HGS successfully defended an appeal of a Final Order of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP" ) in the Second District Court of Appeal in Lakeland.  The Department's order approved Mosaic's application for state permits to expand its South Fort Meade mine into Hardee County.  Before a three-judge appellate panel reviewing the DEP's final order, Appellant Lee County Florida, represented before the Court and at oral argument by the Tampa law firm of de la Parte & Gilbert, P.A., claimed that the process for evaluation and issuance of the environmental permits under the newly-established summary hearing process for mining activities denied due process, that the Administrative Law Judge abused his discretion, that the DEP erred in interpreting the statutory definition of streams, and that Mosaic did not satisfy the criteria for a variance to the state's dissolved oxygen standard.  Mosaic was joined in defending the appeal by the Department.  HGS attorney Dan R. Stengle argued before the Court on behalf of Mosaic, with HGS attorneys Frank E. Matthews, Susan L. Stephens, Amelia A. Savage, and Julie M. Murphy joining on the briefs and representing Mosaic in the administrative hearing before Florida's Division of Administrative Hearings. On March 3, 2010, the Court upheld the Final Order.  HGS attorney Stengle explained the significance of the Court's decision, "We were able to convince the Court that the state's interests were served in a new, legislatively-adopted summary hearing process that did not bog itself down in delay and irrelevancy, but instead concentrated on sound evidence and sound science. The Court readily understood that state administrative processes can be resolved expeditiously but in compliance with constitutional due process, and that even activities such as mining can enhance environmental quality with industrial and business activities guided to positive outcomes by established scientific principles.  We appreciate that Florida's regulatory authority, the Department of Environmental Protection, agreed with our clients' careful and considered approach to the issues in this case, and that the appellate court agreed with this sound, quality, and expeditious approach to environmental permitting.  The ultimate result was a win for everyone:  the client, the state, and the environment."