as high as 5.5 rng/kg, lead concentrations to 2.6 mglkg, l Dercury and cadmj.un concentrations renained below detection linits, and zinc concentrations ranged to 9.9 ng/kg. These results also are l not signi.ficantly different frorn the data f6r Station 4 shown in Table 3. The Long Key background station results also did not I differ from those for Station 4. These results somewhat contrast the fact that sedirnent samples collected at Station 4 appeared to l have ash deposits distributed throughout the core sample depth' The analyses of plant samples collected around the Long Key l" Iandfill are shown in Tab1e 4. The plant sanples collected at Station 3 further demonstrate the presence of higher leveIs of the l metals in the pond. The plant samples seem to anplify the chroniun levels as compared to the sediment and especially the water samples. The plants also appear to be storing nickel in the above ground structures at increased leve}s as compared to sedinent levels. Mercury does not appear in the plant analyses, but the lead I' and zinc results reflect similar patterns as those shown for the sediments. Reports f or sirnilar plant species were not readiJ-y t available from the literature, hovever, the USFWS has reported chromiurn Levels in Spartina spp. as ranging from 2.3 pPn to 3.1 pptn. The chromium values recorded at Station 3 during landfill studies were significantly greater than those reported by the I USFWS. Sinilar comparisons for the other netal parameters were not I 28 I t I I l- TABLE 4 l= VEGETATION SAMPLES-LONG KEY STATION EVENT cd Cr Hg Ni Pb Zn I' (udl) (udl) #tl (udl) (udD (udl) (uCl) 2 3 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 21.2 I 3A 3 <1.0 a..t 24.68 0 ,.:o r..t. 73:6 4 3B 3 <1.0 4.95 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 12.55 T: 4A 2 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 22.70 4 <1.0 5.57 <.04 14.2 3.2 145.0 4B 2 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 10.70 I 4 <1.0 <4.0 <.04 <6.0 <5.0 9.59 BK1 2 <1.0 <4.0 0.11 <6.0 <5.0 8.00 4 <1.0 7.72 <.04 <6.0 <5.0 5.99 BK2 4 <1.0 8.6 <.04 <6.0 <5.0 3.86 I t l' I I I I 29 I I I l_ I available from the literature. .: The plant sanples collected fron vegetation adjacent Station 2 can I be used for comparitive purposes as a eontrol site. This comparison r- does show the chroniun, nickel, lead, and zine concentrations in I plant samples collected from Station 3 were higher than would be - expected from an undisturbed site. The relative inpact of the metals to the ecology of Station 3 only can be stated as conjecture I using the data from this study. The movernent of netals through the a above ground plant tissues, incLuding seeds, increases the I probability where : of their distribution to higher trophic levels they generally will exhibit greater toxic impacts. The toxicity of f, the metals to the plants sanpled was not readil.y apparent, since their growth form, canopy density, and fecundity did not appear I abnormal for the same species growing in different locations. The offshore plant sanples did not show increased storage rates for Ir the cadniurn, chrornium, and mercury pararneters when compared to the background station. It should b'e noted that chrorniun levels were higher at the background station than for Station 4. A review of T the literature indicates that chrornium appears to be readily stored I or concentrated in wetland and narine plants. As an example the I UsFWs reports chronium concentration in plants collected in Puerto Rico range frorn 0.4 ng/kg to 110 ng/kg. The chromium levels l" observed for Station 4 are within the ranges of composite plant samples collected frorn around the world. l' The nickel, lead, and zinc concentrations in plants colLected at Station 4 was significantly higher than for plants collected at the I background station. This reflects a sirnilar trend to that described above for Station 3. All three metals have very wide ranges of I val-ues reported for samples collected around the world, and accordingly it would be very difficult to quantify their toxic I status. one positive correLation that does appear in the literature is the relationship between the concentration of netals in plant t tissue and the surrounding waters. The data collected during this 30 study does not reflect a sinilar correlation between the plants and water quality results. once again, the only assunption that wilL be nade at this tirne is the plants are reflecting non-uniform distribution of ash deposits the offshore sediments. The results of the anirnal- samples collected in Florida Bay along station 4 are shown in Table 5. This data further confuses the situation discussed above for the offshore plants. A1I the aninal species sampled during this study are filter feeders and conseguently fil.ter large quantities of water. These aninals could not be influenced by the metal concentrations in the sediments, unless the sediments were frequently suspended in the water colurnn. The other possible explanation would involve the wind dispersion of ash across the study area such that the ash concentration is a I significant part of the total suspended solids. I Cudioe Kev : The water guality results for the Cudjoe Key landfill site are I shown in Table 5. As for Long Key, the water quality results can be divided into toxic parameters and those associated with nutrients. I The results for the hearlr metal samples indicate there htere no situations where these parameters. exceeded the FDER Chapter l7-3 I FAC water quality criteria. The water quality sanples were augrrnented at Transect D by collecting samples in areas where the sediments had been re-suspended by walking across the sarnple site. I This test was included for Transect D since the marine sediments along the transect were easily re-suspended into the water colunn I by the wind. The results for this test indicated that the metaLs I were not easily resuspended back into the water colurnn. The results of the nitrogen analyses does show elevated levels of TKN in the adjacent wetlands and the Bay. The results for transects I A, B, and C show the TKN concentrations serially decreasing as the t transects move away fron the landfill mounds. The TKN levels along 31 I I I t I t I I TABLE 5 ANIMAL SAMPLES-LONG KEY I ;;;;- ;G;- -;- --;-- -;;-- t;- --* - -;-- # # (udl) (udt) (udt) (udt) (udt) (udt) 442 4.1 5.4 <.10 99 35.8 77.00 482 7.3 <4.0 <.10 137 5.8 3o5.OO BK1 2 1.7 <4.0 <.10 2g <5.0 30.70 I t I I I t I I 32 I I I l' t- -.: 8E 8R 88EREss9 CDr F O) (i) lr) $l t t\ @ O g:, $l O lO @ U l- EE \q 1 u? qu?o? u?\ a?ol q$ qS Ftr o(") AIO@{G)Olr0O0OtOl$lrOrr\ - 9qt iqRE'-F ' F Sb l' (oro oO (o O@ Ol 0O0O N o)a:toO@GO O F N F $ d) rl r r rlt Fqv|4l(q)--Orr - - N5', oo sqqssqqqqqqqee--O(\lr(\lOr veee vq ee--OO v v l- YUJ u, o ooro rD oooooooooooooooooooortt rr) ro ro ro ro ro to ro rt) lo ro ro lo lo ro ro lo lo lo ooooro ro |li, ro o (L5', VV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVV o l- I @6 ul uJ oo@(o oooooooooooooooooooo(o@@@@@@@(o@(o@@@@(or0(o(o(0 (o(o(o(ooooo 6lL >o, l- s VV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVV F ct) N N AI OI N (\I NCI OIN NN $I ATAINNN NN(\I (\I AI AI AI OI CE oo oooooooooooooooooooo oooo l" FIJJ cD >. oo oooooooooooooooooooo oooo 3 VV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVV €$ t$tr€sttrtttttt$it\trttt$rf tt !E!E99 CD oo ocro9 l- r\ VV ooooo<>ooooooooooooocrVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVV l- E= ooFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF oooooooooooooooooooo oooo o:' VV VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVV l- F fr* F F F r r Ol ? F F r r $ F F ? (qt t F G) .rf r 6:t St F G, t' !t $ l- trj z o rNG)te (\lC+)$-(\l C)rlr (\l .t YY-(\1 l- F+ <<<<(I] CDog!oo ooo o o oc0 oF l" 33 t- I I the transects lrere sufficiently high to cause algae bloonrs in open I areas of the wetlands. fn addition, a large cattail stand had developed along the station C1 and was replacing the salr grass I conmunity that appeared to represent the natural vegetation. The saw grass vegetation on transects A and B also appeared to be I declining and was being replaced by large algal uats. The difference in concentrations between the Long Key sites and the Cudjoe Key sites could be attributed to the density of wetland l vegetation at the latter sites. Vegetative cover existed across all the wetland sites sanpled on Cudjoe Kgy, where no vegetation l= existed in the Long Key wetlands. The ability of wetland vegetation to facilitate the nitification/denitrification process would have l- significantly lower the total nitrogen levels in the Cudjoe Key wetlands. The results of the sediment sampling program are shown in Table 7. A review of this data shows that chromium, mercury, lead, and zinc are present in the mangrove sedirnents. The highest concentrations of chrornium recorded by this study occurred in the mangrove cornmunity west of the site on Transect C. These values nere at the upper end of the range for the marsh sediments reported by the I USFWS. The nercury levels in the mangrove connunities did not exceed the uncomtaminated sediment valqes of less than 1.0 ng/kg I reported by the UsFwS. The lead and zinc concentrations in the mangrove cornmunities also are higher than any of the values reported for Long Key. The increased concentrations of metals in the mangrove areas around Cudjoe Key nay be due to past operational procedures. Previous operational procedures allowed portions of the landfill mound extended into the areas nohr occupied by the mangroves. The sediment results for the offshore stations also demonstrated elevated chrorniurn concentrations when compared to the background stations. The offshore stations also had elevated concentrations of nickel and zinc, however, these paraneters were not consistently 34 t I T l' TABLE 7 I SOIL SAMPLES-CUDJOE KEY l" STATION EVENT Cd Cr Hg Ni Pb Zn ## (mg/kg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) (mdkg) I A2 3 <4.0 <18.0 .210 47.0 80.0 250.0 I I B1 2 .|r.o 82 3 .o.o .39 44 37.3 ,i, l' c2 3 <6.0 57.0 .16 <38 62.3 242 c3 3 <4.0 <.09 47.0 <23.0 171.0 t t D1 2 ".'' l' 3 .:o tt.t <.04 r:.t <11.0 tt.n i a a D2 2 3 <2,0 13.3 <.04 <13 <11.0 23.8 I 4 .:.0 t.,ou <.02 <6.0 <5.0 a t t D3 2 ':.0 3 <2.0 41.6 <.04 14.4 <10 13.3 l. 4 .:.0 s.96 <.02 .:.0 <5.0 8.28 I a 2 I t 3 <2.0 8.8 <.04 <12 <10 14.0 BK1 4 <2.0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 3.5 BK2 4 <2.0 <4.0 <.02 <6.0 <5.0 5.19 l" l' l" I' I l' 35 l' l - high throughout the study. This rnay be due to a patchy distribution - a of ash throughout the area sanpled by Transect D. lhe sedinents along the offshore transect varied considerably as did the general I coLor of the sedinents. The sanpLes that appeared to have a greater a content of greylblack sediments nere correlated to the samples with I higher rnetaL concentrations. The layout of the Cudjoe Key site .: woul.d not hinder the wind dispersal of ash across the contiguous I areas of the Bay. The results of the plant analyses for the Cudjoe Key study sites I are shown in Tab1e 8. The rnetal concentrations in the plant samples reflected those seen in the sedinrent samples. Lead and zinc ltere I the only two metals found in the plant samples collected in the mangrove conmunities. These metals did not appear to significantly alter the grow aspects, oF the cornrnunity diversity of the red mangroves or the saw grass cornrnunities adjacent to the sanple stations. Therefore, it would be presumptuous to assume the I reported metal concentrations were having a deleterious effect on the vegetative cornmunities around the landfill. The plants, t however, may be focal points lrere the netals are concentrated and distributed to higher trophic levels where the toxic inpacts will I be more pronounced. I The offshore vegetation had appeared to store greater concentrations of chromium, mercury, lead, and zinc than did the mangrove or saw grass species. The plant tissue concentrations for I offshore species also were significantly higher than those observed at Long Key. Every plant sanple collected along Transect D I exhibited elevated levels of at least one metal pararneter as compared to the sarnples collected at the background stations' It I would appear that chromium and lead are available in or through the sediments and are potentially being transported beyond the sediments by the macrophytic grasses and algae. Once again, it would be difficult to assume these metals had a significant I negative inpact on the vegetative conmunity structure, but are 36 I l I :t I TABLE 8 t VEGETATION SAMPLES-CUDJOE KEY l. STATION EVENT Cd Cr Hg Ni pb Zn ____i______1___ i1l ilg Iry ly:t _91:] _9*l I A2 3 <1.0 (4:0 <.10 <6.0 5.11 10.93 A3 3 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 20.30 5.37 A4 3 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 6.420 3.05 I B1 3 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 5.OO 82 3 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 17.66 C2 3 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 26.04 I c3 3 <1.0 <4.0 <.10 <6.0 12.49 38.90 D1 3 <1.0 31.20 <.10 9.38 <5.0 26.60 D2 3 <1.0 4.08 .12 <6.0 5.270 28.00 4 I <1.0 10.70 .0460 <6.0 <5.0 30.50 D3 3 <1.0 24.00 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 26.00 4 <1.0 19.1 .112 <6.0 <5.0 25.00 t D4 3 <1.0 6.2 <.10 <6.0 <5.0 32.60 BK1 4 <0.01 <0.04 <0.002 <0.06 <0.05 0.54 t Bt<2 4 <0.01 <0.04 <0.002 <0.06 <0.05 <0.01 I I I I I t 37 t I present in sufficient concentrations to potentially threaten higher l-. trophic levels ] DISCUSSION The intent of this study hras to identify the extent of surface t nay eontanination around the County landfill Eites that reasonably ,be attributed to the daily operation of the landfills. This study t was not designed to quantify the novement and storage of pollutants through individuaL natural coropartnents such as the soils, algaen l= nrarophytic plants, and aninal connunities. The impacts to the surrounding natural systerns nay begin with the discharge of l. Ieachate or septage fron the Landfill nound to the underlying water table aquifers. Exposed ash also nay be transported by wind into t adjacent wetlands or hamrnock comrnunities. Conmon pathways that will' facilitate the distribution of pollutants away from the landfills I includes uptake of contaminants by plants/algae and its eventual rel-ease through consumption by prinrary herbivores (or detritivores) or decomposition of dead structures such as leaves, branches, root systems, and seed structures. Although elevated levels of certain heavy metals were found in nany of these conpartments, the degree t of visable negative alterations to the Local natural cornnrunities was negligible when considering the location of the landfills in or t adjacent to sensitive tropical and marine comnunities. The greatest euvironnental inpact caused by tbe landfill operatioas I bas been the direct logs of aatural conuuuLtieg causad Dy laadlill clearing activities. AII observed site work aPpears to be in I compliance with operational perrnits and, therefore, is being conducted in the best interest of the public as specified by FDER l tandfill rules and regulations. The current landfill activities do encourage the establishrnent of exotic species such as Brazilian I pepper in unnanaged cleared areas that eventually are capable of invading adjacent natural conmunities. The effects of uncontrolLed exotic species has been well documented on Long Key where the 38 I I natural hammock cornmunities have been significantly altered by lr Brazilian pepper. The north and east perimeters of the Key Largo Landfill site also are covered by weedy plant conmunities, but in I this case there is little encroachnent of this vegetation into adjacent natural, hammock communities. TDe I'upleueatation of ! l- biaunual site nainteaaDce plan uitl nlalnise tbe poteatlal I'npacta of exotic species to gurroundiag aatural connunLtl,eg tbat nay be attrlbuted to laudlfill operatioDs. Every six months the three sites l- should be inspected by a qual.ified biologist for the Presence of exotic species. All species recorded on-site during the inspections T should be elirninated by direct mechanical nethods or by application I of labeled herbicides. tnotber significant inpact to adjaceat natural connunities I potentiatly originating witb laudlfill operatioas is the geaeration aud dispersal of linestone dust or asb fiue uaterial. The confined areas of the individual island that compose the Keys makes the I creation of adequate buffers logistically inpossible. It is, however, possible to use a dense vegetative screens or a wind fence t to lirnit the distribution of particuJ.ate naterials around the landfilLs. The negative inpacts of limestone dust do not appear t beyond an average distance of ten feet frorn the edge of the harnnock communities around the Key Largo landfill. Tbe erection of a wiad between tbe t_ feace or the establishnent of, a v€getative screeD landfill and natural vegetative coumunitl.eg rilI uiaiaize tbe l. iupacts of dust deposits ritbia natural connunities. llbe dispersal of asb ayay f,rou tbe laadfill EouDds can be coatrolled by capping tbe areas at capacLty uitb tD apProved eoil uatrir. The soil matrix shouLd be planted with a native vegetative c6ver for long terrn stablization. The Countyrs staff at the Cudjoe Key landfill has had good success with establishing several grass species and norning glory on the slopes of the covered ash mounds. Each of the species growing on the southern slope of the mound at Cudjoe Key appears to be expanding its distribution by seed or 39 t vegetative means. The County should expand this vegetative plan to I all capped areas of the landfill mounds, initiating the planting of a vegetative cover within one month of eonpleting the construction I of the cap. The vegetation pLan could be expanded to include species such as torchwood that are known to be part of the habitat l" for endangered species such as the swallow tailed butterfly. The County should not consider the use of untreated leachate or septage to encourage or maintain the growth of cover vegetation because of i the close proxinity of natural wetland systens. l- The County has initiated a plan to cover the landfill areas that are at capacity to rnininize the off-site distribution of ash. In j addition, the site improvements include the developnent of stormwater management systems around the landfill mounds. The j stormwater systems will prevent the uncontrolled discharge of runoff from the mounds to adjacent natural cornrnunities, especially wetland systens. These systems also will retain and treat the first I inch of runoff on-site. The results of the stormwater management systern being constructed around the Cudjoe Key landfilf is evident j in the mangrove stands around the site. These areas have not : flooded since the stormwater system htas operational, with the I average water levels following storm events generalJ.y averaging j less than 3 inches in depth. Btormwater managenent systens associated witb tbe laadlflIl aites ghould be constructed around tbe landfill uound areas including tbe incl.nerator area. These systens along with the capping of the mound areas wilr reduce loadings of heavltl metals and nutrients to contiguous wetland communities. The stormwater systerns will alter the hydroperiod of some wetland areas adjacent the landfill sites, especially at the Cudjoe Key site. None of the wetlands that will, or could become hydrologically altered represent naturally occurring conmunities. fnstead, these wetland areas are the result of past developrnent activites and accordingly do not function as natural wetland cornmunities. The reduced hydroperiod in the I 40 l' i mangrove wetlands will not cause a significant shift in species composition in the near future. The rnature canopy in these cornmunities along with the depressional gradient where the species are currently growing will greatly reduce the natural replacement of the red mangrove trees with other wetland or transitional species. Even if the red mangrove are replaced by other native tree species, this can not be viewed as a negative change, since the threat to the regional natural cornnunities posed by the runoff that previously supported the nangroves was not offset by the quality of I potential habitat provided by the nangrove conrnunities. perbaps the second greatest tbreat to coatiguoug vetlaad aystens I involved tbe bandling procedures for aaptage at tbe laadlfill giteg. The effects of septage disposal on top of the landfill mounds was dernonstrated by the groundwater and surface water nonitoring programs. Extremely high Total Kjetdahl Nitrogen (TKN) concentrations have been observed for the wetland systems adjacent the sites. The TKN concentrations in wetlands hrere sufficiently high to cause eutrophic conditions such as increased algal bionass I and reduced plant diversity in the wetland communities. The development of a septage treatment process that does not rely on I disposal through the landfill mound and the capping of the Cudjoe Key landfill rnound has significant,ly reduced the TKN values in on- I site ponds. The County should continue to develop sinilar plans for the Long Key and Key Largo 1andfiIl sites. The first priority of this process should be the development of alternate disposal sites I for the septage, oE treated septage waters. I It would be very difficult to discrininate the relative inpacts due solely to leachate on surrounding natural systems from those due to I septage disposal or ash dispersal. The groundwater monitoring wells have shown periodic increases in hearry metal concentrations over I the past five years, but have never indicated a significant trend that could be correlated to rainfall duration or voluute. This makes I it difficult to access whether septage disposal or leachate 4t I I T produced by the percolation of rain through the nounds uas I fesponsible for the observed hearry metal results. The above trecommendation to stop the disposal of septage on the landfill T mounds can accordingly be supplemented by designing a landfill cap that will rnininize the percolation of rainfall through the I nound.The inplementation of these two steps would effectively elirninate seepage frorn the landf ill nounds to underlying groundwaters. Once again, the importance of this seepage of i leachate to groundwaters is not necessarily the viol'ation of Chapter L7-3 FAC water quality standards, but the dicharge and I eventual storage of contaminants in nearby plant and aninal I systems. The results of this study generally do not indicate there is a high I probability for a significant accuutulation of hearryr metals in off- site wetland plants or animals around the Cudjoe Key or Key Largo landfills. The concentrations of metals found in the areas around I these two sites can be more effectively control-]ed by etirninating their sources than by clean up activities. The metal concentrations I offshore of the Long Key site are higher than those for the former two sites, however, when conpared to background conditions may not I represent significant adverse changes. Once again, the movement of metals through these areas nay present. a greater environrnental I threat than the leveIs of current storage in the offshore organisms sanpled. The capping of the Long Key landfill site will eliurinate the source of metals being discharged to these areas, and I consequently will stop the future build up of metal concentrations I in offshore plant and aninal tissue. The site occupied by Station 3 on Long Key does appear to present I an environnental threat if left in itrs current condition. Healrlt metal concentrations in the plant and soil sanples indicated I significant levels of chromiurn, nickel, Iead, and zinc were present in the plant and soil sarnples collected in this area. l{hile no fish I or large rnollusks lirere observed during the sarnpling events, severa)- 42 I I It bird species (incLuding two federally listed species) were observed T: wading in the pond. This increases the probability that the pond couLd have negative adverse inpacts on the local wildlife populations. The County gbould congiCer the reuoval aad dLeposal of I tbe aedinents la thig poad since tbers Ls Do ray to erclude rilillfe fron tbig area. As stated above this study was not I designed, to guantify the effects of contaminants on receiving natural systems, therefore, the County should consider running a I chronic bioassay test on two interstitia.l groundwater samples. If the bioassay tests indicate the interstitial waters are toxic to T the test species, then the County should proceed with a clean up progran for the pond sedinents. t llbe f inal reconneDdation for tbe Couaty laadfill gl.teg ig to Luplenent a continuing aanpling plan for tbe aroas arouad tbe t landfill sites tbat iacluded offsbore supling. Samp1e sites for the Cudjoe Key landfill can be linited to transect D, since the I stormwater management system apparently is routing water alray fron the three mangrove stands naking the collection of unbiased samples I there very difficult or impossible. Station 1 at the Long Key landfill currently is part of the surface I urater sanpling plan associated with the FDER quarterly groundwater rnonitoring plan, and shouLd continue to be sanpLed accordingly. I Stations 3 and 4 should be included in the expanded sanpling plan for surface waters, with pre and post clean up samples being I col,lected fron station 3. Station 1 at the Key Largo site also is part of the existing FDER I nonitoring plan and should continue to be sanpled on a quarterly basis. The additional sanples shouLd be coltected on a semiannual. I basis and analyzed for the same parameters as those currently found in the FDER groundwater monitoring plan. Sanpling should continue l for at least two years following the cornpletion of landfilL closure plansr or until the saurples fail to indicate inpacts are occurring I in surface water systems due to tandfill activities. I 43 I I I I I HELP KIODEL CALCUT.ATION$ I I I I I il I I I I T AFPEHITfr S I t I I t I **i*******ti*************t****************t*tt***t**i****i************* I *****************************************t******a******************tt** roNG KEy CrpsttR8, CELL 1 - CAP N{ALYSTS IUPERVIOUS LrNER/GEONET/GEOTEXTILBIL? rNCH SOIL - TOP SLOPES I 5l2ele2 **************** **** **** ********** *****************l***************i*** I *** ********* ******t**************************************************** I I I,AYER 1 VERTICAL PERCOIATION I,AYER t THICKNESS = 6. 00 rNcIlEs POROSITY = 0.4730 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = o.22L7 VOL/VOL I WItTfNG POINT = o.1043 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = o.1043 VOL/VOL SATT'RATED HYDRAT'I,IC CONDUETIVITY = o. 0015600000042 cu/sEc T I LAYER 2 I VERTICAL PERCOI,ATION I,AYER IHICKI|ESS = 12.00 INCHES POROSITY = o.27OO VOL/VOL T FIELD CAPACITY = o.2tlo0 voLlvoL WILTING POTNT = 0.1300 voL/voL INITIAI, SOIL I{ATER CONTEITT = 0.1301 VOrJ/voL I SATURATED HYDRAT'LTC CONDUCTTVITY = o. 0005000000237 clt/sEc I I,AYER 3 I I,ATERAIJ DRAINAGE I,AYER ,THICKNESS = O.20 INCHES POROSITY = o.8000 vot/voL I FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0500 vot/voL TJILTING POINT = 0.0200 vot/vorJ INITIAI, SOIL }IATER CONTENT = o.0500 vot/voL I SATT'RATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY = 19. 6900005340576 Cl.t/SEC I SIPPE 3. OO PERCE}IT I DRAINAGE LENGTH 130.0 FEET I I I"AYER 4 BARRIER SOIL LINER I{TTH FLEXIBTE I'TEX'IBRA}TE LINER THICKIIESS = 6.00 INCHES FOROSITY = O.27OO VOL/VOL I FIELD CAPACfTY = O.22OO VOL/VOL WfLTING POINT = 0.1800 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = O.27OO VOI/VOL I SATIIRATED HYDRATTLIC CONDUCfMTY = 0.0000060000002 CU/SEC I LfNER LEAKAGE FRACIION = 0.00010000 I GE}TERAL STUUI,ATION DATA T SCS RT'NOFF CT'RV8 NT'}IBER = 74.26 TOTAL ARE.A OF COVER = 718?4. SQ FT EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 18.00 INCHES I ITPPER LIIiIIT VEG. STORAGE = 6.0780 INCHES trNITIAL V8G. STORAGE = 2.L893 INCHES I SOIL WATER CONTENT INTTIAIIZED BY PROGRA}I. I CLII.TATOIPGICAL DATA DEFAI'LT RAINFAI,L rlllt SYIrTIIETIC DAII,Y TEX'IPERATT'RES ATD t SOLAR RADIATfOil FOR l'lIAl.{I FIORIDA }TA)(IUT'I.I LE,AF AREA INDEX = 2.OO t START OF GRO!{ING SEASoN (JIILIN{ DATE) = 0 El{D OF GROWING SEASON (JLLIAII DATE) = 367 I FAIIRENHEIT NORMAT I.TEN{ T.{ONTHLY TEX.TPER;ATURES, DEGREES t JAN/,ntL FEB/AUG UAR/SEP APR/OCI ti{AY/NoV Jrril/DBC 67.10 67.80 7L.70 75. 30 79.50 81. 00 T 82.40 82.60 81. 80 'l't.90 72.80 68.50 t *********,*******************************************t****************** AVERAGE UONTHLY VALUES TN INCHES FOR YEARS 74 THROUGH 78 I ------I I JN{/JlrL FEB/AUG !,!AR/SEP APR/Oer UAY/NOV JI,N/DEC PRECIPITArION t TOTALS L.7 4 2.OL 1.34 2.5L 7.87 7.82 4.56 7.16 5. 94 4.63 3.87 1. 50 I STD. DEVIATIONS o.62 L.52 1. 06 1.48 5.2L 2.85 1.34 2.49 r.79 2 .43 1. 39 0.80 I :g::: TOTALS 0. oo0 0. 000 0.000 o. ooo L.476 o.733 I 0. 002 0. 125 0. 050 o.006 0.136 o.000 STD. DEX/IATIONS 0. o00 0. 000 0. 000 o. ooo 3.155 L.377 I 0.005 o.227 o.L29 o. o12 o.294 0.000 E\/APOTRAI.I S P f RAT I ON TOTALS 1.602 1.607 1.589 2.4L3 4.456 4.888 I 4.L52 5.388 4.382 3.539 2.497 1.533 sTD. DEI'rATrONS 0.637 1.160 0.954 L.428 1.550 1.113 I 1.021 1.175 0.813 0.772 0.953 L.O77 3:Y_33::T:_ :::1_3:5_ _: I TOTAL,S 0.1153 0.L672 0.0919 0.0637 1.3821 2.3390 o.4674 1.4885 L.27t5 1.5602 0.9560 0.2249 I sTD. DEi\rrATrONS 0.2547 0.2230 0.1781 0.0871 L.4243 1.5097 0.6808 1.7811 L.767L 1.0581 L.2036 0.4821 i :n::3:t::_T::_i:3__1 TOTALS O.OO01 0.0000 .0.0000 0.OOOO 0.0001 0.0001 I 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 0.ooo1 0.0000 0.0000 srD. DEVTATTONS O.OOO1 0.OOOO O.OOOO O.OOOO O.OOOO O.OOOO o.0000 0.0001 0.0000 0.oooo 0.0000 0.0000 I a********************************************************************** I r******* ******* * *** ******** ************************* ******************* T AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEITIATIONS] FOR yEARS 74 THROUGH 78 ---+---- (rNcHES) (cu. FT. ) PERCENT I PRECIPITATION 50.96 ( 9.925) 305201. 100.00 t RUNOFF 2.539 ( 4.886) 15208. 4.98 EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 38.046 ( 3.904) 227877. 74.66 I I,ATERAL DRAINAGE FROU 10.1276 ( 4.24L4' 60659. 19.88 I I I,AYER 3 PERCOIiTION FROI.! LAYER 4 0.0006 ( o.0001) 4. o. o0 I CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.243 ( 0.587) 1453. o.48 ! *********************************r*******************t***************** I *****t**************************r*********************t**************** PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YE}RS 74 TIIROUGH 78 t (rNcHES) (cu. FT. ) I PRBCIPITATION 11.51 68939.1 RUNOFF 7. 135 42734.L I I,,ATERAL DRATNAGE FROU I,AYER 3 2.L279 L2744.9 PERCOI,ATTON FROU I.'AYER 4 0. 0001 0.3 t HEAD ON I.AYER 4 16. 0 I SNOW WATER 0. 00 0.0 ttAxrutl,t vEG. soIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0. 3 151 I urNrMW vEG. SOrL WATER (VOL/VOL) o. 1190 t ********,t*il*****************************************l****************** I I I,AYER (TNCIIES) (voL/vol,) I 1.47 o.2442 I 1.93 0. 1510 3 0.01 0. 0500 I 4 L.62 o.2700 SNOW I{ATER 0.00 I *********************************l******************l****************** I *********************************************************************** I I t **********t**************t*t***ttt*************t****t**t**********t***t I **************************tt************t************at****t*******i*** r6NG KEY CLOSI'RE, CELL 1 - CAP NTALYSIS TMPERVIOUS LrNER/GEONET/GEOTEXTTLEIL2 rNCH SOrL - SrDE STOPES I 5l28le2 ********************************t************************************** t ******t ** ******* ******** **r*******************************************l il I I,AYER 1 I VERTICAL PERCOI,ATION I,AYER THICKNESS = 6.OO INCHES POnOSffY = 0.4730 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACfTY = o.22L7 VOt/VOL I WILTING POINT = 0.1043 VOL/VOL TNITTAt SOIL T{ATER CONTENT = o.1043 VOL/VOL t SATURATED HYDRAttLfC CONDUCIMTY = o. 0015600000042 culsEc I I.AYER 2 I VERTICAL PERCOIATION I,AYER TIIICKNESS = 12.O0 TNCHBS POROSfTY = o.27OO VOL/VOL T FIEI,D CAPACIT:I = o.2400 VOL/VOL T1IILTING POINT = o.1300 VOL/VOL INITIAL SoIt I{ATER CONTENT = o.1301 VOL/VOL I SATIIRATED HvDRAttLIC CONDUCIMTY = 0. 0005000000237 cu/sEc I I,AYM 3 I I,ATERAL DRAINAGE I,AYER THICKNESS = O.2O INCHES POROSITY = 0.8000 vol/voL I X'IELD CAPACITY = 0.0500 voL/voL I|ILTING POINT = o.o2o0 voL/vol INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTEI{T = o.o5o0 voL/voL I SATT'RATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY = 19. 6900005340576 CU/SEC t SIPPE = 3.OO PERCENT DRATNAGB LENGTH = 130.0 FEET I.AYER 4 BARRIER SOTL LINER T{ITH FLEXTBLE UEIIBRN{E TINER THICKNESS 6. O0 rNclIEs POROSITY o.27OO VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACTTY o.22OO VOL/VOt I{ILTTNG POINT 0.1800 voL/voL TNITIAL SOIL }TATER CONTEIflT o.27OO VOL/VOL SATURATED HYDRAT'LTC CONDUCTIVTTY 0.0000060000002 culsEc TTNER LEAKAGE FRAqrION o.00010000 GENERAI, SilUI,ATION DATA SCS RUNOFF CT'RVE NI'I,TBER 82.75 rOTAL EREA OF COVER 248292. SQ FT EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEI{TH 18.00 INCHES T'PPER LIUIT VEG. STORAGE 6.0780 INCHES INITTAL VEG. STORAGE 2.1890 INCHES SOTL WATER CONTENT INTTIALTZED BY PROGRAII. CLII.{ATOIOGICAL DATA DEFAT'LT RAINFATL WITH SYNTTIE1rIC DAILY TEXiIPERATT,RBS AT|D SOI.,AR RADIATION FOR ttIAl,tI FI'RIDA MAXTUI'u LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.OO START OF GROWTNG SEASON (JIrLrAtf DATE) =O It END OF GROWTNG SEASON (JI'LIAII DATE) = 367 It NORMAL UEAN l.toNTHLY TEI.|PERATI'RES, DEGREES FAITRENHETT JNf/JnL FEB/AUG UAR/SEP APR/Oqr l.tAY/NOV JnN/DEC ll 5?.10 67.90 7L.70 75.30 78. 50 81. 00 t 82.40 82.60 81. 80 77.90 72.80 68.50 I ****************************************************************t****** I AVERAGE I{ONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS ?4 THROUGH 78 I t JAr{/JnL FEB/AUG IIAR/SEP APR/Oer UAY/NOV JLN/DEC PRECIPITATION t TOTALS L.7 4 2.01 1.34 2.5L 7.87 7.92 4.56 7.L6 5.94 4.63 3 .87 1.50 STD. DEVIATIONS o.62 L.52 1.06 1.48 5.21 2.85 I 1.34 2.19 L.79 2.43 1. 39 o.80 I RT'NOTF TOTALS 0.004 0. 013 0. 011 o. 016 1. 631 1.156 I 0.073 0. 350 0. 182 0. 092 0.315 0. 000 STD. DEVIATIONS 0. 009 0. 017 0.017 o.018 3.L29 L.772 I 0. 073 o.162 0. 311 o. 099 o.5?6 o.000 EiVAPOTRAT{SPIRATION TOTALS 1. 600 1.607 1.586 2.405 4.439 4.877 T 4.L52 5.435 4.392 3.550 2.494 1.567 STD. DEVIATTONS 0. 636 1. 159 o.847 1.414 1.528 1. 112 I 1. 016 1. 188 0.806 o.779 0.951 1. 131 I,ATERAL DRAINAGE FROI.T I,AYER 3 t TOTALS o. 1125 0. 1562 0. 0819 o. o545 1.2419 1.9315 0.4012 1.2141 1. 1368 1.4622 0.7411 o.23L3 I STD. DEVIATIONS o.2444 0. 2103 0. 1516 o.0740 L.357'l 1. 1520 0. 6031 1.4438 1.5484 1.0256 0.8551 0.4887 t PERCOIATION FROI.T I,AYER 4 TOTALS o.ooo1 o.oooo o.oooo 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 t o.oooo o.ooo1 o.oool 0.0001 0.0000 0.0000 STD. DEVIATIONS o.ooo1 o.0ooo o.0ooo o.0000 0.0000 0.0000 o.oooo o.o0o1 o.oooo 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I *********************************************************************** I *****ir***************************tl************************************ yEARS I AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DETEATIONS) FOR 74 THROUGH 78 (rNcHES) (cu. FT. ) PERCENT I PRECIPITATION 50.96 ( 9.925) 1054330. 100. o0 t RT'NOFF 3.844 ( 5,5221 79527. 7.54 EVAPOTRN.TSPIRATION 38.104 ( 3.933) 788410. 74.78 I I,AtrERAL DRAINAGE FROU 8.?654 ( 3.3865) 181365. L7.20 I I IAYER 3 PERCOIATION FROM I,AYM 4 0.0006 ( 0.0001) 13. 0.00 I CHAI.IGE TN WATER STORAGE 0.242 ( 0.585) 5015. 0.48 I **********t*********************************************************t** I ********************************************t********i***************** PEN( DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 74 THROUGH 78 I (rNcHES) (cu. rr. ) I PRECIPITATION 11. 51 238153.4 RT'NOFF 7.L40 L47728.7 I I,ATERAI DRATNAGE FROM IAYER 1.9844 41059.6 PERCOI,ATION FROI.I I,,AYER 4 0.0000 0.9 I HEAD ON I,AY8R 4 t2.3 I SNOW T{ATER 0. 00 0.o uAxruttt{ vEG. sorL WATER (vol,/voL) 0. 3263 I t{INIMtt!{ VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.1210 l ****i*t**************************************************************** I *********************************************************************** I FINAI WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 78 I,AYER (rNcHES) (voL/voL) I t.47 o.2443 I 1.93 0.1609 3 0. 01 0. 0500 I 4 t.62 o.2700 SNOT{ WATER 0. 00 I *********************************************************************** I *********************************************************************** t I I ****t*********t*******************t***********t**t****t********t****tt* t ****t****:t,****t**************t***t**********l************************** I,oNG KEY Cr,OSttRE, CELL 2 - CAP NIALYSTS It{pERvIoUs LINERienoNsr/cEoTExTILElL2 INSH soIL - ToP SIPPES I 5l28le2 ****ft**********************t****t**********t******a******************* I ************ **********tr**********t*********t*************t** I ****tr***** I I,AYER 1 VERTICAL PERCOI,ATION I,AYER I THICKNESS = 6.OO INCHES POROSITY = 0.4730 VoL/VOL FIEID CAPACITY = o.2217 VOL/VOL I Wf,LTING POINT = 0.1043 VOL/VOL SOIL WATER CONTEITT = o.1043 VOt/voL fNIfIAL Clt/sEc t SATURATED HvDRAttLIC CONDUCIIVITY = o. 0015500000042 I I,AYER 2 t VERTICAL PERCOI,ATTON I,AYER 1IHfCRNESS = L2.OO INCIIES POROSITY = o.27OO VOL/VOL FfELD CAPACfTY = o.24OO VOL/VOL I WILTING POINT = o.13OO VOL/VOL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.1301 VOt/Vot INITIAL Cl't/sEc I SATT'RATED HYDRAULIC CONDU TIVITY = o. ooo5oooo0o237 t I,AYER 3 I I.ATERAL DRAINAGE I.,AYER THfCKNESS = O.20 INCHES POROSITY = o.8oo0 voL/VOL I FIEI,D CAPACITY = o.o5oo voL/voL I{ILTING POINT = o.o2o0 voL/vol SOIL WATER CONTENT = o.o5oo vol,/vol, NNITIAI, CU/SEC I SATITRATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCIMTY = 19. 6900005340576 I SIPPE 3.OO PERCENT T DRAINAGE LENGTH 130.0 FEET T I I,AYER 4 BARRIER SOIL LINER I{ITH FLEXIBLE l,tEtBRN{E LINER THICKNESS 6.OO INCHES POROSITY o.27OO VOL/VOL T FIELD CAPACITY o.22OO VOL/VOL IIILTING POINT o.18Oo VOt/voL INTTIAT SOIL WATER CONTENT o.27OO VOL/VOL SATT'RATED HYDRAT'LIC CONDUETIVITY o. 0000060000002 culsEc I o. ooo10000 I LI}|ER LE,AKAGE FRACTION = I GENERAL SII.fT'I,ATION DATA I SCS RT'NOFF CI'RVE NT'I{BER = 74 -26 TOTAL AREA OF COVER = 76230. SQ FT EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 18.00 INCHES T,PPER LII.{IT VEG. STORAGE = '6.0780 INCHES I INITIAL VEG. STORAGE = 2.L893 INCHES I SOIL T{ATER CONTENT INITIALTZED BY PROGRAIT{. I CLIT.TATOIPGTCAL DATA DEFAI'LT RATNFAI,L }IITH SY}TTI{ETIC DAILY TEI{PERATI'RES AI{D I SOI,AR RADIATION TOR }TIN{I FIORIDA I{AXTUUU LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.OO I START oF GROWING sEAsoN (JIILIN{ DATE) = 0 END OF GROI{ING SEASON (JlrLIN{ DATE) = 367 I NORIIAL ME,AN II{ONTHLY TEI.TPERATT'RES' DEGREES FAITRENHETT I iv{* FEB/AUG UAR/SEP APR/OCr tlAY/NOV JnN/DEC 67.80 7L.70 75.30 78.50 81.00 67.10 68.50 I 82 .40 82.60 81. 80 77.90 72.80 I *********************************************************************** 78 AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES TN INCHES FOR YEARS 74 THROUGH I ------I t JN{/JI'L FEB/AUG l,tAR/SEP APR/Oer UAY/NOV JLN/DEC PRECIPITATION I 4 2.OL 1.34 2.51 7.87 7.82 TOTALS L.7 4.56 7.L6 5.94 4.63 3.87 1.50 2.85 I STD. DEVIATIONS o.62 L.52 1. 06 1. 48 5.2L 1.34 2.49 L.79 2.43 1. 39 0.80 I RUNOFF 0. 733 IOTALS 0.000 0. 000 0.000 0.000 L.476 0.002 0.125 0. 060 0.006 o.136 0. oo0 I L.377 STD. DEVIATIONS 0. o00 0. 000 o. 000 o.000 3.165 I 0.005 o.227 0. 129 0. 012 o.294 0. oo0 EI'APOTRN{SPIRATION ToTALS L.6O2 1.607 1.589 2.4L3 4 .456 4.888 I 4.L52 5.388 4.382 3.539 2.497 1.533 ETD. DEVIATIONS 0.637 1. 160 0.854 L.428 1.560 1. 113 I L.O2L 1.175 o. 813 o.772 o.953 L.O77 I"ATERAL DRAINAGE FROI,T I,AYER 3 I 2.3390 o.4674 1.4885 L.27L5 1'5602 0'9560 o.2249 1.5097 I FTD. DSVIATTONS O.2547 0.2230 0.1781 0.0871 L'4243 0.6808 1.?811 t.767L 1'0581 L'2036 0.4821 I PERCOI,ATION FROT.I I,AYER 4 0'0001 TOTALS 0.0001 o.0ooo o.oooo o.oooo o.0001 0. 0000 o. oool 0. oool o. oool 0.0000 0'0000 I 0'oo00 STD. DEVIATIONS o.oool o.oooo o.oooo o.0ooo o'0000 o. oooo o. oool o. oooo o. oooo o' 0000 0'ooo0 I *********************************************************************** I *t********************************************************************* FOR YEARS 74 THROUGH 78 t AVERAGE AI.INUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEiVIATIONS) (rNcHES) (cu. FT' ) PERCENT 100. oo I PRECIPITATION 50.96 ( 9.925' 323698. 16130. 4.98 RUNOFF 2.539 ( 4.885) I 74.66 E\TAPOTRANSPIRATION 38.046 ( 3.904) 241688. ( 4.2414, 64335. 19.88 I LIITERAL DRAINAGE FROI'I LO.t276 I I I"AYER 3 PERCOI,ATION FROI{ I"AYER 4 0.0006 ( 0.0001) 4. 0.00 I CHA'}{GE IN TIATER STORAGE o.243 ( 0. s87) t542. 0.48 I ***********!r******************************************************fa*** I ***************************************************t******************* PEAX DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 74 TI{ROUGH 78 I (rNcHES) (cu. FT. ) t PRECIPITATION 11.51 73LL7.3 RI'NOFF 7.135 45324.O I I,ATERAL DRAINAGE FROU I,AYER 2.L279 13517.3 PERCOI,ATION FROU I,,AYER 4 0. 0001 0.3 I HEAD ON I,AYER 4 16. 0 0.0 I SNOW WATER o. 00 MAXrMtnl vEG. sorL WATER (VOL/VOL) 0.3151 I l,trNrutnt vEG. sorl, I{ATER (VOL/VOL) o. 1190 I l*i****************************************************t*************** I *********************************************************************** t FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 78 I,AYER (rNcHEs) (vol,/vol,) I 1.47 o.2442 I 1.93 0. 1610 3 0.01 0. 0500 I 4 L.62 o.2700 SNOW I{ATER 0. 00 t t********************************************************************** I *********************************************************************** I I I ****1**************************************t**t*************t***a******* t ***t]*******************************tt*********************t************ IONG KEy CLOSIRE, CELL 2 - CAP AIIALYSTS TuPERVIOUS LrNER/GEONET/GEOTEXULE/ L2 INCH SOIL - SIDE SIpPES I 5l28le2 *********************************************************************** t *****************************************t********a*****************t** I I I"AYER 1 I VERTICAL PERCOI,ATION I,,AYER IHICKNESS = 6.OO INCHES 9OROSfTY = 0.4730 VOL/VOL FIELD CAPACITY = o.22L7 VOL/VOL t WfLTING POINT = o.1043 VOt/VOL XNITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.1043 VOL/VOL I SATI'RATED HYDRAT'LIC CONDUCTIVITY = o. 0015600000042 cl.l/sEc t I,AYER 2 I VERTICAL PERCOI,ATTON I,AYER I]|HICKNESS = 12.00 TNCHES POROSITY = 0.2700 voL/voL I fiIELD CAPACfTY = 0.2400 vol/voL WILTING POINT = 0.1300 voL/vol INITIAL SOIL }IATER CONTENT = 0.1301 VOL/VOL I SATI'RATED HYDRAT'LIC CONDUCTIVITY = 0. 000s0000o0237 clt/sEc I I,AYER 3 I I,ATERAL DRAINAGE I,AYER THICKNESS = O.20 INCHES POROSITY - 0.8000 vol/vot t FIELD CAPACITY = 0.0500 voL/voL I{ILTING POINT = 0.0200 voL/voL trNITIAL SOIL I{ATER CONTENT = o.0500 voL/voL I SATURATED HYDRAUI,IC CONDUCTIVITY = 19. 6900005340576 C!.t/SEC t SIPPE 3 . OO PMCENT I DRAINAGE LENGTH 130.0 FEET I t I,AYER 4 BARRIER SOIL LINER WITH FLEXIBLE tlEX{BRAlfE LINER TITICKNESS 6.OO INCHES POROSTTY o.27OO VOL/VOL I FTELD CAPACITY o.22AO VOL/VOL T{ILTING POTNT 0.1800 voL/voL INITIAL SOIL T{ATER CONTEI{T 0.2700 vot/vol I SATI'RATED HYDRAT'LIC CONDUqrIVITY o. 0000060000002 cl,t/sEc LINER LEAKAGE FRAqrION 0. 00010000 I I GENERAL SIUT'I..ATION DATA I SCS RI'NOFF CURVE NI'I.{BER 82,75 TOTAL AREA OF COVER L72933. SQ FT EI'APORATIVE ZONE DEPTH 18.00 rNcHEs UPPER LII-{IT VEG. STORAGE 6.0780 TNCHES I INITIAL VEG. STORAGE 2.1890 INCHES I SOIL WATER CONTB{T INTTIALIZED BY PROGRAI,{. I CLTU.ATOIOGTCAL DATA DEFAI'LT RAINFALL WITH SYNTHETIC DAILY TEI'{PERATURES Al{D I SOI,AR RADTATION FOR UIAT.II FIPRTDA UAXIUT,I.I LEAF AREA INDEX = 2. OO SIART OF GROWING SEASON (JLLIAI{ DATE) = 0 I END OF GROWING SEASON (JIILIN{ DATE) = 367 I NORUAL I{EAN IIONTHLY TEX-{PERATI'RES, DEGREES FAIIRENHEIT I JA!{/JnL FEB/AUG l,tAR/sEP APR/Osr !!AY/NOV JrrN/DEC 75. 30 78. 50 81. O0 67. 10 67.80 7L.70 -12.80 I 82 .40 82 .60 81.80 77.90 68.50 I **********:r************************************************************ I AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 74 T}IROUGH ?8 t I JN{/JLL FEB/AUG ttAR/SEP APR/OCT UAY/NOV JrrN/DEC PRECIPITATION -F------I TOTALS L.7 4 2.OL 1. 34 2.5L 7.87 7.82 4.56 7.L6 5.94 4.63 3.87 1. 50 I STD. DEVIATIONS o.62 L.52 1.06 1. 48 5.2L 2.85 1, 34 2.49 L.79 2.43 1. 39 0. 80 t RT'NOFF TOTALS 0.004 0.013 o.011 0.016 1.631 1.156 I 0.073 0.350 0.182 0.O92 0.315 0.000 STD. DEVTATTONS 0.009 0.017 0.017 0.018 3.L29 L.772 I 0.073 0.462 0.311 0.O99 0.576 0. OOO IT::H::1i:T: TOTALS 1.600 1.607 1.585 2.405 4.439 4.877 I 4.L52 5.435 4.392 3.550 2.494 1.567 STD. DEVIATIONS 0.636 1.159 o.847 1.414 1.528 1.112 t 1.016 1.188 o. 806 0 .779 0. 951 1. 131 I,ATER,AL DRAINAGE FRO!-T I,AYER 3 rirrrrre I TOTALS 0.1125 0.1562 o.0819 o.05{5 L.2419 1.9315 0.4012 1.2141 1.1368 L.4622 0.7411 0.2313 STD. DEI/IATIONS o.2444 0.2103 0.1516 0.0740 L.3577 1.1520 I 0.6031 1.4438 1.5484 1.0256 0.8551 0.4887 I PERCOI,ATTON TROU I,AYER 4 TOTALS o. o0o1 o. oooo o. oooo 0.0000 0. 0001 0.0001 I o. oooo o. oool o. oool 0. oo01 0.0000 0.0000 STD. DEVIATTONS o. oool o. oooo o. oooo o. ooo0 0.0000 0.0000 o. oooo o. oool o. oooo 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 I *****************************************tt***************************** I ********************rr************************************************** r AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVTATIONS) FOR YEARS ?4 THROUGH 78 (rNcHES) (cu. FT. ) PERCENT I PRECIPITATION 50.96 ( 9.925',t 73433L. 100. 00 7.54 I RT'NOFF 3.844 ( 5.522' 55389. EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 38.104 ( 3.933) 549L20. 7 4.'18 I I,ATERAL DRAINAGE FROI{ 8.7654 ( 3.3865) L263L9. L7.20 t t I,AYER 3 PERCOI,ATION FROI,T I,AYER 4 0.0005 ( 0.0001) 9. 0. 00 I CI{A.NGE TN WATER STORAGE 0.242 ( 0.585) 3493. 0.48 *********************************************************************** I I ****tt**********i******************************************************* PEN( DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS 74 THROUGH 78 I (rNcHES) (cu. FT. ) I PRECIPITATION 11.51 165871.6 RUNOFF 7.L40 102891. 6 I I,ATERAL DRAINAGE FROM I,AYER L.9844 28597.7 PERCOI,ATION FROI.! I,AYER 4 0. 0000 o.7 I HEAD ON I,AYER 4 L2.3 I SNOW WATER 0. 00 0.0 uAxnttt!.t vEG. sorl, WATER (vot/vol) o.3263 I urNrtttn't vEG. sorl, WATER (vol,/vol,) 0.1210 I *************************************r********************************* I *********************************************************************** I FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 78 INYER (rNcHEs) (vol,/vol,) I L,47 o.2443 t 1.93 0.1609 3 0. 01 0.0500 I 4 t.52 o.2700 SNOT{ WATER 0.00 *********************************************************************** I *********************************************************************** I I COST E$TIMATE APPENDTX D tc,f5oc cqt{w t-AtrDF[.L CLGURES OATE: Prrofrdtl||Itc 1+291.11 FILE: I CqtlngbrGctl ior Long Kcy: TOTAL PES&' tt{T DESCiPrpn ITTT cuAt{nw CGT PBSA' CAS SVSTET VEI{TSTACKS C nrc SCF| €X) (pcrt/Ihrcdcrt) LF a tl2.@ $r2.@ I e PVC SCH 80 (Sofrf/Ihradcd) LF s tlo.@ so.o C S ElborSCH O0 p!/C EA 23 $0.q, tr.o.o dcrpr SCH 80 nrc EA 13 370.@ $r0.@ I Ccrrc Aggregate B.ddill CY 23 ta,.s w,n sfEToTAL GIAS SYSTEM PIPIIIG ',.'s,,.n .l' PVC SCH 80 W Poty Wnp (pertfihrceded) LF 9,gn $4.00 f37,2@.@ f r'0'TeeSCH 80WC EA 62 srt.o ft,$4.(p I q) f Cepe SCH P!/C EA 18 $a.(D tst6.o f 90 ElbotvSCH 80 F/C EA 1 t25.@ fl@.@ f 4!t Elbot{ SCH 80 F/C EA 7 $5.@ 8175.@ I &3 B.cldtll CY 1,380 $1.O t28,S.@ SUBTOTAL lrlt,l75.0 C'AS SVSTEII MONITORING WELL ? PVC SCH 80 (PeO SF 16 f70.o s1,2dl.(x' I Z F/C scH 80 (SdO LF 21 s70.cx, $1,4rc.@ SUBTOTAL tl,730.00 E\CAVATION: SEDIMEI{T POND I Excewtion CY 3,1@ t9.75 $30,225.m Rcgradirp of Top CY 2,3m s3.00 so,[email protected] SUBTOTA 137,125.00 EXCAVATION OF EXISTING WASTE t Excav"tion CY 18,000 94.s0 $81,m.O Regrading of ercawted waste material CY 18,(m $3.@ t31,00.o suB Tora fr35,000.00 I CAP SECTION Sod SF 298,0@ f0.24 871,520.00 See Perimeter road a,yale+xca\ation CY 2,W $4.50 $10,350.m I Bituminous Surface Treatment ol Roaduays SY 5,5{O $0.95 t5,263.m suBToTA 312,03s.50 I 11,726,892.27 SuHotal $155,.020 lilobilization (9*) t18E,231 C$lingency. (10*) I $2.070,544 GR I '{DTOTAL I .FoAnp oF c(x8rv comMB$qNEns l'(aouNTY unvoR mhglrnna l,hrvcy. oistriq I Mayor Pro Tcm. Jack tondorl, Ostdct 2 ofloruRoE ooughsJones. o3trict 3 *t'"%.Y*f-uoe'usoro A E.d cherl cbuu 4 l' \-' Jofn $o|tlcrt. Cblrict 5 Environmental Uanagement' 5100 CoIIege Road I Sutte 506, l{ing II-B Key West, Fla. 33040 I I August 17, 1992 I Philip n. Edwards Dlrector of District Uanagement Fiorida Departnent of Envirorunental Regrrlation I 2295 Vlctoria Avenue, 3rd Floor I Ft. Myers, FIa' 33801 Re: Finaneial Responsibility for Closure and tong Term Care of I Monroe CountY Sanitary tandfills Dear Mr. Edwardsl I Monroe County's f-ili inancial plan for closure a-nd. long ,term care of the E;ilrt'r- tf,iuu landfills remains frurdannentallv as described. in rrry letter"."i€aw- to Ur,'Wi"i" (copY- to you).dated, Noveuber 25, I t!ti:- A copy 6t ttrat lettei is attached tor ybur lnformation' th€ Although the estirnates-f have cbanged, somewhat since that -91!e, - &fidiaures ;"q.ri;A oi ot all three' ( 3 ) randf ills have I #;-E;iopiiateo in the Ins-"rostrtJ 1-9bt nnviroonental Manasement budget and ln the proposed E1f 1993 o-udget. - lll three ( 3 ) Iandf ills ale I schedulea to be closed by the end of FY 1993' LonE tenn care costs will be annually apProPriated as indicated in lhe acconpanying schedule. I you will find this financial plan an aplxopriate x trust that and mecf,io:.*t f oi aaat"J"ing--btr landf iLI closure Post "19:$Ie eipenaitnre requirenents.- To tbat end, I onge lgTr- reqtectfullY I proof of }lonroe Countvt s ;;qr;;i thaL you approve tf,ls ii-f f; - intention to tilriirf its rinaaciai obligaLlons- for closure and long I tern care of its sanitaly landfills- I I I RECYCL€O PAPER I Page 2. t Philtp n. Edwards/DER I! you reguire adtd.ltlonal lnfotmatlon or lrave any (1uesttons, Please I do iot hesltate to eaII. Slncerely, I F-a n.R/-' Barry'u. Eo1dtssar, Dlrector I Enviioruoent,al l'lanageneat BtrlB/cac I encls. cc3 Ray Scbauer/pgsJ I Bob uackeY/PBSil t I I I I I I t I I I I I MONROE colrNllf I CIPSUNE N{D POSI CTOSURB I,A}IDTII.L ETUTNCTII. PIA}I rUNDS TPENDXTXNE I *Ir"DtE BEOSISEATT nr L992 I Available Frrnds Revenue Bond Issue 12,054,250 Renelioal & Replacenent Funds i 5oo,oo0 t npproprtatiqns Resenred for Closure $1r{{6 ,272 Total frrnds Available ${,010 ,522 I Requlrements Key Largo Landfill Closure I 926,ooo KeY Closure i 148,000 Cudjoe Land'fil1 345,000 t Long KeY Landfil} Closure $ I Totat ErrPenditure Requirements s1 r 419,000 Fr 1993 Available Funds I Appropriations Reserved for CLosure i4,813 ,194 I Total Fund,s Available ${,813 ,194 Reguirement's 407,359 KeY Largo landfill Closure $ cudjoe Key tandfill closute $ 900,925 I Long KeY Landfill Closure $1 ,908 ,718 Key l,argo Post Closure Hainteaance $ 60,675 Cuajoe Key Post Closr:re 14aialenance t 13,753 I f,onq Key Fost CLosure Maintenance $ 13,753 I Total E4Penditure Requirements $3, 305,18{ f994'througb ff 2011 Available Funds t Renewal & RePlacemeDt $ 500,000 t Total Funds }vailable $ 500,000 Requirements X"y Largo Post Closure l{aintena$ce i 89,200 Cudjoe Key post Closrrre l'laint'enance $ 89,200 I Lon! Key Post Closure Mai.ntenance | 89,200 I Tota1 Reguirernents $ 261 ,6AA I I BoAno.OF. 9lutqlLcolinrl KXSK)fitFR S I -! /1 tnvoR $nelelrru lrarrcy. osord I ' tJryor PnTem.JacI tsEorr oirffi2 tl' orV\Jrr rNry I mOnRoE ol Ocrglaf .hnar. OislrEt 3 \rrl xev wesr \-/ ncno^ 3s.o AEatoc|l Osrur I Jorn $cnpnt.Oisrict5 ltuniclpal Service Distrlct t{lng II-B I Public Senrice. Bullding Key West, Florlda 330{0 I November 25, 1991 Fred J. Hicke Envi roruuental Specialist, I FDER $rln fowers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road I Tallahassee, Florid,a 32399-2{00 Dear !ll. Wicke: I ftre intent of this letter is t,o detail ltlonroe Countyr s financlal plan for closwe and post closure mainteaance of tbe Countyt s three (3) sanitary landfills at Key Largo, Long Key, and Cud,joe t Key. Post, Buckley, Schub & Jernigan, fnc, has provided closure and long term maintenaace cost esti:nates for all three (3) sites (copy I of letter attached). fhese esti.nates are currently being revised, and should reflect lower costs. In fact, our Closure/Post Closure o5rerating PIan for Key Largo dated I October 1991 Lndicates I estilnated closure costs at S351r600.00 belos the origlnal estimate established by Post, Buckley, et al. However, for the gurlroses of developing ous financial plan, the origlnal estirnates uere I used. Based oa these estj.mates I bave enclosed a financial plan wbich reflects the CountV's intentlon to address E:DERrs fina^oclal t responsibility reguirement by appropriatilg the rnonies necessary to meet both clostrre and post closure requireoents. E>qlenditute requirements will be met by using the bala-ace of tbe proceeds of, the Series 1991 Bonds, Renesral and Replaceraeut moni.es, and I appropriations reserved for closllle. I trust that you witl find. this financial plan aa appEopriate I mechanisrn for addressing orrr landflll closure and post closure expenditures requirements. To that end I respectfully reguest tbat you approve this plan as proof of lrlonroe couatyr s intention to fulfill its financial obligations for closure and long teru care I of lts sanitary landfills. I I I I I l{lcke October 2{, 1991 I Page 2 t ff you requlre ;additlonal informatLon or have any questions, please do not hesttate to cal1. T Sincerely, Wg a,$ra-a I Barry U. B6l4lssar, Director Envi ronneutal l{anageneut I BMB/dcl Enclosures cc3 Phitip R. Edwards - EDm, I Tom Brown - Monroe County Admiaistrator Danny Kolbage - Uonroe County Clerk of tbe Court I Ray Scbauer - Post, Euck1ey, Schnh & dlernigan, Ine. I I I I I I I I I I I so{u}tl' SEP Z I EgI I UIA}dI. , e JBHIGAl.1.[ttc rrlrvlfiou$ru0n I 7- I Scpembcr 19, 1990 . Monro_g Cotnry Ewiroorncntal Managencsr Division I Wins U€ Pub'lie Service Buildinr 5$ Judor Co[cse Road Sro* Isl-n4 fL;gOm T AEn: Ur. Clertcs Aguero I Dirccror RE Monne Couty Seaitart lrrrdtilt Oosuc l7t0f Ooffr Costs Estinats I Der Mr. Agucro: I Anac.\cd pcr your rcguest ple,rse Esd tbe srbjec esinetcs. These estiraates providc tli capiral ud loug terra rsainr.'mncs cos;rs as rcquircd bv t FDER Rule I7J0LW6 for pui rse.ia c$d5lisbing proof of Enancial rcspoftibiliry.- Tlcse estimarcs bac b€B derctoped qrfli-ing rricrl $osr$rater rnrnagegcrrt rad doarrc dcsig csrc€gc5 ald appiying oure$s -rJqis- pricc raus prwarfing-ig }losroc Qunry. tt- is asuncd thai'dl iro,* win be 'ccnrpierea 'by a T bisd hn ' I Comrac:oe Strould you. rcguirc any addirion:l inforuarion ptesc conast rbe uodcrrigncd at t your convsueacc. /'' I I RHVrg. I I cc Dca.as I&rris I ,mc I I MIN#l/ElfV #Zfu.Scf,,N | € cD.lttte B lf,t5/era ItC !o rtr r^u. l&r/o L ttrA f l{l I ttl- Et.a.Ft'lil .f{t tltre}lr I I I llol{RoE cornrnr I CIPSURU Ar{D POST CTOSTIRE IAITDEII,E EININCIII. II,TTT I ENPEI{DITURE Fulrps. l:r+r.r,ABE REOUIREUgil! 1992 T Available Funds S,evenue Bond Issue t2,06{ ,250'/ islEwal e 'Replacenent nrnAs | 500,ooo r' I Appropriations Resenred for Closure ltr{{6 0272 total t\nds lvailable ${,010,522 I ReErirernents Rey Largo Landfill Closure $1,257,000 Cudjoe Key Landfill Closure l1,027,520 t Long Key Landfill Closure (Front Celll 11, {00, ooo Key Largo Post Closure ltlainteuance t 81,100 Cudjoe Key Post Closure Maintenence t 5{,000 I fotal F.:rpenditure Regrirements t3 ,819, 620 Flf 1993 I evailable Funds Prlor Year ntnd Balance $190,902 Renewal t Replacement Funds t500 r o00 t Appropriations Reserved for Closure ${57,898 Total Funds Availa.ble sl,1{8 r 800 I Reguirements Long Key Rear Cell Closure t90o,000 Key Largo Post Closure HainteDance | 81,100 Cudjoe Key Post CLosure llaintenaace $ 72r700 I Long Key Front CeIl Post Closure llalntenanee | 95,000 I Total e:cpeaditure Reguirements s1,1{8,800 FY 199{ throush nf 2011 Available Ftnds I Renewal t Replacernent $500,000 Total Funds Available $500,000 ,' I Regulreneats Key Largo Post Closure lrlalDtenance 3 E1r100 Cudjoe Key Post Closure Malntenance $ 72,700 t Long Key Post Closwe l.laj.ntenarrcc ll{3,000 I Total Regrlrenents 3296, E00 I .t. 7aa . ETETEIr B LoNC Er T.ANDELi-dosrrRi cosn, lrt ,L i Gpitat cosrs ntc, 558,?00'g: ar r-- l, 1) liner 1-0 !.fiL t lft 70000 165,60000 3 ffi8:sf,,r'#'figfEF-#*-Y r--- {9f,6m.00 10JSO - 0 !op-oil, CT @ SiJ.00 . zt7,46X6O I I Secding ard-tr{ulchiog 64fm Sy S SOs 31,tooln g Jrnngwztcr |rtalagEdtct 7) I$iEador Srnro 300,000.00 -Gar 65,000J0 I 8) Eoizosnl Vcoa g0,s0J0 _aud G€o&raitq 5Bd,T00 SF ^- ?). 9-q+ r - S {0c ' 34,700.00 19) Ip*.t rs,_ *czpinS U) Dcsieg asd Easaccrrns. 90,000.00 I 12) C-onstruqioa 195,000.00 laip.srion- 240,000.00 T s1g7{,100.00 I I E AosutB Mzi.atcuscc 1) sl1,700.00 ETffa,Jffixf&E:4$noro cY s,?.oo 200 @ 35JjO.OO I ?) Y"tog, AC E'S+ri.d-_ 8,000.00 c) tE:TurzlDE ancl Vereatirrc t H#'?E'&Y*@,5* 3L!00.00 :re c]r+';ig 100 A !ft, @ 120-00 e000.00 o, a.scal Dreiuge StrsEElre RcFit &riatios 9,000-00 n 30,000.00 I. E) a:rd Rc'lb&ry : l. ftryet'ffi;a 140oo.oo i 4,rt${t-Al, D,|AINTEI\IANC€, TmlL tl€,tloo.oo . (lst Ycar, l9t0 Dolrrr) . t, a' lror. .t . .r l'r ..- r. !c. r\.r.i... a. - MINrI/Etfv r2m.sa6.w . t. ., . rt I I I I I I I TCLP TEST RESULT$ I I I t I I I I t t I APPET{DIX E I I I I I t t oor H"l I rl o H L I r.l A I pl o rl )4 € o H Io rh I l{ I o l{ z* , €o o l{ o .da I o e ra It l{ o e D a't o F{ € t N o J * ,o Fo -{ { o I c0 H nI N fl 4 a fn trl z r! ol-.tle € I N.C frl I H li Fl"i s! a / o ml tr { o col t ct o Arl It tv I E nt *t a\ o I /r. &t> r\ o o 3rtrFr N (, o r ct! 0 I {o H tt |l d.a f\ OA A gE e n}l I 'rC' rt H9 Q t I fi'r F F A r{ c qx c o E qJ u \ o> zlA g Er o Fltq taz F I fr HO t U a rl E\'| { HE c g F A > OZ.J) gl* trl llF z r I { o o oI I rl rlI cr I I l{ 3 o r{Nulo l{ ;l C)C)Ot{ I o rO.. x o oooto ra VrYtl o O. o Y a(t I ' o I tal rl ({ lrl O ol oooG0 rgt! I o oooto YrYFI *H q. o E v g.o I+, I EO o H I !l'r df ! I f{ dNslo Fl ol ooo(r| , rOr. I I o 0003{ oo YrVdo A/ Y I !a 2 EE T l"{ I o 3E n A r{Nulooooo oo00rOo. I 11" YrYd JEl g o E v tiF |! I ca Esi8dF' = ut ul ul u'loooct T att' oooo YYYY aH o n+,A t slo o H I F|'r o arl +, n|.\|NGI A o000oooo I ,I ooo€t t tltl oo oooo nfi YYYY I 6l T z E3 E l" tl:- t| I o Ei n iltlt{d A oooo I i1" ooC'0aaaa 5El YYYY I Eii rl frq.l I oi oF{HNXCT riE o o ao a" a": o r-{ (\ (n C) I r{ +*** aa rd rd tl] td € t-tFFF HHHH I o)o oothq T{ ao {xxxr-{ H I 99 r-l t I !t tl o 0I T d I r{ o rt t{ t{ H h I o o o o cn U| t{ o o o o o o o +J E +J I +) (t t{ (, fit .ll I o (, U (J o x l{ ol o ol ?l ;l ..1 ;l t ol ol t ('rl Flf 3l sl ..1 orl ;l ol sl 3l r{l"l .l dl I *l ol ol oldp olo\P { ol c\P E olo\e { E ol a)l ol ol rl ol rl 3l :l \tol {tel it 3 {ol C'l Nl A .l I -l ,{t "{l :l :l "l :l I H a a '15 | z al o ol. o AO EI rJl H 3t I EF{ oEr f;l ca HIFll -tl8l I .gl .ql I ?lt0 F1 O g. Aa0 FIO a OH oE{ fr OH OH o o o (, U I tr u1l O ufl-l .q ull NI O u'll -{ O -l n O -{ ol ot \ E ot \ e ot \ ol E ot\ .?tE .l ..1 rl f ..{ .l O o ..{ rl tD O OI E 4, * H OI E * F OI E H ole E< r{ €"1 I 7 tEl ,! "l €"1 €"1 QO |1 I glo A ol ol afr +JLrUl st(tl st 5R }l oorl oo o(, 8g: I *t E{. 2 E tr "ltr !ol n E8 9. A A A |,l5 dal b { orld (\|l F{ I o Nl -l Nl -l ol \ ol \ !l cI\ ol \ ot ot E? A ol Ul ol o ol ltl i3r 1 I () C.lI (, T *lC.| *l 3{ *l !HF (9l (, t, r9 2Y4 tr T EI r{ dl r{l tll t{l -l -l I tt -i ol -l\ ol \ ol:. :IE ol : .l tl .l o Ot .l U\ g o.le o ol E dl olE Yl vl "l o "l I o ,{ I I I I I I aa 14 \ trl I o t{ I \ >l C' o Fl o o J o !tt a *t H *l t .r{ E E o o"t o ol (, oo q, U o I t'i()aa ESC $EPTIC STORAGE PERHIT APFE}I$IX F I I Florida Departmmt of Enuironmental Regulation South District 2269 Bay Sreer Fon Myers, Florida 33901-2896 I Lrwron Chilcs. Govcrnor Carol M. Browncr. Sccrcrary I I PERMITTEE: I.D.No z 5244POO535 Gary V. Hannond, pre6iclent Pernit/Cert.No.: D0{4-I9Z2O1 Environnental Sciences corporation Date of Issue: July 16, 1991 t P.O. Box 915139 Expiratlon Date: July 16, 1996 Longwood, Florida 3ZZ9l-5139 County: l{onroe Latitudez 25" 13' 55" N Longttude:8oo zo. ox tf I Section/Town/Range : 10/605/4OE Project: Line Stablllzation Process Facilit,y and Storage t Transfer Facilit,ies I Tltis pernit is issued under the provisions of chapter to3, Frorida starures (F. s. ) , and rloilda Adtnlnistratiie code (F'.A.C. ) Rules t?-3, !?-4, LZ-?, I?-6O0 and I?_640. The above I naned permittee is hereby authorized to perforn the nork or operate the facilit,y shown on the application and approved drawing(s). plans. dnd other docunenls, attached hereto or on file with t,he Departnent and nade a part hereof and specifically I described as follows: To put in place and operate a line stabilization treatnent I proceE6 facility to proce6s 6tabilize septage, grease, food service sludges and iesidluals f ron donestic-wasIewatei treat,nent f acilit'ies. Miniroutn treatnent capacity of this f acility is 6000 galrons per day and it is located at tle Key Largo tanalitt I site. Arso, 21'ooo galron storage and transfer tanks for septage naterial to be processed are l0cated at Key Largo, Long Key.and,cuitjoe Key landfilrs. Additionally a 2t,ooo gairon residuals storage anil transfer tanlc wiIl be located and operated I at the Key Largo landlf ill. t I Page I of I I I ,*r"r., *- I $ I PERMITTEE: I.D.No: 52ltlPOOs35 t Gary v. Hannond, President pernlt/cert.No.: Do4{-l922ol Environnental sciences corporation Date of tesue: Jury 16, 199r P.o. Box 915139 Erpiration Date: July t6;'1996 I GENERAL CONDITIONS: I. The terns, conditions, requirenents, linitations, and I restrictions aet forth in this pernit are npernit Condltions,' and are binding and enforceable pursuant to tbe authority of Section {o3.rlll, ao3.727, or 4O3.859 through {O3.86r, F.S. The gernittee iE hereby placed on notice that thi Departuent rill reviiu this I pernit periodically and nay initiate enforeenent action for any violation of these condit,ions. I 2. This pernit is varid only for the specific processes and operations apptied for and indicated in- the appiovedl drawings or exhibits. Any unauthorized deviation fron the-approved drawings, exhibits. specifications, or conditions of this pernit nay I con6tit,ute grounds for revocation and enforceneoi action by tbe Departnent,. I ?. As provicled in Subsecrion6 4O3.Og?(6) and rlo3 .7ZZ(5, F.S., the issuance of this pernit does not convey any vested rigtrt,s or any exclusive privileges. Neither does it-autirorize any injury to - pubric or private property or any invasion of personal iights, nor I anY infringenent of federal, 6tate or local laws or regulit,ions. This pernit is not a waiver of or approval of any othei oepartnent permit that nay be required for other aspects of the total-proJect t which are not addressed in the perurit. 4. This pernit conveys no title to land or uater, does not constitute state recognition or acknosledgenent of t,1tIe, and does I not, con6titute authoricy for the u6e of subnerged lands unress herein provided anil the necessary title or leaiehold lnterests have been obtained from the State. Only the Trustees of the Internal I rmprovement rrust Fund nay express state opinion as to title. 5. This permit does not relieve the pernittee from liability for harn or injury to hunan health or welfare, aninal, or prant life, I or property caused by the con6truction or operation of this pernitt.eil source, or fron penalties therefoie; nor doee lt allow the pernittee to eause polrution in contravention of Florida statutes and Departnent rules, unIeBs specifically authorized by I any order fron the Departnent. 6. The pernit,tee shall operate ancl naintain the facility and I systems of treatnent and control (ancl related appurtenance6) that are installed and used by t,he pernittee to achieve compliance wittr the conditions of thie pernit,, as required by Departnent ruleE. t This provision includes the operation of uacrup or auxiriary I Page 2 of 8 I I t PERMITTEE: I.D.No | 52{4'P0053S Gary V. Hannond. president I Pernlt/cert.No. 3 Dort4-192201 Environnental Sciences Corporation Date P.O. Box of l6sue: July 16, l99I 915139 Expiration Date: July I6, I996 I GENERAL CONDITIONS: facirities or.'sinirar when nece6sary to achieve conpliance I with the conclitions of-systens tne-pernit ana-rn"n ruIes. required by Departnent I 7 - The pernit,tee. by accepting this pernit. speclficarry agrees to allow authorized Departneni personner, upon presentation of credentiar or orher docunenri as nay ue i"quii"i-;t-i;;, and at I reasonabre tines, acce6s to the prenises, Et reasoaabre tines, where the pernitted activity is iocaiea-or eonducted to: a ' Have access t'o and copy any records that nu6t be kept under condit,ions of the pernit,; .the I b. Inspect' the faciriiy, equipnent, practices, or operationE regulated or requirecl unaei t,his iernlt; and c' sampre or nonitor any substances ir paraneters at any location reasonably necessary to assure conpliance with this I Departnent rules. iernit or Reasonabre tine nay depend on the I investigated nature of the concern being 8. rf , for any reason, t,he pernittee does not conpry witn or wilt I be unable to compry with any condition or riritiiiio'.p""ified in this perrait, t'he gLrmittee inarl irnmediately provide the Department Irith Ehe following infornation: :. A- description of and cause of non_compliance; and I b' The perioil of non-cottpliance, inctuaiog date6 and tines; o!, if not corrected, the anticipated Iine"*""t the non-conpliance is-expected to continue, elininate, and ste!s being taken io--reauce, I and prevent recurrence of the non-conpliance. The permittee shall be responsible for any ana alr danages which may resurt and nay be subject to enfoicenent action by the I Departnent for penalties or revoeation of this p"init. ?: In-accepting this pernit: the pernittee understands and agree6 that all records, norei, nonitoiini-d;i;-and other inrorniii;;---- relating to the construction or operat.ion of this pernritted 6ource, I which are subnitted to the Department, nay be used by the Department a5 eviclence in any enforcement ca6e invorving the pernitted source arising under t.he Florida statutes or bepartnent I l!1e9, except where such use is prescribed by section 4o3.rlr and 403.73, F.s. such evidence shall only be used to the extent it, is con6istent witn the Fl0rida Rules of civil procedure and I appropriate evidentiary rules. I Page 3 of 8 I t I PERHITTEE: I.D.No z 5244PO0535 I Gary v. Hannond, President pernit/cert.No.: Dot{-rg2zol Environnental sciences corporation Date of Issue: Jury 16, 199l P.o. Box 915139 Expiration Date: tury to, 1996 I GENERAL CONDITIONS: 1o: The permittee agrees to cornpry with changes in Departnent rules and Florida Statutes after a reasonable tine for conpliance, I provided however, the pernittee does not uaive any other rlghts granted by Florida statutes or Departnent rules. I rr. This pernit is transferable onry upon Departnent approval in accordance sith F.A.C. Rules IZ-{.120 and lZ-30.3OO, f .A.C. as applicable. The pernittee shall be liable for any non-conpliance of the pernitted activity until the tranefer is approved by the I Department. L2-, This pernit or a copy thereof shalr be kegt at the Lrork sit,e I of the pdrnitted activity. 13. This pernit also constitutes: ( ) Deternination of Be6t Available iontrol Technology (BACT) I ( ) Deternin. bf prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) ( ) Certif ication of Conpliance with srat,e lfarer guality Standlards (Section {01, pL 9Z-5OO) I ( ) Conpliance wittr Nen Source Performance Standards 14. The pernittee shall conply with the following: a. Upon requegt, the pernitt,ee shall furnish alI records and plans I requiretl under Department rules. During enforcement actlons, the retention period for all records wtll be extendecl autonatically. unless otherwise stipulateal by the Department. I b. The pernittee shall hold at the facility or other locat.ion designated by this perurit records of all monitoring information (including alI callbration and maintenance records and aIl ortglnal strlp chart, recordlngs for contlnuous nonitoring I instrunentation), requirecl by the pernlt, eopies of all reports required by this perruit. and records of all data used to conplete the application for this pernit. These naterials I shall be retainecl at least three years fron the date of the sampre, Deasurenent, report or application unless otheruise 6pecified by Departnent rule. c. Records of monitoring information shall include: I - the date. exact place, and tine of sampling or neasurenent; - the per6on responsible for performing the sanpling ot measurenent6; I - the date(s) analyses were perforned; - the person responsible for perforning the analyses; - the analytical techniques or nethoils used; and I - t.he results of such analyses. I Page 4 of 8 I I I PERUITTEE: I.D.No z 5214P00535 I Gary V. Hanrrond. PreBident petDit/cert.No.: Do{rl-19z2or Environnentar sciences corporation 'Date of tssue: July 16, r99r P.o. Box 915139 Expiration Date: July 16, 1995 I GENERAL CONDITIONS: 15. lfhen tequested by the Departnent, the pernittee shall uithin a I reasonable tirne furnish any information requiredl by law which is needecl to deternine conpriance with the pernit. rf the pernlt,tee becomes acare the relevant facts uere not subnitted or uere incorrect, in the pernit appllcation or ln any report t,o the I Departnent. sueh facts or infornation shaIl be subnltted or correeted promptly. I SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. Drawings, plans, docunents or 6pecifications eubnitted by the Pernittee, trot attached heEeto, but retained on fire at the south I Florida District Office, are made a part hereof. 2.- The installation and operation of this line stabilizatlon I facility and related Btorate and tranEfer facllities shall be in accordance with good engineering design and practice ut.ilizing 1.7-600.400(2)(a) (b). plant sites, (3)(5), E.pA 625/t-29-1I,'Proces6 Design Uanual for Sludge Treatnent and Di6po6aIu and other related I equipnent de6ign nanuals and manuals of standard practice as published by the l{ater PoIlution control Federation and governed by I provisions of Chapter q7L, Florida Statutes. 3. The applicant shall retain the engineer of record or obt,ain the services of any professional engineer registered in the State of Florida for the inspection of the installation of this line I 6tabilization facility and related 6torage ancl transfer facllities for thie proJect. The engineer shall inspect for confornity to the subnitted perrnit application and a66oelated documents. A I certificate of conpletlon of installation along with record drawings shall be subnitted within 3O days after conpletion of installation of equipment for this project and Departnent, approval I obtained prior to placement in service. 4. Provide copies of the operation and naintenance proceclures to be followed for the lime stabilization facility including but not limited to: loading the batch reactor, processing, testing, I docunent.ationr euility control, unloading, clean up, spill containnent ancl safety precautions to be followed for review by the Department prlor to start up. At t.he 6ane tine subnit the t operation and maintenance procedures to be followed at the storage/transfer tanks located,at Long Key and Cudjoe Key. These I procedures should include and not be limited to: Ioading and I Page 5 of I I I t PERMITTEE: I.D.No: 5244POO535 Gary v. Hannond, President pernit/cert.No.: Do{4-r9z2or I Environmental sciences corporation Date of Iesue: July 16, l99r P.O. Box 915139 1996 I Expiration Date: July 16, SPECIF'IC CONDITIONS: I unloacling, spill containnent, clean up, nanifest documentation and safety precautions. I 5. The paranet,ers and nininum 6anpling schedule for thiE line 6tabilization facility are a6 follows: I Record daily for each individual batch t,reated: 1. Batch size (gaIlons) 2. Barch gH (influenr feed) I 3. Amount of line added to achieve stabilization (pounde) 4. Batch pH level achieved 5. Batch retention tine at pH level achieved. 6. pH level of batch effluent I 7. pH at tine of land application at the agricultural use site. Develop a batch processing document that wiIl incorporate the I forenentioned outlined itens. Submit to the Department for review prior t,o start up. Each batch processed shalI be documented Independent, grab sanples shall be taken of t,he influent and effluent I of each batch processed on a daily basis. At the endl of each processing day, composite the independent influent sanples ancl effluent sanples to form two inclependent sanples of the total I naterial processed for that dlay. These sanples are to be analyzed for total nitrogen and total I solicls. The frequency for analyses are as follows: I I. Start up to Daily Total Nitrogen Daily conposite sanple of 3O days of Toral Solids all batcheE (one influent proces s ing and one ef f luent conposit,e I sanolee ) . 2. 3I days to tteekly Total Nitrogen Daily cotnposite sanples to 6O ilays Total Solids be composited at, the end of each processing week I (one influent and one I effluent composite sanDles) Page 6 of I I I I I PERIIIITTEE: I.D.No:. 5211PO0535 I Gary V. Hannond, pre6ident Petrit/Cert.No.: Doll-192201 Environnental Sciences Corporation Date of lesue: July 16, 1991 P.O. Box 915139 Expiratlon Date: JuIy 16, 1996 I SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: I 6I day6 to Monthly Total N trogen Daily conposite sanples 87 days conposited weelrly and I weekly couposlte sanples conposlted to one 26 days conposite sanple (one influent and one effluent I conposite sanpleE). tfeekly Total SoIidE Dally conposlte sanples to be conposlted at the I end of each processing (one I week lnfluent and one reviewedl. a nodifieit analysis echedule wilI be establlehed for tbis I f acility f or the monthly operating report. 6. Prior to accepting any residuals from tfWIP for stablllzatlon at this facillty, the Departnent shall be notifled 90 days ln advance and the analysis paraneters and nininun sanpllng schedlule shall be I notlified to incorporate the residual analyses paraneters a6 outlinedl in F.A.C. rule I?-6lto. These paraneters are: I Total Nitrogen: t dry weight Lead: ngleg dcy ueight Tot,al Phosphorous: t dry weight Nickel: ng/pg dry weight Tot.al Potassium: t dry weight Zlnc: nglgg dry weight Cadmiun: ng/gg dry welght pH: I Copper: ng/gg dry weight Total Solids: t 7. The pernittee shall subnit nonthly operations reports (UOR) to t,he I Departnent no later than the f if t,eenth of each succeetling month. The ltORrE shall reflect an abbreviated sumnary of the batch data and the testing results as outlined in specific condition nunber 5. Provide the Department wittr a draft copy of the uoR to be subrnitted prior to I start, up. 8. Provide Ehe Departtuent with an outline of the operator'6 job I description, the training to be provided (on the job and/or classroon), and. the qualif icat,ions of the indiviitual that would be hired to operate this facility and incorporate into the operation ancl I naintenance nanual. I Page 7 ot I I I PER}IITTEE: I.D.No: 52llPOO535 I Gary v. Hanuond, Presldent per!1tlcett.No.: Doll-l92zol Environnental selences corgoratlon Date of tegue: July 16, l99t P.o. Box 915139 rxplratlon Date: luly ro, 1996 I SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 9. For the lancl apptication of wasteuater treatnent, plant I residuals submlt an agrlcultural use plan for the tana appllcat,lon site (Ref erence F.A.c. Rule 17-640 ,,Donestlc lfestesater neslduals,,). subnit to the Degartnent for approvar the land apprleatlon eite I (grease, septage and food service sludges - nornal farulug oPerations) to uhlch the processed product slll be applleil (Reference P.A.C. Rule L7-7 part IV, doneetlc sludge I classificatlon, utlllzatlon, and dispoeal crlterla), 10. No industrial sludges as deflned ln I?-?.sIO(t?) ehall be I processed in this facility. 11. The flnallzed coplee of the operatlone and ualntenance nanuals shall be avallable on slte for the Departnent,g revlew slrty (60) I days after the lnltlal elx nonthe of operatlong of the rlne stablllzatlon facllltles. Note: In the ev€nt, of an energency the petDlttee ehall contact the I Departnent by ealling (90{) 488-1320. Dutlng nornal buslnees hours, the pernittee shall call (B13) 3t?-69?s I Issued this l6.th day of Juty , t9i] STATE OF FLORIDA I DEPARTI{ENT OF EINTIRONI'IENTAL REGULATION I Phi I ip t Deputy PRE/MHR/csb I lO Pages Attached I t I Page 8 of 8 I I I t STATE OF FI'RTDA I DEPARTMENT OF EWIRONI.fENTAL REGUIATION I NOqTICE OF PERI'ITT CERTTFIED MAIL No. p 243 031 695 I RETURN RECEIPT REOUESTED fn the Matter of an Application DER File No. 5244p00535 for Permit by: Monroe County - Dt{ T Line Stabilization process Gary V. Hanrnond, president Facility, Key Largo & Storage Environmental Sciences Corp. and Transfer Facilities Longwood, Fl. 33291-5139 Key Largo, Long Key and I Cudjoe Key I Encrosed is permit Nurnber Do44-Lg22o1 to operate a liure stabilization treatnent facirity and storage ani transfer I facirities at the referenced siles in Monr5e county, issued pursuant to section(s) 403.097, Florida statutes. j_- r-r +nY party to this order (perrnit) has the right to seek I Judrctar review pernit pursuant to section tzo.ee, Florida statutes, by the"!.!1. firing- of a Hotice of Appeal pursuant to Rure 9'110' Florida Rules of Appellate procedirie, witn the clerk of the I Department in the of f ice oi Generar counser', 2600 Bl.air stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 323gg-z4oo, ana by filing a copy of the Notice of Appear accompanied by the appricabi" iiii;g-fee-s-with the appropriate pistrict court or applir. The Notic6 ot Appeal I must be filed within 30 days from tirl aate this Notice is iirea with the Clerk of the Depaitnent. T Executed in Fort Myers, Florida. STATE OF FIPRTDA DEPARTMENT I OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGUI,ATTON I Philip Di.rector of PRE/MHR/csb District Management I Copies furnished to: 2269 Bay Street Craig A. Ferguson, p.E. Fort Myers, Florida 3390I-2896 I (813) 332-6975 I Page L of 2 I I t I I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I I This is ro certify thar rhiE NOTICE OF pERtrtIT and all copies were nailed before the close of business on JuIv , b, t99I to I the Iisted per6ons t Clerk Stanp I FITING AND ACKNO}ITEDGEMENT FILED, on this date, pursuant to I S20.52(9), Florida Statut,es, wit,h the designated Departnent Clerlc, receipt of which is hereby I acknowledged. I lerk) I (Date ) I I I I Page 2 of 2 I I I 25 -YEAR 7a_HOUR DESIGN STORM CALCUI*NOHS APPENDIX G t l STJRFACE WATER MAI{AGEMENT PIAT{ Since long Key landfill is an existing site, postdevelopment runoff is virtually cqual to T prc{evelopment runoff. The stormwater beatment pond was designed to detrain ttre runoff from the 25 yt - 72 hr storm and to reat the first I inch of nrnoff from the project site, per South Florida Water Management District criteria. T The site includes two landfill arcas separated by the proposed wet detention heaEnent pond. Stormwater from both landfills will sheet flow directly to a perimeter ditch which I encompasses each landfill area. The stormwater in each perimeter ditch is conveyed to the treatment pond by 2-24'RCP. I Due to the location of the heatment pond, some offsite runoff needed to be routed through the pond. Other offsite nrnoff was conveyed to adjacurt offsite arcas. I A 45 foot concrete weir outfall structure was placed in *re pond berm designed to detain the peak runoff from the 25 yt - 72 hr storm. The weir crest elevation (2.8) was set to treat the volume of the fust I inch of mnoff (2.21 AC-FI) from the project site. A 6 I inch orifice was placed at the control elevation (1.5) to bleed down the pond elevation in a time period of less than 72 hours. Baffles were placed on the splash pad of the I outfall structure to control discharge velocities and erosion. T t I t I t I I I !9 posr, BucKLEy scHuH & fERNtcAN, tNc. PBq CHK. BY:- Oate: b-t7'7L Lo*a (a-{ lAnJ*t, t-. SHEET NO.:- JOB NO.: i.... &arre.nni9.fu.t> . :iAtrg*.'1;b\es Xexcli * T ' L -,aA " f2,c? . ..laat.4a.nnt^l. I lA.l. f^i " z.ao :i ix.r, oui t ,,go LG^lA.nJ '- nb l l I I ,LA'ilDFt'u- r.\4, Z , ft€:t4, 1,lt \cs I d.'.oo , I i ny ? .l? mril I posr, PBq BucKLEy scHUH & fERNrcA r, rNc. sp1E 7- t9. e?- Lor'q let suBJECr: bar,tu SHEET NO.:- JOB NO.:- t I I I I I I il I t il I FORM NC EN OTGOT I 7-l t PBS rosr, Bu.KLEY scHuH & fERNIGAN' lNc' DATE: 3- t9-7L LarJd? y'.al fA^DFr SHEET NO.: I SUBJECT: ' '- JOB NO.: t ltme * eaDJegFra^GA-f I Dr-l I Bqsr^t to o T t I I t t) I I 6As t^t boo ': -fel-.lg- W,tOd = 'it oio fr I Svoeu-'. rlr4rt f-uEJ. '- 1'L' \ e,, I rtao -- ,6/, LavJ ei4-'l -- Z, O / / I 5'L : -r t 71 Fr lnr,^l (*t-e14 T t I I l I t I I I I I I t I t I I & I I SANTA EIARFARA URBAN HYDROGRAF.H SE(861O7 VER 1.1 I LON6 I';EY LANDFILL (25 YR - 72 HR) INI AB INI AB BASIN NODE AREA 7. LA}{E ;I DCIA CN TC DCIA N-DCIA S (acres) (min) ( (dec I ID N-DCIA ins) ) lOrt 1r) 9.1 0.o ().Q 80. c) 16. (:) (t. lrl o.2() (J ?oc, 2rl 7.6 r:,. rl.O BCr . Cr 18, O (,. l(r Cr. 2{) 30q) 3f-) 9.8 2(1, () C). (-l 77.Ct 4C).0 c). 1(r 0.zcr I (l (:r (r 999 99 999. r). O Cr. O. Cr. ct 0. lO Cr.20 I I II*IT RAINFALL INF'UT SECTION TITII Mass Cutrve or Actr-ral Rainf aI1? (M/A) --,'. l'l I 1 SCS TYPE II 2 TAMPA z4-HOUR S TAI4FA 4B-HOUR I 4 TAMPA 7z-HOUR 5 SFWMD z4-HOUR 6 SFWt"tD 7z-HOUR 7 SCS TYPE II FL. MODIFIED I B SJRWMD 96_HOUR : 9 CAPE SCS TYFE I I lC) ORANGE COUNTY DISTRIBUTION t- 11 ORLANDO 6 HR 12 SEMINOLE CO. ?5 YR/6HR 13 SEI,TINOLE CO. IC)YR/SHR I Specifv CURVE TYPE = 6 Storor Duration (hrs) --.]. 7? t Total Rainfall (inches) --). 10.87 I I I I T I I 1,r SE86IO7 VER 1.1 P.ARE{AFA URE(AN H./DROGRAF.H T SANTA Peter J Singhofen' P'E' lC) trbpvricht fe9-=" ' (?5 YR - 72 HR} I IN6 }iEY LANDFILL BASIN BASIN BASIN BASIN TI}4E RAIN 999 (hrs) (ins) locr zf-)c) 3t1r-) t c).() c). c) o,o c) . {JO{J o. c) (l o. o(:)c) (:) Cr. I O. ct. Q97 o.o rl. 2. o(tc) (:). Cr. 1 Cl. C) C). 195 (). o Lt 4 . OCrO o. () o.r 0. (J I ctcf 0 cl - 292 o.0 6. (:r (). ct, c) c}.389 tJ. f-t 0. 1 8. ocr0 (:). 1 0.0 ct . 495 Q.0 0,o 1r1. oclct (). (1. O. Ct (t. C) . f-) o I iz. ot"to 584 c). o I Ct.68l 0.1 o.0 c). I 14 .0OO (1. c). I cr.() opt-r { -778 (). 1 1 16. Q.l o.l. o.2 o.c) 18,ooo o.876 (r. tf I (t.973 c). 1 0.1 c), ? ?0. o()o (r,2 Ct. Cr I'07C) rl, 1 o.1 22.OOO 1 (1,2 o.o 24,oc)ct 1'168 cr.2 c), o.(t I'3t19 rl .3 ct.2 cl.3 I 26.OO0 (r.5 c).4 c). cl 28. octo 1 .45C) C).3 cl.o 1.591 rl.3 o.3 r) .4 3C'.cxl0 c).3 0.4 c). o 32.{-lc)c} 1.733 t).4 (t I ,L.874 o.4 0.3 e,4 O. 54.Crcltl 0.4 0.3 ().4 (1.c) 36,clotl 2.C)15 c). o 2.158 0.4 o.3 o.5 58,0cro rl.5 c). c) 2 .3t11 0.4 c). 4 I 4().octc) (-r. 5 c). ct 2.44=', o.4 o.4 12.ooct c). 5 t'1. o oOCt 2. 546 c), 5 c).4 -.4+. rl. 5 r:).4 cr.5 o.ct 2.729 (.') 46.0ClO c). 5 (). I c)clc) ? .a7? o.5 c) .4 48. (].6 0. Cr 3'C)3? o.6 o.5 30.OOO t).7 c). 6 rJ,8 C).C) (rcxl 7..?32 (:) (1 52 . 1.2 l.c) 1.5 . I 54.OCxl 5'5.='5 1.8 0,ct _a,.967 r.7 1,5 Sb.1,110 F'1 F' F' r-|,0 4 4 ?.7 58 . €rc)c) .37 0. r:) B, 121 38.6 3().9 31.5 5Cr.ttoo 2.9 aF) C).(l I 9'415 5.4 (:) 62.O(-rrl () ?.1 1.4 2.4 . 64. O(:xi 9.91O 0. i:) 1 . 1.1 1.4 55. (:x-).:) 10. l9g --r' t).C) 1 .I' 1,1 1.4 I 68, O{){' 1ir.487 lt.9 l-r. (l rl(:r0 1(:t.578 (:).8 o.7 70. r--t.7 (:).9 (:r . i) {:}(:rii 1() . g7(i 0.8 7! . (:) (:) (j o.Q (J . (:) L). . I 74 . OC)i:l 1(:) . 37i:, I I I I 26 I SANTA BARBARA UREIAN HYDROGRAF'H SEt861('7 VER 1.1 I (C) Copyricht 198f,, Peter J. Singhofen. P.E. " ONC }';:EY LANDFILL (25 YR - 7? HR) I I J-. T*I RUNOFF SUI'IMARY *I* t F englt..l ID# --.i lC,O zC)C) 3C)0 999 f J nO VOU (cfs-hrsl 77 64840 ! gg vot- (ac-f t) 6.f, 5.3 7. Ct C-).0 t ' RO VOL (inches) 4.36 a. 36 8. 54 0. O{) 311.9 31 . 5 C). C) Tts: 5q1 . (roo 6c . c'c)o c). c)(]o I f ;:l[ t;::t ".,ltui I l I ; I ; I t l_, I t I I T I I I I I I I I I ll lr I -10 otrL I TI NAIY S',tls rn rfUr{BER tlq-uc1e _ OR D PHASI, ilur{8tR OCC' FOR FIRST I XC}I: I lll. x l.FT x ) 1L,Lt I AC-FT oocl (PnO.le AREA, ACR€S) I (t r 2 r r. ")n6Cf FOR 2.5 tH. TtnES PERC€||T ItrPtRv|OUS (AtL AREA UlllTS lt{ ACR_ES}: S f Tt AREA I au'^ -( r------r?- *.,-lt 4,a trDtril I AREA PROJECT AREA TAXES ROOFS SITE IITPERVfOUS AREA: ?4B - ?-L'4 'L: EDOO I S I TT AREA PERVIOUS AREA IilPTN,VI OI'S AREA (Z'' 9'2,, PERCEIIT f HP€RvlOuS: lltPERVlOuS AR€A , ) x l00l ' ootrD -strE AREA ( z4s ) PERcEIIT-l o0trD I IilPERV. 2.5 fll.xtftrP€RvfOus:2.5 ltl.x ,oblt 'o,& -lll' ootrn PtRCfl|I lllcllEs T0 8E I IITPERVIOUS TREATEO II{CTIES TO 8E TREAT€O TI'T€S AREA IO BE TREATED: o'7'L flf.x( ?-v,6 - ?-, t lfl DClDD IIICHES TO 8€ TREATED PROJECT AREA UKES 12 lll. I .l o,+5 lAC-FI trOCD ' REQUIREl) tl€T DETEtlTl0ll' I.ARGEROF TT'O I' IVALUES I, . 2.1.1 AC-FT i DOEO : I'I LL SYSTE'I UT I L I ZE DRY OETEI{T I OI{? li .d ilo 0trtrD o YES: trtrtrD REQUIRED ORY OETEttTlOl{' 0.75 x AC-FT EOIn REqU I RED lc YET DETEIITIOII VILL SYSTEII UTILIZE R€TTI{TIOII? - I ,g xo -' ootro YES: otrtrtr D AC.FT REQU t REO RETtllT l0l{ ' 0.5 x nEl00 REQU I RED I IJ€T OETETIIIOII I ACTUAL O€TE}ITIOI(/RETEXTIOX TO 8E PROVIOIO . @ AC-FT otrDo ELEVATIOII - FTTIIGVD I IT YILL 8E PROVIOED 8€TUEEX COIITROL &_ EOtrO I Al{0 ELEVATI0II - _@_ FTrlt6/D oDctr PARCEI l}ISCHARGSS TO OFY ATID IS GRIATER THAII IOT II{PERYIOUS? .trtroo I O YES: SEE "ORY PRETR€AT|{EI|T" BELOV' 'trooo ,8xo I plncel ls zoxEo co[l{ERclAL 0R lI{DUSTRIAL? I E YES, 8UT ITE'I lV-6 (ASSUMI{CES} lS ATTACHEo' trooo I ves, aur tTEil lv-6 (AssuRAl{cEs) ls vAlvEo. trooc 8TLOY. I SEE "ORY PRETRTATIT€XT" DDOO I D lto ORY PRETREATITEIIT VOLUiE REQUIRED: I 0.5 1il. x ( )rcx IFT'-Ac-Fr Dnoo I PROJECT AREA LAXES l2 lll. DDDD I I I{ETHOO: I I IV-9 I 21 I ELEVATIOI.I - STORAGE VALUES I Prom : DTEISINSR.vOL DETENTION EASIN DESIGN t 04-cr3-199? Name of Storage Basin : POND I t ELEVATION TOP STORAGE BASIN-FT ==). 4.5 ELEVATION BOT STORAGE BASIN - FT ==). 1.5 I INCREMENTAL STAGE DEPTH - FT ==). .1 I STORAGE BASIN AREA - ACRES AT TOP OF BASIN ==) 2,O0 STCIRAGE BASIN PERIMETER E TOP 0F BASIN ==) 12C)O I AVERAGE SIDE SLOPE RATIO ==i. 4 t STAGE EL. AREA-ACRES STORAGE-AC FT (,. 1 .5C) 1 ' 67(') oo I .60 1.680 o,t7 1 .7C) 1 .690 o.34 I 1 .8() I .7OC) o. 51 1.9() L .7 trl C,.68 2. r)O L.7?O o. Bs I ?. 1r) 1 .740 1,02 2.2r-) 1.750 I .20 2.30 1.760 t.37 ?.4c-l L.77(t 1.55 I 2, 5r) 1 .7BO t.72 2.6r-) I .79(t 1 .9() 2.7r1 I .8C)0 2. OB e I 2 .€}(t I .81(t ?.?6 z.U Ae -(+ ?.9r-r . 1 .8?{r 2.45 f, . i:li) 1 . gf,(:) ? .6f, .1. 1(j 1 .85i:, ?.81 I lI. 2t1 I . gsij T. C}i, 3.3c) 1 ,870 3.18 f, .4(l 1 .88(:, f,. -":.7 q,j. t f,. 5(:) 1 .89() ? .1.6i) 1 .90u 3.75 f,.7r:) I .91() 3. ?4 I.E}t-r 1 ,9?0 4.1i I 3.9t) 1 .9f,Cr 4.3? 4. OO 1 .94(:) 4. 5? 4.1r:t 1 ,95{:r 4.7L I 4."r-l I .970 4.9L 4. f,(:) 1 .980 5.11 4.4t-t 1 - c?(j 5. f,(:' 4, 5r:) ? . {:,(Ji:} 5. 5rl t X*t Enci crf This. Calcurlal-ion *** I ze T I ttt INTER-CONNECTED F,OND ROUTING PROGRAiI r*t IC86114 VER 2.1 (6 ) Copvr j.ght 1983. Peter .l . Sinqhof en . F . E. ING }.iEY LANDFILL (25 YR - 72 HR) I ,RIL 6 L992 ;frrr**tf*lltf*rftft t tlr C0NTROL DATA r*t rftrirlltt*trt**tftf Firrulation time increment (rnins) 5 I ( gimulation dcrration hrs) --)t 72 glartinq time ( hrs ) -- ). Cl I pi'int interval --). 24 tl**t*r**f *rr***f **f *lt*tllt**f ****t r*t NODE AND INITIALIZATION DATA *x* t ftl*t* *l * *'l* t l* * t * t* * * *l I t * * *t* t * t ** NODE NODE INITIAL I s TYPE STAGE 1C, 1 2. SrrC) I 20 I 2.sOC) 30 1 1.sOC) n (:). t 99 L ocx) I I t I I I I I t i I t I I z1 I vER 2.7 INTER-CONNECTED POND ROUTING FROGRAM II* IC85114 Copyricht 1983. Peter J. Singhofen. P.E- I ; KEY LANDFILL (25 YR - 72 HR) 'L I 6 L992 I r*fl***l**tt*ltxtlt*frtl*ttt I sTAGE/srCIRAGE/TIl"lE DATA *tf r rttt***t*lrt*****ttll*t**ttl I I lEslct 4, sC)C) rA6E 2. sC)C) 3. OoCr 3. s()t') 4 . O(X) C-r (t6tl C).37C) I tA6E 0.0{}C) Cr. CtlO . c). 170 (). cxJo ct , (tc)c) TAGE 5. Of-)() 5. sC)C) 6. CtC)(r O , (:tC)Cl I lAGE (-r.650 O .94Ct 1.f,10 O. O{)C} (:)c)c) c)oc) C). C)QCI TAGE 0, (:lcx:t 0. 0.oc)c) o. rxl0 o. ooo f-r . o0rl I RAGE O. r-r00 f-). ooo Q. t DES ?(r 2. SCXJ 3.ocxl -='. 5O(:l 4. C)oC) 4.stxl TAGE o.370 RAGE (). {:100 O. ()lC) {:r. C}5f-} 0.170 (r()C) {f, cu)(:) I C)OC) s(xl 6 . . C)t-x:) 0. TAGE 5. 5, C). C,C)o RAGE 0 .,5-qiJ I . O3(:r 1 .43(t 0.000 (J, (-r{)() 0. ()C)C) C). {)O(} I TAGE {) . i)(J(-) 0. o0() (J(}Ct (:x:x:r Cr. CICIO RAGE O. tl(:)(:) 0. CrL){r {r , 0. I DE*3c) (:r()o 50Q 1 . 5{l(:) ? . (:)i)(:) ?.50() f,. -?.. TAGE ?.5.ltl .1.56(:t I RAGE i) . i:,ijij r).85i) 1.7?{) rJ. (:)ix:) TAGE 4 .0t)(j 4. 5(:x) 0.0()(:) 0. c)LtrJ (:t(l{:t {:l .0(:)(t I 'F:A6E 4.52r:r 5. 5'J0 {:} . O. tlo(l (:). (:x)(:) () . {:,()(:r .TAGE rj . {:r(:}(:} (:) . (l(:t(:) i:,0{:) 0. (:)t:l() I iRAGE 0. (l(:)(-) 0. (:)rJ(:) {:}. (:t(j(l O. i:x-lt:) 0'. IDE * (lt:x:) i:) (:x:xj I i:) t:)(:)(:) 1 .5(:)t:) 1 . 5ij(l {:). - ]TAGE . (lt:)0 (:). (:,ij{:} (:l , {:i{J{:} T I }.1E {:r . (j(:}i:i 6i:r . ij{:}(:} 7: . (:){-}t:t i:i . i:)r)i:) JTAGE (:), rJO(:) (j. r-)(:x_t i:) . i:){-){:} ij. t (-ti:t(:) {-iiji:) t:l t) , T I I-lE {:} . (:rtil:t i:) , !:)(:){j {:}. r-itjL) . (j{:ii:) {:) (l(:x:) r:i , ili:)i:) JTAGE (:) . (:}{Jt:) r:) . {:)t:)(:t i:). . (:, (jt:){-} (:, r:liJij I (-i (Jt:)(_, (-t . (.-tt.-tLi r:) . {:}r:}i:) . . TIME . t ?p I It INTER-CONNECTED F.OND ROUT I I.IG F,FCIGRAM I * * I C8-( I 14 vER 2.7 l) Copv'rrght 1?8f,. Feter J. Singhofen. F.E. I lN6 t,::EY LANDF I LL (:5 YF.: - 72 tlR ) ,FIL 6 Lg97 T r***l**l**tltr*** rf REACH DATA l*l I r*f*t*l*t*t*flxt* )IE: Tvpe 1 for shartr cre"ted ureirlQate and ori f ice Type ? tor broad crested weir,/qate and ori fice I Tvpe f, for cutlvert I I type 4 tor trapeioidal channel * Type 5 'f or Parabol ic channel I Type 6 f or rating cLtrve (Negative tYPe indicates riser ) I RgACH FROM TO REACH * NODE NODE TYPE 1 10 f,C) 3 n, I 1 2(, 30 .-\? scr 99 ? I 1EACH * I from node * 10 to node # f,(:l 1.EircuIar Culvert a:' - I ran (inches --':, 24 rse ( inches --:) 24 :ngth ( f eet --i. sB I rnninq's n --)' . c)1? :adwater invert (feet) --). 2.5 rilwater invert (feet) --> 1 .5 rergy loss coeff icient --). 1. I I rtrnc loss coefficient --)' .7 of culverts/channels --);- 2 I 1EACH S 2 from node # 2C) -- to node * 3Ct CirtsuIar Cnlvert I ( ?4 )an i.nc hes ) --). r,se ( inches ) --:. 24 :ngth (feet) --:) 38 I rnninQ' s n --:. . t)l2 :adwater invert ( feet ) --:l 2. 5 rilwater invert (feet) --:l 1.5 terey Ioss coefficient --.i' 1 . 1 t rtrnc .7 loss coefficient _--:--.i I of curlverts/channels ? I I ll s i' f rom node tt l{:r tcr node $ 9Y I J :EAcH groad Crested t'Jeir/Gate and Or:.'f rce ri- ll Jrest elevatron (feet) --.i 2.A ireEt lenqth (feet) --) 45 ieir discharge coef f icient --: 3- 1-:i Uei;r..-P-xPonen t --i 1.5 ll L Ia elfective setbrnergence ---) 67 6ate opening (feet) --) 99 I of end contractions --)' {) IT Oischarqe coef for gate under ori flw -)' (' Circular orifice centerline (feet) --)' 99 lrif ice diarneter ( f eet ) --> t.t --ifice discharge coefficient --> O Ir orifices --.) (t It identical lr ll I lr tr ll It l: ll ll ll t 7L *II INTER_CONNECTED F.OND t (C) ROUTING F.ROGRAH IT* IC86l14 VER ?.7 Copyricht 198f,. F'eter J . Srnqhof en. F.. E. .TJNG I.iEY LANDFILL (2s YR - 72 HR) I .'RIL 6 tgg? t t*ttf t*t*ttt**t*t*t*trtt*r TII INFLObJ HYDROGRAF,HS I*T I rrrrf trtt********trtttt*t* I INFLOW HYDROGRAFHS TO EE READ FROH DISI": FILE I I I t I I t I I t I t I I l. - | *** INTER-CONNECTED FOND FOUTING FFOGRAI'I **t IC86114 vER ?.7 (C) Copyright 198f,. Feter J. Srnqhofen. F'.E. (25 YR - 72 HR) I l, 'T?.":' ig|:FILL I I NODE TIME STAGE STORAGE INFLON OUTFLOW (cfs) f t * (hrs) (feet) (acft) (cfs) * I TOTAL (rc) Itl Cl . Or:r 2.5r:r i:) . iJ(l i). {)(J (r. oo cr, 2(') C). ()0 ?. 50 (r. C)C') 0. clcr C!. CrC) cr.oct lr rJ {)0 Cr r_)Ct Cr.()() Cr . Crr-) cr.0(l 3(r . 1,5C1 . 99 c). ()ct c).0(:) {r . (}{) C). CtO (). CrCl tr 1{) 2. OCt 2. 5r') r-l . txJ c). c)cr O. Cto O. Q(t 2C) 2 . ctcr 2. SCt r). o(J c).0() C}. CNJ 0. CIC) 3(t 2. Q() 1.50 o. r)1 o. 10 c-r.00 o.cro (l(l (rc) I I 99 2. OC) cl. c)5 tl . t)C) c). O. g. 1(t 4.C)O 2. 5(r o. c)(r 0 . Crf-t O. (rO r)O 2(r 4. C)Cl 2. 5C) c). o0 C) . CXJ Cr.o(t o. c)c) l C)C) t-t, o. o(] I 5(t 4 . 1.51 O2 o. 10 o.00 (lC) 99 4, C)C) c). 10 o. c)c) c). ()c) C) . I I 1C) 6. CrO 2.50 c), ocr o. cr() c). ocr Q. r-)c) (:). 2(t 6. C)() 2. 5c) o. c)(t CIC) 0. o(, C) , f-l(l 5tt 6. ()C) r.52 c).04 0. 10 o, (ro 0. rlt'r t I 99 6. O(-t c). 15 (r. ('J() (:). c)() O. ()C) 1t't g . (.')0 2. 5(l (r. O(t c). orl 0. c)cr 0. c)o 2CI g, c)c) ?. 5C) c).00 0. o0 C). ()C) O. OCr t 3(t 8.0c) 1,sf, (J. (J6 Cr. 1O 0. oo (r. c)o 99 8. Cx:) ().2t) C). {i0 0. c)rJ (,. o{:r (J(l (r. (,c) t 1C) 1C) . 2.5{) O. CXJ Q() 0. 0. o() I 2(t 1().0f-) ?. 5Cl () . (:)0 C). CXJ (:). c)c) 0.0C) ICI 1C). O0 I .54 rl. (-)7 C). ltl (). cr(t (:r, f_)0 I I 99 1(). (:)C) c).35 (:t. CxJ O.0c) Cl . {:)C} lCt 12. O(:) ?.5() -rl.0- qr. r)2 O . CtCt {r. cro 20 1? , {j() ?. 5rl -(i.01. 0. (-)? (:). {t{:} Cr. (:x:r I (:r(:) i1.15 rl. O. (:t0 rJ . i]{t 50 I 2. 1 .59 ltl I r:xl (i.3(t i:). (:)(t o{:) cl, (rt' 99 1? . o. t I (:) 14.ClCt 2. 5{l -r). (J? 0. rl5 {-}.0(J (:!. cr(:t I ?(r 14.0(l ?.5t1 -(i. C)2 t).04 (j . ()(:) 0.0(, f,rl 14. O0 1 ,6(l {-). 16 (:1.11 i:l . O0 t:t . (:lt:) (:) (:rC) (). 99 14. Cxl (i. C) . (:l(:t . cx) I -=.5 (:x:t (ttJ I 10 16. (l{l -i:) . ij 1 (:). (lg (,, tJ . 2t:) 16 . (l(:) 2. 5C) -(l, c)1 (:r. (:r7 {) . rJC} C).0(:r (:r. (J. 3{l 1 6 . (:)(l 1 ,51 il. 1A (:'. 1i u(-l Cx) I 99 16 . i)(j rl . 4(:) r:) . {:)(:r (:l . (:t(:) (:). i:x:) I t I I 2J T ?::: r?t?i"i':lT;'"" - (c{e) (?3 YR oulFLoul TOTAL ILL rnFLol *l I I ElORA6E (ctE t:l 'C)Cr t) O STAGE 1 ac{ tt '(t(t 0 'CrCr F1E ( t eet) O, o,oo O --;.; q 'C)O o.o9 'ctct Q 'Ot:r I .'-l ?,5ct ,O,QCI o. i5 .cro 2.3cr o.23 Cr 'OO .54 C) .OO t '(rQ t3 I 1.oL') ir'43 c!. t:?,?', I..ti -o.clo c). tl t1,Qct o.oo 3.Qtr .17 2.5ct -c) 'c)l L-l Cr.CtO (r.(tQ 2.50 (r.29 Cr 'OL.) t o.oc) O.OLr O.AO lcr.01 v.b7 t5 ?o.LrLt Cr.5O o. 11.Ot"t O.OA o. 12 e.CrCr Cr.OO icr 'cto -o.a! I 2.3ct ,o.02 o'19 z.5a o.37 (r.QQ o.o0 t.77 o.oo o,oct o.oo !7 C)C) o,55 o. C) , o.o(t t4 C)(:l I -o.ot o. L1 , o.oct ?'* 2.5ct -g.(t? o,?t Z,3C' o.45 o.oo o.0c) I t .77 o,Qct t-r 'QO t'.oo l o.?1 ctc) (tt"t erl Cr '60 c) ' O ' -zq o.?3 Cr C)C) 'oo -O.O?(t? 'Ct(:l C) ' 'i z'5o -(r ' O'-t- .: I o.58 cl . c)c) ?.bct <,9 3.i9 :* - r:r,oc) r.84 O 'O() I .55 L1 .-a(:) Cl 't:)Ll o ^ o 'Qt:) ;a cr (r I ?'l- o 'oa '?5 Cr.Oi) 'CtO ?.55 -Cr 'OO -a.74 Cr.58 (-l . Cr(t t-r.CtCl I ?.5o (r(t ta (-r ' Cr.O(t o.(tcr ??:t't t.9ct J.-' l; c).7o o. Cl.t'l(:) r-t . tJtl ?g 't'tt1 cr.?B O . C)(') cl ,ot'l n ?B 'Cttt -(r.Ot ?,30 -Cr.Ot f-r '1'9 o.85 cr.Qt't 2.91: lg 3(.r -oq ?.5cr r-l C) Cril i-) . t:)Ll L 0(-l ?.ot-r ' a€. a.qa' :.t) ' (-)C) (')u- t-t . l'-' Ll t'li-l i.-l . :'i) ' (r.73 ' (-l(') . (:)Cr ,,.3tt 11 (:) . orJ i1 a= 't-r') :'('t ' ^19 -o.i)() rii (:)(-) 5(:l ^ t.0i:) L).L)i) i-l ' i'? 't-tc-; ' -7'.i:e (-rU ttt'1 (-l . t'lt-) Cl . O(:) () . 1r:r i.? ' t-l,i'B (:) . t-tt:) (-) . (-l(-l ?c-) i?'Qtl- t'.Bt-) t i:) t t-t . J' . (-ti-t (-) crr_t t-t :.tl 1.? '(tt't -Cl . . gg ? .5ct ,, .4? -0,o(:) O(l *.4.0t-t ?.St-t t.t9 t-l ' t'.o1-l t tO iq 't:ttt ?.tc aO io 'ctt't t-r '85 ttr't .-'.O i'q ' qe I a.C- ll I I t I I III IT'ITER_CONNECTED F,OND RCIUTING FROGRAT'I *** ICg6r14 VER 2.7 t (C) Copyriqht f98f,. Feter J. Sinqhofen. F.E. I | 'rNO l':EY LANDFILL (?5 YR - 72 HR' I IRIL 6 199? NCIDE T I },IE STAGE STORAGE INFLOI.I OUTFLOW (cfs) I I (hrs) ( feet ) (acft) (cfs) {* 1 TOTAL lo .16. cto 2.56 {,. CrO c].39 L.74 L.74 ?tr 36. {:)O 2.5(:l -0. cxl (r.33 0. {:)(} cr, o0 ll 5{) 56 . O(r 2.3Q L.37 ?. rs c). clcl Ct . Oi-) 99 36. ()C) c). 9cr c). ()c) C). C)Q (:1 . fxJ ll 1(t 39. OrJ 2.51 o.00 o.42 4.72 t-t.7? 2Ct -r.8. C)(t 2. 54 0. crc) 0.35 o.96 11.96 30 38. OO 2.41 1 .56 2. L4 Cr. Cro C). OO ll 99 58.0r1 cr.95 c). ct(l O. OCt cl. oc) 10 4O . O{r 2.67 o. c,c) o. 43 Ct.?7 t\.27 2(r 4c). c)(l 2.68 c). clo t].36 c).24 t'-t.24 ll $t) 4(r. OO 2. 5? L.76 c).99 (,. o{l o.00 99 4C). Or-) 1 . f_)C) 0. (ro C). O{) Cr. Cri:t (tfJ 1() 4? . ()() 2.8(t cr . f-rl o. 45 I . Crr:r 1 . ll l{r 42. (1t) 2,52 0. c)() 0.37 -(). s8 -{) . --'8 5(j 42. {)O ?.64 L.97 1 .10 Cr. cxJ Cl . r-xJ 99 42, Or-r 1.C)5 O.0C) Cr. C)C) cr. oo lr () 44 .(]C, 2.46 0. Ql .46 (r.75 r1.75 l_; l; 44 . C)C) 2.7C1 O. O(:l 0, f,B -c).43 -(1.4f, (:). (:rO S(t 44. C)O ?.76 2. 19 ().8? C).00 I C)C! (rr-) () . ()(r 0. r-x:) 99 44 . 1.lt1 C). 10 45. r:x) f,.(J4 r:). o1 (t .47 -! =t ar ?{ ll I(t 46. t)t:) 3. CtS c) . (r1 t). f,9 2.L7 ?. L7 tr0 45. (lr) 2.43 a: r .-,.-\ 4.99 (r.85 O . €-', (:) 99 46. C)r:) 1.15 c) . c,7 ().85 , Cli-) tl ltl 48. r:r0 3.03 {r.01 (i.49 - ?E, -?G 1- :i) 48. {lr:) f,.04 Cr. rJ1 {l.4rl ', 2.?= 1! r_r {:t 48. {:r(:r 2. 34 .=,4 5. i)9 1.O: 1 . -=, " l: 99 48. (:)i:r 1.?Cr i) .29 1.()5 {1 . {;;-1 I a-r 5{:l . {,i:} f,.0,5 0. (:)2 c).56 2.46 i..f :\ ?(:) 5(:). (:)(:) f,.05 0. (:)1 t-t .47 ? . -':.4 ll :i:, 5{j . (:)(l 2. 34 7.=,4 5 .4i) l.?il 1.::j QS 5(:). {){:t 1.?5 (). 5--Y. 1 .2(:l tj . tii_r ?.1 tt I (:t 5? . rl(j f,.07 (") . t:l? t-t.71, -! 1l ':r 2(l 52. r-tr) :i. (:)7 0. 02 {i.,51 ?. 5dr ?. ir Ta_i 52, (:)(:) ?. s5 2.:,6 ,5,05 1.3? 1-5" ll 99 52. t-rl-i 1.f,(l (i.8" 1 .:,? i_! . (:,,:) lt ll I I vER 2.7 **IINTER-C0NNECTEDF'0NDRCIUTINGFR0GRA|'|l** IC85114 (C) Copyriqht 1983. F'eter J' Singhofen' P'E' I .TJNG F.EY LANDFILL (?5 YR - 7? HR) ,RIL 6 T9S? (cfs) TIME STAGE STORAGE INFLOW OUTFLOW NODE TOTAL I fl (hrs) ( feet) (acft) (cfs) $ 1 (:).01 1 ,21 2, (')9 ?. c)9 t0 54 . (t() 3. C)4 (r. 1.Crl 3. (r3 3, Cr3 l{ ?o 34 . CIC) 3. 1(t O? / qro 6.36 ?. 89 2.49 3C) to . 2.88 2.4r) . ?E (1. o(-l 99 54 . (x) I ..-\*l I .24 2.e9 tl c)1 L.74 2.39 2.39 1C) 35. OO 3. Ct5 o. (-)1 2. t7 ()Cr 3. C)5 c). 1 .45 ?. t7 ?0 56. 4.69 4.69 56. O(t 2.90 2.45 6.=,7 3C) 4.69 o. clc) ll 99 56. C)O 1 .4Ct 1 .89 (J. 2 .68 3. OO S. CtCr 1(t 58 . oc) 3.15 C)2 3. 11 0. t)2 ?.23 2.49 2.A9 ll ?(r 58. O(t 6.98 6,98 58 . Cro 2 .93 2.51 8.62 3'0 o . {rcr 9S 58 . ttcr 1 .4s 2. A5 6.98 34.58 32.43 3? ,4s ll [(t 60. OC) 5. 15 o.7s 3C).93 26,?L ?6.?t 2(t 6Cl. Clr:t 4.8() 0.55 9(-l.zct a5. 15 85, 15 30 60 .0c) f,.51 3.59 9.5? E}5. 15 O. C)o ll 99 6Cr. C)(t 1 ,5c) (].07 f,.4? 6.37 6.37 l(t 62 . O(J 3.54 1 ? .95 4.48 4 .48 ' 2(t 52. C)Ct -?.. 4{) 0. 05 rIC -z i-) ?.e4 15. 05 ?4.94 ?4.94 30 62, OO O. ()Ct 99 6?.0(:r 1 .5C) ?o.75 24.94 (l (J2 ?.r50 2.6C1 10 64. (J0 . ?.11 II (17 2.43 2.43 ?(r 64, rl(:) f,. t).0? L.76 Et 6 .gtl 6.9(l 64. OO 2.9f, - 7.44 -?.0 ??.6:, 5.9{' {r . crtr ll 99 64. OCr 1 .5(:l (l{l {:}. tl2 L.?7 3. 15 3.16 1(l 55. -'r. . 1? (i4 r:). il1 1 . t)c' 1 ,88 1 ,48 ?i) 66. tx:) f,, 3.65 ,55 . cxl ?.ge ? .4f, 6.45 -=..65 -?.0 EE t).orJ lr (:)0 -? f,.65 9? 65. 1 .5i:! r '1? 2 .IJf, 2.{)3 I 10 68. (:l(j .:' . r-tg r:1. {:}? (:)5 t-r. i-r1 1.06 1 .85 1 .45 I 2c.l 68. {-)il f,. 3.4S :f) (:x) 3. A3 5.24 3.4.5 68. =.47 tJ. {}(:) 99 58. (:)(j 1 .50 74.L7 :,.46 ll ? .95 2 .95 (:)g (i . (i? r:).84 1(] 7(l . (tC) -=,. (:)7 (1 ? .84 7.A4 7C). C)r:) f.. . t)2 Q.7Cl 2{t 'i t) laL ?6 (10 -r 5.71 .:,(_, 7(i. ". -) "]A (i. (:l(:) ll 7() . ()(-) 1 . 5i:) ?4.7r L. Lv 99 ll lr lr *fT INTER-CONNECTED POND I I ROUTING PROGRAM TT* I Cg51 14 VER 2.7 (C) Copyright 1983. F eter J . Sinqhofen. P. E. 'IING }.iEY LANDFILL (25 YR - 72 HR) I I IRIL 6 L99? NODE TIME STAGE STORAGE INFLOW OUTFLOW (cfs) * ( hrE) ( ( I I feet ) acft ) (cfs ) *1 TOTAL 1{t 72. Cr(l f,. (18 (:) . 02 o.85 2.86 ()0 2.86 I 2C) 72. 3. C)7 (!. ctz c).71 ?.92 2. B? t 30 72 . (r{) 2.86 2.37 6. 59 2. (16 2. 06 99 I I 72.0C) 1.3{) 25.lf, ?. C)6 cr.0(r I I I I t r I I I f; IT lr llI I I I I t t I I I I I 1e IC861 I INTER'CONNECTED POND ROUTIN6 PROGRAM TIT r4 I ;) CoPvright 1983. Peter J' Singhofen' P.E. }NG I.';EV LANDFILL (25 YR - 72 HR) I 'RIL 6 1992 **I I TI PEAI"I CONDITIONS SUMMAFY FEAhi TIME TO PEA!'{ T Il't. PEAE. PEAI' STA6E STORAGE FEAK OUTFLCIW {oDE (acft) (hrs) (cfs) (hrs) I ( feet ) ?5 3.27 0, 81 5qr.25 34.33 6C). r1.59 6(r.25 27.6L 6C,.25 4 .88 6C).25 3. 54 3.64 6(t.25 90.18 l* cro cr.og o. 99 I .50 10. 11 60, cr8 I TO PEAI.: TIHE TO OUTFLOW PEAI': FROM (hrs) I v:: T::: --::::l 1C) 3C) 34 .33 6C).25 2r) 3C) 27.6L 6C).25 I 30 99 90,18 6('l.25 I I I t I I I I I I t1 I I I I ORIFICE DRAWDOUJN WORF:SHEET Froject : LONG l-iEY LANDFILL Bv : l'lED (t4/ZCt/9? I Location : POND 1 Date z 0rifice Diameter = 6 inches I Orifice Area = C), 196 f t''2 ==) 2A.27 in''? I Orifice Invert = 1.5 f t STAGE h STORAGE DLT. VOL. DLT A DLT. T. SUt"l TII'{E I I (ft) (avq) (ac-ft) (ac-ft) (cfs) (hr) (hr) 2.90 2.26 O. qrr) 1 .25 o. 18 1.C)5 2. 07 I ?.70 2. ()E} 2,O7 1.15 o. 18 1.C)l 2.15 2.60 1 .9c1 4.22 I 1.c)5 c). 18 Cr.97 ?.?6 t 2.50 L.7? 6.48 (). 95 0. l7 Q.92 2.24 2 .4tJ 1 .55 a.72 I t).85 c). 18 o.a7 2.51 2.30 L.7:7 Lt.?2 t'!.75 tr. 17 C). 82 ?.52 I 2.2r1 1 ,2(] 13.74 r1.65 o. 1B o,76 2.A7 16.61 T 2. 10 1,r)2 0. 53 0, 17 o.7(t 2.94 I 2 . (lrj (),95 19. 55 0.45 tt. 17 o.63 =nE I 1 .9rl o.68 22.81 (1, f,s (r.17 c). 56 3.69 I I .80 (:). 51 26.5{t I 0.25 (). 17 tr.47 4.37 L.7t_t (). -?.4 f,o.s6 I t).15 t-t.77 r1.37 3.64 I 1 .6(l a. L7 36. 5(t (:r. r:)5 t-t. L7 c). 21 9.76 I 1 ,5C) .l . ()(l 46.26 I I a I I t t I I I 4n